Journal of the International Academy of Hospitality Research logo
May 1991 Issue 3 ISSN 1052-6099

DLA Ejournals | JIAHR Home | Search JIAHR and other ejournals | JIAHR Access Data

Editor: Mahmood A. Khan
Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Managing Editor: Eliza Tse
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
& State University

JIAHR publishes refereed papers on all aspects of hospitality and tourism research. When judged of sufficient quality, individual papers are sent electronically as a single issue of the Journal to members of the Academy of Hospitality Research and to subscribing individuals and libraries. The material is copyrighted.

FUNCTIONAL AND SYMBOLIC CONGRUITY APPROACHES
TO CONSUMER SATISFACTION/DISSATISFACTION IN CONSUMERISM

Kye-Sung Chon, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Michael D. Olsen, Ph.D.
Professor

Department of Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Management
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

CONTENTS

PDF version


ABSTRACT
Using the evaluative congruity theory framework, this study examined the role of destination images in tourism with regard to consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction (CS/D) from the stand point of: (1) the functional congruity between the tourist's expectations and his/her perceptions of performance outcome on specific functional attributes of a destination; and (2) the symbolic congruity between the tourist's self concept and the destination's personality image. The overall findings indicate that CS/D in tourism is related to both functional and symbolic congruity. Further, the findings indicate that the functional congruity explained CS/D better than the symbolic congruity.

KEY WORDS: consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction, evaluative congruity, functional congruity, symbolic congruity, tourist.

INTRODUCTION
The consumer oriented approach to marketing assumes consumer satisfaction to be the key to meeting an organization's goals. In other words, effective marketing aims at identifying the needs and wants of target consumers and striving to satisfy them. From the strategic marketing management perspective, a tourism organization can improve its chance of designing strategies that optimize environmental opportunities by making an accurate assessment of its customer environment (Chon and Olsen 1990).

A number of tourism researchers reported studies on CS/D in tourism. These studies attempted to identify the factors associated with tourist satisfaction (for example, Pizam, Yoram and Reichel 1978) or focused on the role of the traveler's expectations about specific functional attributes of a destination in fulfilling his/her satisfaction with those attributes (Van Raaij and Fracken 1984; Whipple and Thach 1988). However, the current consumer behavior literature holds a position that the consumer's purchase decision making process involves the evaluation of not only the utilitarian or functional attributes of a product but also the value-expressive or personality-related attributes of the product (Claiborne and Sirgy 1990; Sirgy 1982a; Sirgy 1982b,; Sirgy 1985; Sirgy et al. 1990). In this regard, it is argued that previous CS/D studies in tourism mainly involved the use of functional attributes (e.g. the availability of suitable accommodations, or the availability of good beaches) with little attention to value expressive attributes of the destination (e.g. the personality of a destination). That is, previous CS/D studies in tourism did not consider the effect of the cognitive matching process between the value-expressive (symbolic) attributes of a destination and the traveler self-concept on the traveler's ultimate satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the destination.

The objective of this study was to demonstrate the relationship between the tourist destination image and an individual traveler's satisfaction with the destination. Using the evaluative congruity theory framework, this study focused on the testing of the functional evaluative congruity and the symbolic evaluative congruity in predicting CS/D in tourism.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The satisfaction of consumer wants and needs is the ultimate purpose of all economic and marketing processes. This tenet is enshrined in the economist's principles of consumer sovereignty as well as in the marketing concept. For example, Rosenberg (1979) relates CS/D to the economic doctrine that the satisfaction of consumer wants and needs is the ultimate purpose of economic activity. The doctrine of consumer sovereignty and consumer satisfaction is well reflected in the marketing concept as well.

The American Marketing Association defines marketing as the "process of planning and executing conception, pricing, promotion and distribution of ideas, goods, and services to create exchanges that satisfy individual and organization objectives" (Lewis and Chambers 1989).

