Tourism Management 22 (2001) 127}133

Image variations of Turkey by familiarity index: informational

and experiential dimensions
Seyhmus Baloglu*
University of Nevada Las Vegas, William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration, Department of Tourism and Convention Administration,
4505 Maryland Parkway Box 456023, Las Vegas, NV 89154-6023, USA
Received 6 September 1999; accepted 23 December 1999

Abstract

Familiarity in this study is operationalized and measured as a composite of amount of information used (informational familiarity)
and previous destination experience (experiential familiarity). A familiarity index was developed based on these two dimensions. The
perceptual/cognitive, a!ective and overall image of Turkey showed variations due to US travelers' familiarity level with the
destination, the higher the familiarity, the more positive the image. The potential advantages and uses of the familiarity index were
discussed. The marketing implications to deal with informational and experiential dimensions were presented to increase familiarity
and/or improve destination image. The results particularly suggested that Turkey should utilize sales promotion techniques and
conduct public relations/publicity activities rather than relying mostly on mass media advertising.  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All
rights reserved.

1. Introduction non-visitors, "rst-time visitors, and/or repeat visitors.

Familiarity with a destination is a signi"cant concept
for tourist destinations because of its vital role in tourist
destination selection process. It represents a key market-
ing variable in segmenting and targeting certain groups
and developing a marketing action plan including prod-
uct, distribution, pricing, and promotion decisions.
Therefore, it is necessary for tourist destinations to use
a reliable and valid measure of familiarity with their
destinations. Given the importance of the concept, one
particular stream of marketing studies in the travel and
tourism literature has centered on the relationship be-
tween familiarity and destination image. These studies
focused on how destination image varies with familiarity
as often measured by previous visitation (direct destina-
tion experience) (Pearce, 1982; Phelps, 1986; Dann,
1996; Fridgen, 1987; Chon, 1991; Ahmed, 1991; Fakeye
& Crompton, 1991; Hu & Ritchie, 1993; Milman
& Pizam, 1995). The majority of these studies focused on
only previous experience that represents one dimension
of familiarity and examined image di!erences between
Although one major determinant of familiarity with
a destination is previous visitation (Hu & Ritchie, 1993),
it is not the only determinant of familiarity. The purpose
of this paper is to develop a destination familiarity index
as a composite of experiential (previous experience) and
informational familiarity and to investigate image vari-
ations of Turkey by the familiarity index developed. The
contribution of this paper lies in the treatment of the
familiarity concept as a multi-dimensional construct in-
corporating not only experiential (previous experience)
dimension, but also informational dimension.
2. Literature review
The literature review "rst discusses the issues re-
garding conceptualization and operationalization of
familiarity construct. Then, the "ndings of previous
studies focusing on the relationship between familiarity
and destination images are presented.
2.1. Conceptualization and operationalization of
familiarity

* Tel.: 702-895-3720; fax: 702-895-4870. Familiarity is a broad concept and can be de"ned in
E-mail address: baloglu@ccmail.nevada.edu (S. Baloglu). many ways (Spotts & Stynes, 1985). In the marketing

