See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/268332178

Destination Personality, Self-Congruity and Loyalty

Article in Journal of Hospitality Management and Tourism · September 2012

DOI: 10.5897/JHMT12.024

CITATIONS READS

74 529

2 authors, including:

Serhat Adem Sop

Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy University
72 PUBLICATIONS 302 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Serhat Adem Sop on 13 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of
Hospitality Management
and Tourism
Volume 3 Number 5 September 2012
ISSN 2141-6575
Journal of Hospitality Management and Tourism Vol. 3(5), pp 95-105, September 2012
Available online at http://academicjournals.org/JHMT
DOI: 10.5897/JHMT12.024
ISSN 2141-6575 ©2012 Academic Journals

Full Length Research Paper

Destination personality, self-congruity and loyalty

Burhan KILIÇ and Serhat Adem SOP*
Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, School of Tourism and Hotel Management, Muğla, Turkey.
Accepted 15 May, 2012

Despite the interests on destination branding in general, there has been scarce investigations on
destination personality which is described as the set of human characteristics associated with a
destination. The purpose of this study was to investigate the perceived destination personality of
Bodrum (a famous destination in Turkey) and the relationship among destination personality, self-
congruity and loyalty. In 8 to 14 August, 2011 time period, 252 respondents who were domestic tourists
that visited Bodrum destination and stayed at the hotels in the destination were surveyed with the
questionnaire form privately developed for the destination. 226 usable questionnaires were analyzed. 38
personality traits were tested and destination personality of Bodrum was measured. The findings of the
study indicate that tourists ascribe personality characteristics to destinations and the perceived
destination personality dimensions of Bodrum are dynamism, sincerity, competence and
sophistication. The results also show that the most distinct dimension which has a positive impact on
loyalty to destination is sincerity. In addition, ideal self-congruity has resulted as the most effective
self-congruity measure on loyalty.

Key words: Destination personality, self-congruity, loyalty, Bodrum, Turkey.

INTRODUCTION

In today‟s competitive world, understanding the effective destination personality and the tourist‟s characteristics
factors on destination choice is important to both acade- reflect loyalty for the destination? Considering this basic
micians and professionals who are playing a part in question, the relationship among destination personality,
tourism sector (Beerli et al., 2007). Although, the efforts self-congruity and loyalty was investigated in Bodrum
on branding tourism destinations are effective marketing destination. Bodrum is one of the famous destinations in
tools (Uşaklı and Baloglu, 2011); only beautiful beaches, Turkey. The destination which is famous for white houses
seas, hospitable local people etc. are not enough to be and night life is located in the province of Muğla. Apart
survived in today‟s competitive environment (Hosany et from its 31 beautiful bays, long beaches and 9 diving
al., 2007; Murphy et al., 2007a). Within this scope, spots, there are 9 walking tracks, 13 ancient cities and
adapting Aaker‟s (1997) brand personality terminology to lots of night clubs or bars (www.muglakulturturizm.gov.tr).
tourism destinations is important in terms of specifying This makes Bodrum available for not only sea-sand-sun
the own characteristics of destinations and creating a tourism (http://www.muglakulturturizm.gov.tr/belge/1-
different image on tourists‟ perceptions. 95819/bodrum.html (10.05.2012), but also cultural and
Based on the destination which reflects the tourist‟s sports tourism. Furthermore, the night life of Bodrum is
own idea, characteristic and/or feeling, the tourist com- well known by foreign and domestic tourists. Due to this
pares the characteristics of the destination with his own variety seen in the destination, tourists from different
personality and this defines self-congruity (Opoku, 2009). countries who have different personality characteristics
In that case, does this congruence between the from each other would like to visit the destination. So as
to survey the perceived brand personality characteristics
of this destination, the congruence between destination
personality characteristics and visitors‟ self-concept and
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]. intention to revisit or intention to recommend the
96 J. Hospitality Manage. Tourism