Different models of consumer behavior describe satisfaction as the final output of the decision process or incorporate it in the feedback mechanism linking completed experiences to future behavior. For example, Nicosia (1966) attributes the state of CS/D to the dominant interest in the "final act" of consumers, that is the purchase of product. Further, the concept of CS/D is given greater emphasis in the works of McNeal (1973), Engel and Blackwell (1982), and Howard and Sheth (1967, 1969, 1973). In their consumer behavior models, satisfaction is shown as the final output in the framework of purchase decisions. These buyer behavior models postulate that if the actual outcome of a product is judged to be better than or equal to the expected, the buyer will feel satisfied. If, on the other hand, actual outcome is judged not to be better than expected, the buyer will be dissatisfied. This disconfirmation paradigm of CS/D can be also found in the works of Suprenant (1977); Lingoes and Pfaff (1972); Hunt (1977); and Oliver (1977, 1980).

A more encompassing approach to the understanding of CS/D can be found in Sirgy's evaluative congruity models of consumer behavior (Sirgy 1983; Sirgy and Tyagi 1986). Sirgy explains the theoretical position associated with CS/D in terms of discrepancies between perceived and normative outcome levels. According to his theory, satisfaction is a function of evaluative congruity, which is a cognitive matching process in which a perception is compared to an evoked referent cognition for the purpose of evaluating a stimulus object/action. The result of the cognitive process is postulated to produce either a motivational or an emotional state. CS/D is viewed as an emotional state because it prompts the consumer to evaluate alternative courses of action to reduce an existing dissatisfaction state and/or to obtain future satisfaction state (Sirgy 1983; 1984; Sirgy and Tyagi 1986).

Further, CS/D is viewed as a function of one or more congruities between perceptual (perceived value) and evoked referent (evoked value) states. A problem recognition (dissatisfaction) is the function of a directional discrepancy between the valence level of the perceived performance of a good/service and the valence level of a referent (standard of comparison or performance expectation). The "negative incongruity" condition (a state of negative performance perception and positive referent state) is hypothesized to produce the second highest dissatisfaction or problem recognition, followed by "negative congruity" (a state of negative performance perception and negative performance expectation), "positive congruity" (a state of positive performance perception and positive expectation) and "positive incongruity" (a state of positive performance perception and negative performance expectation), respectively. The theory was supported in empirical studies involving consumer evaluation of the automobile, type-writer, a bachelor's degree, and a house (Sirgy 1984; 1987).

Sirgy (1982b) further argues that product images should be classified as being "functional" and "symbolic." The functional images of a product include the physical benefits associated with the product, whereas the symbolic images refer to the stereotypic personality images consumers have of a specific product often expressed in terms of the typical user image. Relatedly, Sirgy (1982b) argues that CS/D is not only an evaluative function of the consumer's expectation and performance evaluation, but it is also an evaluative function of the consumer's self-image and product image congruity. That is, the consumer's self-concept should be understood in order to truly understand the individual's satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Self-concept, defined as "the totality of the individual's thoughts and feelings having reference to himself as an object," has been construed from a multi-dimensional perspective (Rosenberg 1979). For instance, the term "actual self" refers to how a person perceives one's self, and "ideal self" refers to how a person presents one's self to others (Rosenberg 1979). An understanding of the self-concept is important for developing more effective marketing programs because much consumer consumption of products is directly influenced by the image an individual has of himself/herself. That is, the consumer prefers the product which is congenial and reinforces the way the consumer thinks about himself/herself or the product with an image most like his/her self-image.

Sirgy (1982a; 1982b; 1985) proposes the impact of a consumer's self-concept to his/her purchasing behavior in a self-image/product-image congruity model. The self-image/product image congruity model in essence describes the effect of the cognitive matching process between value-expressive attributes of a given product and the consumer self-concept on consumer decisions such as product preference, purchase intentions, purchase behavior, product satisfaction/dissatisfaction, and product loyalty (Sirgy 1982b). The theory explains the effect of self-image congruence on consumer attitude through the mediating effects of two self-concept motives: self-esteem and self-consistency. According to the self-image/product-image congruity model, a consumer's specific value-laden self-image belief interacts with a corresponding value-laden product-image perception in terms of the typical user image in a product purchase. The result of such an interaction occurs in the form of the following four congruity conditions.

First, a "positive self-image congruity," occurs when there exists a state of positive self congruity (a low discrepancy between one's actual self-image and the product image) and a state of positive ideal self congruity (a low discrepancy between one's ideal self-image and the product image.) That is, a product image matches up with one's actual self-image as well as with his/her ideal self-image. Such a situation would result in high consumer satisfaction because, by purchasing or identifying himself/herself with this product, the consumer would reach an emotional state that enhances his/her self-esteem motive and reinforces his/her self-consistency motive.

