Case study The impact of destination source credibility on destination satisfaction: The mediating effects of destination attachment and destination image Sou Veasna a, * , Wann-Yih Wu b, c , Chu-Hsin Huang a a Institute of International Management, College of Management, National Cheng Kung University, University Road 1, Tainan 701, Taiwan b Department of Business Administration, National Cheng Kung University, University Road 1, Tainan 701, Taiwan c Chinese Culture University, Taipei, Taiwan highlights graphical abstract < We develop a model to assess the tourism destination branding. < We borrow the concepts of brand credibility, image, attachment, and satisfaction. < We test the effects of destination credibility, image, and attachment on satisfaction. < We test the mediating roles of destination attachment and desti- nation image. < The results of SEM indicate that all relationships are confirmed in this study. Destination Source Credibility Destination Image Destination Attachment Destination Satisfaction =.512 (6.460) =.813(17.787) =.409 (5.097) =.521(6.897) =.332(4.976) H ,H , & H : Mediating effects =.267(4.662) =.209(3.946) Fig. Structural equation modeling (SEM) with standardized coefficients—competing model (M 2 ) article info Article history: Received 5 March 2012 Accepted 6 September 2012 Keywords: Destination source credibility Destination image Destination attachment Destination satisfaction abstract Building emotional destination attachment is a key tourism destination branding issue in today’s tourism market. The current study aims to develop and test a comprehensive theoretical model for destination branding that borrows the concepts of brand credibility, brand image, brand attachment, and satisfaction. Based on the above concepts, this article hypothesizes the relationships among four constructs, namely, destination source credibility, destination image, and destination attachment as antecedents of destination satisfaction. These relationships are examined for a sample of 398 inter- national tourists visiting a famous world heritage tourism destination (Angkor Wat) and a famous skyscraper (Taipei 101). The SEM indicates that destination source credibility and destination image could indeed affect tourist perceptions of destination satisfaction with regard to destination attachment. In addition, the mediating role of destination attachment and destination image is also confirmed in this study. The findings offer important implications for tourism management and practice. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction In consumer behavior literature, source credibility has been shown to have a direct effect on the persuasion process in a consumer recreation behavioral context (Manfredo & Bright, 1991; Pornpitakpan, 2004). It has been shown that source credi- bility can also influence consumer attitudes toward specific * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ886 97 518 4419. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected](S. Veasna), [email protected](W.-Y. Wu), [email protected](C.-H. Huang). Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Tourism Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman 0261-5177/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.09.007 Tourism Management 36 (2013) 511e526
The impact of destination source credibility on destination satisfaction: Themediating effects of destination attachment and destination image
Sou Veasna a,*, Wann-Yih Wub,c, Chu-Hsin Huang a
a Institute of International Management, College of Management, National Cheng Kung University, University Road 1, Tainan 701, TaiwanbDepartment of Business Administration, National Cheng Kung University, University Road 1, Tainan 701, TaiwancChinese Culture University, Taipei, Taiwan
Building emotional destination attachment is a key tourism destination branding issue in today’stourism market. The current study aims to develop and test a comprehensive theoretical model fordestination branding that borrows the concepts of brand credibility, brand image, brand attachment,and satisfaction. Based on the above concepts, this article hypothesizes the relationships among fourconstructs, namely, destination source credibility, destination image, and destination attachment asantecedents of destination satisfaction. These relationships are examined for a sample of 398 inter-national tourists visiting a famous world heritage tourism destination (Angkor Wat) and a famousskyscraper (Taipei 101). The SEM indicates that destination source credibility and destination imagecould indeed affect tourist perceptions of destination satisfaction with regard to destinationattachment. In addition, the mediating role of destination attachment and destination image is alsoconfirmed in this study. The findings offer important implications for tourism management andpractice.
In consumer behavior literature, source credibility has beenshown to have a direct effect on the persuasion process ina consumer recreation behavioral context (Manfredo & Bright,1991; Pornpitakpan, 2004). It has been shown that source credi-bility can also influence consumer attitudes toward specific
S. Veasna et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 511e526512
products or service brands. In the tourism literature, the sourcecredibility of destination branding is considered a vital aspect of thetourism destination marketing practice (Bianchi & Pike, 2011; Pike,2005), and it is a central cue in the decision-making process thatcan affect tourists’ overall attitudes and behavioral intentiontoward a specific destination (Kerstetter & Cho, 2004). In thepersuasive tourism literature, destination source credibility refersto changes in tourists’ beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentioncaused by a specific communication source context (Peter & Olson,2008).
Most recently, source credibility in customer behavior literatureregarding brand credibility (e.g., Erdem & Swait, 2004; Spry, Pappu,& Cornwell, 2011), store or brand image (e.g., Bian & Moutinho,2011; Lee, Lee, & Wu, 2011; Martenson, 2007; Wu, 2011), brandattachment (e.g., Bloemer & De Ruyter, 1998; Malär, Krohmer,Hoyer, & Nyffenegger, 2011; Thomson, MacInnis, & Park, 2005),and brand satisfaction (e.g., Kocyigit & Ringle, 2011; Ladhari,Souiden, & Ladhari, 2011; Lovelock & Wirthz, 2007), has beenwell-examined and defined in regard to customer perceptions ofa variety of product/service branding contexts. However, it haslargely been ignored in the tourism management literature. Forexample, only in recent studies has literature on this topicconsidered attachment and tourist/personal involvement to bepredictors of satisfaction and loyalty intentions in tourism desti-nation contexts (e.g., Hwang, Lee, & Chen, 2005; Spry et al., 2011;Yuksel, Yuksel, & Bilim, 2010). Interest in understanding themeaning that tourists attach to specific destinations can be found inresearch that has considered a variety of both domestic and inter-national tourism destinations (e.g., Prayag & Ryan, 2011;Williams &Vaske, 2003; Yuksel et al., 2010). Most recent tourism literature hasdemonstrated that the construct of destination attachment cancontribute to an understanding of the characteristics of recreationbehavior (Kyle, Graefe, Manning, & Bacon, 2003; Su, Cheng, &Huang, 2011).
Consequently, several studies have concentrated on determiningan antecedent variable to place attachment, such as activity andleisure involvement (Kyle & Mowen, 2005), tourist involvement(Hwang et al., 2005), and destination image (Prayag & Ryan, 2011).However, no studies in the tourism literature have simultaneouslyexamined the structural relationships among destination sourcecredibility, destination image, and destination attachment as ante-cedents of destination satisfaction in either world heritage orskyscraper destination contexts. For this purpose, an empirical testwas conducted in both a famous world heritage destination anda skyscraper tourism destination, in which successful destinationbranding is necessary to overcome their lack of clear antecedents ofdestination satisfaction. In particular, previous empirical studieshave largely ignored exploration of the antecedents of destinationsatisfaction with either a famous world heritage or skyscraperdestination. Thus, it is critical to identify the antecedents of desti-nation satisfaction and propose an appropriate destination brand-ing study. Our current study focuses on developing and testinga theoretical framework of destination branding, which extends theliterature on brand credibility, brand image, brand attachment, andbrand satisfaction. Specifically, the study is an attempt to fill thegaps in the literature in three ways. First, the study aims to incor-porate the existing concepts of branding with destination sourcecredibility, destination attachment, destination image, and desti-nation satisfaction studies. Second, the study brings new focus ondestination source credibility as the key antecedent of destinationsatisfaction through a mechanism of the mediation effects ofdestination attachment and destination image. It is argued thatwhile destination source credibility is an important factor influ-encing destination image and destination attachment, it is lessrecognized by destination branding scholars as compared to other
factors. Finally, this research framework provides a practical insightinto a famous world heritage location and a skyscraper in regard todestination branding. Therefore, themain purpose of this study is toevaluate a theoretical model that incorporates the constructs ofdestination source credibility, destination image, and destinationattachment as antecedents of destination satisfaction. The medi-ating effects of destination attachment and destination image forthe above-mentioned relationships are also examined in this study.
2. Theoretical background and hypotheses development
2.1. The effects of destination source credibility (DSC)
A comprehensive source credibility model was proposed in themarketing field by Ohanian (1990), who worked from Hovland,Janis, and Kelley’s research (1953). The concepts of source andbrand credibility have emerged from brand signaling theory(Erdem & Swait, 1998). It has been suggested that truthfulness incredible sources is likely to exert a persuasive effect on customeropinions (Guido, Pino, & Frangipane, 2011). Most recent researchhas turned attention to this dimension in order to deepen anunderstanding of consumers’ perception of brands (e.g., Guidoet al., 2011; Sweeney & Swait, 2008). However, this phenomenonhas been mostly ignored with regard to an exploration of tourismdestinations.
