International Journal of Hospitality Management 34 (2013) 295– 308
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
International Journal of Hospitality Management
journa l h om epa ge: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / i jhosman
nfluence of informational and experiential familiarity on image ofocal foods
unhee Seo ∗, Og Yeon Kim1, Sumin Oh1, Nara Yun1
epartment of Nutritional Science and Food Management, Ewha Womans University, Human Ecology Building, 11-1 Daehyun-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul20-750, Republic of Korea
This study provided results of an investigation into the influence of familiarity on the image of local foodamong foreign tourists who visit South Korea, examining the differences in tourists’ image of local foods
ocal foodsood imageourist food choice behaviorood consumption in tourism
and behavioral intentions to eat local foods based on both experiential and informational familiarity.The results showed that foreign tourists with more experience with local foods had a more positiveaffective and cognitive image of local food and intention to consume local foods than tourists with littleexperience with local food. However, the affective image of local foods did not differ significantly whentourists accessed more information sources. Overall, the results of this study indicate that experientialfamiliarity was more influential than informational familiarity in improving local food image.
Food has always been an important part of the tourism industry,specially in places noted for fine food like, for instance, Italy andrance (Henderson, 2009). Also, food can be a significant attrac-ion for people who travel (Bessiere, 1998; Cohen and Avieli, 2004;yu and Jang, 2006). Although local food is a significant part of theourist experience, many tourists are uneasy about trying some-hing with which they are unfamiliar. Because tourists experienceew culture in an unfamiliar environment during a trip, they per-eive more risk in choosing and eating local food than purchasingther tour products. In addition, many tourists tend to conflateocal with strange and unfamiliar and become more concernedbout hygiene (Cohen and Avieli, 2004). Fischler (1988) arguedost people dislike or suspect new food because of both biological
nd cultural influences, which he called neophobia. Food neopho-ia would predict that people hesitate to try new foods, and ashey become familiar with a cuisine or culture, they become lesseophobic about the food (Birch et al., 1987; Luckow et al., 2006;
liner, 1982; Stein et al., 2003). Increasing familiarity through directr indirect past food experience could decrease the perceived riskourists may feel in consuming local food. Thus, familiarity with
local food can reduce tourist concerns about local food in touristdestinations and change the image of local food, an important con-cept for tourism professionals.
Familiarity is defined as knowledge of a product (Johnsonand Russo, 1984; Marks and Olson, 1981). Previous studies havereported that the level of familiarity influenced overall consumerbehavior, such as preference, trust, perceived risk, informationsearch, decision time, confidence in decision, and purchase behav-ior motivation (Baker et al., 1986; Kim et al., 2008; Murray andSchlacter, 1990; Park and Lessig, 1981). Also, several studies havesuggested that experience with products affects consumer atti-tudes and should be included in defining familiarity (Alba andHutchinson, 1987; Rao and Sieben, 1992). Familiarity is significantfor tourist destinations because of its vital role in tourist destinationselection (Baloglu, 2001). Familiarity with a destination includesdestination attractions, foods, language, and culture (Chang et al.,2011; Hu and Ritchie, 1993; Echtner and Ritchie, 1993). Somestudies have found that not just past experience but informationsignificantly affect familiarity (Baloglu, 2001; Ha and Perks, 2005;Park and Lessig, 1981). Baloglu (2001) developed the familiarityindex, defining familiarity as combination of amount of information(informational familiarity) and previous experience (experientialfamiliarity) as an integrated concept.
More people have been exposed to a wider array of cuisinesunder the influence of globalization, even before they begin an
overseas trip. Thus, people have the opportunity to become familiarwith foreign cuisines. This exposure changes their attitudes towardmore unfamiliar cuisines (Hall and Mitchell, 2002; Richards, 2002;Cohen and Avieli, 2004). Moreover, as experiential familiarity and
nformational familiarity increase, image and behavioral intentionhange positively (Cox and Rich, 1964; Dowling, 1986; Fuchs andeichel, 2006; Gürhan-Canli and Batra, 2004; Klerck and Sweeney,007; Kozak et al., 2007; Lepp and Gibson, 2003; Mitchell, 2001;itchell and Vassos, 1998).Previous studies have found that destination familiarity had a
ignificant relationship with destination image (Baloglu, 2001; Kimnd Richardson, 2003; Lee et al., 2008; Hyun et al., 2005; Kwon,005; Qu et al., 2010). As destination familiarity influences the
mage of that destination, familiarity with local food should relateo the image of local food. Some researchers have even found famil-arity formed through movie or TV drama can influence the imagef local food (Kim and Richardson, 2003; Kwon, 2005).
This increased exposure and familiarity affects not only themage of local food but also the consumption of local food. How-ver, the relationship between familiarity, image, and local foodonsumption in tourism has largely been ignored. Given the lackf research on the relationship between familiarity and the imagef local food, this study stressed how familiarity can be usedo enhance the tourist experience, especially as that experiencenvolves local food. Thus, this study explored how familiar touristsre with local foods and how that familiarity related to their con-umption of local food. The purpose of this study was to examinehe inter-relationships of experiential and informational familiar-ty (experiences with local food and amount of information touristsather about local food) with tourist preferences and intentions toat local food in a destination. To accomplish this purpose, Koreaas chosen as a destination and Korean food as local food, becauseorean food has been widely acknowledged as healthy, and Koreaas become more popular as a tourist destination, especially for thehinese and Japanese.
. Literature review
.1. Food choice and consumption
The sociological and psychological literature often discussesood choice and consumption. Many researchers have studied foodhoice in various fields because food choice relates directly to foodonsumption. Previous studies have explored what influences foodhoice: taste, health, social status, and cost (Lewin, 1951), indi-idual and social factors (Worsley et al., 1983), health concernsLindeman and Stark, 1999; Wandel, 1994), food habits and eatingatterns (Sanjur, 1982), emotional states (Gibson, 2006; Connorst al., 2001), environmental factors and convenience (time andffort; Connors et al., 2001), and values focusing on cognitive andotivational factors (Rappoport et al., 1993). Frust et al. (1996)
iscusses a conceptual model of the process of food choice, con-isting of life course, influences, and personal system. Life coursessuch as the personal roles, social, cultural, and physical envi-onments) affect a set of “influences” (including ideals, personalactors, resources, social framework, and food context) and theseinfluences” affect “personal systems” such as value negotiations andtrategies. According to Frust et al. (1996), ideals as one influenceerive from cultural and symbolic factors like social status andymbolic meanings people associate with food. Personal factorsean individual needs and preferences based on psychological and
hysiological factors. Some people tend to choose foods becausef physiological factors (e.g., allergic response and hunger) andsychological factors (e.g., emotional cues, moods, and feelings).esources, which can be tangible like money, equipment, andpace or intangible like skills and knowledge, can affect degree of
vailability in food choice decisions. Social framework means inter-ersonal relationships and social roles with families and household,riends, or in the work place. Food context involves the environ-
ent for food choice like physical surroundings and social climate,
lity Management 34 (2013) 295– 308
and specific food supply factors, including seasonal or market fac-tors. Steptoe et al. (1995) addressed nine motives for daily foodchoices: health, mood, convenience, sensory appeal, natural con-tent, price, weight control, familiarity, and ethical concern usingthe model of Food Choice Questionnaire. They explained familiar-ity as “how important it is for the person to eat their accustomeddiet, rather than being adventurous in food choices” (Steptoe et al.,1995, p. 281).
Some researchers have studied the influences of hedonic andutilitarian values on food consumption, including food preferenceand food intake (Peryam and Pilgrim, 1957; Bell and Marshall,2003; Köster, 2003; Cardello et al., 2000; de Graaf et al., 2005).Hedonic consumption is pleasure-oriented, which is based on sen-sual pleasure, fantasy, and fun, while utilitarian consumption isgoal-oriented. Utilitarian consumption is mainly driven by thedesire to fill a basic need or to accomplish a functional task(Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982). Hedonic values like entertain-ment, emotional worth, and situational factors are more subjectiveand personal than utilitarian values because they derive from aneed for fun, although all consumption experiences and situationsdo not lead to the same emotional state. Thus, hedonic consump-tion could satisfy consumers, providing an exciting experience, andthus, may have a significant effect on food consumption (de Fariaet al., 2011; Ryu et al., 2012).
Food consumption in tourism is a unique form of eating thatoccurs in a foreign and/or unfamiliar context (Cohen and Avieli,2004). Cultural, social, psychological, physiological, environmental,and sensory acceptance factors influence tourist food consumption(Randall and Sanjur, 1981; Mak et al., 2012; Y.G. Kim et al., 2009).Mak et al. (2012) addressed five motives for tourist food consump-tion: cultural and religious influences, socio-demographic factors,food-related personality traits, exposure effect and past experience,and motivational factors. Y.G. Kim et al. (2009) proposed moti-vational factors (exciting experience, escape from routine, healthconcern, learning knowledge, authentic experience, togetherness,prestige, sensory appeal), demographic factors, and physiologi-cal factors (food neophila and food neophobia) as influences onconsumption of local food. For local food to appeal to tourists,exposure effect and past experience, excitement, and escape fromroutine were more important than for general food consumers(Quan and Wang, 2004; Chang et al., 2010, 2011; Kivela and Crotts,2006). Quan and Wang (2004) noted that the experience of foodconsumption involved peak touristic experiences, supporting con-sumer experience, and daily routine experience. They explainedthat peak and supporting experience are distinct from daily rou-tine. Moreover, food as peak touristic experience, which is similar toauthentic experience and contrasts with daily experience, differedfrom supporting consumer experience.
