Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Journal of Business Research xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
JBR-07356; No of Pages 8
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Journal of Business Research
Symbolic consumption of tourism destination brands
Yuksel Ekinci a,b,⁎, Ercan Sirakaya-Turk c, Sandra Preciado a
a Department of Marketing, Business School, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, OX33 1HX, UKb The University of Wollongong, Australiac College of Hospitality, Retail, and Sport Management, The University of South Carolina, Columbia, Carolina Coliseum, 1010C, Columbia, SC 29208, United States
⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of MarketBrookes University, Oxford, OX33 1HX, UK.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (Y. Ekinci),(E. Sirakaya-Turk), [email protected] (S. Preciad
0148-2963/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. Alldoi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.09.008
Please cite this article as: Ekinci Y, etj.jbusres.2011.09.008
a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f oArticle history:Received 1 November 2010Received in revised form 1 June 2011Accepted 1 August 2011Available online xxxx
Keywords:Destination brandsSelf-congruenceSocial identificationLifestyle-congruence
This study investigates the symbolicmeaning of tourism destination brands. Specifically, this study examines therelationship between symbolic consumption of tourism destination brands and destination brand loyalty. Astructural equationmodel tests data collected from international tourists (n=361)who visited aMediterraneanresort city. The results validate three dimensions of symbolic tourism destination brand—self-congruence, brandidentification, and lifestyle-congruence affect destination brand loyalty. Practical and theoretical implications arediscussed within the general framework of consumer behavior theory.
ing, Business School, Oxford
rights reserved.
al, Symbolic consumption of tourism dest
© 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
What is consumption? How does consumption's meaning differfor individuals and groups across cultures? These questions seemstraightforward, yet the topics are the focus of literarily thousandsof research papers in the past century. Consumption is more than asingle activity associated with using a material object; the process in-cludes pre-purchase and post-purchase activities. In marketing,Campbell (1987, p. 102) defines consumption as the “selection, pur-chase, use, maintenance, repair and disposal of any good or service”.While goods are consumed for utilitarian value (e.g., Bourdieu,1984; Douglas & Isherwood, 1996), consumption also is symbolic(Holt, 1998; McCracken, 1990).
Symbolic consumption occurs when consumers choose, buy, anduse products to assist individuals in the creation, confirmation andcommunication of their identity (Belk, Bahn, & Mayer, 1982; Bhat &Reddy, 1998). Product value extends beyond the satisfying immediateneeds—playing an important role in the psychological and social as-pects of consumers' lives (Ahuvia, Lacobucci, & Thompson, 2005;Banister & Hogg, 2003; Wattanasuwan, 2005). Another key point issymbolic consumption should include both enquiry from the per-spective of accepting products as well as from consumption avoid-ance (e.g., Hogg, Banister, & Stephenson, 2009; McGinnis & Gentry,2009).
Consumption's symbolic meaning is particularly important in theworld of brands, because their creation and commercialization de-pends greatly on their symbolic properties. Focusing on positive con-sumption, brands increasingly are seen as symbolic resources forexpressing the individuals' self-concept and lifestyle (McCracken,1987). Consuming a specific brand and associated brand image allowsconsumers to create, transform, and express their self-identity (Belket al., 1982; Dittmar, 2008). Although symbolic consumption receivesgreat attention in the marketing literature (e.g., possessions, productsand brands), the concept's application to leisure and tourism is limit-ed (e.g., Brown, 1992; Dimanche & Samdahl, 1994; Echtner, 1999;Veblen, 1994). Specifically, the investigation of symbolic consump-tion related to destination brands is scarce in the English literature.To address this gap, the present study's aims are (1) to evaluate con-sumption's symbolic meaning for tourism destination brands usingself- and socio-cultural theories, and (2) to investigate symbolicbrand consumption's effect on destination brand loyalty.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Symbolic consumption
The symbolic property of consumption objects has gained renewedattention in the last two decades. Levy (1959) and Elliott (1999)argue people engage in consumption activities for both symbolic prop-erties and functional benefits. Accordingly, symbolic consumptiondescribes the fundamental part in the creation, enhancement, mainte-nance, transformation, disposition, expression, association, and differ-entiation of the self (e.g., Ahuvia et al., 2005; Bhat & Reddy, 1998;Dittmar, 2008). For instance, Belk (1988) explains how possessions
ination brands, J Bus Res (2011), doi:10.1016/
2 Y. Ekinci et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
have an important role in creating the self, expression of the individual'spersonal history, achievement, representation of interpersonal ties,demonstration of cultural values, and exhibition of social status. Bythe same token, peoples' notions of self can be linked to their posses-sions, the services they use, and the tourism destinations they visit.