Following previous literature, we define destination sourcecredibility as the believability that the destination management iswilling and capable of delivering on its promises related toa specific destination. It has been suggested that destination sourcecredibility can build destination image (Erdem & Swait, 2004; Spryet al., 2011). In this sense, destination source credibility can becreated and shaped by higher destination branding investmentsover time through all practices and aspects of marketing commu-nication, such as destination image advertising (Baek, Kim, & Yu,2010). In general, destination source credibility representsa tourism agency’s ability to affect tourists’ beliefs about the val-idity of their assertions (Ohanian, 1990).
Source credibility fora tourismdestination is critical todeterminethe extent to which a tourist perceives the claims made abouta destination to be truthful and believable (Phau & Ong, 2007).Credible destination sourceswill enjoy lower information-gatheringand information-processing costs and also will experience lowerperceived risk. Furthermore, higher destination source credibilitycan increase tourists’ positive perceptions regarding destinationimage (Aaker & Keller, 1990; Erdem, Swait, & Louviere, 2002; Graeff,1996; Pitta & Katsanis, 1995). This study proposes that a crediblesources for tourismdestinationsare important, and theyarebelievedto contribute to building destination image (Erdem et al., 2002; Spryet al., 2011). Similarly, it has been found that credible destinationsources will increase positive perceptions of an image towarda destination (Grace & O’Cass, 2005; Murray, 1991). The consider-ation of source credibility in the context of destination imagesuggests that it may influence the image of a destination dependingon the credibility source that is conveyed (Glover, 2009). The keycharacteristics of destination source credibility include the creationof symbolism, image, and tourist beliefs and attitudes (Meenaghan,1995). Based on this rationale, the following hypothesis is predicted:
Hypothesis 1. Destination source credibility has a positive influ-ence on destination image.
Credible tourist information has been shown to have animportant influence on the selection of destinations (Molina &Esteban, 2006). According to the theory of self-congruity, thehigher the self-concept and destination source credibility, thegreater its power to create a kind of self-image toward the
S. Veasna et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 511e526 513
destination (Beerli, Meneses, & Gil, 2007; Sirgy & Su, 2000).Research on this topic has suggested that a tourism destinationwillbe more likely to be chosen if the destination image is attached tothe tourist’s self-image (Beerli et al., 2007; Glover, 2009). Therefore,destination source credibility has been found to play an importantrole in building tourists’ feelings and attitudes toward destinations(Rajagopal, 2006). In psychology, attachment is considered to be anemotional linkage between a person and a specific object (Bowlby,1979). In the marketing literature, it has been shown thatcustomers can build emotionally charged relationships with brands(Fournier, 1998). Therefore, destination attachment is defined asa set of positive beliefs and emotional linkages of an individual toa particular tourism destination (Williams, Patterson, Roggenbuck,& Watson, 1992; Yuksel et al., 2010). Tourists become attached toa specific destination when the destination sources are viewed asreliable and credible. Credible destination sources are associatedwith tourists’ beliefs and attitudes toward the decision makingprocesses related to choosing a specific destination (Ekinci, Dawes,& Massey, 2008; Yasin, Noor, & Mohamad, 2007). Thus, thefollowing hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 2. Destination source credibility has a positive influ-ence on destination attachment.
2.2. The effects of destination image (DIM)
The image of a destination is a key concept related to under-standing tourists’ destination selection processes (Baloglu &Brinberg, 1997). Destination image can be facilitated by thestrengths of a destination in the eyes of potential visitors (Augustyn& Ho, 1998; Hui, Wan, & Ho, 2007). Many studies have definedtourism image as an individual’s overall perception of a destination(Alhemoud & Armstrong, 1996; Bigné, Sánchez, & Sánchez, 2001),and it has been identified as an important element in traveldecision-making (e.g., Um & Crompton, 1990; Woodside, Frey, &Daly, 1989). Destination image is associated with a subjectiveinterpretation of tourists’ feelings and beliefs toward a specificdestination (Baloglua & McClearyb, 1999; Bigné et al., 2001).Destination image is a key determinant influencing tourists’ atti-tudes toward the destination (Oh, 1999; Yoon & Uysal, 2005). It canbe argued that destination image is an antecedent of destinationattachment (Prayag & Ryan, 2011). Therefore, it is expected thata more favorable destination imagewill lead to a stronger cognitiveattachment to a given destination. Based on this rationale, thefollowing hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 3. Destination image has a positive influence ondestination attachment.
Theoretical models of a mediating effect of destination imagehave not been well-constructed on the basis of causal relationshipsthat simply have not existed in the literature on tourism manage-ment. Mediation effects occur when one part represents the rela-tion of the exogenous variables to the mediator and when anotherpart represents the relation of the mediator to the endogenousvariables (MacKinnon & Cox, 2012). As was discussed earlier,destination image and its effect, by creating tourist perceptions ofdestination attachment toward a specific tourism destination, maycause them to form a destination image through destination sourcecredibility. According to brand signal theory, when tourists trustcredible destination sources, this factor is likely to exert a persua-sive effect on their opinions about destination image. The congruityof self-concept with destination attachment, in which a mentalrepresentation refers to the match between destination images,plays an important role in tourist behavior since it constitutesa basic mechanism by which individuals base the credibility ofdestination sources provided by any tourism agent. From the
mediation aspect, we posit that destination source credibility mayenhance tourist perceptions of destination image, which in turnmay positively impact the likelihood of destination attachment.Based on this rationale, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 4. Destination image mediates the relationshipbetween destination source credibility and destination attachment.
2.3. The effects of destination attachment
In the consumer behavior literature, satisfaction is defined asconsumer fulfillment responses to attitudes that include suchthings as judgments following a purchase or a series of consumerproduct interactions (Lovelock &Wirthz, 2007). Satisfaction is “oneof the objectives of marketing activity, linking the processes ofpurchasing and consumption with post-purchase phenomena”(Kandampully & Suhartanto, 2003, p. 9). In the tourism literature,destination satisfaction refers to the emotional state reflected ina tourist’s post-exposure assessment of a destination (Baker &Crompton, 2000; Su et al., 2011). Recently, some researchers havesuggested that an individual customer who is satisfied with a brandmight have an emotional attachment to that brand (Thomson et al.,2005). By borrowing these concepts, we expect that destinationsource credibility will result in destination satisfaction as long astourists have a strong emotional attachment to the destination.Similarly, Hosany, Ekinci, and Uysal (2006) proposed that credibledestination sources will be formed when the evaluations of desti-nation and levels of satisfaction are positive, which includesa strong emotional attachment to the destination. That is, a credibledestination source can result in positive destination satisfaction ifthe development of destination attachment is successful (Esch,Langner, Schmitt, & Geus, 2006). Hence, it is suggested that thehigher the level of destination source credibility, the higher will bethe level of tourist satisfaction toward a destination. Based on theabove rationale, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 5. Destination attachment mediates the relationshipbetween destination source credibility and destination satisfaction.
Some scholars have argued that brand image has a positiveimpact on brand satisfaction (e.g., Bloemer & De Ruyter, 1998; Eschet al., 2006; Lai, Griffin, & Babin, 2009; Martenson, 2007).However, this relationship has rarely been examined in the tourismcontext. Loureiro and González (2008) proposed that a positiveimageof a destinationwill increase tourist’s level of satisfactionwithregard to choosing that destination. Therefore, it can be concludedthat destination image has a positive impact on satisfaction and thata more favorable image of a destination will lead to higher touristsatisfaction (Chi & Qu, 2008). Accordingly, the greater the influenceof destination image on destination satisfaction, themore likely thatitwill be that the tourist has a favorable attitude toward the object ofthat attachment, which results in a higher level of satisfaction witha specific destination (Murphy, Benckendorff, &Moscardo, 2007). Intourism literature, the theory of self-congruity explains that iftourists have higher levels of self-image attached to a destination,they will also have higher levels of satisfaction (Chon, 1992). Inmediation concepts, we assume that the image of a destination isa critical factor influencing destination attachment, which in turn islikely to result in a higher level of satisfaction. Therefore, it is sug-gested that if the perceived images of a destination are highlyfavorable, the level of tourist satisfaction toward the destination asa result of destination attachment will also be high.
Hypothesis 6. Destination attachment mediates the relationshipbetween destination image and destination satisfaction.
Recently, an integrative concept of place attachment has createda great deal of attention in tourism research. Previous studies have
Table 1Characteristics of samples.
Frequency Percent (%)
CountryEurope 126 31.7The West 133 33.4Asia 139 34.9
GenderMale 176 44.2Female 222 55.8
Age (years old)Less than 26 46 11.626e30 103 25.931e34 107 26.936e40 83 20.941e45 35 8.8More than 45 24 6.0
Information sourcesNational geographic channel 51 12.81Tourism magazines and agents 135 33.92
S. Veasna et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 511e526514
developed a framework by which to investigate the relationshipsbetween place attachment and satisfaction for both domestic andinternational visitors (e.g., Hwang et al., 2005; Prayag & Ryan, 2011;Yuksel et al., 2010). The empirical results have asserted that thenature of place attachment impacts satisfaction (Fleury-Bahi,Félonneau, & Marchand, 2008). Lee, Graefe, and Burns (2007)proposed that satisfaction with a destination could lead toa sense of place attachment. However, there is a lack of sufficientstudies on the link between destination attachment and tourists’perceptions of destination satisfaction in the context of the tourismliterature. Therefore, it is asserted in this study that tourist satis-faction with destinations is relatively dependent on the nature ofthe destination attachment. Based on this rationale, the followinghypothesis is predicted:
Hypothesis 7. The level of tourist perceptions of destinationattachment has a direct and significant influence on destinationsatisfaction.