destination to others, this study was carried out in of brand personality scale can be applied to tourism
Bodrum. The literature review indicates that directly no destination personality. As seen in the literature, Uşaklı
researches have been implemented in this destination and Baloglu (2011) inves-tigated Las Vegas destination
related to the subject. and determined the perceived destination personality
The study is guided by the following questions deve- dimensions: vibrancy, sophistication, competence,
loped from the study that was carried out by Murphy et al. contemporary, and sincerity. Santos (2004) identified
(2007a) about Whitsundays destination. The questions of Portugal‟s personality charac-teristics as modern,
the study were implemented on the domestic tourists sophisticated and traditional, whereas Wales was defined
visiting the destination. as honest, welcoming, romantic and down to earth; Spain
as friendly and family oriented; Paris as romantic; and
(1) What are the brand personality dimensions of Bodrum London destinations. Nevertheless, the authors
on domestic visitors‟ perceptions? concluded that destination personality consists of three
(2 Is there a relationship between destination personality distinct dimen-sions rather than the original five. Two of
perceptions and self-congruity? these dimensions were sincerity and excitement, same
(3) Is there a relationship between destination personality as in Aaker‟s (1997) brand personality dimensions, but
perceptions and domestic tourists‟ loyalty on the conviviality was new and specific to tourism destinations
destination? (Ekinci and Hosany, 2006).
(4) Is there a relationship between self-congruity and Uncovering a brand‟s or destination‟s personality is a
domestic tourists‟ loyalty on the destination? difficult process which needs effort and time
(http://anzmac2010.org/proceedings/pdf/anzmac10Final0
0497.pdf (24.08.2011). Nonetheless, the lack of studies
LITERATURE REVIEW in the context of destination personality leads the resear-
chers to be interested in the subject. The literature review
Destination personality proves that the destination personality researchers
develop their own scales or use Aaker‟s (1997) brand
Destination personality term is approached within brand personality scale to examine a destination (Azoulay and
personality context. Brand is defined as “a term, sign, Kapferer, 2003; Ekinci and Hosany, 2006; Hosany et al.,
symbol either design or combination of all” and 2007; Uşaklı and Baloglu, 2011).
developed to differentiate the product from the com- Brand personality scales are composed of the listed
petitors‟ (Kotler, 1991). As emphasized in consumer traits which emphasize the personality characteristics. 5-
behavior literature, brand personality is defined as the point Likert type scale is used to measure each trait‟s
“set of human characteristics associated with a brand” descriptiveness. Then, factor analysis is performed to
(Aaker, 1997) which means any humanistic values that determine the personality dimensions (Azoulay and
are seen in brands (Vaidya et al., 2009). Although, brand Kapferer, 2003).
is an inanimate term, consumers attribute human charac- Although, there have been sparse empirical investiga-
teristics such as youthful, energetic, masculine, rugged tions, the tourism academics are getting enthusiastic to
etc. to a brand. For example, one may use the words research on as open-minded, unorthodox, vibrant and
cool, hip and contemporary to describe Absolute vodka creative (Ekinci and Hosany, 2006).
(Aaker, 1997), masculine to Marlboro cigarettes, feminine
to Chanel perfumes and intelligent to IBM computers
(Ekinci and Hosany, 2006). Self-congruity
Brand personality literature indicates that adapting
brand characteristics to tourism destinations is important When consumer behavior literature is reviewed, it is
in terms of understanding the perceived destination understood that brand personality enables consumers to
image and tourists‟ destination choices (Hosany et al., express themselves. In other words, people prefer
2007).With this point of view, destination personality, products or brands whose psychological characteristics
defined as “the set of human characteristics associated are congruent with their own characteristics (Opoku,
with a destination” (Ekinci and Hosany, 2006), is 2009; Beerli et al., 2007). In that case, the congruity of
developed from Aaker‟s (1997) brand personality scale self-concept (or self-image) which has been defined as
(BPS) which consists of five generic dimensions: “the totality of individual‟s thoughts and feelings having
excitement, sincerity, competence, sophistication and reference to himself as an object” with product or brand
ruggedness and 42 descriptive traits. The applicability refers to self-congruity (Sirgy, 1985; Uşaklı and Baloglu,
and validity of Aaker‟s (1997) brand personality 2011). Self-congruity consists of four dimensions. These
framework in the context of tourism destinations were first dimensions are actual self-congruity, ideal self-congruity,
examined by Ekinci and Hosany (2006). The results of social self-congruity and ideal social self-congruity. Actual
the study proved that tourists ascribed personality self-congruity is the fit between how people actually see
characteristics to destinations which means the concept themselves in relation to the image of that the kind of
 KILIÇ and SOP 97