The consumption's symbolic meaning occurs in “private” (or in-ward facing) and “socio-cultural world” (or outward facing) contexts(Elliott & Perry, 2007; Holt, 1995; Richins, 1994). The private contextviews consumption objects as mediums facilitating the creation andexpression of the self. Consumption choices, objects, and practicescreate the individual self by saying something about the consumeror adding something to their self concept (Belk, 1988; McCracken,1986). The private context includes personal and social cognitions,feelings and behaviors of who the person is, or thinks he/she is. Con-sumers imply “we are what we wear, hear, see, and otherwise senseor experience; the times and places at which we do these thingsand the company in which we do them” (Shipman, 2004, p. 278).The socio-cultural context suggests consumption objects representsomething about the individual's social self including status, prestige,and association or disassociation from a group (Sørensen & Thomsen,2006).
Since Veblen's (1994) “theory of conspicuous consumption”, dif-ferent researchers (e.g., Shipman, 2004) argue about consumptionbehavior's social implications. In Veblen's study, the rich classes ofthe late 19th century in United States focused on emulating, acquir-ing, and using consumption objects to differentiate themselves fromlower classes, and also to distance themselves from the world ofwork (Timothy, 2005). Consumption served as a sign of social classand distinction. Holt's (1997) research supports this notion by dem-onstrating how brands displayed and owned in households reflectclass membership. Accordingly, people use consumption objects assymbolic materials to define social reality, clarify social roles, and pre-sent social advantages (Shipman, 2004; Solomon, 1983). Consump-tion serves as a part of the society's communication systems(Douglas & Isherwood, 1996).
2.2. Symbolic consumption and tourism
Timothy (2005) describes tourism as an “extreme form of leisureactivity”. Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) argue leisure activitiesare good examples of consumption behavior because they arecharged with meaning. Dimanche and Samdahl (1994) conclude agrowing recognition that symbolic connotations exist in leisure activ-ities since the publication of Veblen's (1994) “the theory of the leisureclass”. In Veblen's sense, the consumption of objects and practices,such as travel, sports, and arts help to define the leisure class.
Smith's (1979) study of why middle-class Americans visit presti-gious resorts to keep up with social appearances and Wynne's(1990) research of how middle-class English participate in leisureactivities to form a construction and affirmation of social positionare two examples of tourism studies that incorporate tourism's sym-bolic consumption. Tourism activities' social meaning also is de-scribed by Timothy (1998). He argues people are motivated to visitdifferent places for competitive reasons and admiration of others toengage conspicuous consumption.
Brown (1992) discusses the symbolic nature of tourismexperiences,and their materialization in the consumption of “tourist” objects. Forinstance, passport stamps, souvenirs, post-cards, photographs, amongother objects make tourism experiences tangible. Tourists also extendtourism experiences to their ordinary life at home. People bring souve-nirs from “sacred places” to help them to freeze the time (Gordon,1986). Wallendorf and Arnould (1988) state that when Americanstalk about their favorite possessions that contain personal memories,amongst the most common objects are souvenirs purchased during va-cation trips. Themeaning of souvenirs progress from themostmundaneobjects such as the “Hawaiian t-shirt from Hawaii” to objects charged
Please cite this article as: Ekinci Y, et al, Symbolic consumptionj.jbusres.2011.09.008
with cultural values and symbolic meanings (e.g., Smith & Olson,2001; Timothy, 2005).