Second, a "positive self-image incongruity" condition occurs when there exists a state of negative self congruity (a high discrepancy between one's actual self-image and the product image), but a state of positive ideal self congruity (low discrepancy between one's ideal self-image and the product image). In this situation the individual might be motivated to purchase the product but his/her satisfaction level would be moderate. This occurs because, while the purchase would enhance one's self-esteem motive, the self-esteem motive would conflict with his/her self-consistency motive.

Third, a "negative self-image incongruity" condition is the opposite of the "positive self-image incongruity" condition. That is, there is a state of positive self congruity (low discrepancy between one's actual self-image and the product image,) but a state of negative ideal self congruity (high discrepancy between one's ideal self-image and the product image.) The situation again would result in a moderate satisfaction level because the individual's self-consistency motive would conflict with his/her self-esteem motive.

Finally, "negative self-image congruity" occurs when there exists negative self congruity (high discrepancy between one's actual self-image and the product image,) as well as negative ideal congruity (high discrepancy between his/her ideal self-image and the product image.) The satisfaction level would be the lowest because the purchase of the product serves no function to the maintenance of either the self-esteem or self-consistency motives.

Based on the review of literature on CS/D as related to the evaluative congruity models and self-concept, a logical interpolation can be drawn with respect to CS/D in tourism as related to the role of the tourist's perception of destination images. That is, CS/D in tourism is a function of both (1) the evaluative congruity of a tourist's expectation of a destination and his/her perceived outcome of the destination experience; and (2) the evaluative congruity of a tourist's self-image and his/her perception of the destination's value-expressive image.

METHODS
Based on the theoretical framework as reviewed above, specific research hypotheses were advanced:

H1: The tourist's satisfaction is a positive function of both: (1) the functional evaluative congruity between the tourist's expectation of a destination and perceived performance outcome; and (2) the symbolic evaluative congruity between the tourist's self-image perception and his/her destination image perception.

H2: The tourist's satisfaction is a function of the functional evaluative congruity between a tourist's expectation of a destination's attributes and his/her perceived outcome. Specifically it is hypothesized that the level of satisfaction would occur in the following order of the functional evaluative congruity (See Table 1):

1) Under a positive incongruity condition in which the tourist's expectation of a destination is negative but his/her perceived outcome is positive, he/she would be most satisfied.

2) Under a positive congruity condition in which the tourist's expectation of a destination is positive and his/her perceived performance outcome is positive, he/she would be moderately satisfied.

3) Under a negative congruity condition in which the tourist's expectation of a destination is negative and his/her perceived outcome is also negative, his/her satisfaction level would be lower than that of a positive congruity condition.

4) Under a negative incongruity condition in which the tourist's expectation of a destination is positive and his/her perceived outcome is negative, he/she would be least satisfied.

Table 1: HYPOTHESIZED RELATIONSHIP OF FUNCTIONAL EVALUATIVE
CONGRUITY BETWEEN DESTINATION PERFORMANCE
EXPECTATION AND PERCEIVED OUTCOME
Performance
Expectation (PE)
Performance
Outcome (PO)
Evaluative
Congruity
Expected Order of
Satisfaction Level
Negative Positive Positive
Incongruity
1
Positive Positive Positive
Congruity
2
Negative Negative Negative
Congruity
3
Positive Negative Negative
Incongruity
4

H3: The tourist's satisfaction is a function of the symbolic evaluative congruity between a destination's image and the tourist's self-image. Specifically, it is hypothesized that the level of the tourist's satisfaction with a travel destination area would be in the following order of the symbolic congruity conditions (See Table 2):

1) "Positive Self-Image Congruity Condition:" A situation in which there is a low congruity between a destination's image and the tourist's actual self-image, and also a low congruity between a destination's image and the tourist's ideal self-image.

2) "Positive Self-Image Incongruity Condition:" A situation in which there is a high discrepancy between the tourist's actual self-image and the destination image, but a low discrepancy between the tourist's ideal self-image and the destination image. Or, "Negative Self-Image Incongruity Condition": A situation in which there is a low discrepancy between one's actual self-image and the destination image, but a high discrepancy between his/her ideal self-image and the destination image.