people who purchase the product or brand. Ideal self- METHODOLOGY

congruity refers to how people like to see themselves.
Social-self congruity is the fit between how people The relationship among destination personality, self-congruity and
loyalty was investigated in Bodrum destination, Turkey. According
believe they are seen by others in relation to the product to World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) 2011 highlights
or brand user image. Ideal social-self congruity is the fit (http://mkt.unwto.org/sites/all/files/docpdf/unwtohighlights11enhr_3.
between how people would like to be seen by others in pdf (10.05.2012), Turkey occupies the seventh position in
relation to the product or brand user image (Sirgy and Su, international tourism arrivals with 27 million and tenth in
2000). international tourism receipts with 20.8 billion US $. Respect to
When self-congruity is investigated in the context of these numbers, this study was determined to carry out in Turkey.
As one of the well-known destination of this tourism country
tourism, it is seen that the fit between destination image (http://www.etstur.com/Bodrum (13.05.2012;
and tourist‟s self-image has an impact on tourist‟s revisit http://www.thomascook.com/lp/1x6-enbynk/holidays-bodrum
intention (Murphy et al., 2007b). With this point of view, (13.05.2012;http://www.thomson.co.uk/destinations/europe/turkey/t
tourism literature shows that actual self-congruity has urkey-bodrum/holidays-turkey-bodrum.html (13.05.2012), Bodrum
been emphasized more than the other three dimensions has always been visited by foreign and domestic tourists. People
living in different regions of Turkey would like to visit this
in destination image studies (Sirgy and Su, 2000). In
destination, especially in summer time. The Turkish celebrities also
their study Uşaklı and Baloglu (2011) have investigated commonly choose this destination for holiday. As understood, to
actual self-congruity and ideal self-congruity. More investigate domestic tourists who has image about this popular
clearly, the congruence between destination personality destination is appropriate within the concept of this study. Thus,
and the two dimensions of self-congruity (how visitors domestic tourists‟ perceptions of destination personality charac-
see themselves and how visitors like to see themselves) teristics were measured, firstly. Secondly, the congruity between
their own characteristics and the destination‟s was questioned.
have been measured. Despite the ongoing studies in Finally, loyalty was examined in composite loyalty dimension in
consumer literature, self-congruity studies are still not terms of tourists‟ future visits and/or recommendations to others. So
commonly performed in tourism studies (Uşaklı and as to investigate this relationship, a questionnaire form was
Baloglu, 2011). developed and252respondents that were domestic tourists who
visited Bodrum destination were surveyed. However, 26
questionnaires were excluded due to missing answers and 226
Loyalty usable questionnaires were analyzed. SPSS 14 was used to
analyze the data obtained from questionnaires. In 8 to 14 August,
2011 time period, domestic tourists staying at the hotels in Bodrum
Another term that is going to be discussed in this study is
centrum, Gümbet, Gündoğan, Turgutreis, Türkbükü and Yahşi were
loyalty. Loyalty has been recognized as one of the more surveyed. Adapted from Aaker‟s (1997) brand personality scale
important indicators of success in the marketing literature (BPS) 38 personality traits were tested and destination personality
(Valle et al., 2006). The term loyalty is defined as “a of Bodrum was tried to be measured. For each personality traits 5-
deeply held commitment to re-buy or re-patronize a point Likert type scale was used: 1-strongly disagree, 2-disagree, 3-
preferred product/service consistently in the future, not sure, 4-agree and 5-strongly agree.
After specifying the destination personality, the self-congruity was
thereby causing repetitive same-brand or same brand-set analyzed by using the “new method” which was established by
purchasing, despite situational influences and marketing Sirgy et al. (1997), Sirgy and Su (2000). Sirgy et al. (1997) claim
efforts having the potential to cause switching behavior” that using this method instead of the “traditional method” leads
(Oliver, 1999). minimum statistical mistakes and reliable results. Concerning this
Since loyalty should be performed in different ways, it is method, the respondents are asked to think about the type of
difficult to measure. Bowen and Chen (2001) identify the typical visitor the destination and define that type of visitor with
personality traits such as sincere, friendly, young, sexy, charming,
measurement approaches of loyalty as “behavioral, unique, feminine etc. Nonetheless, the tourist type of a destination
attitudinal and composite measurements”. The behavioral can be inconsistent (Uşaklı and Baloglu, 2011).This is because the
dimension defines loyalty as actual consumption respondents are asked to think of the destination as if it were a
(Mechinda et al., 2010) that means a repetitious person and specify its personality characteristics. Therefore in this
purchase behavior. The attitudinal loyalty means a sense study, the respondents clarified the characteristics of Bodrum
destination in their minds and then, they responded the expressions
of emotional attachment to a good/service (McKercher et
that analyze the self-congruity by using 5-point Likert type scale: 1-
al., 2011). Finally, composite loyalty is the mixture of the strongly disagree, 2-disagree, 3-not sure, 4-agree and 5-strongly
first two dimensions and it means both repurchasing and agree.
recommending the product/service to others (Bowen and Based on the Sirgy and Su (2000) study, 4 expressions were
Chen, 2001).When considered in terms of destination used to measure self-congruity in the plot study:
visitors, the composite loyalty means revisiting and
recommending the destination to others. (1) Bodrum destination is consistent with how I see myself.
The relevant literature proves that studies which have (2) Bodrum destination is consistent with how I like to see myself.
(3) Bodrum destination is consistent with how I believe others see
been implemented in the context of measuring the me.
relationship among “destination personality, self-congruity (4) Bodrum destination is consistent with how I would like others to
and loyalty (revisit and recommend)” have concluded with see me.
positive results (Uşaklı and Baloglu, 2011; Murphy et al.,
2007a). The literature review shows that the original 4 expressions have
98 J. Hospitality Manage. Tourism

Table 1. Profile of respondents (N= 226). personality by the people around me.
(4) I would like to be perceived as similar to the personality of
Feature n % Bodrum.
Gender As understood from the expressions above, 4 dimensions of self-
Male 111 49.1 congruity were measured clearly. “The personality of Bodrum is
Female 115 50.9 consistent with my personality characteristics” refers to actual self-
congruity; “Bodrum has some of the personality characteristics that
I would like to see on me” refers to ideal self-congruity; “As I see,
Age Bodrum and I are perceived as similar in terms of personality by the
19-29 81 35.8 people around me” refers to social self-congruity and “I would like to
30-39 71 31.4 be perceived as similar to the personality of Bodrum” refers to ideal
social self-congruity.
40-49 45 19.9
In order to analyze destination loyalty, the visitors were asked if
50-59 19 8.4 they would recommend Bodrum destination to their friends or the
60+ 10 4.4 people around them, by using 10-point scale: 1- not recommend at
all, 10- definitely recommend. Revisit intention within two years was
also measured with 10-point scale: 1- do not intend to visit, 10- very
Marital Status likely to visit. Additionally, an open-ended question was used to
Married 113 50.0 examine the visitors‟ perceived destination image by using 3
Single 99 43.8 descriptive words or phrases.
Other 14 6.2