Previous studies focus on the conspicuousness and materializationof the tourism consumption (e.g., purchasing of souvenirs). A funda-mental issue in tourism research is how symbolic consumption af-fects the tourist's choice and post-purchase evaluation of a tourismdestination (e.g., Crouch, 1994). Investigating destination choice hasimplications for academics, destination management organizations(DMO), and policymakers (see Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005). Sirgyand Su (2000) develop a behavioral model outlining the relationshipbetween self-congruence and tourist behavior and explaining an in-teraction between destination environment, destination visitorimage, tourists' self-concept, self-congruence, functional congruence,and travel behavior. Recent consumer behavior studies link self-con-cept and consumption of tourism destinations. These studies extendAaker's (1997) research by demonstrating tourism destinationsevoke strong symbolic values and their adjectives describing thempertaining to human beings (e.g., outgoing, fun, friendly and boring)(Ekinci & Hosany, 2006, p. 127; Sirgy & Su, 2000). For instance, desti-nation personality is defined as a group of “human personality char-acteristics” associated with a destination. Like human beings,destinations' personalities can be linked to the visitors' personalities.These destination personality images influence the traveler's inten-tion to re-visit a destination.
Some evidence suggests congruence between the tourist's self-con-cept and the destination's image influencing destination choice (Goh &Litvin, 2000; Litvin & Goh, 2002). Later, Kastenholz (2004) confirmsself-congruence's role in selecting rural travel places as destinations.The authors argue higher involvement in leisure tourism leads to great-er ability of congruence theory to predict destination choice. Chon's(1992) seminal study applies self-congruence theory to predict thetourist's post-consumption evaluation of a tourism destination. Hisstudy shows tourist's satisfaction with the destination depends on thecongruence between self image and destination image.
A literature review indicates tourist objects, practices, and placesevoke symbolic meanings. A rich body of literature examines themean-ing of travel experiences and objects combined with self-congruenceand the tourism destination; however, scant attention is paid to thesymbolic meanings of tourism destination brands. This present studyaims to fill this gap.
3. The research model and hypotheses development
Blain, Levy, and Ritchie (2005, p. 331) define destination-brandingas: “the set of marketing activities that (1) support the creation of aname, symbol, logo, word mark or other graphic that readily iden-tifies and differentiates a destination; that (2) consistently conveythe expectation of a memorable travel experience that is uniquely as-sociated with the destination; that (3) serve to consolidate and rein-force the emotional connection between the visitor and thedestination; and that (4) reduce consumer search costs and perceivedrisk.” In the context of general consumption, Levy (1959, p. 118)states “people buy things not only for what they can do, but also forwhat they mean”. For brands, consumers view them as signs guidingthe object's consumption based on perceived distinctive characteris-tics (Aaker, 1991). Arguably, destination or place brands are collectivecreations of stakeholders (residents, managers and other intermedi-aries) and heavily charged with symbolic meanings (e.g., Cai, 2002;Niininen, Hosany, Ekinci, & Airey, 2007).
Previous post-purchase service evaluations (e.g., Ekinci, Dawes, &Massey, 2008), brandmanagement (Aaker, 1991; Kapferer, 1997) anddestination loyalty (e.g., Chen & Gursoy, 2001), shape a symbolictourism destination brand model (see Fig. 1).
As Fig. 1 shows, a destination brand's symbolic consumption in-cludes three components; self-congruence, brand identification andlifestyle-congruence. Self congruence expresses the tourist's self-
of tourism destination brands, J Bus Res (2011), doi:10.1016/
Symbolic Consumption of Tourism Destination Brands
Lifestyle-Congruence
Brand Identification
Self-Congruence
Destination Brand Loyalty
H1 (+)
H2 (+)
H3 (+)
Fig. 1. The research model.
3Y. Ekinci et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
identity, whereas brand identification and lifestyle-congruence ex-press the tourist's social identity and consumption values. Themodel postulates these three symbolic consumption componentspositively influence destination brand loyalty. The next section ad-dresses these concepts' meanings and their relationship with destina-tion brand loyalty.