3) "Negative Self-Image Congruity": A situation in which there is a high discrepancy between the tourist's actual self-image and the destination image, and also between his/her ideal self-image ideal self-image and the destination image.

The Sample
The destination in the study was Norfolk, Virginia. This particular destination was selected because it is a relatively well known multi-faceted tourist destination and the city's tourism authority offered cooperation in implementing the study. Considering the theoretical aspect of this study, combined with the pragmatic constraint of financial resources, the most important criterion in selecting the sample was to increase the validity of the collected data, rather than to ensure that the sample was representative of a population. Therefore, it necessitated the decision to use a purposive sample. The sample population was composed of the individuals (1) who have actually visited the City of Norfolk, Virginia, between May and September 1990; and (2) who participated in pleasure travel activities during their visit to Norfolk. A self-administered mail questionnaire was sent to 382 individuals who met the above criteria.

Survey Instrument
The mail survey instrument consisted of three different global measures of tourist satisfaction/dissatisfaction in the form of a five-point face scale, Andrews and Withey's (1976) seven-point Delighted-Terrible (DT) scale, and a non-verbal graphic scale with a continuum of 0 (not at all satisfied) to 100 (totally satisfied) with 50 (mixed feelings) in the middle. These three global measures of satisfaction/dissatisfaction were selected because they were recommended in a previous study (Maddox 1985).

 
  Table 2:  HYPOTHESIZED RELATIONSHIP OF SELF-IMAGE/DESTINATION-
                  IMAGE CONGRUITY AND TOURIST SATISFACTION
 
  __________________________________________________________________
  Image Variables      Destination/   Evaluative    Expected Order
                       Self-Image     Congruity     of Satisfaction
  (D)  (S)  (I)        Congruity      Condition     Level
  __________________________________________________________________
  Low discrepancy        + SC         + Self-Image         1
    between D and S;     + IC           Congruity
  Low discrepancy
    between D and I
 
  High discrepancy       - SC         + Self-Image         2
    between D and S;     + IC           Incongruity
  Low discrepancy
    between D and I
 
  Low discrepancy        + SC         - Self-Image         2
    between D and S;     - IC           Incongruity
  High discrepancy
    between D and I
 
  High discrepancy       - SC         - Self-Image         3
    between D and S;     - IC           Congruity
  High discrepancy
    between D and I
  __________________________________________________________________
 
  D -  Destination Image
  S -  Actual Self-image
  I -  Ideal Self-image
  SC - Self Congruity
  IC - Ideal Self Congruity
  __________________________________________________________________

The above three repeat measures of CS/D were physically separated in the questionnaire in order to minimize any response bias (Lehman 1989). The functional evaluative congruity of the tourist's expectation and his/her performance perception was measured using a series of questions designed to measure the respondent's expectations and performance perceptions of 15 functional attributes of the destination area. The 15-item attributes were derived from a previous study which was conducted to identify the image of Norfolk as a travel destination (Chon, Weaver and Kim 1990). The 15-item functional attributes were:

For each of the 15-item functional attributes of Norfolk's tourism features, the respondent was requested to indicate pre-visit expectations on a five-point scale of -2 to +2 (expected very little to expected very high). Likewise, for each of the multi-attribute items, the respondent was requested to indicate his/her post-visit perceptions on a five-point scale of - 2 to +2 (very poor to very good). The actual self congruity (SC) and ideal self congruity (IC) were respectively measured using three five-point Likert type scales below.

The SC Measures:

1) The typical visitors (or tourists) to Norfolk reflect the type of person who I am.

2) The typical visitors (or tourists) to Norfolk are similar to me.

3) The typical visitors (or tourists) to Norfolk are very much like me.

The IC Measures:

1) The typical visitors (or tourists) to Norfolk reflect the type of person who I like to be.

2) The typical visitors (or tourists) to Norfolk are consistent with how I like to see myself.

3) The typical visitors (or tourists) to Norfolk are very much the kind of person I like to be.

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

The overall response rate was 58.9%. After eliminating the unusable responses, 192 responses were coded for data analysis. The respondents were pre- dominantly females (62.4%) and they were predominantly married (64.3%). The median age of the respondents was the 40 to 49 years group, while the median income was the $30,001-$40,000 category. A majority of the respondents were residents of Virginia (50%), followed by North Carolina (20.5%) and Maryland (15.7%).