2.2. Familiarity: experiential familiarity and informationalfamiliarity
According to Cohen (1972), tourists travel in quest of novelty,yet most of them need an environmental bubble (a certain degree offamiliarity) to fully enjoy the tourist experience. Chang et al. (2010)also found that tourists who are enthusiastic in sampling local foodmay still have a dominant ‘core’ food preference, reflecting thetourist paradox: wanting both novelty and familiarity.
Familiarity has been studied in both consumer and marketingresearch. According to Luhmann (1979), familiarity is an under-standing of current actions, while trust focuses on beliefs aboutthe future actions. In other words, “familiarity is a specific activity
with cognizance based on previous experience or learning of how touse the particular interface” (Gafen, 2000). Marks and Olson (1981)mentioned familiarity as the individual’s cognitive architecture ona particular product, and Alba and Hutchinson (1987) explained
ospita
teebpK
ctpnchnASspaaptt
cpeoioepiHaieeaaReitt
2
ideetRneup
maHcWi
S. Seo et al. / International Journal of H
hat familiarity is a result of cumulative consumer product relatedxperiences, including exposure to media advertisement and pastxperience. Similarly, other studies have noted familiarity involvesoth individual knowledge and past experiences with a particularroduct or brand (Biswas and Blair, 1991; Johnson and Russo, 1984;ent and Allen, 1993).
Some previous studies have found that familiarity influencesustomer decision making. Johnson and Russo (1984) suggestedhat familiarity involves a process of searching for information androcessing both novel and existing products. Many studies haveoted that when consumers see more perceived risk before pur-hasing, they tend to seek more information and depend moreeavily on previous experience to prepare for both positive andegative consequences (Cox, 1967; Murray and Schlacter, 1990;ssael, 1995; Mitchell, 1999; Cohen and Avieli, 2004; Park andtoel, 2005; Schiffman and Kanuk, 2007). On the other hand, con-umers familiar with a product tend to expend less effort to reduceerceived risk, because they know more about existing alternativesnd information or they have already experienced the product. Inddition, increased degrees of familiarity significantly influenceeople’s intentions to purchase and slightly influence intentionso inquire, because familiarity reduces complexity and uncertaintyhrough understanding (Gafen, 2000).
In tourism, Baloglu (2001) defined familiarity as an integratedoncept combining previous visitation, amount of information, andrevious experiences in tourism. He argued that not only pastxperience but also number of information sources should be partf measuring destination familiarity; he introduced a familiar-ty index with two dimensions: informational familiarity (amountf information) and experiential familiarity (previous destinationxperience). Tourists tend to research a destination as much asossible before their trip to decrease risk, if they perceive risk
n association with a destination (Fodness and Murray, 1997;olloway and Robinson, 1995; Lehto et al., 2004). Past experiencesnd level of novelty are especially connected with the search fornformation (Snepenger et al., 1990; Money and Crotts, 2003; Lehtot al., 2004; Luo et al., 2008). Because tourists who have little travelxperience recognize novelty and have limited information, theyre more likely to search for information (Venkatesan, 1973; Mäsernd Weiermair, 1998; Mitchell et al., 1999; Fuchs and Reichel, 2011;eisinger and Mavondo, 2006). Based on previous studies, pastxperience and searching for information could enhance familiar-ty by decreasing perceived risk, and thus familiarity may affectourist decision making and should affect marketing of tourist des-inations.
.3. Familiarity and local food consumption
The importance of food and eating out on trips and holidayss supported by the amount spent on eating out during a holi-ay (Telfer and Wall, 2000): approximately one-third of all touristxpenditures (Y.G. Kim et al., 2009). Eating what the local peopleat is part of being a tourist, a way of becoming familiar with a cul-ure and its traditions (Fields, 2002; Hjalager and Richards, 2002;yu and Jang, 2006; Sparks, 2001). In addition, domestic and inter-ational tourists are becoming more adventurous and open to newxperiences overall and especially to food. Many also seek the gen-ine and authentic, which can be found in local foods and eatinglaces (Reynolds, 1993).
Previous studies have shown that, in tourism, food is the fore-ost determinant of destination satisfaction (Nield et al., 2000)
nd destination popularity (Plog, 2001; Cohen and Avieli, 2004;
enderson, 2009). In addition, dining is important in actuallyhoosing a destination (Hobsbawm and Ranger, 1983; Gardner and
ood, 1991; Dann, 1994). Tourists were also motivated by excit-ng experiences, escape from routine, authentic experiences, and
lity Management 34 (2013) 295– 308 297
togetherness when consuming local food in destination (Y.G. Kimet al., 2009). In this respect, gastronomy is a viable alternativeattraction for tourists seeking new destinations (Kivela and Crotts,2006). However, although local food can serve as a tourist attrac-tion, many tourists associate local with strange and unfamiliar andbecome more concerned about hygiene (Cohen and Avieli, 2004).
Most people dislike or remain suspicious of new food because ofboth biological and cultural influences (neophobia; Fischler, 1988).Neophilic people tend to search for novel and strange food. Foodneophobia would predict that people will hesitate to try new foods,so as they become familiar with a cuisine or culture, they becomeless neophobic about the food (Birch et al., 1987; Luckow et al.,2006; Pliner, 1982; Stein et al., 2003). Larsen et al. (2007) suggestedperceived risk increases before actually dining in a destination.Food can only be evaluated after tasting, so local food, as a partof new experiences, can be more unfamiliar or risky than any othertourism product (Hill et al., 1996). Tourist exposure to the cuisineof a different culture, either acquired through previous visits or athome, can increase familiarity with that cuisine and thus poten-tially reducing perceived risk (Birch et al., 1987; Luckow et al.,2006; Pliner, 1982; Stein et al., 2003; Mak et al., 2011). Researchon food choice has found that exposure to certain foods tendsto increase preference for those foods; familiarity increases withrepeated exposure (Mak et al., 2011, 2012; Chang et al., 2010; Ryuand Jang, 2006; Tse and Crotts, 2005; Alba and Hutchinson, 1987;Prescott et al., 2002; Birch et al., 1987; Luckow et al., 2006; Pliner,1982; Stein et al., 2003). When tourists are unfamiliar with food,they tend to avoid it, but when they are exposed to that food, try it,and eat it more often, they not only become familiar with the foodand likely to eat it, but are also more likely to try other novel foods.It is similar to destination choice, increased familiarity with a des-tination through knowledge and experience can reduce perceivedrisk and increase consumption (Lehto et al., 2004; Tideswell andFaulkner, 1999).
Thus, more experience with local food could increase familiaritywith food, but the amount of available information can also increasethe level of familiarity with food and has also been connected toconsumption of local food. Fischer and Vries (2008) revealed thatthe more information consumers gather, the more food they pur-chase. Tourists who read guidebooks spent more money on localfood and locally grown groceries than those did not (Boyne et al.,2002; Okumus et al., 2007). Along the same lines, widely acces-sible information on the Internet as well as other forms of mediahas contributed to increased exposure to foreign cuisines (Cohenand Avieli, 2004). Thus, tourists become familiar with local food ina number of ways, and all can reduce tourist concerns about localfood in tourist destinations.
2.4. Familiarity and image
Increasing familiarity through experience with food couldimprove the image of local food. Image is an important componentof the customer satisfaction model (Martensen et al., 2000) anddirectly influences product value, quality perception (Kristensenet al., 1999; Martensen et al., 2000; Johnson et al., 2001), and gainingcustomers and customer loyalty (Andreassen and Lindestad, 1998;Kandampully and Suhartanto, 2000; Martensen et al., 2000). Theimage of a brand or product is influenced by advertisement style,area of production, corporate image, reputation (Aaker, 1997), andperceived risk (Roselius, 1971; Tan, 1999).