3.1. Destination brand loyalty
Most consumer loyalty research over the past three decades inves-tigates loyalty from two perspectives: behavioral and attitudinal (e.g.,Bandyopadhyay & Martell, 2007; Dick & Basu, 1994). Behavioralloyalty refers to the frequency of repeat brand purchase. Attitudinalloyalty describes a person's favorable feeling about a destination.Although tourists may not visit again, they provide positive word-of-mouth. Chen and Gursoy (2001) criticize the first approach forassessing destination loyalty. They argue the attitudinal approach(e.g., a positive attitude a person has about a destination) is best suit-ed for assessing the tourist's loyalty because tourism destination ex-periences are different from other consumption objects. Positive tripexperiences lead to tourists re-booking the same airline or hotel be-cause they trust them. Tourists become loyal to a destination even ifthey do not plan to re-visit the same place. The re-purchasing criteriaare different for tourism destinations because tourists usually lookfor exciting and novel experiences. According to these authors, desti-nation loyalty should be seen as “the level of tourist's perception ofa destination as a recommendable place” (Chen & Gursoy, 2001,p. 79). Destination brand loyalty differs from the attitudinal loyaltyby the tourists' intentions to visit or willingness to recommend adestination.
3.2. Self-congruence's effect on destination brand loyalty
As previously discussed, self references the perception the individ-ual has about him/herself (Todd, 2001). The marketing literatureargues consumer choices are linked to their self-concept (Sirgy,1982). This theory's premise suggests people buy and/or use brandsfor their symbolic meanings, related the self-concept (Birdwel,1968). Sirgy (1982) explains people judge different product attri-butes by a set of beliefs about themselves—consumption reinforcestheir ideas or ideals of self.
Self's complexity evolved from a uni-dimensional concept to amultidimensional concept with actual, ideal, social (Newcombe,1950), and aspirational self (Rosenberg, 1981). An aspirational selfrelates to the idea of “possible selves” (Markus & Nurious, 1986),where people approach or avoid possible positive or negative self-images. Thus, self not only focuses on the present and objective char-acteristics, but also a future ideal, desired, and planned image. In otherwords, the focus includes “what I am” as well as “what I want to be”.
Please cite this article as: Ekinci Y, et al, Symbolic consumptionj.jbusres.2011.09.008
Therefore the self-concept requires two common components—theactual self and the ideal self (e.g., Belch & Landon, 1977). Consistentwith previous research, self-congruence is the degree of match/mismatch between the destination brand's image and the tourist'sactual or ideal self-image.
Self-concept studies suggest consumers achieve self-consistency andself-esteem by holding positive attitudes towards brands perceived tobe similar to their self-image. Greater consistency between the consu-mer's self-concept and the brand image leads to a greater purchase in-tention (Graeff, 1996). For example, Sirgy, Dong-Jin, Johar, and Tidwell(2008) describe how self-congruence, the self image, and the image ofa sponsorship event contribute to brand loyalty.
In the tourism literature, Chon (1992) shows the degree of con-gruence between self image and destination image influences tour-ists' trip satisfaction. Therefore we propose that;
H1. Self-congruence positively affects destination brand loyalty.
3.3. Brand identification's effect on destination brand loyalty
Mick (1986, p. 196) explains “the consumer world is a web ofmeanings among consumers and marketers woven from signs andsymbols ensconced in their cultural space and time”. Accordingly,consumption objects such as brands evolve from having individualvalue (personal meaning) to becoming important objects in the socialworld, where they act as symbols with social meaning. Generallyspeaking, individuals desire respect and acceptance by other people.Social behaviors, including purchasing of brands, help fulfill theseneeds. Brand consumption not only differentiates people but alsohelps them to integrate into a particular social group (e.g., Slater,1997). When consumers associate themselves with brands, they rein-force their social identities (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003).