Recommended from friends 69 17.34e-tourism channels 61 15.33More than above two sources 82 20.60
EducationSenior high school 15 3.8College 132 33.2University 168 42.2Graduate school 83 20.9
Income (USD/month)500e1000 113 28.41001e1500 180 45.21501e2500 72 18.12501e3500 25 6.3More than 3500 8 2.0
Traveling experienceLess than 2 countries 51 12.82e3 countries 87 21.94e5 countries 90 22.6More than 5 countries 170 42.7Total 398 100.0
2.4. Conceptual model
Based on the above literature and hypotheses development, theresearch model for this study is shown in Fig. 1. Overall, the presentmodel is expected to contribute to an understanding of howdestination source credibility and destination image influenceinternational tourist perceptions regarding both destinationattachment and satisfaction.
3. Methodology
3.1. Measurement scales
Six items of destination source credibility (a ¼ .93) were oper-ationalized from brand credibility, as developed by Erdem andSwait (2004). Seven items of destination image (a ¼ .816) andeight items of emotional destination attachment (a ¼ .877) wereadopted from Prayag and Ryan (2011). Five items of destinationsatisfaction (a ¼ .89) were operationalized from Westbrook andOliver (1981). An English version of the questionnaire items wasused and measured based on a 7 point Likert scale (i.e., from1 ¼ strongly disagree to 7 ¼ strongly agree).
3.2. Control variables
Most recent studies on tourism destination have largelyignored an investigation of control variables in their researchmodels (Prayag & Ryan, 2011; Su et al., 2011; Tsai, 2012; Yukselet al., 2010). Thus, two control variables were included in this
Destination Source
Credibility
Destination Image
DestinaAttachm
H1
H3
H2H5
H6
H4
H4, H5, & H6: Medi
Fig. 1. Proposed framework of de
study: (1) the traveling experience of tourists, and (2) educa-tional background, in order to control the structural model.These variables were designed because it is expected thattourists’ level of education and traveling experience are keyinformation related to how they evaluate and make destinationselections in terms of destination source credibility and desti-nation image.
3.3. Study site
Two tourist spots were selected for study sites, i.e.,Angkor (World Heritage SitedCambodia) and Taipei 101
tion ent
Destination SatisfactionH7
ating effects
stination source credibility.
S. Veasna et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 511e526 515
(skyscraperdTaiwan). Two destinations were chosen in order toprovide opportunity to validate whether international tourists havedifferent perceptions in different destinations.
Tourism is the second largest contributor to the Cambodianeconomy, after the garment industry. Income from tourismcurrently accounts for US$832 million to US$1594 million, orabout 13e16 percent of the GDP in the Kingdom of Cambodia,and this industry provides over 250,000 jobs (Chheang, 2008).As a famous world heritage tourism destination, Angkor wasstill continuing to grow in 2010, at which time internationalvisitors peaked at 2,508,289, an increase of 13.82 percentcompared to 2,161,577 in 2009 (Minstry of Tourism, 2010).Angkor was chosen as the site of this study primarily for tworeasons. First, Angkor is one of the most important archaeo-logical sites in Southeast Asia and also one of the most famous ofseven world heritage tourism sites (UNESCO, 2012). Second, theAngkor area includes the famous Temple of Angkor Wat, AngkorThom, and the Bayon Temple, with its countless sculpturaldecorations.
Fig. 2. The results of first-order CFA. Note: DSC ¼ destination source credibility; DIM ¼ d
According to the Tourism Bureau (2012), the tourism industryin Taiwan continued to grow in 2011, with international visitorsnumbering 9,583,873, an increase of 1.79 percent compared to9,415,074 in 2010. This is attributed to Taipei 101, with itsreputation as the tallest building in the world, which ishelping to write Taiwan’s modern history (Tourism Bureau,2006). Thus, Taipei 101 was chosen as one of the two sites forthis study.
3.4. Sampling design and data collection
International tourists older than 18 from European, Western,and Asian countries who visited Angkor and Taipei 101 wereconsidered as the target study population. To ensure that appro-priate respondents were included in this study, a sampling planwasused as proposed by Bowerman, O’Connell, and Orris (2004), andthe following formula illustrates how the sample size was selected.N ¼ pð1� pÞðZa=2=BÞ2, where N equals the sample size; Za/2equals the confidence level, and B equals the error tolerance. As
estination image; DATT ¼ destination attachment; DISAT ¼ destination satisfaction.
Fig. 3. The results of second-order CFA for overall model. Note: DSC ¼ destinationsource credibility; DIM ¼ destination image; DATT ¼ destination attachment;DISAT ¼ destination satisfaction.
S. Veasna et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 511e526516
suggested by Bowerman et al. (2004), p should be .5 in terms ofacquiring a normal distribution; Za/2 should be 1.96 by setting theconfidence interval at .05, and B (error bond or error tolerance)should be .07 (7%). Thus, the sample sizes of each destination in thisstudy should be at least 196 respondents. Similarly, structuralequation modeling requires a minimum of 200 respondents foreffective parameter estimation (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson,2010).
A two stage sampling approach was used in this study. First,convenience sampling (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2007) anda self-administered questionnaire method were both adopted inorder to distribute questionnaires to international tourists at bothdestinations during the summer of 2011 and winter of 2012,respectively. Second, purposive sampling was also adopted toscreen international visitors who had experience traveling to bothdestinations who were invited to participate in the survey. Eachindividual respondent was allowed to compare the destinationperceptions between the two destinations under consideration.Then, questionnaires were directly handed out to the visitors afterit was ensured that each tourist had visited both destinations. Toexpress our appreciation, each participant received a key chain asa souvenir gift following completion of the questionnaire in orderto ensure completion of the questionnaire items. A total of 537questionnaires were distributed at the above referenced twodestinations, and 485 were returned. However, 78 questionnaireshad to be excluded as outliers. The outliers were deleted using thegraphic method, with a residual scatter plot in the range of �3standard deviation (Hair et al., 2010). A total of 398 valid ques-tionnaires were determined to be usable (i.e., 213 questionnairesfor Angkor and 185 for Taipei 101, respectively) for further valida-tion. The effective response rate was (398/537) 74.12 percent. Assuggested by Saunders et al. (2007), given that the likely responserate for “hand-delivered” questionnaires has been found to rangebetween 30% and 50%, this response rate was viewed as adequate.The mean score for each questionnaire item was determined asanswered by individual tourists, and the results for Angkor andTaipei 101 were averaged for further analyses.
3.5. Data analysis
In order to integrate the data set collected from both tourismdestinations, a t-test statistic was conducted to test the statisticalsignificant differences between the two group destinations. Then,confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equationmodeling(SEM) were utilized to test the conceptual model. The data wasprocessed with the statistical package SPSS 19 and AMOS 20.
4. Results
4.1. Characteristic of samples
About 56 percent of the respondents were female, and the age ofthe respondents ranged between 26 and over 45. The majority ofthe respondents were from Europe (31.7%), the West (33.4%), andAsia (34.9%). This reflected the distribution of foreign visitors toboth destinations. About 43 percent of the respondents have visitedmore five countries. More details regarding the sample are shownin Table 1.
4.2. The results of t-test
The t-test statistic was conducted to investigate significantdifferences between the two destinations (Angkor Wat and Taipei101). The cut-off value for the t-value should be greater than 1.96and should have a significance level at a p-value (sig.) less than .05
(p < .05). The results indicated that only destination source credi-bility (t ¼ 2.037, p ¼ .027, p < .05) had partially significant differ-ences. This may indicate that source credibility could be a criticalfactor for tourist destination selection. The differences for the otherthree research constructs were insignificant in terms of destinationimage (t ¼ .015, p ¼ .904), destination attachment (t ¼ .666,p ¼ .415), and destination satisfaction (t ¼ 1.898, p ¼ .169). There-fore, the two sets of samples could be integrated into a single dataset for further analyses (Hair et al., 2010).