Destination image has been defined as the embodiment wholeof tourist responses, thoughts, and impressions of any place (Mayo,
1973; Hunt, 1975; Crompton, 1979; Fakeye and Crompton, 1991).It has both cognitive and affective components (Dichter, 1985;Baloglu and Brinberg, 1997; Gartner, 1993; Dann, 1996), and theinterrelationship of cognitive and affective image components
2 ospita
e(brfCKuai2(asnl
iidRBitstd(1it
pmvC1(dcsmimR
3
3
KatDnrwu
3
Tcf
98 S. Seo et al. / International Journal of H
ventually determines a predisposition for visiting a destinationGartner, 1993; Kim and Richardson, 2003). Destination image, likerand image, is influenced by perceived risk, novelty, past expe-ience, previous knowledge, perceived quality, involvement, andamiliarity (Roselius, 1971; Burns and Cleverdon, 1995; Tan, 1999;ornelius et al., 2010; Romeo, 1991; Levy and Guterman, 2012;astenholz, 2010). Because tourists experience new culture in annfamiliar environment during a trip, travel has two simultaneousspects: novelty and perceived risk. Even though perceived risks differentiated from actual risk (Rittichainuwat and Chakraborty,009), perceived risk has more influence on purchasing decisionsReisinger and Mavondo, 2006). In addition, Coshall (2003) and Lamnd Hsu (2006) found perceived risk and image of destination areignificant components of the individual decision to visit a desti-ation. This implies significant relationships among perceived risk,
ocal food image, and destination familiarity.Food image represents cultural experiences, status, and cultural
dentity (Frochot, 2003), and just as food image depends on famil-arity, destination image also has a significant relationship withestination familiarity (Baloglu, 2001; Hyun et al., 2005; Kim andichardson, 2003; Kwon, 2005; Lee et al., 2008; Qu et al., 2010).aloglu (2001) found that familiarity based on past experience and
nformation sources could affect formation and variation of des-ination image. Moreover, in the last two decades, the literaturehows that destination familiarity influences perception and attrac-iveness of destination (Hu and Ritchie, 1993), intentions to visit theestination (Yang et al., 2009), and formation of destination imageBaloglu, 2001; Court and Lupton, 1997; Woodside and Lysonski,989). Therefore, destination image and destination familiarity are
nterrelated, and destination familiarity may influence image, atti-ude, and behavior intentions.
In terms of past experiences with destination and sightseeing,eople who had previously visited a particular destination had auch more positive destination image than those who had not yet
isited (Ahmed, 1991; Baloglu and McCleary, 1999; Chon, 1991;ourt and Lupton, 1997; Hsu et al., 2004; Milman and Pizam,995; Pizam et al., 1991; Baloglu, 2001). Baloglu and McCleary1999) found non-visitors and visitors form destination imagesifferently, indicating that past experience might have a signifi-ant relationship with image formation. Beerli and Martin (2004)uggested not only personal experience but also secondary infor-ation sources, even autonomous ones, could build destination
mage. Moreover, some studies have found information from massedia channels influenced destination image formation (Kim and
ichardson, 2003; Kwon, 2005).
. Methodology
.1. Data collection
The population of this study was limited to tourists who visitedorea and ate Korean food. Participants were American, Japanese,nd Chinese tourists; these nationalities are among the top threeourist groups to visit Korea (Korea Tourism Organization, 2011).ata were collected at the departure lounge at Incheon Inter-ational Airport in Korea in August 2011; foreign tourists wereecruited using an intercept survey. Participants were asked if theyould participate in a survey about Korean food. A total of 295seable responses were collected.
.2. Survey questionnaire
A self-administered questionnaire was developed for this study.he questionnaire consisted of images of Korean food; the imagesovered cognitive and affective images, preferences for Koreanood, intention to eat Korean food, how frequently the respondents
lity Management 34 (2013) 295– 308
had consumed Korean food in last 12 months, sources of informa-tion about Korean food, and demographics. Each respondent wasasked if he/she had eaten Korean food. Consumption frequencyincluded all Korean food experiences both in Korea and in Koreanrestaurants in their home countries in last 12 months. The image ofKorean foods in this study consisted of cognitive image and affec-tive image. Cognitive food image was the recognition or perceptionthat came from consuming Korean foods, and affective food imagewas the emotion or sentiment associated with consuming Koreanfoods (Yun and Seo, 2012). Twenty-eight cognitive image items forKorean food were generated from the scale developed for Koreanfood image (Yun and Seo, 2012); the scale for Korean food imagewas based on related literature and focus groups (Almli et al., 2011;Bae et al., 2011; Choi and Lee, 2010; Chung and Cheon, 2010; Janget al., 2009; Lambden et al., 2007; Lee et al., 2011; Park et al.,2009; Seo and Ryu, 2007, 2009; Verbeke and López, 2005). For moredetail refer to Yun and Seo (2012). Cognitive images of Korean foodwere measured on a 7-point Likert-scale ranging from “stronglydisagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7). Affective images of Koreanfood were measured using semantic differential items ranging from−3 to +3: discontented – contented, unfulfilled – fulfilled, unpleas-ant – pleasant, not enjoyable – enjoyable, and gloomy – exciting(Ward and Russell, 1981; Baloglu and Brinberg, 1997; Walmsleyand Young, 1998). Preferences for Korean foods and intention to eatKorean foods were measured using a 7-point Likert-scale rangingfrom “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7).
Twelve different sources of information were compiledfrom the literature: travel agency, newspaper/magazine, travelbrochures/guidebook, TV/movies/books, internet, family mem-bers/friends, past experience, advertisement, airline/hotel, tourismadministration/embassy, SNS, and smart phone application. Aninformation score was calculated as the sum of the number ofsources used. The actual scores ranged from 1 to 7 with a medianscore of 2 and a mean score of 3.
Before the questionnaire was finalized, two academic pro-fessionals in the hospitality industry familiar with the subjectreviewed the questionnaire to ensure content validity. Minor revi-sions were made based on their suggestions. Subsequently, a pilotstudy was conducted to ensure the reliability of each construct,using foreign tourists in Seoul, Korea. The wording of the question-naire was slightly modified based on their feedback. The survey wasconducted in three different languages: English, Japanese, and Chi-nese. The original survey questionnaire was developed in Englishand then translated to Japanese and Chinese. The accuracy of trans-lation of survey items was confirmed with back to back translations,where the Japanese and Chinese versions were translated to Englishand then compared to the original survey in English.
3.3. Data analysis
The respondents’ demographic characteristics and dining outbehaviors during travel period were analyzed using SPSS 18.0. Thereliability and validity of measurements were tested by Cronbach’salpha. This study used a median value as the cut off when dividingsamples into high and low informational familiarity and experi-ential familiarity based on Baloglu’s (2001) familiarity index andother previous studies (Raju, 1997; Harlam et al., 1995; Lewellenet al., 1993). Using the median (10 times) of consumption frequencyof Korean food in the previous 12 months as the dividing point,respondents were divided into two groups based on their experi-ence with Korean food: high and low. Median of information scores(2) was applied to the cutoff dividing the samples into two groups
based on their use of information sources: high and low. Cross tabu-lation analysis was performed between demographics (and diningout behaviors) and experiential and informational familiarity. T-test was deployed to explain the differences between the groups
ospita
(rfd
4
4
Tftwrdfitwi7d3t3m2
4
4K
v1hgplRgeopatsr(twfwibtae(
4f
fm
S. Seo et al. / International Journal of H
high versus low informational familiarity, high versus low expe-iential familiarity) in image of Korean food, preference for Koreanood, intention to consume Korean food, dining out behaviors, andemographics.
. Results
.1. Demographics and dining-out behavior of respondents
The demographic profile of the respondents is presented inable 1. Of the 295 respondents, 148 were males and 147 wereemales. In terms of age, 59.3% were in their 20s and 30s. Of all par-icipants, 49.5% were married. Thirty nine percent of participantsere American, 33.2% were Japanese, and 27.8% were Chinese. Most
espondents (75.2%) were highly educated, holding at least a collegeegree. Two thirds of them had jobs, and monthly income rangedrom less than $900 to more than $9500, although the ratio showedncome was evenly distributed. Almost half of participants plannedo stay in Korea for 4–5 days, followed by 1–3 days (29.2%), 1–2eeks (21.4%), and 2–4 weeks (7.5%). Two thirds of them were vis-
ting Korea for leisure, while 23.7% were on a business trip, and.5% were visiting family and friends. Sixty two percent of respon-ents spent on average $10–$19 per day for Korean food. About2% of respondents used one information source, with 22.7% usingwo sources and the same percentage using three sources. Lastly,1.2% of the participants had eaten Korean food 2–5 times in last 12onths, whereas 24.1% had already eaten Korean food more than
0 times during the same period.
.2. Experiential familiarity
.2.1. Demographics and dining-out behavior by the level oforean food experiences
The samples were divided into two groups based on the medianalue of consumption frequency (10 times) of Korean food in last2 months: the less experienced group numbered 164, and theighly experienced group numbered 131. Differences in demo-raphics and dining-out behavior by Korean food experience areresented in Table 1. There were significant differences between
ow and high experience groups by nationality (�2 = 8.21, p = .016).espondents from China tended to fall into the highly experiencedroup, whereas respondents from America fell more into the lessxperienced group (�2 = 8.21, p = .016). Significant differences inccupation (�2 = 21.3, p = .021), length of stay in Korea (�2 = 11.49,
= .009), and purpose for visiting Korea (�2 = 6.07, p = .048) werelso found between the two groups. Tourists who stayed longerended to eat Korean food more frequently than those who hadhorter stays. In addition, the number of information sources thatespondents used differed significantly between the two groups�2 = 24.10, p = .000). Tourists who used more than four informa-ion sources and referred to past experience and/or TV/movie/bookhen getting information about Korean food tended to eat Korean
ood more often, falling into the highly experienced group. Touristsith little experience with Korean food tended to use fewer
nformation sources. Tourists who used travel agency and travelrochure/guidebook tended to eat Korean food less (falling intohe less experienced group). However, the results did not indicateny significant differences based on gender, age, marital status,ducation, monthly income, or average expense for Korean foodTable 1).