The dependent variable in this study was the tourist's satisfaction/dissatisfaction with Norfolk as a place to visit. An individual respondent's average composite score for the three different CS/D measures (face scale, graphic scale and DT scale) was computed for further data analysis. The theoretical range of the scale would be 1 (lowest satisfaction or highest dissatisfaction) to 7 (highest satisfaction. The actual score ranged from 1.33 to 7, with a median of 5.75, a mean of 5.45.

Hypothesis 1

With respect to the testing of the first hypothesis, multiple regression analysis was utilized as the primary statistical test of significance:

CS/D = a + B1 (FEC) + B2 (SEC) + e

where, CS/D is the tourist's satisfaction/dissatisfaction
a is a constant term
B1 and B2 are regression coefficients for FEC and SEC
FEC and SEC are functional evaluative congruity and symbolic evaluative congruity, respectively
e is an error term

The regression analysis indicates that the model was significant overall (p <.0001) in predicting the tourist's satisfaction, with an R-square value of 0.3750. However, the regression results indicate that only the FEC alone significantly contributes to the tourist's satisfaction (beta = 0.72; p < .0001), while the symbolic evaluative congruity marginally contributed to the model (beta = 0.15; p < .1037). Hence, the hypothesis was generally supported. That is, both FEC and SEC significantly contribute to the model in predicting the tourist's satisfaction. However, when the two different evaluative congruity conditions were examined separately, only FEC was significantly correlated to CS/D.

Hypothesis 2

One-way ANOVA and Duncan's multiple range test were used for the testing of hypothesis 2. An individual respondent's average summation scores for performance expectation (PE) and performance outcome (PO) were computed, thus resulting in the grouping of the respondents into four FEC categories. The scales for PE and PO were converted from the original scale of "-2 to +2" to the scale of "1 to 5." As a result, the average score of PE and PO for each subject could range from 1 to 5, with 5 associated with more positive feelings.

In grouping the FEC groups into four congruity conditions based on the research hypothesis, the median scores for PE and PO were used as cutoff points between positive and negative PE and PO. The actual median scores for PE and PO were 4.46 and 3.66, respectively. When the respondents were grouped into four FEC cells based on the above cutoff points, 48 respondents belonged to Group 1 (positive incongruity), 39 were categorized into Group 2 (positive congruity), 49 were categorized into Group 3 (negative congruity), and 47 were categorized into Group 4 (negative incongruity).

The ANOVA results (Table 3) indicate a significant relationship between each of the four FEC conditions and CS/D at p < .0001. The rank order of the congruity conditions in terms of the CS/D scores was consistent with the order it was hypothesized to occur: 1) positive incongruity; > 2) positive congruity; > 3) negative congruity; and > 4) negative incongruity. Duncan's multiple range test indicates non-significance between and among the positive incongruity condition (low expectations and high performance perceptions), the positive congruity condition (high expectations and high perceptions), and the negative congruity condition (low expectations and low perceptions). However, a significant difference (p > .05) was noted between the negative incongruity condition (high expectations and low perceptions) and the other three congruity conditions. The ANOVA and Duncan's test indicate that: (1) there exist a significant relationship between functional evaluative congruity and CS/D in tourism; (2) each of the four FEC conditions is positively correlated with CS/D; and (3) the differences between and among the four evaluative congruity conditions are generally significant. Therefore, hypothesis 2 is generally supported.

Hypothesis 3

The statistics for hypothesis testing were ANOVA and Duncan's multiple range test. In order to categorize the subjects into four hypothesized SEC groups, it was necessary to examine the relative range of the average composite scores for the self-image congruity (SC) and the ideal image congruity (IC). By

 
      Table 3:  RELATIONSHIP OF FUNCTIONAL EVALUATIVE CONGRUITY
                          OF DESTINATION IMAGE TO CS/D
      __________________________________________________________________
                            General Linear Model Procedure
         Dependent Variable: CS/D
 
 
 
         Source           DF     Sum of Squares     Mean Square  F Value
      __________________________________________________________________
         Model            3        62.2989           20.766       16.47
         Error          179       225.6450            1.260      PR > F
         Total          182       287.9439                       0.0001*
 
         Duncan's Multiple Range Test for Variable:  FEC
         Alpha = 0.05  DF=179
 
         Means with the Same Letter Are Not significantly different.
 