4.3. Reliability test
Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) procedure was adopted to assessthe convergent and construct validity of the measurement model. Afirst order-factor model was adopted to examine four individualconstructs, as presented in Fig. 2. The results indicated that stan-dardized loading for all items exceeded .70 and that t-values werehigher than 1.96 (p < .001), which satisfied the threshold as rec-ommended by Hair et al. (2010). A second order CFA was thenconducted to examine the overall fit of the measurement model(see Fig. 3 and Table 2). The results showed the overall goodness-of-fit assessment for second-order CFA to be (see Table 2):
S. Veasna et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 511e526 517
c2/df ¼ (379.722/231) ¼ 1.644; GFI¼ .927; AGFI ¼ .905; NFI ¼ .962;CFI ¼ .985; RMR ¼ .031; RMSEA ¼ .040. The results indicated thatall correlation coefficients among the research constructs were lessthan .90, thus demonstrating the research model could be pre-sented as a good model fit with adequate convergent validity andconstruct reliability (e.g., Gerbing & Anderson, 1992; Hair et al.,2010; Kline, 2011; Lu, Lai, & Cheng, 2007).
Taking into consideration the characteristics of the data collec-tion process were from single sources of tourist perceptions,common method variance might be of concern (Podsakoff,MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Convergent validity wasdemonstrated, as the average variance extracted (AVE) values for allconstructs were higher than the suggested threshold value of .50(Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Discriminant validity was determined bycomparing the square root of the AVE with the Pearson correlationsamong the constructs. All AVE estimates from Table 2 can be seen tobe greater than the corresponding inter-construct square correla-tion estimates in Table 3b. Based on these results, it seems thatcommon method bias is unlikely to be a problem with regard tothe data (Chin, 1988; Gefen, Straub, & Boudreau, 2000) (Tables 3aand 4).
4.4. Structural model
Table 5 and Fig. 6 provide a summary of the structural modeland results used to test the research hypotheses. We controlled fortravel experience and education in the structural model test. Theresults indicated that tourist traveling experience had a significantcontribution with regard to explaining destination source
Table 2Results of confirmatory factor analysis.
Research variables
Destination source credibility (DSC)scpm6 Information claims from (X)/(Y) are believable.scpm5 Over time, my experiences with (X)/(Y) led me
to expect it to keep its promises.scpm4 (X)/(Y) is committed to delivering on its claims.scpm3 (X)/(Y) has a name you can trust.scpm2 (X)/(Y) has the ability to deliver what it promises.scpm1 (X)/(Y) delivers (or would deliver) what it promises.Destination image (DIM)dim5 Reputation of the (X)/(Y).dim4 Accessibility of the destination.dim3 Variety and quality of accommodations.dim2 Cultural diversity.dim1 Cultural and historical attractions.dim6 Exoticness of the place.dim7 General level of service.Destination attachment (DATT)datt6 (X)/(Y) is the best place for what I like to do on holidays.datt5 I am very attached to this holiday destination.datt4 Holidaying in (X)/(Y) means a lot to me.datt3 No other place can provide the same holiday experience as (X)/(Y).datt2 I identify strongly with this destination.datt1 (X)/(Y) is a very special destination to me.datt7 Holidaying here is more important to me than holidaying in
other places.datt8 I would not substitute any other destination for the types of
things that I did during my holidays in (X)/(Y).Destination satisfaction (DISAT)Disat5 I am sure it was the right thing to be a tourist in (X)/(Y).Disat4 Using (X)/(Y) has been a good experience.Disat3 I feel good about my decision to visit (X)/(Y).Disat2 I have truly enjoyed (X)/(Y).Disat1 I am satisfied with my decision to visit (X)/(Y).
c2/df ¼ (379.722/231) ¼ 1.644; GFI ¼ .927; AGFI ¼ .905; NFI ¼ .962; CFI ¼ .985; RMR ¼Note: ***p < .001 and they were significant at a t-value >1.96. A regression weight was fi(X) ¼ Angkor Wat; (Y) ¼ Taipei 101.
credibility (b ¼ .367; t ¼ 7.258; p < .001) and destination image(b ¼ .105; t ¼ 3.353; p < .001), respectively. Tourist educationalbackgrounds also had a significant impact on destination sourcecredibility (b ¼ .214; t ¼ 4.306; p < .001) and destination image(b ¼ .109; t ¼ 3.660; p < .001), respectively. Therefore, we assumethat travel experience and education provide critical knowledge fortourists by which they can evaluate their destination selectionprocess through credible destination sources provided from desti-nation/tourist agents. Similarly, it is suggested that the higher thelevel of tourist perceptions of travel experience and the moreeducation they have, the higher will be their level of decisionmaking with regard to their choices of a specific destination.
Structural equation modeling (SEM) was applied to test themaximum likelihood estimate method and research hypotheses.The results showed (see Fig. 6 and Table 5) that c2 ¼ 430.764;df ¼ 269; GFI ¼ .923; AGFI ¼ .900; RMR ¼ .030, and all of thesesatisfied the threshold as suggested by Hair et al. (2010). Thesignificance of b values as shown in Table 5 further suggests thatdestination source credibility has a positive effect on destinationimage (gH1 ¼ .813; p < .001; t ¼ 17.787) and attachment(gH2 ¼ .521; p < .001; t ¼ 6.897). Therefore, Hypotheses 1 and 2were supported, respectively. Table 5 also shows that destinationimage had a positive influence on destination attachment(bH3 ¼ .409; p < .001; t ¼ 5.097) and that destination attachmenthad a positive influence on destination satisfaction (bH7 ¼ .512;p< .001; t¼ 6.460). Therefore, Hypotheses 3 and 7were supported,respectively.
There are many statistical methods to test mediation effects,such as hierarchical regression (Baron & Kenny, 1986) and SEM
**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).Average Variance Extracted (AVE) appears as bold numbers along the diagonal.Values in parentheses are square correlations between two constructs.DSC¼ Destination source credibility; DIM¼ Destination image; DATT¼ Destinationattachment; DISAT ¼ Destination satisfaction.
S. Veasna et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 511e526 519
(Hair et al., 2010). Ro (2012) reported that out of a total of 572refereed articles from the International Journal of HospitalityManagement (IJHM), 75 percent of the mediation hypotheses weretested using SEM, indicating it to be the preferred method. Char-acterized by exceptionally detailed and practitioner orientedsummary of mediation issues, the Soble test is associated with bestpractices, especially in regard to structural equation models(Feinberg, 2012; Fiedler, Schott, & Meiser, 2011; Kong, Cheung, &Song, 2012; Ro, 2012; Woody, 2011). Thus, the Sobel test wasadopted for this study. To test the mediating effects of destinationattachment and destination image as proposed by this study, theSobel’s statistical procedure test involves two phases. First, there issignificant mediated effect if the z-test exceeds t-value ¼ j1.96j for2-tailed tests with a ¼ .05 (Iacobucci, 2012; Sobel, 1982; Zhao,Lynch, & Chen, 2010). According to Hair et al. (2010), and
Table 4Results of mean and standard deviation of items.
Research variables
Destination source credibility (DSC)scpm6 Information claims from (X)/(Y) are believable.scpm5 Over time, my experiences with (X)/(Y) led me to expect it to keep itsscpm4 (X)/(Y) is committed to delivering on its claims.scpm3 (X)/(Y) has a name you can trust.scpm2 (X)/(Y) has the ability to deliver what it promises.scpm1 (X)/(Y) delivers (or would deliver) what it promises.Destination image (DIM)dim5 Reputation of the (X)/(Y).dim4 Accessibility of the destination.dim3 Variety and quality of accommodations.dim2 Cultural diversity.dim1 Cultural and historical attractions.dim6 Exoticness of the place.dim7 General level of service.Destination attachment (DATT)datt6 (X)/(Y) is the best place for what I like to do on holidays.datt5 I am very attached to this holiday destination.datt4 Holidaying in (X)/(Y) means a lot to me.datt3 No other place can provide the same holiday experience as (X)/(Y).datt2 I identify strongly with this destination.datt1 (X)/(Y) is a very special destination to me.datt7 Holidaying here is more important to me than holidaying in other placdatt8 I would not substitute any other destination for the types of things thaDestination satisfaction (DISAT)Disat5 I am sure it was the right thing to be a tourist in (X)/(Y).Disat4 Using (X)/(Y) has been a good experience.Disat3 I feel good about my decision to visit (X)/(Y).Disat2 I have truly enjoyed (X)/(Y).Disat1 I am satisfied with my decision to visit (X)/(Y).
Note: A-7 point Likert measurement was used.
MacKinnon, Warsi, and Dwyer (1995), the indirect effect wascalculated using the following formula: indirect effect ¼ a � b(where a is the path coefficient of the relationship between theindependent and the mediator variables, and b is the path coeffi-cient of the relationship between the mediator and the dependentvariables) (cf., Kong et al., 2012). Second, the significance level ofthe z-test was computed using the Sobel test, as follows:
z ¼ a� b=ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffib2SE2a þ a2SE2a
q, where SEa is the standard error (SE) of
the relationship between the independent and the mediator vari-ables, and SEb is the standard error (SE) of the relationship betweenthe mediator and the dependent variables (see Iacobucci, 2012).