.2.2. Preferences for Korean food and intentions to eat Korean
ood by level of Korean food experience
Cronbach’s alpha value was 0.89 for preferences for Koreanood and 0.94 for intention to eat Korean food. The group with
ore experience with Korean food had more positive preferences
lity Management 34 (2013) 295– 308 299
for Korean food than the less experienced group: ‘I like Koreanfood’ (t = −4.09, p < 0.001), ‘I have good feeling about Korean food’(t = −3.73, p < 0.001), ‘Korean food is my favorite food’ (t = −4.14,p < 0.001), and ‘I prefer consuming Korean food to other interna-tional cuisine’ (t = −2.80, p < 0.01) (Table 2). Moreover, the highlyexperienced group had more intention to eat Korean food than theless experienced group: ‘I would like to consume Korean food inthe near future’ (t = −3.68, p < 0.001), ‘I intend to consume Koreanfood in the near future’ (t = −3.91, p < 0.001), and ‘I am willing toconsume Korean food in the near future’ (t = −3.53, p < 0.001). Inother words, results indicated that with more experience of Koreanfood, respondents were more positive toward Korean food, show-ing more preference for Korean food and more frequent Koreanfood consumption.
4.2.3. Image of Korean food by the level of Korean foodexperiences
In this study, we used five dimensions for both cognitive andaffective image (‘quality & safety’, ‘attractiveness’, ‘promotion ofdisease’, ‘family-oriented,’ and ‘unique culinary arts’) of Koreanfood to compare both groups (Table 3). Cronbach’s alpha values forthe five dimensions of cognitive image ranged from 0.69 (uniqueculinary arts) to 0.89 (quality & safety) and showed satisfactorylevels of internal consistency. There were significant differencesfor both the attractiveness dimension (t = −4.41, p < 0.001) andthe quality & safety dimension (t = −2.13, p < 0.05). However, nosignificant differences were found for unique culinary arts, pro-motion of health, and family-oriented dimension though severalsingle items were significant (‘tastes good’ t = −4.27, p < 0.001;‘attractive’ t = −3.05, p < 0.01; ‘appeal’ t = −2.16, p < 0.05; ‘smellsgood’ t = −3.05, p < 0.01; ‘popular’ t = −3.26, p < 0.001; ‘easy to eat’t = −4.48, p < 0.001; ‘clean’ t = −2.49, p < 0.05; ‘reliable’ t = −3.07,p < 0.05; ‘can prevent adult disease’ t = −2.04; p < 0.05; ‘can pre-vent obesity’ t = −1.20, p < 0.05; ‘good for immune system’ t = −2.25,p < 0.05; ‘offers various side dishes’ t = −2.52, p < 0.05). Overall, peo-ple with more experience with Korean food had a better cognitiveimage of the food, especially quality & safety and attractiveness.In analyzing the affective image of Korean food, Cronbach’s alphavalue was 0.94 after testing the reliability for the five items measur-ing the affective image of Korean food. The results showed that thegroup with more experience had a more positive affective imageof Korean food than the less experienced group (t = −2.26, p < 0.05).The highly experienced group tended to evaluate Korean food asmore ‘contented’ (t = −2.26, p < 0.05), ‘fulfilled’ (t = −2.21, p < 0.05),‘pleasant’ (t = −3.55, p < 0.001), ‘enjoyable’ (t = −3.62, p < 0.001), and‘exciting’ (t = −3.07, p < 0.01) (Table 3).
4.3. Informational familiarity
4.3.1. Demographics and dining-out behavior by the use ofinformation source about Korean food
Again, participants were classified into two groups by themedian number (2) of information sources used. The 133 touristswho searched more than three information sources about Koreanfood were put in a group named high use information sourcegroup; those who searched fewer than two information sourceswere put in a group named low use information source group(N = 162). Significant differences were found for gender (�2 = 13.54,p = .000), nationality (�2 = 21.48, p = .000), length of stay in Korea(�2 = 8.85, p = .031), purpose for visiting Korea (�2 = 15.25, p = .000),average expense for Korean food (�2 = 12.57, p = .028), and fre-quency of Korean food experience (�2 = 26.50, p = .000) (Table 4).
More women than men were in the high use information sourcegroup, but more men were in the low use information source group.Respondents from China tended to more fall into the high use infor-mation source group than American and Japanese respondents.
300 S. Seo et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 34 (2013) 295– 308
Table 1Differences in demographics and dining-out behavior by the level of Korean food experience.
ourists using internet, TV/movie/book, newspaper/magazine,nd/or travel brochure/guide book to get information about Koreanood fell mostly into the high use information source group. Touristsn the high use information source group also tended to eat Koreanood more frequently.
.3.2. Preferences in Korean food and intention to eat Koreanood by use of information sources on Korean food
The group that used more information sources tended to preferorean food: ‘Korean food is my favorite food’ (t = −4.61, p < 0.001)nd ‘I prefer consuming Korean food to other international cuisinet = −2.81, p < 0.01). This group also intended to consume Koreanoods in the near future (t = −2.29, p < 0.05), unlike the group usingewer information sources (Table 5).
.3.3. Image of Korean food by the use of information sources onorean food
t-Test results showed no significant differences in the cognitivemage of Korean food by information source group, other than ‘goodor immune system’ (Table 6). Those respondents who were in theigh information source group rated Korean food relatively highly
n benefit to immune system (t = −2.64, p < 0.01). In addition, theffective image of Korean food showed no significant differencesetween the two groups (Table 6).
. Discussion
This study investigated how tourists view local Korean food,specially the relationships among experiential familiarity andnformational familiarity, image, preference, and consumptionntention. Using a modified Baloglu’s familiarity index (2001),
able 2ifferences in preferences for Korean food and intentions to eat Korean food by the level
High experience Korean foodMean ± S.D.
Preferences for Korean food 5.61 ± 1.19
I like Korean food. 5.98 ± 1.23
I have good feelings about Korean food. 5.95 ± 1.19
Korean food is my favorite food. 5.21 ± 1.58
I prefer consuming Korean food to otherinternational cuisine.
4.69 ± 1.43
Intentions to eat Korean food 5.93 ± 1.28
I would like to consume Korean food in the nearfuture.
5.95 ± 1.36
I intend to consume Korean food in the near future. 5.90 ± 1.44
I am willing to consume Korean food in the nearfuture.
5.89 ± 1.33
ote: 7 point Likert scale; 1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree.** p < .01.
*** p < .001.
respondents were divided into high and low groups based onprevious experience with Korean food and on use of informa-tion sources. This study concluded that experiential familiaritymade a difference in how people view local Korean foods and thusmade a difference in their preference for local food and their pur-chase intentions. Respondents with more experience with Koreanfood had a more positive affective and cognitive image of Koreanfood, indicating frequent experience with Korea food could leadforeign tourists to try Korean food. Respondents with more expe-rience with Korean food perceived higher quality and safety inlocal Korean foods. They rated taste and flavor higher, findinglocal Korean food appealing and attractive. According to Rozin andRozin (1981), basic foods, cooking techniques, and flavor princi-ples differentiate a cuisine, and the group with more experiencewith Korean food could distinguish flavor and taste of local Koreanfoods. The act of eating is physical, involving sensory perceptionsin appreciating the food. Thus, more experience with local Koreanfoods mean those foods were more attractive. Also, these moreexperienced tourists also found healthiness of local Korean foodattractive and were aware of how Korean food is served or dis-played. Other studies have provided similar results; tourists withprevious experience with a destination felt more positively aboutthe destination (Ahmed, 1991; Baloglu and McCleary, 1999; Fakeyeand Crompton, 1991; Hu and Ritchie, 1993; Milman and Pizam,1995; S.W. Park, 2004; Yang et al., 2009). Foreign tourists withrelatively more experience with Korean food had a more positiveaffective image, which indicates the sensuous or emotional aspects
of Korean food could be used to appeal to foreign tourists. Theresults also showed that tourists with more experience with Koreanfood preferred it more and intended to eat Korean food more thantourists with less experience with Korean food. Other studies of
a 7 point Likert scale; 1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree.b
tstsae
ntTmsnfaaFoegspe
Semantic differential scale (−3 to +3).* p < .05.
** p < .01.*** p < .001.
ourists choosing to consume local food have indicated that expo-ure and past experience could increase local food preference andourist food consumption behavior, simply because repeated expo-ure increases familiarity (Mak et al., 2011; Luckow et al., 2006; Ryund Jang, 2006; Stein et al., 2003; Tse and Crotts, 2005; Prescottt al., 2002).