Social identity and organizational identification theories help ex-plain consumption's social aspects. The social identity theory postu-lates people define themselves according to their relationship withparticular groups and in distinction from the members of other socialgroups (Tajfel & Turner, 1985). The organizational identification theorystates a person adopts an identity as a member of a social group or acompany consistent with social values in order to support a sense ofbelonging (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). According to Scott and Lane(2000, p. 46), group identification does not have to be necessarily for-mal. Identity can be informal, and even imaginary or inspirational.When consumers share a joint identification, they consider them-selves as part of an imaginary or real group and distance themselvesfrom rival groups (Kuenzel & Halliday, 2008).
Recent marketing studies find the collective identification be-tween consumers and brands such as brand communities (Cova &Pace, 2006; McAlexander, Schouten, & Keonig, 2002; Schouten &McAlexander, 1995) and brand tribes (Arnould, Price, & Zinkham,
of tourism destination brands, J Bus Res (2011), doi:10.1016/
4 Y. Ekinci et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
2002; Solomon, 2003). Primarily, this research stream investigatesthe characteristics of the brand communities. Carlson, Suter, andBrown (2008, p. 284) state that brand communities “may be charac-terized by an unobservable, psychological sense of community thatcould precede, or even work in lieu of, social interaction”. Accordingto these authors brand consumption behaviors (e.g., brand commit-ment) are influenced by not only community-related dimensions,but also brand-related constructs such as the identification with abrand. Brand identification differs from self-congruence. The direc-tion of brand identification is not from brand image to actual orideal self-concept (inward); instead, brand identification is frombrand image to social self or social group (outward). Thus, tourists ex-press their social identity and sense of belonging to a social groupthrough identification with a tourism destination brand.
Consequences of social identification have been examined by orga-nizational researchers; a psychological self-orientation, such that indi-viduals define themselves in terms of their group membership,appeared in studies on identification (e.g., Dutton, Dukerich, &Harquail,1994). Generally speaking, these studies suggest that the stronger therelationship between the group members, the greater the willingnessto commit to the group. For example, social identification theory statesthat consumer identificationwith certain groups leads to developing anaffinity towards them (Del Rio, Vazquez, & Iglesias, 2001). Tajfel andTurner (1979) explain social group identification leads to positive self-esteem. Belonging to a group or group membership must provide asense of pride. If that pride is absent, leaving or distancing from thegroup becomes an option. Promotional messages commonly suggestconsumers need to express their social identity by associating them-selves with a particular brand (Kim, Han, & Park, 2001). Consumersidentify with brands having a good reputation among their referencegroups, or aspiration groups, and distance themselves from brands hav-ing no reputation in those groups (Long & Shiffman, 2000). Shamir(1990) suggests group identification positively affects the willingnessto contribute to collectivework. Dutton et al. (1994) argue a positive re-lationship exists between group identification and group cooperation.
Fisher and Wakefield (1998) state customers who identify them-selves with a specific brand usually remain loyal to that brand. Maeland Ashforth (1992) report alumni who identify more strongly withtheir alma maters donated more money and participated more fre-quently to alumni events. Consumer research studies show that cus-tomer identification with a brand leads to high brand loyalty andpositive word-of-mouth communication (e.g., Kim et al., 2001).Peter and Olson (1993) report that 94% of Harley-Davidson buyerslikely will buy a Harley-Davison again. According to Aaker (1994),96% of Saturn buyers said they would recommend the car and retailerto others. These finds suggest a strong relationship between brandloyalty and brand identification for consumer goods.
The followinghypothesis posits a similar relationship for destinations.
H2. Brand identification affects destination brand loyalty positively.
3.4. Lifestyle-congruence's effects on destination brand loyalty
Although no commonly accepted definition of lifestyle exists in themarketing literature, the term refers to person's unique living pat-terns as expressed by activities, interests, and opinions (Brassington& Pettitt, 2003). Solomon (2002) suggests that lifestyle consists ofshared values, tastes in consumption patterns, and contains symbolicnuances differentiating groups. Consumers' lifestyle research findingsexpenditure patterns, time usage, and feelings constitute the realityof life and its unfolding (Foxall, Goldsmith, & Brown, 1998; Solomon,2002). Other studies show how different consumption objects em-body links to different lifestyle groups (e.g., Gelder & Thornton,1997). Lifestyle includes not only peoples' demographic characteris-tics but also their attitudes towards life.