As shown in Table 5, the z-test for destination sourcecredibility / destination image / destination attachment(gH4 ¼ .332; z-test ¼ 4.976; p < .001), which showed that the medi-ating effect of destination image on the relationship between desti-nation source credibility and destination attachment was confirmedin Hypothesis 4. Destination source credibility / destinationattachment / destination satisfaction (gH5 ¼ .267; z-test ¼ 4.662;p < .001), which indicated that the mediating role of destinationattachment for the influence of destination source credibilityon destination satisfaction was significant. Therefore, Hypothesis5 was supported. Furthermore, the z score for destinationimage / destination attachment / destination satisfaction(gH6 ¼ .209; z-test ¼ 3.946; p < .001), which indicated that themediating effects of destination attachment for the influence ofdestination image on destination satisfaction was significant. There-fore, Hypothesis 6 was supported.
To further confirm the results of the Sobel’s test, the competingmodel was adopted to compare the proposed theoretical model(MT) (see Fig. 4), which offers a better explanation than the twoalternative models (see Figs. 5 and 6), respectively. In this study,two alternative models were proposed (see Figs. 5 and 6): M1 andM2. M1 added the path between ‘destination image and ‘destination
Hypothesis 2: DSC / DATT .521*** .072 6.897Hypothesis 3: DIM / DATT .409*** .079 5.097Hypothesis 5-1: DSC / DISAT .225** .089 2.566Hypothesis 6-1: DIM / DISAT .183 .098 1.946Hypothesis 7: DATT / DISAT .512*** .084 6.460
Mediating effects z-testa p (Sig.)Hypothesis 4: DSC / DIM / DATT .332*** (a ¼ .813 � b ¼ .409); SEa ¼ .045; SEb ¼ .079 4.976*** <.001Hypothesis 5: DSC / DATT / DISAT .267*** (a ¼ .521 � b ¼ .512); SEa ¼ .072; SEb ¼ .084 4.662*** <.001Hypothesis 6: DIM / DATT / DISAT .209*** (a ¼ .409 � b ¼ .512); SEa ¼ .079; SEb ¼ .084 3.946*** <.001
Note: ***p < .001, **p < .01 and significant level at t-value >1.96.a Mediation was tested via a z-test, which calculated using the Sobel’s (1982) approach, as provided: z ¼ ab=SEab , while SEab ¼
coefficient for the relationship between the independent and the mediator variables; b is the regression coefficient for the relationship between the mediator and thedependent variables; SEa is the standard error of the relationship between the independent and the mediator variables, and SEb is the standard error of the relationshipbetween the mediator and the dependent variables.
Fig. 4. The results of structural equation modeling (SEM) with standardized coefficients (MT). Note: DSC ¼ destination source credibility; DIM ¼ destination image;DATT ¼ destination attachment; DISAT ¼ destination satisfaction; and PI ¼ personal information of respondents (i.e., travel experience and educational background), whichassigned as control variable.
S. Veasna et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 511e526520
Fig. 5. The results of structural equation modeling (SEM) with standardized coefficients (M1). Note: DSC ¼ destination source credibility; DIM ¼ destination image;DATT ¼ destination attachment; DISAT ¼ destination satisfaction; and PI ¼ personal information of respondents (i.e., travel experience and educational background), whichassigned as control variable.
S. Veasna et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 511e526 521
satisfaction.’ M2 further added another path between ‘destinationsource credibility’ and ‘destination satisfaction.’
The sequential Chi-square (c2) difference tests (SCDTs) wereperformed to assess whether there were significant differences inestimated construct covariances explained by the three structuralmodels (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1996). The c2 difference examines thenull hypotheses of no significant difference between two nestedstructural models (denoted as M1 � MT ¼ 0 and M1 � M2 ¼ 0). Thedifference between c2 statistic values (Dc2) for nested models isitself asymptotically distributed as c2, with degrees of freedomequal to the difference in degrees of freedom for the two models(Ddf). If the null hypothesis is upheld, the more constrained modelof the two will be tentatively accepted. The c2 difference betweenMT and M1 (Dc2: 453.885 � 437.028 ¼ 16.857, Ddf ¼ 1), whichsuggested that M1 performed significantly better than the theo-retical model MT, and the c2 difference between M1 and M2(437.028 � 430.764 ¼ 6.264, Ddf ¼ 1) suggested that M2 performedsignificantly better than M1.
The results of the c2 difference tests favor the competing modelM2, as opposed to the proposed theoretical model MT and the alter-native model M1 (saturatedmodel). The causal relationship between‘destination image’ and ‘destination satisfaction’ (Hypothesis 6-1)was found to be significant (gH6-1 ¼ .329; p < .001; t ¼ 4.214), asshown in the competing model M1. In addition, we further added
another path (see competingmodelM2) between ‘destination sourcecredibility’ and ‘destination satisfaction’. The results showed that thecausal relationship between ‘destination image’ and ‘destinationsatisfaction’ was not significant (gH6-1 ¼ .182; p > .05; t ¼ 1.946),whereas the causal path from ‘destination source credibility’ to‘destination satisfaction’ was partially significant (gH5-1 ¼ .225;p< .01; t¼ 2.566). Thus, the direct influence of ‘destination image’ on‘destination satisfaction’was significant, as the competingmodel M1
proposed. This relationship could be theoretically justified becausetourists’ image of a destination could directly lead to their satisfactionwith that destination. The findings supported the full mediation roleof ‘destination attachment’ on the relationship between ‘destinationimage’ and ‘destination satisfaction’, which supported Hypothesis 6.In similar findings, ‘destination attachment’ partially mediated therelationship between destination source credibility and destinationsatisfaction, which supported Hypothesis 5.
In the results shown in Table 5, a set of goodness-of-fit measureswere also compared to determine which of the three models hadthe best model fit. The fit indices such as the GFI, AGFI, CFI, NFI, andRMR for the three competing models were almost identical, indi-cating that the three competing models achieved approximatelythe same level of model fit (Chi & Qu, 2008; Kline, 2011). We thusconcluded that the competing model M2 could be retained andadopted for computing the Sobel’s test procedure.
Fig. 6. The results of structural equation modeling (SEM) with standardized coefficients (M2). Note: DSC ¼ destination source credibility; DIM ¼ destination image;DATT ¼ destination attachment; DISAT ¼ destination satisfaction; and PI ¼ personal information of respondents (i.e., travel experience and educational background), whichassigned as control variable.
Table 6Standardized path coefficients of comparing structural modelsdTwo group results.
Hypotheses/path Angkor Wat (N ¼ 213) Taipei 101(N ¼ 185)
Note: ***p < .001, **p < .01 and significant level at t-value >1.96 and z-test >1.96.DSC ¼ Destination source credibility; DIM ¼ Destination image; DATT ¼ Destination attachment; DISAT ¼ Destination satisfaction.
S. Veasna et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 511e526522
S. Veasna et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 511e526 523
In order to validate weather tourists have different perceptionsin regard to destinations, the two tourism destinations (i.e., AngkorWatdN ¼ 213 and Taipei 101dN ¼ 185) were divided into twogroups for the purpose of analyses. To test whether these valueswere statistically significant, chi-square difference tests using SEMfor both groups were conducted. As shown in Table 6, the chi-square test indicated that there is no significant differencebetween both groups. Therefore, we concluded that tourists had nodifferent perceptions of both destinations. We also argue that ourresearch framework can be applied for validating in multipledestination contexts.
5. Discussion and conclusions
Along with an increasing awareness toward the importance ofdestination image, it is also important to know that touristsperceive destination image differently in terms of the destinationattraction. This study extends brand marketing literature (i.e.,brand credibility, image, attachment, and satisfaction) to investi-gate key consequences of destination source credibility and ante-cedents of destination satisfaction through the mechanismvariables of destination attachment and image. The effects ofdestination source credibility on destination image and destinationattachment are confirmed by this study (gH1 ¼ .813; p < .001;t ¼ 17.787 and gH2 ¼ .521; p < .001; t ¼ 6.897). Conceptually, theserelationships have mostly been ignored with regard to empiricaltesting; thus, this study may lack the evidence by which to achieveconfirmation.
Furthermore, the findings of this study confirm that destinationimage has a significant influence on destination attachment(bH3 ¼ .409; p< .001; t¼ 5.097). The results of this study are also inline with only a few empirical studies. For example, Prayag andRyan (2011) reported that destination image had a positive effecton international tourists’ place attachment to Mauritius Island, andthis has also been confirmed among domestic tourists visitinga cultural site in Taiwan (Hou, Lin, & Morais, 2005).