         Duncan Grouping CS/D Mean    N         FEC Group
 
             A            6.01       48         + Incongruity
             A            5.84       39         + Congruity
             A B          5.58       49         - Congruity
               B          4.52       47         - Incongruity
 
         * Significant

using the median score as the cutoff points between positive and negative SC and IC, the subjects were grouped into four cells (2 x 2 matrix) which represent the four symbolic evaluative congruity conditions. As a result, 55 subjects belonged to the positive self-image congruity group, 4 subjects belonged to the positive self-image incongruity group, 34 subjects belonged to the negative self-image incongruity group and 65 subjects belonged to the negative self-image congruity group.

The results of one-way ANOVA and Duncan's test (Table 4) show that there exists a statistically significant relationship between the four symbolic evaluative congruity (SEC) conditions and CS/D at p < .018. The rank order of the congruity conditions in terms of the CS/D scores was consistent with the order it was hypothesized to occur: 1) positive self-image congruity > 2) positive self-image incongruity or negative self-image incongruity > and 3) negative self-image congruity. However, the results of image incongruity. However, the results of Duncan's multiple range comparison test indicates no significant differences of the CS/D scores among the four symbolic evaluative congruity conditions at p <.05. Pearson's product moment correlation also shows a significant relationship between CS/D and SEC with a coefficient value of .373 (p <.0001). Therefore, the hypothesis is generally supported.

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS

The findings of this study clearly indicate that a tourist's satisfaction/dissatisfaction is correlated to both functional evaluative congruity (FEC) and symbolic evaluative congruity (SEC). That is, a tourist's satisfaction is correlated to his/her expectations of a destination and performance perceptions as well to his/her self-concept and the destination image perceptions.

Specifically, the findings indicate that, when the tourist's expectation of a destination was negative but perceptions were positive, the tourist was most satisfied. When the expectation was positive and perceptions were positive, the level of satisfaction was moderate. When the tourist's expectation was negative and perceptions were negative, the tourist's satisfaction was lower than the first two congruity conditions. Finally, when the tourist's expectation was positive but perceptions were negative, the tourist was least satisfied. Further, the tourists who perceived a low discrepancy between a destination's user image and their actual self-image or their ideal self-image were most satisfied with the destination. On the other hand,

 
      Table 4: RELATIONSHIP OF SYMBOLIC  (SEC)
                           OF DESTINATION IMAGE TO CS/D
      __________________________________________________________________
                            General Linear Model Procedure
         Dependent Variable: CS/D
 
         Source           DF     Sum of Squares     Mean Square  F Value
      __________________________________________________________________
         Model            3        16.70709           5.5690       3.40
         Error          154       249.71800           1.6215     PR > F
         Total          157       266.42510                       0.018*
 
         Duncan's Multiple Range Test for Variable:  SEC
         Alpha = 0.05  DF=157
 
         Means with the same letter are not significantly different.
 
         Duncan Grouping CS/D Mean  N  SC/IC    Self-Image Congruity
 
             A            5.88      55 +SC/+IC  + Self-Image Congruity
             A            5.54       4 -SC/+IC  + Self-Image Incongruity
             A            5.40      34 +SC/-IC  - Self-Image Incongruity
             A            5.14      65 -SC/-IC  - Self-Image Congruity
 
         * Significant

the tourists who perceived a high discrepancy between a destination's user image and his/her actual self-image or ideal-self image were least satisfied. The tourists who experienced high actual self-image congruity but low ideal self-image congruity (or those who experienced a low actual self-image congruity but high ideal self-image congruity) between the destination user image and his/her self-concept were moderately satisfied. However, when examining the relative strength of the two different evaluative congruities, it was found that FEC was found to explain the tourist satisfaction better than SEC.

From the theory point of view, this finding adds a significant meaning to both consumer behavior literature and tourism marketing literature. Its most important theoretical contribution is that the consumer's satis- faction/dissatisfaction in tourism involves the evalu- ation of not only the functional attributes of a destination but also the personality-related "symbolic" attributes of a destination (Claiborne and Sirgy 1990, Sirgy 1985, Sirgy et al. 1990). As Dann (1979) argued, to truly understand tourist's satisfaction or dissatis- faction, one should investigate the personality aspects of the tourist in conjunction with the destination's personality. The findings in this study clearly indi- cate the relationship between the tourist's self-concept and his/her satisfaction/dissatisfaction with tourism.