Education RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Primary School 4 1.8
High School 39 17.3 Profile of the respondents
Vocational School 64 28.3
Demographic profile of the respondents‟ analysis proved
University 93 41.2
that the number of male and female respondents was
Master‟s or PhD 26 11.5
almost equal. There were barely more female res-
pondents (50.9%) than males (49.1%). The respondents
Income (yearly) were mostly placed in 19 to 29 age group (35.8%). The
Less than 10.000 TL 66 29.2 majority of the respondents were married (50%) and held
10.000 TL-19.999 TL 48 21.2 a university degree (41.2%). The most of the respondents
20.000 TL-29.999 TL 50 22.1 belonged to the income group of less than 10,000 TL
30.000 TL-39.999 TL 17 7.5 (Turkish Lira). The question of with whom the
More than 40.000 TL 45 19.9 respondents were travelling was mostly responded as
family and/or relatives (39.4%).
Travelling with whom More than half of the respondents (77,9%) were repeat
Alone 25 11.0 visitors of the destination. The number of the previous
Spouse / Partner 61 27.0
visits ranged from 1 time to 15 times (mean 4.51).
According to answers obtained from 10-point scale (1- do
Family / Relatives 89 39.4
not intend to visit, 10- very likely to visit), most of the
Friends 49 21.7
respondents were planning to visit Bodrum within two
Tour Group 2 0.9 years (mean 7.7); 38.5% of the respondents rated 10
points. Respondents stayed an average of 9 days in the
destination. Among the respondents 7 days holiday-
makers were explained with 30.1%; 10 days with 17.7%
been used in different studies to measure self-congruity (Sirgy et and 14 days with 7.5% (Table 1).
al., 1997; Sirgy and Su, 2000; Murphy et al., 2007b; Uşaklı and
Baloglu, 2011). However, after implementing the pilot study that
was conducted with a sample of 36 visitors to Bodrum destination, it
The image of the destination
was seen that the original 4 expressions couldn‟t be responded
respectively by the visitors. Findings suggested that, the
expressions were not clear enough to understand. Due to that Table 2 shows the image perceptions of the respondents
reason, 4 new expressions were developed as similar to the original towards Bodrum. Respondents were asked an open-
ones: ended question to examine their perceptions regarding
the image of Bodrum. 3 answers were obtained from
(1) The personality of Bodrum is consistent with my personality
characteristics.
each respondent. Most of the respondents described
(2) Bodrum has some of the personality characteristics that I would their image of the destination with some unique des-
like to see on me. criptive words or phrases such as night life (18.9%),
(3) As I see, Bodrum and I are perceived as similar in terms of peace (11.5%) and dynamism (11.4%).
 KILIÇ and SOP 99

Table 2. Respondents‟ images of Bodrum (N=484). peace seeker (mean 3.53) type of visitor were not
associated with the destination as much. On the other
Image n % hand, the sophisticated, confident and business traveler
Night life 91 18.9 (mean 1.67) type of visitor was not associated with the
Peace 56 11.5 destination at all. Wealthy, classy and shopper type of
Dynamism 55 11.4 visitor was also commonly seen in the destination
Natural Beauty 55 11,4 according to the responses.
Sea-sand-sun 51 10.5
Modern structures 28 5.8
Destination personality perceptions
Holiday 22 4,5
Excitement 20 4,1
Respondents rated the degree to which they associated
White houses 19 3.9
38 brand personality traits with Bodrum destination on a
Sex - Love 19 3,9 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).
Expensive shopping 17 3.5 The 38 personality traits were factor analyzed to reduce
Traffic 15 3,1 data and to clarify the dimensions. It was seen that
Hot weather 14 2.9 Aaker‟s (1997) original five personality dimensions could
Historical monuments 13 2.7 not be duplicated in this study.
Hospitable local people 9 1.9 Four factors were obtained by using alpha factoring
analysis with Varimax rotation method (Kaiser-Mayer-
Olkin = 0.864) and 21 personality traits were eliminated.
Before the analysis, some of the personality traits had
On this basis, Table 2 explains that the first thing been thought as the special personality traits that were
coming to their mind was night life when the respondents consistent with Bodrum destination like young, unique,
thought of Bodrum. This was an expected result because outdoorsy and hospitable. The 17 traits left (Cronbach‟s
in Turkey, media and people who visit Bodrum describe Alpha = 0.897) and they included new ones that were
the destination with its bar streets, clubs and pubs. special to the destination like energetic, reckless and
Although, Bodrum is famous for its white houses, the modern exhibited factor loadings greater than 0.50. The
responses showed that the respondents were mostly factors have been labeled as dynamism, sincerity,
aware of other factors like natural beauty (11.4%), sea- competence and sophistication. It is necessary to clarify
sand-sun (10.5%) and modern structures (5.8%). As a that dynamism factor was labeled as different from the
surprising finding of image perception, expensive original factors of Aaker‟s (1997) owing to the fact that all
shopping (3.5%) was a common response among some the personality characteristic items were not loaded
of the respondents. under the original five factors. For example, cheerful and
In order to specify the typical visitor of Bodrum, friendly were loaded on dynamism rather than sincerity;
respondents were asked 6 questions with pictures for independent was also loaded on competence rather than
each that how strongly they associated the pictures to excitement because it had greater impact on competence
typical visitors of Bodrum destination (Table 3). After the named factor. Murphy et al. (2007), Hosany and Ekinci
pilot study implemented among 36 respondents, each (2006) were also unable to duplicate the original five
picture was defined with 3 descriptive words or phrases. dimensions of Aaker‟s (1997) and relabeled the factors
On this basis, respondents described picture 1 as as special to the destinations (Table 4).
“sophisticated, confident and business traveler”, picture 2
as “young, fun loving and partier”, picture 3 as
“adventurous, brave and solo traveler”, picture 4 as Destination personality and self-congruity
“wealthy, classy and shopper”, picture 5 as “old, family
oriented and peace seeker” and finally picture 6 as In this step of the study, multiple regression analyses
“recumbent, sea-sand-sun loving and classical were conducted to explore the relationship between the
holidaymaker”. destination personality dimensions and four measures of
According to Table 3, the typical visitor of Bodrum was self-congruity. First, actual and ideal self-congruity
intensively associated with picture 6 and 2. Responses measures were regressed on the dimensions of des-
showed that the typical visitors of Bodrum were tination personality and seen that no auto correlation
recumbent, sea-sand-sun loving and classical holiday- problems were appeared in the models (Durbin-Watson
maker (mean 4.72); young, fun loving and partier (mean =2.004 and 1.872). The results can be seen in Table 5. In
4.39). This means the destination is available for sea- the models, the F values seemed high (F1 = 7.132 and F2
sand-sun tourism with night life especially for young = 9.676) and the multiple R coefficients (R1 = 0.338 and
holidaymakers. Besides; adventurous, brave and solo R2 = 0.386) showed that the correlation between
traveler (mean 3.05) type and old, family-oriented and destination personality dimensions and two measures of
100 J. Hospitality Manage. Tourism

Table 3. Respondents‟ perceptions of a typical visitor to Bodrum (N = 226).