Affective and cognitive image of Korean food did not differ sig-ificantly when number of information sources was analyzed otherhan one item under the dimension covering promotion of health.hus, number of information sources was not related to image for-ation. This contrasts with the results of several other tourism
tudies, which reported significant relationships between desti-ation image and amount of information (Baloglu, 2001). Clearly,
ood choice differs from destination choice in terms of frequencynd expense. Moreover, perceived risks when choosing local foodre quite different from the risks of choosing the destination itself.or these reasons, the effect of the number of information sourcesn local food image could be only rarely significant, unlike theffect on destination image. Also, the differences in information
athering (high use of sources as opposed to low use) were lessignificant, even though the image of Korean food was generallyositive for the high use group. Thus, our study showed differ-nt effects of informational familiarity; previous studies found that
information positively affects preferences and intention to con-sume (Court and Lupton, 1997; Govers et al., 2007; Milman andPizam, 1995; Pelchat and Pliner, 1995). Overall, our results indicatethat experiential familiarity had more influence on image, prefer-ences, and consumption intention of local foods than informationalfamiliarity.
Regardless of their own past experience with Korean food, for-eign tourists mainly collected information from family and friendsand from the internet. Previous studies have found that familyand friends are considered the most reliable information sources(Govers et al., 2007; Uysal et al., 1990; S.W. Kim et al., 2009; Engelet al., 1995; Fodness and Murray, 1999). Friends and relatives,as well as television and radio, are likely to most influence firsttime visitors; Chen and Gursoy (2000) recommended that desti-nation marketers use word of mouth and mass media to appealto travelers, providing them a positive image of the destination.Moreover, tourists who have no way to evaluate a tour packageobjectively and have high perceived risk are more willing to dependon word of mouth (Roselius, 1971; Still et al., 1984; Murray, 1991;
Hill et al., 1996; Bansal and Voyer, 2000; J.H. Park, 2004). In addi-tion, while respondents with little experience with Korean foodtended to use brochures and guide books to get information, thosewith more experience with Korean food depended more on past
S. Seo et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 34 (2013) 295– 308 303
Table 4Differences in demographics and dining-out behavior by the level of use of information sources for Korean food.
High use of information (N = 133) Low use of information (N = 162) Total (N = 295) Sig.
xperience and TV, movies, and books. Other researchers in des-ination marketing have mentioned that the internet was a usefulnformation source (Luo et al., 2008; Pan and Fesenmaier, 2000;röll and Retschitzegger, 2000). Therefore, because of the differ-nces between destination marketing and food marketing, tourismdministrators and marketers should make an effort to promoteocal food on the internet but also prepare other PR strategies using
arket segmentation. Based on our results, tourists with morexperience with Korean food would respond to an attractive visualmage of local food on TV or in movies, whereas definite and reliablenformation in brochures and guidebooks would be more effectiveor tourists with less experience with Korean food.
Overall, the results of this study revealed that tourists can beotivated using familiarity to experience local food whether they
ave eaten Korean food before or not. This study provides sig-ificant implications for local food restaurant companies wishingo attract tourists by providing trial food and correct informationith attractive visual image. Marketers should focus on advertising
nd promotion to increase familiarity and decrease risk perceptionhile increasing intention to try local food. Food related events like
ood festivals could provide experience with local food (Quan andang, 2004), thus inspiring tourists to try other local food. Travel-
rs want to experience cultural authenticity, and in general, theyre willing to pay the price for authentic experiences (Haven-Tangnd Jones, 2005).
Foreign cuisines are part of a culture and can deliver culturaluthenticity (Cohen and Avieli, 2004; Gibson, 2007; Sims, 2009).ktoberfest, the Bordeaux wine festival, and the Singapore food
estival successfully attract tourists to come and try local food andeverages. Events like these can help establish a positive image
f local food. The Singapore Tourism Board manages a Singaporeulinary tour package focusing on their unique culinary culture,hich attracts foreign tourists not only to places where they can
ample local foods but also to shopping malls and historic sites
able 5ifferences in preferences for Korean food and intentions to eat Korean food by the level
High use of informatMean ± S.D.
Preferences for Korean food 5.50 ± 1.30
I like Korean food. 5.76 ± 1.33
I have good feelings about Korean food. 5.80 ± 1.33
Korean food is my favorite food. 5.25 ± 1.59
I prefer consuming Korean food to other international cuisine. 4.69 ± 1.39
Intentions to eat Korean food 5.69 ± 1.49
I would like to consume Korean food in the near future. 5.71 ± 1.57
I intend to consume Korean food in the near future. 5.74 ± 1.54
I am willing to consume Korean food in the near future. 5.58 ± 1.55
ote: 7 point Likert scale; 1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree.* p < .05.
** p < .01.*** p < .001.
in Singapore (Singapore Tourism Board, 2012). The British TouristAuthority operates a tourism web site in fifteen different languageshighlighting local food, star chefs, famous local restaurants, andimages of UK foods (The British Tourist Authority, 2012).
Korean tourism officials could also establish such a festival incooperation with well-known chefs and local people because localfood events supported by star chefs and local residents could beevidence of authenticity (Henderson, 2009). In addition, globaliza-tion means people can eat international foods in their own country,which could change tourist food consumption behavior during aninternational trip (Mak et al., 2011). If potential tourists have apositive impression of foreign cuisine in their home country, theywill be more motivated to try local food at a destination. Activelysupporting local cuisine in other countries would help touristsovercome their hesitation to try local foods once they are in Korea.
The results of this study also indicated that experiential familiar-ity had more influence than informational familiarity in increasingfamiliarity with local food. Unlike previous studies, which foundinformation was significant in building product image, preferences,and consumption intentions (Baloglu and McCleary, 1999; Bone,1995; Blackwell et al., 2001; Court and Lupton, 1997; Fischer andFrewer, 2009; Griffin et al., 1999; Govers et al., 2007; Milmanand Pizam, 1995; Pelchat and Pliner, 1995), we found informa-tion sources were not as important to familiarity as experience,although information searches should not be ignored. Integratedpromotion strategies could increase tourist motivation to try localfoods, especially using a variety of information sources. Moreover,experiential familiarity and informational familiarity should notbe considered separate; they interact. For instance, the literatureon destinations often includes personal experience and indirect
experience of a third party (Baloglu, 2001; Chen and Gursoy, 2000;Fodness and Murray, 1997). Product related experience can includesources of information (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987). Thus, not onlyshould the tourism bureau try to provide fulfilling experiences with
of information source use for Korean food.
ion (N = 133) Low use of information (N = 162)Mean ± S.D.
a 7 point Likert scale; 1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree.b Semantic differential scale (−3 to +3).** p < .01.
ocal food, but local residents should help as well. The resultingemorable experiences could change the image, preferences, and
ntentions to eat local foods, which in turn will be delivered tothers as reliable and influential word of mouth.
This study has several limitations and suggests several openingsor future study. First, all participants in this study had experienceith Korean food. It would be interesting to see if there are differ-
nces between foreigners who have never eaten Korean food andhose who have eaten local food at least once. Future research mightlso consider identifying the image inexperienced travelers have oforean food and comparing it to how experienced travelers view
ocal food. Experiential familiarity could be measured differently inhe future as well. Consumption frequency of local food as the mea-urement of experiential familiarity in this study could not considerhe qualitative perspective for choosing food type. The number ofrevious visits to Korea could be considered in calculating experi-ntial familiarity. Interaction effects like experience and nationalityere not examined in this research. However, interaction effects
etween experience and nationality could be analyzed with diverseationalities in future studies. The results of this study showed that
nformational familiarity was not as influential as previous stud-
es had found. The difference might come from the operationalefinition of informational familiarity: ‘the number of informa-ion sources’ versus ‘amount of information’. Getting informationrom a number of sources does not necessarily indicate that the
information is accurate. When measuring informational familiar-ity, both quantitative and qualitative evaluation should be included.Content and quality of information sources especially wouldprovide additional information for future study. Despite theselimitations, this study provides methodologies and approachesresearchers and marketers can apply to studying local food con-sumption by tourists.
References
Aaker, J.L., 1997. Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research34 (3), 347–356.
Ahmed, Z.U., 1991. The influence of the components of a state’s tourist image onproduct positioning and strategy. Tourism Management 12 (4), 331–340.
Almli, V.L., Verbeke, W., Vanhonacker, F., Nes, T., Hersleth, M., 2011. General imageand attribute perceptions of traditional food in six European countries. FoodQuality and Preference 22 (1), 129–138.
Andreassen, T.W., Lindestad, B., 1998. Customer loyalty and complex services. Inter-national Journal of Service Industry Management 9 (1), 7–23.
Bae, Y.M., Song, D.H., Ahn, H.S., 2011. Perceptions of traditional Korean foods and
satisfaction levels toward school foodservice among middle school studentsand parents of schools serving traditional Korean menus in Gyeonggi province.Journal of Korean Diet Association 17 (2), 118–129.