0261-5177/00/$ - see front matter  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 2 6 1 - 5 1 7 7 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 4 9 - 2
128 S. Baloglu / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 127}133
literature, familiarity has been regarded as one compon-
ent of consumer knowledge construct (Cordell, 1997;
Park, Mothersbaugh & Feick, 1994) and goes beyond
`direct experiencea operationalization only. The familiar-
ity with a product has often been de"ned as the number
of product-related experiences (advertising exposures, in-
formation search, and product experience) accumulated
by the consumer (Alba & Hutchinson, 1987). Several
other researchers also argued that amount of information
should be included in the operational de"nition of the
familiarity concept (Rao & Sieben, 1992). However,
familiarity with a destination has been treated as a
unidimensional construct including previous destination
experience in the travel and tourism literature. In this
study, familiarity is operationalized as a combination of
amount of information and previous experience, includ-
ing multiple visits.
Another common measure of familiarity has been self-
rating scale. Self-reported familiarity often includes
a scale ranging from `not at all unfamiliara to `extremely
familiara or some other versions of anchor labels. Several
authors used self-reported familiarity measure in travel
and tourism (Fridgen, 1987; MacKay & Fesenmaier,
1997). However, this self-assessed or reported type of
measurement has been criticized by several scholars in
the sense that it may not re#ect `objectivea knowledge or
familiarity (Park et al., 1994; Spotts & Stynes, 1985). Park
et al. (1994) argued that self-reported measure is a `sub-
jectivea measure of familiarity and based on what the
consumers think they know, which may vary from indi-
vidual to individual. Likewise, Spotts and Stynes (1985)
indicated that although the self-rating technique is rela-
tively easy to use in a survey because it is a single item
measure, it measures people's `perceptiona of their fami-
liarity rather than familiarity. Therefore, when it is used
to estimate actual familiarity, the results are di$cult to
compare across subjects since two individuals with the
same knowledge level may rate themselves di!erently on
a self-rating scale. Their empirical results indicated that
self-ratings are not reliable and valid measures because
certain groups underestimate or overestimate their fam-
iliarity. In that respect, the number or amount of in-
formation sources used would resolve that problem, as it
has often been cited as a major component of the famili-
arity concept. Also, it represents an indirect way of
measuring people's familiarity with a destination.
2.2. Familiarity and destination image
Familiarity with a destination has appeared to be
a signi"cant determinant of destination image. Hu and
Ritchie (1993) noted that familiarity with a destination,
being a major in#uence on destination perceptions and
attractiveness, would incorporate geographic distance,
level of knowledge, and previous visitation. Several stud-
ies examining the impact of geographical residence on
image have noted that the di!erences in images due to
geographical residence or distance might be attributable
to familiarity (past experience) with the destination
(Crompton, 1979; Ahmed, 1991; Fakeye & Crompton,
1991). The results of above-mentioned studies suggest
that the impact of geographical location (distance) of
perceiver on destination image is not conclusive. As sug-
gested by the researchers, either individuals' previous
visitation or their level of knowledge due to various
information sources would be the actual cause of image
variations. As Crompton (1979) and Ahmed (1991) noted,
regional image di!erences might be due to varying de-
grees of induced image which is the level of knowledge of
respondents about destination due to the promotional
strategy of the destination.
Previous visitation or direct experience with a destina-
tion is likely to alter and modify the image of the destina-
tion. Numerous studies investigated image modi"cations
due to actual destination experience (overt-behavior).
Some of these studies utilized a longitudinal approach by
which the modi"cations between travelers' pre- and
post-trips destination images were compared (Pearce,
1982; Phelps, 1986; Dann, 1996). Other studies examined
the image di!erences between travelers who visited the
destination (visitors) and those who did not (nonvisitors)
(Fridgen, 1987; Chon, 1991; Ahmed, 1991; Fakeye
& Crompton, 1991; Hu & Ritchie, 1993; Milman
& Pizam, 1995).
Pearce (1982) compared tourists' pre- and post-travel
images of two Mediterranean countries, and found that
travelers to both countries changed some of their percep-
tions after visiting them. Phelps (1986) examined pre- and
post-trips images of travelers and also showed that a per-
ceptual change took place after direct observation of
destinations. Using a qualitative approach, Dann (1996)
compared pre-trip and on-trip cognitive, a!ective, and
conative images of Barbados. Open-ended responses
with and without pictorial stimuli were sought from
travelers to reveal qualitative meaning of key words in
respondents' descriptions. The qualitative pattern of
responses with or without pictorial stimuli for three
image components showed variations between pre-trip
and on-trip. Fridgen (1987), in a cognitive mapping task,
surveyed travelers about which parts of Michigan they
perceived to be recreation and tourism regions. The maps
of respondents who were familiar and unfamiliar with the
state were compared. The author developed a familiarity
index comprising both knowledge level and previous
visitation. The author concluded that familiarity (level of
knowledge and actual visitation) with a destination
has a positive e!ect on travelers' images. However,
the author has used `subjectivea (self-rated) measure
of familiarity as one component of the level of knowledge.