Description n %
Picture 1 – Sophisticated, confident, business traveler

Not at all 145 64.2

Not very strongly 34 15.0
Not sure 25 11.1
Strongly 19 8.4
Very strongly 3 1.3

Picture 2 – Young, fun loving, partier

Not at all 8 3.5
Not very strongly 2 0.9
Not sure 11 4.9
Strongly 76 33.6
Very strongly 129 57.1

Picture 3 - Adventurous, brave, solo traveler

Not at all 42 18.6
Not very strongly 29 12.8
Not sure 63 27.9
Strongly 58 25.7
Very strongly 34 15.0

Picture 4 – Wealthy, classy, shopper

Not at all 44 19.5
Not very strongly 39 17.3
Not sure 66 29.2
Strongly 56 24.8
Very strongly 21 9.3

Picture 5 – Old, family oriented, peace seeker

Not at all 20 8.8
Not very strongly 26 11.5
Not sure 35 15.5
Strongly 103 45.6
Very strongly 42 18.6

Picture 6 – Recumbent, sea-sand-sun loving, classical holidaymaker

Not at all 4 1.8
Not very strongly - -
Not sure 2 0.9
Strongly 43 19.0
Very strongly 177 78.3
 KILIÇ and SOP 101

Table 4. Exploratory factor analysis (N= 226).

Scale Mean SD Loading Eigenvalue Explained variance (%) Cronbach’s α

Dynamism 6.717 39.510 0.893
Energetic 4.26 0.96 0.800
Daring 3.96 1.04 0.767
Exciting 4.01 0.98 0.742
Spirited 4.27 0.96 0.701
Cheerful 4.08 0.99 0.601
Reckless 3.88 1.17 0.520
Friendly 3.92 0.98 0.510

Sincerity 3.054 17.963 0.881

Honest 3.27 1.17 0.835
Wholesome 3.08 1.26 0.826
Down-to-earth 3.39 1.12 0.764
Reliable 3.28 1.21 0.715
Sincere 3.51 1.10 0.666

Competence 1.220 7.175 0.783

Independent 3.97 0.99 0.706
Modern 3.82 1.05 0.613
Confident 3.80 0.99 0.577

Sophistication 1.098 6.458 0.789

Charming 3.96 0.93 0.743
Upper class 3.80 1.08 0.681

Total variance explained 71.106

Extraction method: Alpha factoring, rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization, KMO: 0.864, Bartlett‟s Test of Sphericityp value 0.000
(chi-square:2319.934, df: 136).

Table 5. Regression analysis results - relationship between destination personality and self-congruence.

Actual self-congruity Ideal self-congruity

Dimension
Beta t-Value Sig. t Beta t-Value Sig. t
Dynamism 0.218 1.631 0.104 0.190 1.515 0.131
Sincerity 0.372 4.286 0.000 0.367 4.500 0.000
Competence -0.123 -1.004 0.317 0.066 0.571 0.569
Sophistication 0.068 0.680 0.498 -0.005 -0.057 0.955
Constant 1.235 2.864 0.008 1.113 2.574 0.011
Multiple R 0.338 0.386
2
R 0.114 0.149
F test statistics/ F= 7.132 F= 9.676
significance p= 0.000 p= 0.000
Durbin-Watson 2.004 1.872

self-congruity were moderate (0.3 < R < 0.5) (Cohen, amount of variance explained by the regression model for
1988; in Uşaklı and Baloglu, 2011). actual and ideal self-congruity were low, the F values
As seen in Table 5, the four dimensions of destination were highly significant which meant the models were
personality explained 11.4 and 14.9% of the total statistically significant (p1 = 0.000 and p2 = 0.000). There
variation in actual and ideal self-congruity. Although the was statistically significant relationship between sincerity
102 J. Hospitality Manage. Tourism

Table 6. Regression analysis results - relationship between destination personality and social congruence.

Social self-congruity Ideal social Self-congruity

Dimension
Beta t-Value Sig. t Beta t-Value Sig. t
Dynamism 0.116 1.013 0.312 0.037 0.285 0.776
Sincerity 0.339 4.543 0.000 0.577 6.893 0.000
Competence 0.022 0.204 0.838 0.071 0.602 0.548
Sophistication 0.166 1.918 0.056 0.104 1.072 0.285
Constant 0.448 1.134 0.258 0.461 1.038 0.301
Multiple R 0.412 0.491
2
R 0.170 0.242
F test statistics/ F=11.286 F=17.596
significance p= 0.000 p= 0.000
Durbin-Watson 1.990 1.892