The prediction of a relationship between destination attach-ment and destination satisfaction is confirmed in this study(bH7 ¼ .512; p < .001; t ¼ 6.460). This finding is in line with a fewempirical studies (e.g., Fleury-Bahi et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2007;Prayag & Ryan, 2011; Yuksel et al., 2010). From the brand attach-ment and satisfaction literature, we can assume that this relation-ship is validated and generalized by the current findings. Accordingto Sobel’s test, the relationship between destination source anddestination attachment can be partially mediated by destinationimage, which supports Hypothesis 4. Similar findings of this study,the relationship between destination source credibility and desti-nation satisfaction can be partially mediated by destinationattachment, which supports Hypothesis 5. In addition, the rela-tionship between destination image and destination satisfactioncan be fully mediated by destination attachment, which supportsHypothesis 6. Since previous studies have mostly ignored theserelationships, the findings of this study are unique.
In summary, the literature on brand credibility, image, attach-ment, and satisfaction were both confirmed and extended by thisstudy, and it can be applied to an integration research frameworkon tourism branding and destination context. It is suggested thatbrand signal theory can be applied for developing a theoreticalmodel of destination source credibility and destination brandingwhich establish a positive and strong destination image to attractpotential tourists to visit or revisit the destinations. Intuitively, ifa tourist has more emotional attachment to a destination, he or sheshould derive more satisfaction from the destination experience.Furthermore, the results of the competing model procedure (seeFig. 6 and Table 5) indicate a direct relationship between
destination source credibility and destination satisfaction to bepartially significant (gH5-1 ¼ .225; p < .01; t ¼ 2.566), while therelationship between destination image and destination satisfac-tionwas not found to be significant (gH6-1¼ .182; p> .05; t¼ 1.946).Thus, we suspect that other variables such as destination effect(Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001), perceived destination quality andperceived risk (Baek et al., 2010), as well as country of origin(country image) may moderate the direct influence of destinationsource credibility on destination satisfaction, as well as the influ-ence of destination image on destination satisfaction. For example,tourist perceptions of the perceived risk of traveling to a destina-tion may moderate the relationship between destination sourcecredibility and destination satisfaction in such a way that therelationships are stronger for those who are have a lower, ratherthan a higher level of perceived risk with regard to a destination.
5.1. Managerial implications
The purpose of this study was to assess and incorporatea theoretical model of antecedents of tourist perceptions of desti-nation satisfaction, and the empirical results conform to someextent to the relevant literature proposed earlier. This study furtherextends the theoretical foundations of brand credibility, image,attachment, and satisfaction from consumer behavior literature totourism. In consumer behavior literature regarding brand credi-bility, brand image and brand attachment, Sweeney and Swait(2008) found that brand credibility has a significant impact oncustomer satisfaction and loyalty. Brand image has also been foundto have a significant influence on customer satisfaction and loyalty(Chen, 2010; Wu, 2011). Brand attachment is also considered to bean important factor influencing customer satisfaction (Thomsonet al., 2005). In the tourism context, the antecedents of destina-tion attachment and destination image have been found to havea significant impact on destination satisfaction (Prayag & Ryan,2011; Yuksel et al., 2010). However, the antecedents of destina-tion source credibility on destination image, destination attach-ment, and destination satisfaction have not been confirmed inprevious studies. Theoretically, this study simultaneouslyconfirmed and validated measurement items, as well as theproposed structural relationships. It is believed that the results ofthis study can provide solid foundations by which academia canacquire further knowledge about the tourism destination context.Our results have important implications for tourism destinationmanagers as well. Tourism marketers are increasingly interested infinding ways to develop strong emotional destination attachmentsfor their tourists, which can lead to stronger destination loyalty andsatisfaction (Whan Park, MacInnis, Priester, Eisingerich, &Iacobucci, 2010; Yuksel et al., 2010). The findings also suggestthat destination managers should take more into consideration theevolution of destination image and promotional messages, as wellas advertising strategies for travel agents and tour guides by whichthey can proactively manage successful destination development(Prayag & Ryan, 2011).
Furthermore, destination source credibility, attachment, andimage are considered to be critical antecedents of destinationsatisfaction. It is argued that the findings will help the authoritiesof both destinations, as well as other destination managers,to promote better destination image and to design betterdestination strategies to attract international tourists as a result oftheir destination satisfaction. Therefore, destination managers/marketers can focus on the promotion of destination source cred-ibility as an efficient tool to provide options for tourism destina-tions. The study results also suggest that both tourism anddestination managers should provide more accurate electronicinformation about destinations in order for international tourists to
S. Veasna et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 511e526524
find any specific destination more easily. This information wouldhelp international tourists make destination decisions more easily.
5.2. Limitations and future research
Although the present study provides valuable insights into anunderstanding of the combinatory mechanism of destinationsource credibility and destination image across tourism destina-tions, there are some limitations that should be recognized. First,the English version of the questionnaire was designed to inviteinternational tourists to fill out the questionnaires; therefore somemisunderstanding related to language barriers may have affectedthe tourists’ opinions. Second, the scale used for measuring desti-nation source credibility (DSC) needs to be manipulated bya specific credible source context (i.e., e-destination source credi-bility), which is designated by tourist agents or tourism/destinationmanagers. This study treats DSC as a single factor, as adopted fromErdem and Swait (2004), while a study conducted by Spry et al.(2011) used two sub-dimensions (i.e., trustworthiness and exper-tise). Thus, our findings only validated the measurement scales ofDSC as developed by Erdem and Swait (2004). Third, our studyfocused on tourist satisfaction using post exposure to the destina-tion. Most recent studies have also focused on exploring tourists’post-exposure assessments of the destinations under consideration(e.g., Chen & Tsai, 2007; Loureiro & González, 2008; Prayag & Ryan,2011; Su et al., 2011; Wang & Hsu, 2010). In the literature on servicegap developed by Oliver (1980) and Parasuraman, Zeithaml, andBerry (1985), the tourism context has been mostly ignored. Thekey concept of service gap is to view the expectancy theory asimplying that when customers experience a higher level of servicethan they expect, this leads to their satisfaction (Andreassen, 2000).In the tourism literature, tourist satisfaction is considered to be theresult of “the interaction between tourist’s experience at thedestination area and the expectations he had about that destina-tion. When the weighted sum total of experiences compared to theexpectations results in feelings of gratification, the tourist is satis-fied” (Pizam, Neumann, & Reichel, 1978, p. 315). Therefore, wesuggest that future research should include this concept to validateand generalize of current and previous empirical findings.
Fourth, the affective component of destination image was notmeasured, and this could be included in future studies to examinethe linkage between destination source credibility, attachment, andsatisfaction. Fifth, behavioral responses and consequences relatedto destination satisfaction, such as loyalty and positive word-of-mouth in regard to tourism destinations should be included infuture investigations. It would be interesting to explore theseavenues in future research. Sixth, the findings also suggest thatdestination marketers should put more effort into building anemotional linkage between tourist’s beliefs and destination choicesby increasing tourist attachment and satisfaction with their desti-nation experiences, and further studies could put this underconsideration. Seventh, we suspect that destination associationsmay influence destination image and tourist behaviors, such astourist satisfaction and repeat destination visits (Qu, Kim, & Im,2011). Eighth, the research model of the present study investi-gates tourist perceptions across two specific tourism destinations.Cross cultural values (i.e., uncertainty avoidance and culturaldistance) can be related to destination choice or attachment(Erdem, Swait, & Valenzuela, 2006). Future research could validatecross-country differences among European, Western, and Asiandestinations to examine how the relationships among destinationsource credibility, destination image, and attachment work differ-ently in different cultural settings (i.e., uncertainty avoidance andcultural distance) (Baek et al., 2010). Finally, the research findingsas shown in Table 5 (competing modeldM2) the Hypothesis 6-1
showed that destination image has no significant influence ondestination satisfaction (gH6-1 ¼ .183, t¼ 1.946, p> .05); we suspectthat the incomes of a total of 293 tourists (73.6%) having a monthlyincome of 1500 USD or less, with 38.56% of them with a monthlyincome of 500e1000 USD, might have moderated the relationshipdestination image and destination satisfaction, and future studiesthus could put this under consideration in order to enhance thevalidity and generalizability of the current findings.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge enlightening commentsand suggestions by Savana Moore who serves as a proofreading atChinese Language Center in National Cheng Kung University andthree anonymous reviewers from Tourism Management whichnoticeably improved the quality of this manuscript.
Appendix. Index questionnaire items
Destination source credibility (DSC) (a ¼ .938, AVE ¼ .723)1. Information claims from (X)/(Y) are believable.2. Over time, my experiences with (X)/(Y) led me to expect it
to keep its promises.3. (X)/(Y) is committed to delivering on its claims.4. (X)/(Y) has a name you can trust.5. (X)/(Y) has the ability to deliver what it promises.6. (X)/(Y) delivers (or would deliver) what it promises.
Destination image (DIM) (a ¼ .932, AVE ¼ .727)1. Reputation of the (X)/(Y).2. Accessibility of the destination.3. Variety and quality of accommodations.4. Cultural diversity.5. Cultural and historical attractions.6. Exoticness of the place.7. General level of service.