Chon (1991) compared the image of Korea held
between those traveling to Korea (pre-travel) and
those returning from Korea (post-travel). The analysis
 S. Baloglu / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 127}133
indicated that signi"cant di!erences exist in the percep-
tions of Korea between those who actually experienced
the destination and those who did not. Post-visitors'
perceptions were found more positive than pre-visitors'
perceptions. Ahmed (1991) found di!erences in indi-
vidual image groupings and overall image between
visitors and non-visitors to Utah. The study revealed
signi"cant di!erences between visitors and non-visitors
in both image dimensions and overall image. The images
were generally more favorable for visitors than for non-
visitors. Fakeye and Crompton (1991) recognized the
in#uence of multiple visits to a destination on percep-
tions, and analyzed the images of prospective (nonvisi-
tors), "rst-time, and repeat visitors to the lower Rio
Grande Valley in Texas. The results showed that images
of non-visitors were signi"cantly di!erent from "rst-time
and repeat visitors. The fact that the authors also could
not "nd much change between "rst-timers and repeat
visitors has led them to conclude that many of the per-
ceptual changes occur during "rst direct experience
rather than multiple experiences or visits.
Hu and Ritchie (1993) investigated the e!ects of famili-
arity (previous visitation) on the perceived attractiveness
of Hawaii, Australia, Greece, France, and China and
reported signi"cant di!erences between the images of
non-visitors and visitors to some of these destinations.
The authors pointed out that familiarity (i.e previous
visitation) has an in#uence, not necessarily in a positive
direction, on perceptions of destinations. On the other
hand, Milman and Pizam (1995), operationalizing and
measuring familiarity as previous experience, found sig-
ni"cant di!erences between those who visited the state
(visitors) and those who were aware of it (nonvisitors),
and that respondents who were familiar with (previously
visited) Central Florida had a more positive image of the
destination than those who were aware of it. The litera-
ture review reveals that the majority of the studies re-
volving around familiarity (direct destination experience)
found a positive relationship between the familiarity and
destination image.
3. Method
This paper uses the data collected for a major study to
examine images of four Mediterranean destinations. The
study only focuses on Turkey because of the sampling
method used. The sample population for this study was
chosen from a list maintained by the Turkish National
Tourism O$ce (NTO) of people who requested informa-
tion about Turkey. A self-administered questionnaire
was mailed to a random sample of 1530 individuals from
that list in spring 1996. A total of 484 (31.6 per cent)
questionnaires were returned. Of those returned, 36 ques-
tionnaires were eliminated: twenty-one questionnaires
were returned uncompleted or had excessive missing data
129
and 15 were undeliverable due to address change. After
elimination, 448 questionnaires (a usable response rate of
29.6 per cent) were coded for data analysis. Non-response
analysis was checked via a telephone interview and no
bias was detected with respect to demographics, previous
experience, and selected image items.
Fourteen perceptual/cognitive evaluation items gener-
ated from the literature review and content analysis of
Turkey's guidebooks and brochures were included in the
questionnaire. They were measured on a 5-point scale
where 1"o!ers very little, 2"o!ers somewhat little,
3"neither little nor much, 4"o!ers somewhat much,
and 5"o!ers very much. A!ective evaluations of desti-
nations were measured on a 7-point scale by four bipolar
scales: Arousing}Sleepy, Pleasant}Unpleasant, Excit-
ing}Gloomy and Relaxing}Distressing (Ward & Russel,
1981; Baloglu & Brinberg, 1997; Walmsley & Young,
1998).
Following Stern and Krakover (1993), the amount of
information used was measured by a variable indicating
the number of institutions, services, and materials
through which the respondents have seen or heard
about a destination. Nine di!erent information sources
were compiled from the literature: Travel Agents,
Brochures/Travel Guides, Friends/Family Members,
Airlines, Tour Operator/Company, Advertisements,
Books/Movies, Articles/News, and Direct Mail from
Destination. Out of this list, the amount of information
score was calculated as the sum of the number of in-
formation sources used. Although the theoretical min-
imum and maximum familiarity scores could be 0 and 9,
the actual scores ranged from 1 to 9 with a median score
of 4 and a mean score of 4.33 for Turkey.
Using the median as the dividing point, respondents
were divided into low familiarity group (below or equal
to 4) which were given a score of 1 and high familiarity
(above 4) with a score of 2. For the experiential dimen-
sion, respondents were classi"ed into three categories
based on their past experience and number of visits.
Non-visitors were given a score of 0; "rst-time visitors
received a score of 1; and repeat visitors (2 or more visits)
were given a score of 2. By cross-tabulating two-levels of
informational familiarity and three levels of experiential
familiarity, a 2;3 factorial table was produced, where
respondents belong to one of the six cells (Table 1).
The informational and experiential dimension scores
were summed for each individual, which resulted in
a familiarity index ranging from 1 to 4. The respondents
with score of 1 were classi"ed in low familiarity group,
those with 2 or 3 were placed in medium familiarity
group, and those with a score of 4 were classi"ed in high
familiarity group.
Multivariate Analysis of Variance was used to assess
familiarity group di!erences across Turkey's perceptions
on multiple items. This `overalla test examines all depen-
dent variables simultaneously to determine if the mean
130 S. Baloglu / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 127}133