Please cite this article as: Ekinci Y, et al, Symbolic consumptionj.jbusres.2011.09.008
Building on aforementioned studies, lifestyle-congruence is definedas the degree of match/mismatch between the destination brand ex-perience and tourist's actual or desired lifestyle. Lifestyle-congruencediffers from self-congruence and brand identification because itscomparison standards and antecedents are different. Tourists con-sciously use consumption goals, activities, interests, and opinions astangible reference points for assessing their lifestyle-congruence. Inthe case of self-congruence and brand identification, the referencepoint is self-concept or social identity which is less tangible and lessconscious. Lifestyle-congruence's antecedents can have commonground with actual and social self but also include different personaland social values not captured by self-congruence and brand identifi-cation (e.g., Foxall et al., 1998; Rokeach, 1973).
A particular lifestyle generates goals, often including demand forspecific products. Solomon (2002) shows a link between brand con-sumptions and lifestyle expression. Consumers see brands as repre-sentation of certain lifestyles. The IKEA brand not only promotes“value for money” but also the Swedish lifestyle. O'Shaughnessy(1987) suggests consumers' purchasing patterns of brands relate toa desired lifestyle.
Similarly, lifestyle marketing scholars argue an observable link be-tween consumers' lifestyle and brand loyalty exists (Foxall et al.,1998; Solomon, 2002). For example, consumers develop personal at-tachments to brands because they help to sustain a particular lifestyle(Onkvisit & Shaw, 1987).Westbrook (1987) argues consumers developrepeat purchase patterns because the brand improves consumers' life-style. Consumers who identify their lifestyle with a particular branddevelop positive feelings of affinity towards them (Orth, McDaniel,Shellhammer, & Lopetcharat, 2004). Although the relationship betweenlifestyle-congruence and brand loyalty generally is assumed, only DelRio et al. (2001) show that lifestyle-congruence positively influencesconsumers' intention to recommend.
A brand's ability to reflect a tourist's lifestyle likely leads to stron-ger destination brand loyalty. Thus, we propose that;
H3. Lifestyle-congruence positively affects destination brand loyalty.
4. Method
4.1. The sample
The study was conducted in the resort city of Antalya, also knownas the Turkish Riviera, a tourism hot spot for European and Russiantourists. A questionnaire was designed and pilot tested on a smallsample (n=15) of students majoring in hospitality and tourism.After making the suggested changes, the survey instrument wastranslated to German by a professional translator and then back-translated to English by the second author. The questionnaire wassent to a major tour operator for data collection from German speak-ing clients. A random sample of tourists was collected at various re-sorts during summer in 2009. A reasonable attempt was made torandomize the sampling process via selecting random days for datacollection. A lottery of three, two-person, all-expense paid tripswere offered by the company as an incentive to participate. Of the500 questionnaires distributed, a total of 421 questionnairesreturned, among which 361 were useable representing an overall re-sponse rate of approximately 72%. Most respondents were Germans(81%), with Austrians being the second largest group (9.7%). Theremaining groups were from a German speaking region of France(2.2%) and Holland (1.7%). A large percentage of the respondentswere repeat visitors (63.2%). The sample was divided almost equallybetween males (45.7%) and females (54.3%). The sample includespeople who had a wide variety of years spent in formal education,ranging from less than 10 years (19.2%), to some college (25.2%) orhighly educated with a graduate degree (17.6%) or a universitydegree (8.3%). Almost all income levels were present in the sample
of tourism destination brands, J Bus Res (2011), doi:10.1016/
5Y. Ekinci et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
with 39% of them making less than 30,000 Euros and only 7.7% mak-ing more than 90,000 Euros. The remaining majority of the samplehouseholds made anywhere from 30,000 to 90,000 Euros a year be-fore taxes.