Destination attachment (DATT) (a ¼ .949, AVE ¼ .711)1. (X)/(Y) is the best place for what I like to do on holidays.2. I am very attached to this holiday destination.3. Holidaying in (X)/(Y) means a lot to me.4. No other place can provide the same holiday experience as
(X)/(Y).5. I identify strongly with this destination.6. (X)/(Y) is a very special destination to me.7. Holidaying here is more important tome than holidaying in
other places.8. I would not substitute any other destination for the types of
things that I did during my holidays in (X)/(Y).Destination satisfaction (DISAT) (a ¼ .925, AVE ¼ .705)1. I am sure it was the right thing to be a tourist in (X)/(Y).2. Using (X)/(Y) has been a good experience.3. I feel good about my decision to visit (X)/(Y).4. I have truly enjoyed (X)/(Y).5. I am satisfied with my decision to visit (X)/(Y).
Note: (X) ¼ Angkor Wat; (Y) ¼ Taipei 101.
References
Aaker, D. A., & Keller, K. L. (1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journalof Marketing, 54(1), 27e41.
Alhemoud, A., & Armstrong, E. G. (1996). Image of tourism attractions in Kuwait.Journal of Travel Research, 34(4), 76e80.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice:a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3),411e423.
Andreassen, T. W. (2000). Antecedents to satisfaction with service recovery. Euro-pean Journal of Marketing, 34(1/2), 156e175.
S. Veasna et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 511e526 525
Augustyn, M., & Ho, S. K. (1998). Service quality and tourism. Journal of TravelResearch, 37(1), 71e75.
Baek, T. H., Kim, J., &Yu, J.H. (2010). Thedifferential roles of brand credibilityandbrandprestige in consumer brand choice. Psychology and Marketing, 27(7), 662e678.
Baker, D. A., & Crompton, J. L. (2000). Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions.Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 785e804.
Baloglua, S., & McClearyb, K. W. (1999). A model of destination image formation.Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), 868e897.
Baloglu, S., & Brinberg, D. (1997). Affective images of tourism destinations. Journal ofTravel Research, 35(4), 11e15.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction insocial psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical consider-ations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(6), 1173e1182.
Beerli, A., Meneses, G. D., & Gil, S. M. (2007). Self-congruity and destination choice.Annals of Tourism Research, 34(3), 571e587.
Bianchi, C., & Pike, S. (2011). Antecedents of destination brand loyalty for a long-haul market: Australia’s destination loyalty among Chilean travelers. Journalof Travel & Tourism Marketing, 28(7), 736e750.
Bian, X., & Moutinho, L. (2011). The role of brand image, product involvement, andknowledge in explaining consumer purchase behaviour of counterfeits: directand indirect effects. European Journal of Marketing, 45(1/2), 191e216.
Bigné, J. E., Sánchez,M. I., & Sánchez, J. (2001). Tourism image, evaluationvariables andafter purchase behavior: inter-relationship. TourismManagement, 26(6), 607e616.
Bloemer, J., & De Ruyter, K. (1998). On the relationship between store image, storesatisfaction and store loyalty. European Journal of Marketing, 32(5/6), 499e513.
Bowerman, B. L., O’Connell, R. T., & Orris, J. B. (2004). Essential business statistics (3rded.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. London: Tavistock.Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and
brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. Journal ofMarketing, 65(2), 81e93.
Chen, Y.-S. (2010). The drivers of green brand equity: green brand image, greensatisfaction, and green trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(2), 307e319.
Chen, C.-F., & Tsai, D. (2007). How destination image and evaluative factors affectbehavioral intentions? Tourism Management, 28(4), 1115e1122.
Chheang, V. (2008). The political economy of tourism in Cambodia. Asia PacificJournal of Tourism Research, 13(3), 281e297.
Chin, W. W. (1988). Commentary: issues and opinion on structural equationmodeling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), 7e16.
Chi, C. G.-Q., & Qu, H. (2008). Examining the structural relationships of destinationimage, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: an integrated approach.Tourism Management, 29(4), 624e636.
Chon, K. S. (1992). Self-image/destination image congruity. Annals of TourismResearch, 19(2), 360e363.
Ekinci, Y., Dawes, P. L., & Massey, G. R. (2008). An extended model of the ante-cedents and consequences consumer satisfaction for hospitality services.European Journal of Marketing, 42(1/2), 35e68.
Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (1998). Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon. Journal ofConsumer Psychology, 7(2), 131e157.
Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (2004). Brand credibility, brand consideration, and choice.Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 191e198.
Erdem, T., Swait, J., & Louviere, J. (2002). The impact of brand credibility on consumerprice sensitivity. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(1), 1e19.
Erdem, T., Swait, J., & Valenzuela, A. (2006). Brands as signals: a cross-countryvalidation study. Journal of Marketing, 70(1), 34e49.
Esch, F. R., Langner, T., Schmitt, B. H., & Geus, P. (2006). Are brands forever? Howbrand knowledge and relationships affect current and future purchases. Journalof Product & Brand Management, 15(2), 98e105.
Feinberg, F. M (2012). Mediation analysis and categorical variables: some furtherfrontiers. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(4), 595e598.
Fiedler, K., Schott, M., & Meiser, T. (2011). What mediation analysis can (not) do.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6), 1231e1236.
Fleury-Bahi, G., Félonneau, M. L., & Marchand, D. (2008). Processes of place identi-fication and residential satisfaction. Environment and Behavior, 40(5), 669e682.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models withunobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,18(1), 39e50.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory inconsumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343e353.
Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., & Boudreau, M.-C. (2000). Structural equation modelingand regression: guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Asso-ciation for Information Systems, 4(7), 2e76.
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1992). Monte Carlo evaluations of goodness of fitindices for structural equation models. Social Methods & Research, 21, 132e160.
Glover, P. (2009). Celebrity endorsement in tourism advertising: effects on desti-nation image. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 16, 16e23.
Grace, D., & O’Cass, A. (2005). Examining the effects of service brand communicationson brand evaluation. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14(2), 106e116.
Graeff, T. R. (1996). Using promotional messages to manage the effects of brand andself-image on brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 13(3), 4e18.
Guido, G., Pino, G., & Frangipane, D. (2011). The role of credibility and perceivedimage of supermarket stores as valuable providers of over-the-counter drugs.Journal of Marketing Management, 27(3e4), 207e224.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010).Multivariate data analysis (7thed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Hosany, S., Ekinci, Y., & Uysal, M. (2006). Destination image and destinationpersonality: an application of branding theories to tourism places. Journal ofBusiness Research, 59(5), 638e642.
Hou, J. S., Lin, C. H., & Morais, D. B. (2005). Antecedents of attachment to a culturaltourism destination: the case of Hakka and non-Hakka Taiwanese visitors toPei-Pu, Taiwan. Journal of Travel Research, 44(2), 221e233.
Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. K., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press.
Hui, T. K., Wan, D., & Ho, A. (2007). Tourists’ satisfaction, recommendation andrevisiting Singapore. Tourism Management, 28(4), 965e975.
Hwang, S.-N., Lee, C., & Chen, H.-J. (2005). The relationship among tourists’involvement, place attachment and interpretation satisfaction in Taiwan’snational parks. Tourism Management, 26(2), 143e156.
Iacobucci, D (2012). Mediation analysis and categorical variables: the final frontier.Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(4), 582e594.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago, IL:Scientific Software.
Kandampully, J., & Suhartanto, D. (2003). The role of customer satisfaction andimage in gaining customer loyalty in the hotel industry. Journal of Hospitality &Leisure Marketing, 10(1e2), 3e25.
Kerstetter, D., & Cho, M.-H. (2004). Prior knowledge, credibility and informationsearch. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4), 961e985.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.).New York: Guilford Press.
Kocyigit, O., & Ringle, C. M. (2011). The impact of brand confusion on sustainablebrand satisfaction and private label proneness: a subtle decay of brand equity.Journal of Brand Management, 19, 195e212.
Kong, H., Cheung, C., & Song, H. (2012). From hotel career management toemployees’ career satisfaction: the mediating effect of career competency.International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(1), 76e85.
Kyle, G., Graefe, A., Manning, R., & Bacon, J. (2003). An examination of therelationship between leisure activity involvement and place attachmentamong hikers along the Appalachian Trail. Journal of Leisure Research, 35(3),249e273.
Kyle, G. T., & Mowen, A. J. (2005). An examination of the leisure involvement-agencycommitment relationship. Journal of Leisure Research, 37(3), 342.
Ladhari, R., Souiden, N., & Ladhari, I. (2011). Determinants of loyalty and recom-mendation: the role of perceived service quality, emotional satisfaction andimage. Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 16(2), 111e124.
Lai, F., Griffin, M., & Babin, B. J. (2009). How quality, value, image, and satis-faction create loyalty at a Chinese telecom. Journal of Business Research,62(10), 980e986.
Lee, J., Graefe, A. R., & Burns, R. C. (2007). Examining the antecedents of destinationloyalty in a forest setting. Leisure Sciences, 29(5), 463e481.