Table 1 Table 2
Informational and experiential dimensions of destination familiarity Demographic pro"le of respondents (N"448)
index
Number Per cent
Experiential Informational
Age
Low (1) High (2) 18}34 years 45 10.3
35}49 years 89 20.3
Non-visitors (0) 77 63 50}64 years 152 34.6
(0#1"1)
(0#2"2) 65 years or older 153 34.9
First-time visitors (1) 133 105 Total 439 100.0
(1#1"2) (1#2"3)
Repeat visitors (2) 29 41 Gender
(2#1"3) (2#2"4) Male 212 47.6
Female 233 52.4
The number of respondents assigned to each cell. Total 445 100.0

The sum of experiential and informational scores for each cell. For Marital status
example, for non-visitors and low informational categories, the famili- Single 86 19.5
arity index is equal to 1 (0#1). Married 265 60.0
Divorced/widowed/separated 91 20.6
vectors of all dependent variables are di!erent for famili- Total 442 100.0
arity groups. A post-hoc Sche!e test was conducted on Education
univariate statistics (ANOVAs). The Sche!e test was High school or less 25 6.2
chosen because it is generally regarded as the most con- College 158 44.4
servative procedure for controlling family-wise error rate Graduate school 169 49.4
Total 352 100.0
at 0.05 level (Howell, 1992).
Household income
Under $25,000 25 7.3
$25,000}$34,999 39 11.0
4. Results and discussion $35,000}$49,999 43 12.1
$50,000}$74,999 83 23.4
The demographic pro"le of respondents is provided in $75,000}$99,999 58 16.3
Table 2. The pro"le seems to be homogeneous as the $100,000 or more 106 29.9
majority of respondents were married, highly educated, Total 354 100.0
and belonging to older age and higher income brackets.
Gender of the respondents was almost evenly distributed
with 47.5 per cent male and 52.5 per cent female. Almost at 0.001 level. These overall tests suggested that four
70 per cent of the respondents were within 50 or older age familiarity groups were di!erent across image variables
brackets. Only 10.3 per cent belonged to the 18}34 age (perceptual/cognitive, a!ective, and overall). To examine
group. Most of the respondents were married (62.7 per which image items di!erentiate the four familiarity
cent) and were highly educated, 44.4 per cent attended groups, one-way ANOVAs (univariate statistics), using
college and 49.4 per cent attended graduate school. The a post hoc Sche!e contrast method, were examined
majority of the respondents reported a yearly household (Table 4). Table shows mean scores of image items for
income of $50,000 or more. Almost 30 per cent reported each familiarity group and group di!erences on each
an income of $100,000 or more which was followed by image item at 0.05 signi"cance level. The signi"cant dif-
another 16.3 per cent who earned between $75,000 and ferences were found for all image variables except for the
$99,999. Only 8.2 per cent reported a yearly income arousing-sleepy item.
under $25,000. Perception of the quality of experience was found to
For data reduction purpose, principal component di!erentiate all three familiarity groups; the higher the
analysis with varimax rotation was conducted on 14 familiarity, the more positive was the image of Turkey on
perceptual/cognitive items to identify dimensions. The this dimension. Both high and medium familiarity groups
latent root criterion of 1.0 was utilized for factor extrac- perceived Turkey more positively in terms of o!ering
tion, and factor loadings of 0.40 were utilized for item attractions, value/environment and pleasant and exciting
inclusion (Hair, Anderson, Tatham & Black, 1992). This destination than low familiarity group. The high familiar-
analysis produced three component dimensions and ex- ity group perceived Turkey as a more relaxing destination
plained 59.0 per cent of the variance (Table 3). The than medium and low familiarity groups. On the other
dimensions were labeled as `Quality of Experiencea, `At- hand, medium and high familiarity groups evaluated
tractionsa, and `Value/Environment.a Turkey as more exciting than the low familiarity group.
The multivariate signi"cance tests (Pillais, Hotellings Turkey's overall image perceived by high familiarity group
and Wilks) produced by MANOVA were all signi"cant was more positive than that of low familiarity group.
 S. Baloglu / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 127}133 131