Most significant strategic marketing implications would be that, a destination marketing organization, in planning marketing programs, should focus on both functional and symbolic attributes of the destination in tourism product development and promotion. This would be particularly important in designing promotional messages aimed at creating a desirable image of the destination in relation to specific market segments. In this regard, it would be highly important for the destination area to identify the symbolic image of the area as perceived by the target market segment and adjust the product development efforts and promotional activities accordingly.

REFERENCES

Andrews, F. M., and S. B. Withey (1976). Social Indicators of Well Being. New York: Plenum Press.

Chon, Kye-Sung, and Michael D. Olsen (1990). "Applying Strategic Management Process in Tourism Organizations," Tourism Management, September, 206-213.

Chon, Pamela A. Weaver, and Chol Yong Kim (1990). "Marketing Your Community: Image Analysis of Norfolk," The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 31 (4), February, 31-37.

Claiborne, C. B. and M. Joseph Sirgy (1990). "Self Image Congruence As A Model of Consumer Attitude Formation and Behavior: A Conceptual Review And Guide for Future Research," in B. J. Dunlap (ed.) Developments in Marketing Science, Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science Annual Conference, Volume 8, 3-7.

Dann, Graham M. S. (1979). "Tourist Satisfaction: A Highly Complex Variable," Annals of Tourism Research, October- December, 110-113.

Engel, F. F., and R. D. Blackwell (1982). Consumer Behavior, 4th edition, New York: Dryden Press.

Howard, John A., and J. N. Sheth (1967). "Theory of Buyer Behavior," Proceedings, Americn Marketing Association.

Howard and Seth (1969), The Theory of Buyer Behavior, New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Howard and Seth (1973), "A Theory of Buyer Behavior," in H.H. Kassarjian and T. S. Roberton (eds.) Perspectives in Consumer Behavior, Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company.

Hunt, H. Keith (1977), "CS/D: Overview and Future Research Directions," in H.K. Hunt (ed.) Conceptualization and Measurement of Consumer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Marketing Science Institute.

Lehmann, Donald R. (1989). Marketing Research and Analysis, Homewood, Illinios: Irwin.

Lewis, Robert C., and Richard Chambers (1989), Marketing Leadership in Hospitality, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Lingoes, J. C., and M. Pfaff (1972), "The Index of Consumer Satisfaction: Methodology," Proceedings, Association for Consumer Research, 689-712.

Maddox, Raymond Neil. (1985). "Measuring Satisfaction with Tourism," Journal of Travel Research, 24 (Winter), 2-5.

McNeal, J. U. (1973). Introduction to Consumer Behavior, New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Nicosia, F. M. (1966). Consumer Behavior Process, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Oliver, Richard L. (1977). "A Theoretical Reinterpretation of Expectation and Dissemination Effects on Post-Exposure Product Evaluation: Experience in the Field," in R. L. Day (ed.) Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining, 2-17.

Oliver (1980). "A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions," Journal of Marketing Research, November, 460-469.

Pizam, Abraham, Neumann Yoram, and Arie Reichel (1978). "Dimensions of Tourist Satisfaction with a Destination Area," Annals of Tourism Research, 5 (3), 314-322.

Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the Self, New York: Basic Books.

Sirgy, M. Joseph (1982a). "Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review," Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (December), 287-300.

Sirgy (1982b). "Self-Image/Product Image Congruity And Advertising Strategy," in Vinay Kothari (ed.) Developments in Marketing Science, Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science, Volume 5, 129-133.

Sirgy (1983). Social Cognition and Consumer Behavior, New York: Praeger Publishers.

Sirgy (1984). Marketing As a Social Behavior: A General Systems Theory, New York: Praeger Publishers.

Sirgy, (1985). "Self-Image/Product Image Congruity And Consumer Decision Making," International Journal of Marketing, 2 (4), 49-63.

Sirgy, and Pradeep K. Tyagi (1986). "An Attempt toward an Integrated Theory of Consumer Psychology and Decision-Making," Systems Research, 3 (3), 161-175.

Sirgy (1987). "A Social Cognition Model of Consumer Problem Recognition," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 15 (4) 53-61.