personality and actual self-congruity; dynamism (p = were not significantly related to social self and ideal
0.131), competence (p = 0.569) and sophistication (p = social self-congruity.
0.955) dimensions were not statistically significant in
predicting ideal self-congruity.
Social self and ideal social self-congruity measures Destination personality and loyalty
were regressed on the dimensions of destination
personality and the results are represented in Table 6. In this part of the study, both intention to recommend
The four dimensions of destination personality explained Bodrum destination to friends, relatives etc. and intention
17.0 and 24.2% of the total variation in social and ideal to revisit the destination within two years were regressed
social self-congruity. It was clear that there were no auto- on four dimensions of the destination personality. Multiple
correlation problems in the models (Durbin-Watson regression analyses were conducted taking four
=1.990 and 1.892). The multiple R coefficients (R1 = dimensions of the destination personality as independent
0.412 and R2 = 0.491) showed that destination variables. The results are presented in Table 7.
personality dimensions and two measures of social con- The multiple R coefficients (R1 = 0.526 and R2 = 0.355)
gruence were positively correlated and the F values (F1 = showed that the correlations between destination
11.286 and F2 = 17.596) were high which described the personality dimensions and two measures of loyalty were
models as statistically significant (p1 = 0.000 and p2 = strong to moderate (R values > 0.3) (Cohen, 1988; in
0.000). As seen in Table 6, there was statistically Uşaklı and Baloglu, 2011). In model 1, the four
significant relationship between sincerity dimension and dimensions of destination personality explained 22.7% of
social self-congruity (p=0.000). Otherwise, dynamism (p the total variation in intention to recommend the
= 0.312), competence (p = 0.838) and sophistication (p= destination to others. Beside, in model 2, 12.6% of
0.056) dimensions were not statistically significant in variance was explained by destination personality di-
predicting social self-congruity. Ideal social self-congruity mensions in estimation of intention to revisit the
was examined in the same table and it was seen that destination. Table 7 also showed the statistically
only sincerity dimension was significant (p = 0.000) in significant relationship among dynamism (p = 0.004) and
predicting ideal social self-congruity when dynamism (p = sincerity (p = 0.000) dimensions and intention to
0.776), competence (p = 0.548) and sophistication (p = recommend. However, competence dimension and
0.285) dimensions were not statistically significant. intention to recommend relationship was negatively
Both Tables 5 and 6 proved that only sincerity directed (β = -0.014) and the dimension was not
dimension was statistically significant in predicting four significant in defining intention to recommend the
self-congruity dimensions for Bodrum destination. In destination to others (p = 0.938). Although sophistication
predicting actual self-congruity, competence dimension dimension seemed positively directed in the model (β =
had negative impact (β = -0.123).When considering the 0.137), the relationship was not statistically significant (p
relationship between personality dimensions and ideal = 0.357) which meant the dimension had no impact on
self-congruity, this time sophistication dimension (β = - intention to recommend. Eventually, the table proved that
0.005) was seen as negatively directed in predicting ideal sincerity dimension had the highest impact level on
self-congruity. The regression analyses seen in table 6 intention to recommend the destination to others (β =
also showed that dynamism (p1 = 0.312 and p2 = 0.776), 0.798).
competence (p1 = 0.838 and p2 = 0.548), and When the relationship between destination personality
sophistication (p1 = 0.056 and p2 = 0.285) dimensions dimensions and intention to revisit was analyzed as
 KILIÇ and SOP 103

Table 7. Regression analysis results - relationship between destination personality and loyalty.

Intention to recommend Intention to revisit

Dimension
Beta t-Value Sig. t Beta t-Value Sig. t
Dynamism 0.577 2.940 0.004 0.513 1.882 0.061
Sincerity 0.798 6.256 0.000 0.464 2.618 0.009
Competence -0.014 -0.077 0.938 0.226 0.904 0.367
Sophistication 0.137 0.923 0.357 0.157 0.763 0.446
Constant 2.795 4.133 0.000 2.579 2.744 0.007
Multiple R 0.526 0.355
2
R 0.227 0.126
F test statistics/ F=21.151 F= 7.980
significance p= 0.000 p= 0.000
Durbin-Watson 1.751 1.648
F values (F1 = 21.151 and F2 = 7.980) in both model 1 (the relationship between destination personality and intention to
recommend) and model 2 (the relationship between destination personality and intention to revisit)were high and the models were
statistically significant according to the results of the regression analyses (p values = 0.000).

model 2 in the same table, sincerity (β = 0.464, p = intention to revisit. These multiple regression analyses
0.009) dimension was seen as significant and had also showed that social self-congruity (β = 0.066, p =
positive impact on intention to revisit the destination. 0.685) and social ideal self-congruity (β = 0.225, p =
Nonetheless, dynamism (p = 0.061), competence (p = 0.101) were not significant predictors on intention to
0.367) and sophistication (p = 0.446) dimensions were revisit the destination.
not significant in predicting intention to revisit the In order to find out which measure of the self-congruity
destination. Seen that the dimension which had the had relative importance on loyalty, beta coefficients
significant highest impact level on intention to revisit the should be reviewed in Table 8. According to the table,
destination within two years was sincerity dimension (β = ideal self-congruity was found as the most effective
0.464). measure on loyalty: both on intention to recommend (β 1 =
0.350, p1 = 0.003) and intention to revisit (β2 = 0.670, p2 =
0.000).
Self-congruity and loyalty