Baker, W., Hutchinson, W.J., Moore, D., Nedungadi, P., 1986. Brand familiarity andadvertising: effects on the evoked set and brand preference. In: Lutz, R.J. (Ed.),
Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 13. Association for Consumer Research,Provo, UT, pp. 637–642.
aloglu, S., 2001. Image variations of Turkey by familiarity index: informational andexperiential dimensions. Tourism Management 22 (2), 127–133.
aloglu, S., Brinberg, D., 1997. Affective images of tourism destinations. Journal ofTravel Research 35 (4), 11–15.
aloglu, S., McCleary, K.W., 1999. U.S. international pleasure travelers’ images of fourMediterranean destinations: a comparison of visitors and non-visitors. Journalof Travel Research 38 (2), 144–152.
ansal, H.S., Voyer, P.A., 2000. Word-of-mouth processes within a services purchasedecision context. Journal of Service Research 3 (2), 166–177.
eerli, A., Martin, J.D., 2004. Factors influencing destination image. Annals ofTourism Research 31 (3), 657–681.
ell, R., Marshall, D.W., 2003. The construct of food involvement in behavioralresearch: scale development and validation. Appetite 40, 235–244.
essiere, J., 1998. Local development and heritage: traditional food and cuisine astourist attractions in rural areas. Sociologia Ruralis 38 (1), 21–34.
irch, L.L., McPhee, L., Shoba, B.C., Pirok, E., Steinberg, L., 1987. What kind of exposurereduces children‘s food neophobia. Appetite 9 (3), 171–178.
iswas, A., Blair, E.A., 1991. Contextual effects of reference prices in retail adver-tisements. Journal of Marketing 55 (3), 1–12.
one, P.F., 1995. Word-of-mouth effects on short-term and long-term product judg-ments. Journal of Business Research 32 (3), 213–223.
oyne, S., Williams, F., Hall, D., 2002. On the trail of regional success: tourism, foodproduction and the Isle of Arran taste train. In: Richards, G., Hjalager, A.M. (Eds.),Tourism and Gastronomy. Routledge, London, pp. 91–114.
urns, P., Cleverdon, R., 1995. Destination on the edge? The case of the Cook Islands.In: Conlin, M.V., Baum, T. (Eds.), Island Tourism: Management Principles andPractice. John Wiley, Chichester, pp. 217–229.
hang, R.C.Y., Kivela, J., Mak, A.H.N., 2010. Food preferences of Chinese tourists.Annals of Tourism Research 37 (4), 989–1011.
hang, R.C.Y., Kivela, J., Mak, A.H.N., 2011. Attributes that influence the evaluationof travel dining experience: when East meets West. Tourism Management 32(2), 307–316.
hen, J.S., Gursoy, D., 2000. Cross-cultural comparison of the information sourcesused by first-time and repeat travelers and its marketing implications. Interna-tional Journal of Hospitality Management 19 (2), 191–203.
hoi, J., Lee, J.M., 2010. The perception and attitude of food experts in New YorkCity toward Korean food-assessed by in-depth interviews of foodies. Journal ofFood Culture 25 (2), 126–133.
hung, H.J., Cheon, H.S., 2010. Woman blogger’s health image recognition of Koreanfoods. Journal of East Asian Society Dietary Life 20 (6), 837–844.
ohen, E., 1972. Toward a sociology of international tourism. Social Research 39 (1),164–182.
ohen, E., Avieli, N., 2004. Food in tourism: attraction and impediment. Annals ofTourism Research 31 (4), 755–778.
onnors, M., Bisogni, C.A., Sobal, J., Devine, C.M., 2001. Managing values in personalfood systems. Appetite 36, 189–200.
ornelius, B., Natter, M., Faure, C., 2010. How storefront displays influenceretail store image. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19 (2),143–151.
oshall, J.T., 2003. The threat of terrorism as an intervention in international travelflows. Journal of Travel Research 42 (1), 4–12.
ourt, B., Lupton, R.A., 1997. Customer portfolio development: modeling destinationadopters, in actives, and rejects. Journal of Travel Research 36 (1), 35–43.
ox, D.F., 1967. Risk handling in consumer behaviour an intensive study of twocases. In: Cox, D.F. (Ed.), Risk Taking and Information Handling in ConsumerBehavior. Harvard, Boston, pp. 34–81.
ox, D.F., Rich, S.U., 1964. Perceived risk and consumer decision-making: the caseof telephone shopping. Journal of Marketing Research 1 (4), 32–39.
rompton, J.L., 1979. An assessment of the image of Mexico as a vacation destinationand the influence of geographical location upon that image. Journal of TravelResearch 17 (4), 18–23.
ann, G.M.S., 1994. Tourism: the nostalgia industry of the future. In: Theobold, W.(Ed.), Global Tourism: The Next Decade. Butterworth-Heinemann, London, pp.55–67.
ann, G.M.S., 1996. Tourists’ images of a destination; an alternative analysis. Journalof Travel and Tourism Marketing 5 (1–2), 41–55.
e Faria, M.D., da Silva, J.F., Ferreira, J.B., 2011. The visually impaired and con-sumption in restaurants. International Journal of Contemporary HospitalityManagement 24 (5), 721–734.
e Graaf, C., Kramer, F.M., Meiselman, H.L., Lesher, L.L., Baker-Fulco, C., Hirsch, E.S.,Warber, J., 2005. Food acceptability in field studies with US army men andwomen: relationship with food intake and food choice after repeated exposures.Appetite 44, 23–31.
ichter, E., 1985. What’s in an image. Journal of Consumer Marketing 2 (1), 75–81.owling, G.R., 1986. Managing your corporate images. Industrial Marketing Man-
agement 15 (2), 109–115.chtner, C.M., Ritchie, J.R.B., 1993. The measurement of destination image: an empir-
ical assessment. Journal of Travel Research 31 (4), 3–13.ngel, J.F., Blackwell, R.D., Miniard, P.W., 1995. Consumer Behavior, 8th edition.
Dryden Press, New York.
lity Management 34 (2013) 295– 308
Fakeye, P.C., Crompton, J.L., 1991. Image differences between prospective, first time,and repeat visitors to the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Journal of Travel Research30 (2), 10–16.
Fields, K., 2002. Demand for the gastronomy tourism product: motivational factors.In: Hjalager, A., Richards, G. (Eds.), Tourism and Gastronomy. Routledge, London,pp. 36–50.
Fischler, C., 1988. Food, self and identity. Social Science Information 27 (2),275–292.
Fischer, A.R.H., Frewer, L.J., 2009. Consumer familiarity with foods and the percep-tion of risks and benefits. Food Quality and Preference 20 (8), 576–585.
Fischer, A.R.H., Vries, P.W.D., 2008. Everyday behavior and everyday risk: anapproach to study people’s responses to frequently encountered food relatedhealth risks. Health, Risk & Society 10 (4), 385–397.
Fodness, D., Murray, B., 1997. Tourist information search. Annals of TourismResearch 24 (3), 503–523.
Fodness, D., Murray, B., 1999. A model of tourist information search behavior. Journalof Travel Research 37 (3), 220–230.
Frochot, I., 2003. An analysis of regional positioning and its associated food imagesin French tourism regional brochures. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing14 (3–4), 77–96.
Frust, T., Connors, M., Bisogni, C., Sobal, A., Falk, J.L.W., 1996. Food choice: a concep-tual model of the process. Appetite 26, 247–266.
Fuchs, G., Reichel, A., 2006. Tourist destination risk perception: the case of Israel.Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing 14 (2), 83–108.
Fuchs, G., Reichel, A., 2011. An exploratory inquiry into destination risk perceptionsand risk reduction strategies of first time vs. repeat visitors to a highly volatiledestination. Tourism Management 32 (2), 266–276.
Gafen, D., 2000. E-commerce: the role of familiarity and trust. International Journalof Management Science 28 (6), 725–737.
Cardello, A.V., Schutz, H., Snow, C., Lesher, L., 2000. Predictors of food acceptance,consumption and satisfaction in specific eating situations. Food Quality andPreference 11, 201–216.
Gardner, K., Wood, R.C., 1991. Theatricality in food service work. InternationalJournal of Hospitality Management 10 (3), 267–278.
Gartner, W.C., 1993. Image formation process. Journal of Travel and Tourism Mar-keting 2 (2/3), 191–215.
Gibson, E.L., 2006. Emotional influences on food choice: sensory, physiological andpsychological pathways. Physiology and Behavior 89 (1), 53–61.
Gibson, S., 2007. Food mobilities. Space and Culture 10 (1), 4–21.Govers, R., Go, F.M., Kumar, K., 2007. Promoting tourism destination image. Journal
of Travel Research 46 (1), 15–23.Griffin, R.J., Dunwoody, S., Neuwirth, K., 1999. Proposed model of the relationship
of risk information seeking and processing to the development of preventivebehaviors. Environmental Research Section A 80 (2), S230–S245.
Gürhan-Canli, Z., Batra, R., 2004. When corporate image affects product evaluations:the moderating role of perceived risk. Journal of Marketing Research 41 (2),197–205.
Ha, H.Y., Perks, H., 2005. Effects of consumer perceptions of brand experience onthe web: brand familiarity, satisfaction and brand trust. Journal of ConsumerBehaviour 4 (6), 438–452.