Sirgy, D. Axsom, T. F. Mangelburg, and T. Bogle (1990). "A Congruity Model of Advertising Persuasion: Self- Congruity versus Functional Congruity," a working paper, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Va.

Suprenant, A. (1977). "Product Satisfaction As a Function of Expectation And Performance," in R. L. Day (ed.), Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining, 36-41.

Van Raaij, W. Fred, and Dick A. Francken (1984). "Vacation Decisions, Activities, and Satisfaction," Annals of Tourism Research, 11, 101-112.

Whipple, Thomas W., and Sharon V. Thach (1988). "Group Tour Management: Does Good Service Produce Satisfied Customers?," Journal of Travel Research, 27 (Fall), 16-21.

THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF HOSPITALITY RESEARCH

EDITORIAL BOARD

  • Jon Bareham
    Brighton Polytechnic, U.K.
  • Horace A. Divine
    Pennsylvania State University
  • Abraham Pizam
    University of Central Florida
  • Donald E. Hawkins
    George Washington University
  • Brian Wise
    Footscray Institute of Tech-
    nology, Australia
  • Robert C. Lewis
    University of Guelph
    Ontario, Canada
  • Ken McCleary
    Virginia Polytechnic and
    State University
  • Michael Haywood
    University of Guelph
    Ontario, Canada
  • Chuck Gee
    University of Hawaii - Manoa
  • Turgut Var
    Texas A&M University
  • Mahmood A. Khan
    Virginia Polytechnic Institute
    and State University
  • Michael D. Olsen
    Virginia Polytechnic Institute
    and State University
  • William Kent
    Auburn University
  • Robert C. Miller
    University of Denver

SUBSCRIPTIONS Price of Annual Subscription: Institutional $30 (U.S.); Individual $20; Student (with professor's attestation) $10. Send to Scholarly Communications Project, Virginia Tech, 1700 Pratt Drive, Blacksburg, Va. 24060-0506.

PAPERS FROM PREVIOUS ISSUES
Issue No. 1: HOTEL YIELD MANAGEMENT USING OPTIMAL DECISION RULES by Ralph D. Badinelli and Michael D. Olsen. November 26, 1990.

Issue No. 2: CONJOINT ANALYSIS AND ITS APPLICATION IN THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY by Sophie Ding, Ursula Geschke and Robert Lewis. February 20, 1991.

ACCESS TO BACK ISSUES
To obtain titles, abstracts or full texts of articles previously published in JIAHR, subscribers should send the appropriate message via e-mail to LISTSERV@VTVM1 (Bitnet) or to LISTSERV@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU (Internet). To obtain titles, the appropriate message is: GET JIAHR CONTENTS. For abstracts, the appropriate message is: GET JIAHRyy ABSTRACT where "yy" represents the last two digits of the year of publication of the abstracted article. For full text of an issue, the appropriate message is: GET JIAHRn TEXT where "n" represents the number of the desired issue. For more detailed instructions, with examples, on how to obtain this information electronically, send the message: GET JIAHR HELP.

This journal is registered with the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 27 Congress Street, Salem, MA 01970, U.S.A. Limited duplication is permitted for academic or research purposes only. Subscribing libraries are permitted to distribute this issue of the journal electronically to institutional faculty, students and employees via local area networks or institutional mainframe computers.

Published for the International Academy of Hospitality Research by the Scholarly Communications Project of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS
"The Journal of the International Academy of Hospitality Research" (JIAHR) welcomes for review original papers on all aspects of hospitality and tourism research. Each paper should be submitted electronically in ASCII format, on disk or as an electronic file, along with the source document on disk and a hard (paper) copy. The editors welcome tables with articles but, because of technical problems in transmission, cannot accept graphs or pictorial illustrations. Papers generally should be written in conformity with the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Third Edition. Because of electronic transmission of articles among editors and referees, a prompt response to submissions can be expected. For further information and/or guidelines about submitting a paper, contact Managing Editor, JIAHR, 18 Hillcrest Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0429, USA; telephone 703/231-5515 or 703/231-4922, USA; or send e-mail to JIAHRED@VTVM1 (Bitnet), or JIAHRED@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU (Internet).


DLA Ejournals | JIAHR Home | Search JIAHR and other ejournals | JIAHR Access Data