The last multiple regression analyses were conducted to Conclusion

expound the relationship between the four measures of
self-congruity and loyalty. The results are presented in The relationship among destination personality, self-
Table 8. The multiple R coefficients (R1 = 0.460 and R2 = congruity and loyalty was investigated in this study and
0.497) showed that the correlations between self- the sample of the study was included 252 domestic
congruity and two measures of loyalty were strong to tourists who visited Bodrum destination. According to 226
moderate (R values > 0.3) (Cohen, 1988; in Uşaklı and usable questionnaires, the distinct demographic features
Baloglu, 2011). The four measures of self-congruity of the respondents were defined as: female, young
explained 21.1 and 24.7% of the variation in intention to (people aged between 19 and 29), married, having
recommend and intention to revisit the destination. All of bachelors‟ degree and getting annual income less than
the self-congruity measures; ideal self-congruity (β= 10.000 TL. The results also showed that the respondents
0.350,p=0.003), social self-congruity (β = 0.261, p = traveled to the destination with their family members
0.048) and social ideal self-congruity (β = 0.283, p = and/or relatives. More than half of the respondents
0.011) had positive impact on the relationship between (77.9%) were repeat visitors of the destination and most
self-congruity measures and intention to recommend the of the respondents pointed that they were planning to
destination and those measures were seen as significant visit the destination within two years (mean 7.7).
predictors on intention to recommend except actual self- When the perceived image of the destination was
congruity (p = 0.210) even if it directed positively (β = investigated with an open ended question, the responses
0.150). On the other hand, only two measures of the self- proved that the image of Bodrum destination consisted of
congruity; actual self-congruity (β = 0.376, p = 0.011) and some unique features: such as night life (18.9%), peace
ideal self-congruity (β = 0.670, p = 0.000) had positive (11.5%) and dynamism (11.4%). On the other hand, the
impact and were statistically significant in estimation of typical visitor of the destination was questioned. The
104 J. Hospitality Manage. Tourism

Table 8. Regression analysis results - relationship between self-congruity and loyalty.

Intention to Recommend Intention to Revisit

Measure
Beta t-Value Sig. t Beta t-Value Sig. t
Actual self-congruity 0.150 1.256 0.210 0.376 2.559 0.011
Ideal self-congruity 0.350 2.957 0.003 0.670 4.590 0.000
Social self-congruity 0.261 1.991 0.048 0.066 0.407 0.685
Social ideal self-congruity 0.283 2.550 0.011 0.225 1.646 0.101
Constant 4.991 11.242 0.000 3.364 6.135 0.000
Multiple R 0.460 0.497
2
R 0.211 0.247
F test statistics F=14.808 F= 18.158
Significance p= 0.000 p= 0.000
Durbin-Watson 1.726 1.694

responses clarified the typical visitors of Bodrum as sincerity and the degree to which Bodrum destination
recumbent, sea-sand-sun loving and classical was consistent with „how respondents see themselves‟
holidaymaker (mean 4.72); young, fun-loving and partier was statistically significant. The same result was
(mean 4.39). Based on this result, Bodrum destination represented in terms of the relationship between sincerity
can be described as the destination where young dimension and ideal self-congruity which meant the
holidaymakers enjoy sea-sand-sun and night life at the relationship between sincerity dimension and the degree
same time. to which Bodrum destination was consistent with „how
Apart from the demographics of the respondents and respondents like to see themselves‟ was also significant.
the image perceptions of the destination, four research When considered the relationship between social self-
questions were examined to measure the relationship congruity and the personality dimensions, sophistication
between destination personality, self-congruity and and sincerity dimensions were seen as significant in this
loyalty. The results are listed below: relationship. It meant that the relationship between
sincerity dimension and the degree to which Bodrum des-
tination was consistent with „how respondents believed
What are the brand personality dimensions of others to see them‟ was statistically significant. The final
Bodrum on domestic visitors’ perceptions? examination showed that social self-congruity and
The personality traits were factor analyzed and finally the sincerity dimension‟s relationship which meant the
dimensions of the destination personality (consisted of 17 relationship between sincerity dimension and the degree
traits) specified as: dynamism, sincerity, competence and to which Bodrum destination was consistent with „how
sophistication. Dynamism dimension was labeled as respondents would like others to see them‟ was
different from the original brand personality factors of J. statistically significant again.
Aaker (1997) and this dimension seemed as a unique With respect to these results, only sincerity dimension,
characteristic of the destination. This result supports the as a unique characteristic for the destination, was
studies of Ekinci and Hosany (2006) and Murphy et al. described as significant in predicting four self-congruity
(2007a) which have been concluded as the tourists dimensions for Bodrum destination. Another important
ascribe personality characteristics to destinations and result of the study which supports Uşaklı and Baloglu‟s
Aaker‟s (1997) brand personality scale can be applied to (2011) study is self-congruity theory can be applied in the
tourism destinations with some shifting and unique context of tourism researches.
dimensions that are specific to destinations.
Is there a relationship between destination
Is there a relationship between destination personality perceptions and domestic tourists’
personality perceptions and self-congruity? loyalty on the destination?

Multiple regression analyses were conducted to measure In this study, loyalty has been measured within two
if there was a relationship between destination per- aspects: intention to recommend and intention to revisit.
sonality and four measures of self-congruity. According to According to the results of multiple regression analyses,
the results of the regression analyses, the relationship the correlation between destination personality and two
between sincerity dimension and actual self-congruity measures of loyalty seemed significant. The relationship
was significant. More specifically, the relationship between among dynamism and sincerity dimensions and intention
 KILIÇ and SOP 105