4.2. The measures
The current researchwas designed to investigate effects of the threesymbolic consumption concepts (self-congruence, brand identificationand lifestyle-congruence) on destination brand loyalty. All the state-ments were taken from past studies and a 7-point attitudinal scalesranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree was used(Nam & Ekinci, 2009). The following directions were provided to mea-sure perceived self-congruence using three self-related statements.
Please take a moment to think about the overall image of City X asa vacation destination. Consider the kind of person who typicallyvisits City X. Imagine this person in your mind and then describethis person using one or more personal adjectives such as orga-nized, classy, poor, stylish, friendly, modern, traditional, popular,or whatever personal adjectives you can use. Once you havedone this in your mind, check (√) your agreement or disagree-ment with each of the following statements using the scale of 1(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Brand identification and lifestyle-congruence were measuredusing 3 statements adopted from previous studies (e.g., Del Rio etal., 2001; Johnson, Herrmann, & Huber, 2006a,b; Nam & Ekinci,2009; Vazquez, Del Rio, & Iglesias, 2002). Finally, destination brandloyalty was measured by 3 statements capturing the tourist's inten-tions to visit and recommend behavior (e.g., Bloemer, de Ruyter, &Wetzels, 1999; Nam & Ekinci, 2009).
5. Finding
5.1. Validity and reliability of the measures
Before testing the model, the measures validity and reliabilitywere established. According to Malhotra (2004), the scale's validityshould be tested by exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis. Cron-bach Alpha statistic was used to establish the scale's reliability. Theinstruments' convergent and discriminant validity were tested byconfirmatory factor analysis using the Maximum Likelihood estimatorof LISREL 8.80 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1996). Table 1 shows the
Table 1Descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations, average variances extracted andmeasurements.
Concepts♦ Mean SD 1 2 3 4
1. Self-congruence 4.31 1.23 .64 .53* .52* .56*2. Brand identification 4.22 1.57 .28 .67 .44* .50*3. Lifestyle-congruence 4.95 1.51 .27 .19 .91 .74*4. Destination brand loyalty 5.07 1.26 .31 .25 .54 .59
*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed). The diagonal figures in boldindicate the average variances extracted (AVE) for each construct. The scores in theupper diagonal are correlations. The scores in the lower diagonal are square of thecorrelations.♦Measurements: Self-congruence (1. A typical tourist of Antalya has an image similar tohow I see myself. 2. The image of Antalya is consistent with how I see myself. 3. Atypical tourist to Antalya has an image similar to how I like to see myself.) Brandidentification (1. When someone criticizes Antalya, it feels like a personal insult. 2. Ifa story in the media criticized Antalya, I would feel embarrassed. 3. If someonepraised Antalya, it would felt like a personal compliment. 4. I am interested in whatothers think about Antalya. Lifestyle-congruence (1. Vacationing in Antalya reflects mypersonal lifestyle. 2. Vacationing in Antalya is totally in line with my lifestyle.3. Staying in Antalya supports my lifestyle. Destination brand loyalty (1. Next time, Iwill come back to Antalya. 2. Even if another destination offered more attractiveprices, I would come back to Antalya. 3. I will advise other people to visit Antalya.)
Please cite this article as: Ekinci Y, et al, Symbolic consumptionj.jbusres.2011.09.008
descriptive statistics, bi-variate correlations, and the average varianceextracted (AVE) for the variables included in the model.
Discriminant validity of the scales was assessed by Fornell andLarcker's (1981) formula. Discriminant validity exists when the AVEfrom each construct is greater than the square of the inter-correlations.Findings of the study from Table 1 suggest that the three symbolic con-sumption scales meet this criterion. The AVE for self congruence (0.64),brand identification (0.67), lifestyle-congruence (0.91) and destinationbrand loyalty (0.59) are higher than the square of the correlationbetween each of the constructs. The factor loadings are high and statis-tically significant (pb0.05), which satisfies the criteria for convergentvalidity. Furthermore, the internal consistency reliability for each sym-bolic consumption (self-congruence=0.84, brand identification=0.88,lifestyle-congruence=0.94) and the destination brand loyalty scale(0.78) is higher than the recommended alpha value of 0.70 (Churchill,1979).