Table 3 Table 5
Principal component analysis of perceptual/cognitive items (N"448) Multiple response analysis of information sources used by familiarity
groups
Loading Eigenvalue Variance
explained (%) Information sources used Familiarity index

Factor I: Quality of Experience 5.02 38.7 Low Medium High

Standard hygiene and 0.81 (n"77) (%) (n"330) (%) (n"41) (%)
cleanliness
Quality of infrastructure 0.78 Travel agents 32.8 48.2 47.2
Personal safety 0.71 Brochures/travel guides 83.6 88.4 94.4
Good nightlife and 0.67 Friends/family members 31.1 43.9 50.0
entertainment Airlines 3.3 16.8 25.0
Appealing local food 0.67 Tour operator 37.7 47.9 61.1
(Cuisine) Advertisements 42.6 55.8 77.8
Suitable accommodations 0.64 Books/movies 23.0 48.2 72.2
Great beaches/water sports 0.56 Articles/news 32.8 62.0 83.3
Interesting and friendly 0.52 Direct mail 18.0 32.3 47.2
people
Note: Percentages indicate `Yesa responses for each information
Factor II: Attractions 1.52 11.7 source used.
Interesting cultural 0.85
attractions
Interesting historical 0.84
attractions actions should be taken to increase the familiarity of US
Beautiful scenery/natural 0.55 travelers with the destination. However, this strategy
attractions should take both informational and experiential familiar-
Factor III: Value/Environment 1.12 8.6 ity into consideration. It should be noted that the low
Good value for money 0.83 familiarity group included only those that have low levels
Unpolluted/unspoiled 0.62 of informational and experiential familiarity while the
environment high familiarity group had high levels of both. Across the
Good climate 0.48 image variables and dimensions, the low familiarity
Total variance explained: 59.0%. group consistently gave Turkey the lowest scores. The
travelers should de"nitely be encouraged for "rst-time
Table 4 trial as the medium familiarity group tended to evaluate
The results of univariate analysis of variance with post-hoc Sche!e test Turkey more positively than the low familiarity group on
most of the destination attributes. This can be achieved
Familiarity index F-value Signi"-
cance by emphasizing sales promotion techniques rather than
Low Medium High mostly focusing on advertising in print or broadcast
(n"77) (n"330) (n"41) media.
As far as the informational familiarity is concerned, it
Quality of 3.4a 3.8b 4.1c 14.9 0.000
was found useful to examine the type of information
experience
Attractions 4.5a 4.8b 4.8b 7.2 0.000
sources the familiarity groups used. The multiple re-
Value/environment 3.9a 4.1b 4.2b 4.3 0.014 sponse analysis indicated that the low familiarity group
Pleasant 5.4a 5.9b 6.2b 4.4 0.012 mostly used commercial information sources such as
Arousing 5.6 5.8 6.2 2.6 0.078 brochures/travel guides, advertisements, tour operators,
Relaxing 4.9a 5.3a 5.9b 6.3 0.002
and travel agents (Table 5). On the other hand, high and
Exciting 5.6a 6.1b 6.5b 7.0 0.001