to recommend resulted positively and significantly. On understand the behaviors of the tourists. Furthermore,
the other hand, the relationship between sincerity dimen- they should create the greater match between the
sions and intention to revisit concluded as significant personality dimensions of Bodrum and the tourists‟ self-
again. These results make it clear that sincerity dimen- congruity perceptions which can lead more loyal tourists
sion has the highest impact level on loyalty, both intention for the destination that means maintaining the
to recommend the destination to others and intention to competitiveness in the future.
revisit the destination within two years. Conversely, to
the Murphy et al. (2007a) study, these results show the
REFERENCES
link between destination personality and intention to
revisit the destination. Otherwise, the positive relationship Aaker JL (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. J. Market. Res.
between destination personality and intention to 34:347-356.
recommend has been supported by Ekinci and Hosany‟s Azoulay A, Kapferer J (2003). Do brand personality scales really
measure brand personality? J. Brand Manag. 11:143-155.
(2006) study claiming the stronger destination personality
Beerli A, Meneses GD, Gil SM (2007). Self-congruity and destination
develops the more effect of destination image on choice. Ann. Tourism Res. 34(3):571-587.
intention to recommend. Bowen JT, Chen SL (2001). The relationship between customer loyalty
and customer satisfaction. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 13(5):213 -
217.
Is there a relationship between self-congruity and Ekinci Y, Hosany S (2006). Destination personality: An application of
brand personality to tourism destinations. J. Travel Res. 45:127-139.
domestic tourists’ loyalty on the destination?
Hosany S, Ekinci Y, Uysal M (2007). Destination image and destination
personality. Int. J. Cult. Tourism Hosp. Res. 1(1):62-81.
According to the results obtained from regression http://anzmac2010.org/proceedings/pdf/anzmac10Final00497.pdf
analyses, all of the self-congruity measures (ideal self- (24.08.2011).
congruity, social self-congruity and social ideal self- http://mkt.unwto.org/sites/all/files/docpdf/unwtohighlights11enhr_3.pdf
(10.05.2012)
congruity) were significant in estimation of intention to http://www.etstur.com/Bodrum (13.05.2012)
recommend except actual self-congruity. Besides, only http://www.muglakulturturizm.gov.tr/belge/1-
two measures of the self-congruity (actual self-congruity 95819/bodrum.html(10.05.2012)
and ideal self-congruity) were significant in estimation of http://www.thomascook.com/lp/1x6-enbynk/holidays-bodrum
(13.05.2012)
intention to revisit. These multiple regression analyses
http://www.thomson.co.uk/destinations/europe/turkey/turkey-
also showed that social self-congruity and social ideal bodrum/holidays-turkey-bodrum.html(13.05.2012)
self-congruity were not significant in predicting intention Kotler PH (1991). Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, and
to revisit the destination. Consequently, the study verified Control (8th ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
McKercher B, Denizci-Guillet B, Ng E (2011). Rethinking loyalty. Annals
that there was a relationship between self-congruity and
Tourism Research (Article in Press).
loyalty and more importantly, ideal self-congruity was Mechinda P, Serirat S, Anuwichanont J, Guild N (2010). An examination
found as the most effective measure on loyalty; both on of tourists‟ loyalty towards medical tourism in Pattaya, Thailand. Int.
intention to recommend and intention to revisit. Bus. Econ. Res. J. 9(1):55-70.
Murphy L, Benckendorff P, Moscardo G (2007a). Destination brand
The findings of the self-congruity analyses also personality: visitor perceptions of a regional tourism destination.
supported the Sirgy and Su‟s (2000) study regarding the Tourism Anal. 12: 419-432.
effects of self-congruity in the context of tourism which Murphy L, Benckendorff P, Moscardo G (2007b). Linking travel
proposed the greater match between self-congruity motivation, tourist self-image and destination personality. J. Travel
Tourism Mark. 22(2):45-61.
creates the more motivation to revisit the destination. In Oliver RL (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? J. Mark. 63: 33-44.
their study, Uşaklı and Baloglu (2011) also concluded Opoku RA (2009). Mapping destination personality in cyberspace: an
actual self-congruity as the measure which had greater evaluation of country web sites using correspondence analysis. J. Int.
impact on intention to return to Las Vegas destination. Commer. 8:70-87.
Santos CA (2004). Framing Portugal: representational dynamics.
Besides, the researchers mentioned that ideal-self
Annals Tourism Res. 31(1):122-138.
congruity had relatively greater impact on intention to Sirgy MJ (1985). Using self-congruity and ideal-congruity to predict
recommend the destination to others. purchase motivation. J. Bus. Res. 13:195-206.
According to the results, the research questions have Sirgy MJ, Grewal D, Mangleburg TF, Park J, Chon KS, Claiborne CB,
Johar JS, Berkman H (1997). Assessing the predictive validity of two
been responded positively in this study. The relationship methods of measuring self-image congruence. Acad. Mark. Sci.
among destination personality, self-congruity and loyalty 25(3):229-241.
has been confirmed for Bodrum destination by the Sirgy MJ, Su C (2000). Destination Image, self-congruity, and travel
perceptions of domestic tourists and the most effective behaviour: toward an integrative model. J. Travel Res. 38:340-352.
Uşakli A, Baloglu S (2011). Brand personality of tourist destinations: an
dimension in estimation of loyalty has appeared as application of self-congruity theory. Tourism Manag. 32:114-127.
sincerity and the most effective self-congruity measure on Vaidya R, Gandhi P, Aagja J (2009). Brand personality and perception
loyalty has resulted as ideal self-congruity. measures of two cities: Surat and Ahmedabad. Icfai Univ. J. Brand
The results of the study also suggest that destination Manag. 6(1):57-73.
Valle PO, Silva JA, Mendes J, Guerreiro M (2006). Tourist satisfaction
management organizations (DMOs) of Bodrum can focus
and destination loyalty intention: a structural and categorical analysis.
on the four dimensions of destination personality Int. J. Bus. Sci. Appl. Manag. 1(1):25-44.
(dynamism, sincerity, competence and sophistication) to

View publication stats