Hall, M., Mitchell, R., 2002. Tourism as a force for gastronomic globalization andlocalization. In: Hjalager, A.M., Richards, G. (Eds.), Tourism and Gastronomy.Routledge, London, pp. 71–90.
Haven-Tang, C., Jones, E., 2005. Using local food and drink to differentiate tourismdestinations through a sense of place. Journal of Culinary Science & Technology4 (4), 69–86.
Harlam, B.A., Lehmann, A.K.D.R., Mela, C., 1995. Impact of bundle type, price fram-ing and familiarity on purchase intention for the bundle. Journal of BusinessResearch 33 (1), 57–66.
Henderson, J.C., 2009. Food tourism reviewed. British Food Journal 111 (4), 317–326.Hill, D.J., King, M.F., Cohen, E., 1996. The perceived utility of information presented
via electronic decision aids: a consumer perspective. Journal of Consumer Policy19 (2), 137–166.
Hirschman, E., Holbrook, M., 1982. Hedonic consumption emerging concepts, meth-ods and prepositions. Journal of Marketing 46, 92–101.
Hjalager, A.M., Richards, G., 2002. Tourism and Gastronomy. Routledge, London.Hobsbawm, E., Ranger, T., 1983. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.Holloway, J., Robinson, C., 1995. Marketing for Tourism. Longman, Harlow.Hsu, C.H.C., Wolfe, K., Kang, S.K., 2004. Image assessment for a destination with
approach. Journal of Travel Research 32 (2), 25–34.Hunt, J.D., 1975. Image as a factor in tourism development. Journal of Travel Research
13 (3), 1–7.Hyun, Y.H., Han, S.H., Huh, H.J., 2005. Relationship between the destination image
formation and tourist behaviour based on familiarity index: a study of Hahoevillage. Journal of Tourism Sciences 29 (1), 147–167.
Jang, S.C.S., Ha, A., Silkes, C.A., 2009. Perceived attributes of Asian foods: fromthe perspective of the American customers. International Journal of HospitalityManagement 28 (1), 63–70.
Johnson, M.D., Gustafsson, A., Andreassen, T.W., Lervik, L., Cha, J., 2001. The evolutionand future of national customer satisfaction index models. Journal of EconomicPsychology 22 (2), 217–245.
Johnson, E.J., Russo, J.E., 1984. Product familiarity and learning new information.Journal of Consumer Research 11 (1), 542–550.
andampully, J., Suhartanto, D., 2000. Customer loyalty in the hotel industry: therole of customer satisfaction and image. International Journal of ContemporaryHospitality Management 12 (6), 346–351.
astenholz, E., 2010. ‘Cultural proximity’ as a determinant of destination image.Journal of Vacation Marketing 16 (4), 313–322.
ent, R.J., Allen, C.T., 1993. Does competitive clutter in television advertising ‘inter-fere’ with the recall and recognition of brand names and ad claim? MarketingLetters 4 (2), 175–184.
im, Y.G., Eves, A., Scarles, C., 2009. Building a model of local food consumptionon trips and holidays: a grounded theory approach. International Journal ofHospitality Management 28 (3), 423–431.
im, D.J., Ferrin, D.L., Raghav Rao, H., 2008. A trust-based consumer decision-making model in electronic commerce: the role of trust, perceived risk, andtheir antecedents. Decision Support Systems 44 (2), 544–564.
im, S.W., Kwon, M.H., Kwak, Y.D., 2009. The relations between tourism informationsource for tourist and destination type. Journal of Tourism & Leisure 21 (4),57–74.
im, H., Richardson, S.L., 2003. Motion picture impacts on destination images.Annals of Tourism Research 30 (1), 216–237.
ivela, J., Crotts, J.C., 2006. Tourism and gastronomy: gastronomy’s influence on howtourists experience a destination. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research30 (3), 354–377.
lerck, D., Sweeney, J.C., 2007. The effect of knowledge types on consumer-perceived risk and adoption of genetically modified foods. Psychology andMarketing 24 (2), 171–193.
orea Tourism Organization, 2011. Statistics Korea. e-National Index. Available fromwww.index.go.kr (retrieved 01.08.11).
öster, E.P., 2003. The psychology of food choice: some often encountered fallacies.Food Quality and Preference 14, 359–373.
ozak, M., Crotts, J.C., Law, R., 2007. The impact of the perception of riskon international travelers. International Journal of Tourism Research 9 (4),233–242.
ristensen, K., Martensen, A., Gronholdt, L., 1999. Measuring the impact of buy-ing behaviour on customer satisfaction. Total Quality Management 10 (4–5),602–614.
won, Y.H., 2005. The effects of affective responses and attitude toward TVfilm on destination image formation. Journal of Tourism Sciences 28 (4),335–356.
am, T., Hsu, C.H.C., 2006. Predicting behavioral intention of choosing a travel des-tination. Tourism Management 27 (4), 589–599.
ambden, J., Receveur, O., Kuhnlein, H.V., 2007. Traditional food attributes must beincluded in studies of food security in the Canadian arctic. International Journalof Circumpolar Health 66 (4), 308–319.
ee, A.J., Kim, H.B., Cha, S.B., 2011. The impact of LOHAS image of Korean food onquality, satisfaction, and behavior intention: a case study of Chinese touristsvisiting Korea. Journal of Tourism Sciences 35 (3), 133–153.
ee, S., Scott, D., Kim, H., 2008. Celebrity fan involvement and destination percep-tions. Annals of Tourism Research 35 (3), 809–832.
ehto, X.Y., O‘Leary, J.T., Morrison, A.M., 2004. The effect of prior experience onvacation behavior. Annals of Tourism Research 31 (4), 801–818.
epp, A., Gibson, H., 2003. Tourist roles, perceived risk and international tourism.Annals of Tourism Research 30 (3), 606–624.
evy, S., Guterman, H.G., 2012. Does advertising matter to store brand purchaseintention? A conceptual framework. Journal of Product & Brand Management12 (2), 89–97.
ewin, K., 1951. Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers. Harpers,Oxford, England.
indeman, M., Stark, K., 1999. Pleasure, pursuit of health or negotiation of identity?Personality correlates of food choice motives among young and middle-agedwomen. Appetite 33, 141–161.
uckow, T., Sheehan, V., Fitzgerald, G., Delahunty, C., 2006. Exposure, health infor-mation and flavour-masking strategies for improving the sensory quality ofprobiotic juice. Appetite 47 (3), 315–323.
uhmann, N., 1979. Trust and Power. Wiley, Chichester.uo, M., Feng, R., Cai, L.A., 2008. Information search behavior and tourist character-
istics. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 17 (2), 15–25.ak, A.H.N., Lumbers, M., Eves, A., 2012. Globalisation and food consumption in
tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 39 (1), 171–196.ak, A.H.N., Lumbersa, M., Eves, A., Chang, R.C.Y., 2011. Factors influencing tourist
food consumption. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (3),928–936.
arks, L.J., Olson, J.C., 1981. Toward a cognitive structure conceptual-ization of product familiarity. Advances in Consumer Research 8 (1),145–150.
artensen, A., Gronholdt, L., Kristensen, K., 2000. The drivers of customer sat-
isfaction and loyalty, cross-industry findings from Denmark. Total QualityManagement 11 (4–6), 544–553.
äser, B., Weiermair, K., 1998. Travel decision-making from the vantage pointof perceived risk and information preferences. Journal of Travel and TourismMarketing 7 (4), 107–121.
lity Management 34 (2013) 295– 308 307
Mayo, E.J., 1973. Regional images and regional travel behaviour. In: Proceedings ofthe Travel Research Association Fourth Annual Conference, Sun Valley, Idaho,pp. 211–217.
Milman, A., Pizam, A., 1995. The role of awareness and familiarity with a destination:the Central Florida case. Journal of Travel Research 33 (3), 21–27.
Mitchell, V.W., 1999. Consumer perceived risk: conceptualizations and models.European Journal of Marketing 33 (1), 163–195.
Mitchell, V.W., 2001. Re-conceptualizing consumer store image processing usingperceived risk. Journal of Business Research 54 (2), 167–172.
Mitchell, V.W., Davies, F., Moutinho, L., Vassos, V., 1999. Using neural networks tounderstand service risk in the holiday product. Journal of Business Research 46(2), 167–181.
Mitchell, V.W., Vassos, V., 1998. Perceived risk and risk reduction in holiday pur-chases: a cross-cultural and gender analysis. Journal of Euromarketing 6 (3),47–79.
Money, R.C., Crotts, J.C., 2003. The effect of uncertainty avoidance on informa-tion search, planning and purchases of international travel vacations. TourismManagement 24 (2), 191–202.
Murray, K.B., 1991. A test of services marketing theory: consumer informationacquisition activities. The Journal of Marketing 55 (1), 10–25.
Murray, K.B., Schlacter, J.L., 1990. The impact of services versus goods on con-sumers’ assessment of perceived risk and variability. Journal of the Academyof Marketing Science 18 (1), 51–65.
Nield, K., Kozak, M., LeGrys, G., 2000. The role of food service in tourist satisfaction.Hospitality Management 19 (4), 375–384.