Overall image 5.4a 5.9 6.3b 4.7 0.009
medium familiarity groups were exposed to Turkey not
only through commercial sources, but also through non-
Note: Mean scores with di!erent letters are signi"cantly di!erent at commercial sources such as articles/news, books/movies
0.05 or better probability level. Perceptual/cognitive images (quality of and word-of-mouth. The magnitude (or rank order) of
experience, attractions, and value/environment) were measured on 5- the frequency of information sources in each familiarity
point scale whereas a!ective images (pleasant, arousing, relaxing, and
exciting) and overall image were measured on a 7-point scale (the higher group clearly illustrates the importance of non-commer-
the score, the more positive the image). cial or autonomous information sources in image devel-

Signi"cant at 0.01 level. opment e!orts. Turkey should de"nitely focus its e!orts
Signi"cant at 0.05 level. on public relations and publicity activities to increase
the informational familiarity of travelers with the
These results have practical implications for Turkish destination.
tourism bodies and agencies. The results suggest that The "ndings have several conceptual implications as
to improve the image of Turkey, necessary marketing well. The results indicated a strong positive relationship
132 S. Baloglu / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 127}133
between the level of familiarity and perceptions of desti-
nations, supporting the "ndings of previous similar stud-
ies. The familiarity index developed on informational and
experiential dimensions is a more valid measure than
using either dimension alone. The index can be used as an
dependent or independent variable to examine the corre-
lates with destination familiarity. The familiarity index
could alternatively be labeled and used as 1 being `not
familiara, 2 being `familiara, 3 being `very familiara, and
4 being `extremely familiara, without collapsing 2 and
3 into medium familiarity group. This would introduce
more variation to the index (scale) if it was going to be
used as a continuous variable in a future research. Or the
index can be utilized as a categorical variable, as in this
study, to examine di!erences in the variables of interest.
One might expect that demographics would in#uence
travelers' familiarity and images of destinations. For
example, age and education would positively correlate
with familiarity or they would interact with familiarity in
in#uencing destination images. To analyze these possible
e!ects, a two-way analysis of variance was used to exam-
ine not only the main e!ects of demographics on images,
but also the interactions between demographics and fam-
iliarity in in#uencing perceptual/cognitive, a!ective, and
overall images. The only signi"cant "nding at 0.05 prob-
ability level was the main e!ect of age on perceptions of
attractions, and no signi"cant interaction e!ect was
found between demographics and familiarity. In other
words, the analysis could not provide a strong evidence
for the in#uence of demographics on images as well as the
interaction between demographics and familiarity in in-
#uencing destination images. However, further research
should further investigate this issue because, as men-
tioned before, the demographic pro"le of travelers in this
study was rather homogeneous.
5. Conclusion
To only use previous experience to de"ne and
measure familiarity is far from capturing the familiarity
level of travelers about a particular tourist destination.
A traveler's image after experiencing a tourist destination
will be dependent upon a blend of knowledge level before
visitation and direct experience. Particularly, for large-
scale environments such as tourist destination countries,
the destination cannot be wholly experienced at "rst or
couple of visits. Therefore, the traveler would still have
informational image of destination o!erings not experi-
enced at earlier visit(s). From conceptual and practical
standpoints, there seems to be grounds for using multi-
dimensional rather than unidimensional concept to
measure familiarity with tourist destinations. The "nd-
ings indicated that the higher the familiarity, the more
positive was the image of Turkey. The practical implica-
tions discussed should be of interest to Turkey and other
tourist destinations. The marketing e!orts to increase
familiarity and/or improve destination image should deal
with both informational and experiential familiarity.
Promotion budgets can more e!ectively be spent by
giving the same priority to sales promotion techniques