Lee, H. M., Lee, C. C., & Wu, C. C. (2011). Brand image strategy affects brand equityafter M&A. European Journal of Marketing, 45(7/8), 1091e1111.
Loureiro, S. M. C., & González, F. J. M. (2008). The importance of quality, satisfaction,trust, and image in relation to rural tourist loyalty. Journal of Travel & TourismMarketing, 25(2), 117e136.
Lovelock, C., & Wirthz, J. (2007). Services marketing: People, technology, strategy (6thed.). New Jersey, NY: Prentice Hall.
Lu, C. S., Lai, K. h., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2007). Application of structural equationmodeling to evaluate the intention of shippers to use internet services in linershipping. European Journal of Operational Research, 180(2), 845e867.
MacKinnon, D. P, & Cox, M. G. (2012). Commentary on “mediation analysis andcategorical variables: the final frontier” by Dawn Iacobucci. Journal of ConsumerPsychology, 22(4), 600e602.
MacKinnon, D. P., Warsi, G., & Dwyer, J. H. (1995). A simulation study of mediatedeffect measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30(1), 41e62.
Malär, L., Krohmer, H., Hoyer, W. D., & Nyffenegger, B. (2011). Emotional brandattachment and brand personality: the relative importance of the actual andthe ideal self. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 35e52.
Manfredo, M. J., & Bright, A. D. (1991). A model for assessing the effects ofcommunication on recreationists. Journal of Leisure Research, 23(1), 1e20.
Martenson, R. (2007). Corporate brand image, satisfaction and store loyalty: a studyof the store as a brand, store brands and manufacturer brands. InternationalJournal of Retail & Distribution Management, 35(7), 544e555.
Meenaghan, T. (1995). The role of advertising in brand image development. Journalof Product & Brand Management, 4(4), 23e34.
Minstry of Tourism. (2010). Annual report. Retrieved 02.02.12, from http://www.tourismcambodia.org/mot/index.php?view¼statistic_report.
Molina, A., & Esteban, Á. (2006). Tourism brochures: usefulness and image. Annals ofTourism Research, 33(4), 1036e1056.
Murphy, L., Benckendorff, P., & Moscardo, G. (2007). Linking travel motivation,tourist self-image and destination brand personality. Journal of Travel & TourismMarketing, 22(2), 45e59.
Murray, K. B. (1991). A test of services marketing theory: consumer informationacquisition activities. Journal of Marketing, 55(1), 10e25.
Oh, H. (1999). Service quality, customer satisfaction, and customer value: a holisticperspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 18, 67e82.
Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrityendorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal ofAdvertising, 19(3), 39e52.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences ofsatisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460e469.
S. Veasna et al. / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 511e526526
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model ofservice quality and its implication for future research. Journal of Marketing,49(4), 41e50.
Peter, J. P., & Olson, J. C. (2008). Consumer behavior and marketing strategy (8th ed.).Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
Phau, I., & Ong, D. (2007). An investigation of the effects of environmental claims inpromotional messages for clothing brands. Marketing Intelligence & Planning,25(7), 772e788.
Pike, S. (2005). Tourism destination branding complexity. Journal of Product & BrandManagement, 14(4), 258e259.
Pitta, D. A., & Katsanis, L. P. (1995). Understanding brand equity for successful brandextension. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 12(4), 51e64.
Pizam, A., Neumann, Y., & Reichel, A. (1978). Dimensions of tourist satisfaction witha destination area. Annals of Tourism Research, 5(3), 314e322.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Commonmethod biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature andrecommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879e903.
Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: a critical reviewof five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243e281.
Prayag, G., & Ryan, C. (2011). Antecedents of tourists’ loyalty to Mauritius: the roleand influence of destination image, place attachment, involvement, and satis-faction. Journal of Travel Research, 10(5), 51e15.
Qu, H., Kim, L. H., & Im, H. H. (2011). A model of destination branding: integratingthe concepts of the branding and destination image. Tourism Management,32(3), 465e476.
Rajagopal, A. (2006). Brand excellence:measuring the impact of advertising andbrandpersonality on buying decisions. Measuring Business Excellence, 10(3), 56e65.
Ro, H. (2012). Moderator and mediator effects in hospitality research. InternationalJournal of Hospitality Management, 31(3), 952e961.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2007). Research methods for business students(4th ed.). London: Prentice Hall.
Sirgy, M. J., & Su, C. (2000). Destination image, self-congruity, and travel behavior:toward an integrative model. Journal of Travel Research, 38(4), 340e352.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structuralequation models. Sociological Methodology, 13(1982), 290e312.
Spry, A., Pappu, R., & Cornwell, T. B. (2011). Celebrity endorsement, brand credibilityand brand equity. European Journal of Marketing, 45(6), 882e909.
Su, H.-J., Cheng, K.-F., & Huang, H.-H. (2011). Empirical study of destination loyaltyand its antecedent: the perspective of place attachment. The Service IndustriesJournal, 31(16), 2721e2739.
Sweeney, J., & Swait, J. (2008). The effects of brand credibility on customer loyalty.Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 15(3), 179e193.
Thomson, M., MacInnis, D. J., & Park, C. W. (2005). The ties that bind: measuring thestrength of consumers’ emotional attachments to brands. Journal of ConsumerPsychology, 15(1), 77e91.
Tourism Bureau. (2012). 2010 visitor arrivals by year (1956e2010). Retrieved02.02.12, from. http://admin.taiwan.net.tw/statistics/year_en.aspx?no¼15.
Tsai, S.-p. (2012). Place attachment and tourismmarketing: investigating internationaltourists in Singapore. International Journal of Tourism Research, 14(2), 139e152.
Um, S., & Crompton, J. L. (1990). Attitude determinants in tourism destinationchoice. Annals of Tourism Research, 17(3), 432e448.
UNESCO. (2012). World heritage list. Retrieved 02.02.12, from. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/668.
Wang, C.-y., & Hsu, M. K. (2010). The relationships of destination image, satisfaction,and behavioral intentions: an integrated model. Journal of Travel & TourismMarketing, 27(8), 829e843.
Westbrook, R. A., & Oliver, R. L. (1981). Developing better measures of consumersatisfaction: somepreliminary results.Advances in Consumer Research, 8(1), 94e99.
WhanPark, C.,MacInnis, D. J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A. B., & Iacobucci, D. (2010). Brandattachment and brand attitude strength: conceptual and empirical differentiationof two critical brand equity drivers. Journal of Marketing, 74(6), 1e17.
Williams, D. R., Patterson, M. E., Roggenbuck, J. W., & Watson, A. E. (1992). Beyondthe commodity metaphor: examining emotional and symbolic attachment toplace. Leisure Sciences, 14(1), 29e46.
Williams, D. R., & Vaske, J. J. (2003). The measurement of place attachment: validityand generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science, 49(6), 830e840.
Woodside, A. G., Frey, L. L., & Daly, R. T. (1989). Linking service quality, customersatisfaction, and behavioral intention. Journal of Health Care Marketing, 9(4),5e17.
Woody, E. (2011). An SEM perspective on evaluating mediation: what every clin-ical researcher needs to know. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 2(2),210e251.
Wu, C.-C. (2011). The impact of hospital brand image on service quality, patientsatisfaction and loyalty. African Journal of Business Management, 5(12), 4873e4882.
Yasin, N. M., Noor, M. N., & Mohamad, O. (2007). Does image of country-of-originmatter to brand equity? Journal of Product & Brand Management, 16(1), 38e48.
Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation andsatisfaction on destination loyalty: a structural model. Tourism Management,26(1), 45e56.
Yuksel, A., Yuksel, F., & Bilim, Y. (2010). Destination attachment: effects on customersatisfaction and cognitive, affective and conative loyalty. Tourism Management,31(2), 274e284.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths andtruths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197e206.
Wann-Yih Wu currently serves as the President of ChineseCulture University and is a distinguished professor ofMarketing in National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan. Hereceived his Ph.D. degree in Marketing from OklahomaState University, USA. His research interests are strategicmarketing, consumer behavior research, knowledgemanagement, and quality management. He has publishedin Journal of Retailing, Journal of Business Research, Jour-nal of Advertising Research, International MarketingReview, Total Quality Management and Business Excel-lence, Industrial Management and Data System, Journal ofInternational Human Resource Management, andelsewhere.
Sou Veasna (Ph.D., National Cheng Kung University,Taiwan) currently severs as an assistant professor ofMarketing and Human Resource Management in Asia EuroUniversity, Cambodia. His research interests are servicemarketing, tourism marketing, cross-cultural manage-ment, and leadership styles.
Chu-Hsin Huang is a PhD candidate in Institute of Inter-national Management, National Cheng Kung University,Taiwan. She currently serves as the Global GeneralManager of Sportsart fitness. Her research interests arestrategic marketing, consumer behavior, and strategicmanagement.