Okumus, B., Okumus, F., McKercher, B., 2007. Incorporating local and internationalcuisines in the marketing of tourism destinations: the cases of Hong Kong andTurkey. Tourism Management 28 (1), 253–261.
Pan, B., Fesenmaier, D.R., 2000. A typology of tourism related web sites: its theoreti-cal background and implications. Information and Communication Technologiesin Tourism 3 (3–4), 155–176.
Park, J.H., 2004. A study on guest’s word of mouth activity and repurchase respec-ting selection of tour package goods. Journal of Human Resource ManagementResearch 10, 67–80.
Park, S.W., 2004. A study on the role of information sources and involvement levelin destination image: focusing on autonomous information source and visitexperience. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Studies 16 (3), 135–152.
Park, S.H., Lee, M.A., Cha, S.M., Kwock, C.K., Yang, I.S., Kim, D.H., 2009. Analyzingforeign customers’ perceived brand image of Korea food. Korean Journal of FoodCookery Sciences 25 (6), 655–662.
Park, C.W., Lessig, V.P., 1981. Familiarity and its impact on consumer decision biasesand heuristics. Journal of Consumer Research 8 (2), 223–231.
Park, J.H., Stoel, L., 2005. Effect of brand familiarity, experience and information ononline apparel purchase. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Man-agement 33 (2), 148–160.
Pelchat, M.L., Pliner, P., 1995. “Try it. You’ll like it”. Effects of information on will-ingness to try novel foods. Appetite 24 (2), 153–165.
Pizam, A., Jafari, J., Milman, A., 1991. Influence of tourism on attributes: US studentsvisiting USSR. Tourism Management 12 (1), 47–54.
Pliner, P., 1982. The effects of mere exposure on liking for edible substances. Appetite3 (3), 283–290.
Plog, S.C., 2001. Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity: an update of aCornell quarterly classic. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly42 (3), 13–24.
Prescott, J., Young, O., O’Neill, L., Yau, N.J.N., Stevens, R., 2002. Motives for foodchoice: a comparison of consumers from Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia and NewZealand. Food Quality and Preference 13 (7–8), 489–495.
Pröll, B., Retschitzegger, W., 2000. Discovering next generation tourism infor-mation systems: a tour on TIScover. Journal of Travel Research 39 (2),182–191.
Qu, X.L., Kim, H.G., Lee, S.J., 2010. Impacts of familiarity on preference,perceived risks and tourist activities. The Korea Contents Association 10 (10),378–388.
Quan, S., Wang, N., 2004. Towards a structural model of the tourist experience:an illustration from food experiences in tourism. Tourism Management 25 (3),297–305.
Raju, P.S., 1997. Product familiarity, brand name, and price influences on productevaluation. Advances in Consumer Research 4, 64–71.
Randall, E., Sanjur, D., 1981. Food preferences: their conceptualisation and relation-ship to consumption. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 11 (3), 151–161.
Rao, A.R., Sieben, W.A., 1992. The effect of prior knowledge on price acceptabilityand the type of information examined. Journal of Consumer Research 19 (2),256–270.
Rappoport, L., Peters, G.R., Downey, R., McCann, T., Huff-Corzine, L., 1993. Genderand age difference in food cognition. Appetite 20, 33–52.
Reisinger, Y., Mavondo, F., 2006. Cultural differences in travel risk perception. Jour-nal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 20 (1), 13–31.
Reynolds, P.C., 1993. Food and tourism: towards an understanding of sustainableculture. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1 (1), 48–54.
Richards, G., 2002. Gastronomy: an essential ingredient in tourism production andconsumption? In: Hjalager, A.M., Richards, G. (Eds.), Tourism and Gastronomy.Routledge, London, pp. 3–20.
Rittichainuwat, B.N., Chakraborty, G., 2009. Perceived travel risk regarding terrorismand disease: the case of Thailand. Tourism Management 30 (3), 410–418.
omeo, J.B., 1991. The effect of negative information on the evaluations of broadextensions and the family brand. Advances in Consumer Research 18 (1),399–406.
oselius, T., 1971. Consumer rankings of risk reduction methods. Journal of Mar-keting 35 (1), 56–61.
ozin, E., Rozin, P., 1981. Culinary themes and variations. Natural History 90, 6–14.yu, K., Jang, S.C., 2006. Intention to experience local cuisine in a travel destina-
tion: the modified theory of reasoned action. Journal of Hospitality and TourismResearch 30 (4), 507–516.
yu, K., Lee, H.R., Kim, W.G., 2012. The influence of the quality of the physicalenvironment, food, and service on restaurant image, customer perceived value,customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. International Journal of Con-temporary Hospitality Management 24 (2), 200–223.
anjur, D., 1982. Social and Cultural Perspectives in Nutrition. Prentice-Hall, Engle-wood Cliffs.
eo, S.H., Ryu, K.M., 2007. Consumers’ perception on noble family’s food. KoreanJournal of Food Culture 22 (6), 783–793.
eo, S.H., Ryu, K.M., 2009. Chinese customers’ perception of Korean foods and satis-faction and revisit intentions to Korean cuisine restaurants – a focus on visitingexperience and frequency of visits. Journal of the Korean Society of DietaryCulture 24 (2), 126–136.
ims, R., 2009. Food, place and authenticity: local food and the sustainable tourismexperience. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 17 (3), 321–336.
ingapore Tourism Board Industry Assistance, LEF, 2012. Available fromhttps://app.stb.gov.sg (retrieved 27.07.12).
nepenger, D., Houser, B., Snepenger, M., 1990. Seasonality of demand. Annals ofTourism Research 17 (4), 628–630.
parks, B., 2001. Managing service failure through recovery. In: Kandampully, J.,Mok, C.C., Sparks, B. (Eds.), Service Quality Management in Hospitality, Tourismand Leisure. Haworth Press, New York, pp. 193–219.
tein, L.J., Nagai, H., Nakagawa, M., Beauchamp, G.K., 2003. Effects of repeated expo-sure and health-related information on hedonic evaluation and acceptance of a
bitter beverage. Appetite 40 (2), 119–129.
teptoe, A., Pollard, T.M., Wardl, J., 1995. Development of the motives underlyingthe selection of food: the food choice questionnaire. Appetite 25, 267–284.
till, R.R., Barnes J.H. Jr., Kooyman, M.E., 1984. Word-of-mouth communication inlow-risk product decisions. International Journal of Advertising 3 (4), 335–345.
lity Management 34 (2013) 295– 308
Tan, S.J., 1999. Strategies for reducing consumers’ risk aversion in Internet shopping.Journal of Consumer Marketing 16 (2), 163–180.
Telfer, D.J., Wall, G., 2000. Strengthening backward economic linkages: localfood purchasing by three Indonesian hotels. Tourism Geographies 2 (4),421–447.
The British Tourist Authority, Visit Britain, 2012. Available fromhttp://www.visitbritain.com (retrieved 27.07.12).
Tideswell, C., Faulkner, B., 1999. Multidimensional travel patterns of internationalvisitors to Queensland. Journal of Travel Research 37 (4), 364–374.
Tse, P., Crotts, J.C., 2005. Antecedents of novelty seeking: international visitors’propensity to experiment across Hong Kong‘s culinary traditions. Tourism Man-agement 26 (6), 965–968.
Uysal, M., McDonald, C.D., Reid, L.J., 1990. Sources of information used by inter-national visitors to US parks and natural areas. Journal of Park and RecreationAdministration 8 (1), 51–59.
Venkatesan, M., 1973. Cognitive consistency and novelty seeking. In: Ward, S.,Robertson, T.S. (Eds.), Consumer Behavior: Theoretical Sources. Prentice-Hall,Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 355–384.
Verbeke, W., López, G.P., 2005. Ethnic food attitudes and behaviour amongBelgians and Hispanics living in Belgium. British Food Journal 107 (11),823–840.
Walmsley, D.J., Young, M., 1998. Evaluative images and tourism: the use of per-sonal constructs to describe the structure of destination images. Journal of TravelResearch 36 (3), 65–69.
Wandel, M., 1994. Consumer concern about food-related health risks. British FoodJournal 96 (7), 35–40.
Ward, L.M., Russell, J.A., 1981. Cognitive set and the perception of place. Environ-ment and Behavior 13 (5), 610–632.
Woodside, A.G., Lysonski, S., 1989. A general model of traveler destination choice.Journal of Travel Research 7 (4), 8–14.
Worsley, A., Coonan, W., Baghurst, P.A., 1983. Nice, good food and us: a study ofchildren’s food beliefs. Journal of Food and Nutrition 40, 35–41.
Yang, J., Yuan, B., Hu, P., 2009. Tourism destination image and visit intention:examining the role of familiarity. Journal of China Tourism Research 5 (2),
174–187.
Yun, N.R., Seo, S.H., 2012. Scale development for brand image of Korean food. In:Lee, J.H. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the Pohang InternationalTourism Group for the Tourism Sciences Society of Korea, vol. 2. Pohang, Korea,pp. 1273–1287.