and public relations/publicity activities as mass advert-
ising.
It is worthwhile to mention some limitations of this
study and future research issues. The future research can
integrate information non-users or those who are not
aware of the destination(s) into the familiarity index. This
is one limitation of the study because of the sampling
method used. Also, depending on the distribution of
experiential familiarity, repeat visitors (those who had
visited a destination more than once) can be expanded
into di!erent multiple visitor groups such as 3, 4, 5 times
and so on for domestic destinations. Another limitation
not only for this study, but also for the majority of
previous studies on familiarity is due to the fact that the
images were measured ex post facto. Therefore, the ques-
tion of whether experiential familiarity leads to positive
perception or positive perception leads to experiential
familiarity (one or multiple visits) still remains a gray
area in travel and tourism literature. Future research
would use longitudinal studies or experimental designs to
delineate the direction of relationship between the desti-
nation image and familiarity. Finally, the information
sources included in this study would not cover all in-
formation sources used by the travelers; therefore, future
studies can also utilize more variety of information sour-
ces to further validate the informational familiarity.
References
Ahmed, Z. U. (1991). The in#uence of the components of a state's tourist
image on product positioning strategy. Tourism Management, 12(4),
331}340.
Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer
expertise. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 13, 411}454.
Baloglu, S., & Brinberg, D. (1997). A!ective images of tourism destina-
tions. Journal of Travel Research, 35(4), 11}15.
Chon, K. S. (1991). Tourism destination image modi"cation process:
Marketing implications. Tourism Management, 12(2), 68}72.
Cordell, V. V. (1997). Consumer knowledge measures as predictors in
product evaluation. Psychology and Marketing, 14(3), 241}260.
Crompton, J. L. (1979). An assessment of the image of Mexico as
a vacation destination and the in#uence of geographical location
upon that image. Journal of Travel Research, 17, 18}23.
Dann, G. M. S. (1996). Tourist images of a destination: An alternative
analysis. In D. R. Fesenmaier, J. T. O'Leary, & M. Uysal, Recent
advances in tourism marketing research (pp. 41}55). New York: The
Haworth Press.
Fakeye, P. C., & Crompton, J. L. (1991). Image di!erences between
prospective, "rst-time, and repeat visitors to the lower Rio Grande
Valley. Journal of Travel Research, 30(2), 10}16.
Fridgen, J. D. (1987). Use of cognitive maps to determine perceived
tourism region. Leisure Sciences, 9, 101}117.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1992).
Multivariate data analysis with readings. New York: Macmillan.
 S. Baloglu / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 127}133
Howell, D. C. (1992). Statistical methods for psychology (3rd ed).
Belmont: Duxbury Press.
Hu, Y., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1993). Measuring destination attractiveness:
A contextual approach. Journal of Travel Research, 32(2), 25}34.
MacKay, K. J., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1997). Pictorial element of desti-
nation in image formation. Annals of Tourism Research, 24, 537}565.
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.
Park, C. W., Mothersbaugh, D. L., & Feick, L. (1994). Consumer
knowledge assessment. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 71}82.
Pearce, P. L. (1982). Perceived changes in holiday destinations. Annals
of Tourism Research, 9, 145}164.
Phelps, A. (1986). Holiday destination image: The problem of assess-
ment. Tourism Management, 7(3), 168}180.
133
Rao, A. R., & Sieben, W. A. (1992). The e!ect of prior knowledge on
price acceptability and the type of information examined. Journal of
Consumer Research, 19, 256}270.
Spotts, D. M., & Stynes, D. J. (1985). Measuring the public's familiar-
ity with recreation areas. Journal of Leisure Research, 17(4),
253}265.
Stern, E., & Krakover, S. (1993). The formation of a composite urban
image. Geographical Analysis, 25(2), 130}146.
Walmsley, D. J., & Young, M. (1998). Evaluative images and tourism:
The use of personal constructs to describe the structure of destina-
tion images. Journal of Travel Research, 36(3), 65}69.
Ward, L. M., & Russel, J. A. (1981). The psychological representation of
molar physical environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 110(2), 121}152.