The primary model testing method was the structural equationsmodeling using LISREL—8.80 and the co-variance matrix as input(Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1996). This testing confirms a model's goodnessof fit, and the hypothesized paths. PRELIS generated the variance–co-variance matrix as the input and the overall fit of the structural modelwas determined initially by examining the χ2 statistic. The χ2
(59df)
statistic (160.97) and the associated probability value are statisticallysignificant (pb0.001). This finding suggests an inadequate fit. How-ever, the χ2 statistic is influenced by sample size and model complex-ity; model rejection based on this evidence alone is insufficient(Bollen, 1989; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1996). Other fit indices such asRoot Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Goodness of FitIndex (GFI), Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), Norm Fit Index(NFI), and Critical Fit Index (CFI) assess goodness of fit (Hu & Bentler,1999). The structural equation model results and the other fit indicesprovide further support for the validity of the measures and the pro-posed model. Accordingly, RMSEA (0.06) is less than 0.07 and theother goodness of fit indices (GFI=0.94, NFI=0.98, CFI=0.99) aresubstantially high (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 2006). Overall,the model's predictive ability is very good as the three symbolic con-sumption measures explained 75% of the variance of destinationbrand loyalty.
5.2. Hypothesis testing
All three research hypotheses are supported at the 95% confidencelevel. For H1, the results support that self-congruence has a positiverelationship with destination brand loyalty (SPC=0.22, t=3.63,pb0.05). Testing H2, the findings support brand identification posi-tively affects destination brand loyalty (SPC=0.16, t=3.02,pb0.001). Finally, support for H3, suggests that lifestyle congruencepositively relates to destination brand loyalty (SPC=0.62, t=11.00,pb0.001).
6. Conclusions
6.1. Theoretical implications
Due to a dearth of research addressing the complex nature of tour-ism's symbolic consumption, this study extends symbolic meaning oftourism destination brands. The results contribute to the growing liter-ature on destination branding in twoways. Firstly, drawing on symbolicconsumption and brand management literatures, an integrative sym-bolic destination brand model is developed. The results show self-con-gruence, brand identification, and lifestyle-congruence are keycomponents of tourism destination brands.
Second, this study investigates the influence of symbolic meaningof destination brands on destination brand loyalty. The findings sug-gest tourists develop loyalty to a particular tourism destinationbrand not only on the basis of functional attributes (e.g., service
of tourism destination brands, J Bus Res (2011), doi:10.1016/
6 Y. Ekinci et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
quality, accommodation, sea, sun, and location), but on the basis ofdestination's ability to provide a suitable venue for the enactment ofself-concept, social identity, and enhancement of lifestyles whichare symbolic. Investigating the effect of brand identification and life-style-congruence on destination brand loyalty expands the theory ofsymbolic consumption beyond application of the self-congruence theo-ry on goods (e.g., cars, clothes). This study applies destination brands toexamine social and lifestyle congruencies. Accordingly, the currentstudy supports the growing body of research on brand managementusing the relationship based approach. The results corroborate the find-ings of the study by Kuenzel and Halliday (2008) which highlights theimportance of brand identification as the psychological foundationthat delineates deep and meaningful relationships as the precursor tosuccessful brand management.
The study findings demonstrate self-congruence positively influ-ences destination brand loyalty. In other words, tourists intend to re-visit a tourism destination because of symbolic characteristics and theextent to which their self image matches the image of the destinationbrand (Antalya). This result confirms previous studies (Birdwel,1968; Ekinci et al., 2008; Graeff, 1996; Sirgy, 1982).
H2 posits that brand identification positively affects destinationbrand loyalty. The findings support the second hypothesis. Visiting aparticular destination brand not only helps to differentiate the travelersin society, but also allows tourists to associate into different socialgroups. This result confirms earlier studies conducted in general con-sumer behavior (Arnould et al., 2002; Cova & Pace, 2006; McAlexanderet al., 2002; Schouten & McAlexander, 1995; Solomon, 2003). Touristsseem to express their social identity and expressed sense of belongingto a social group via their self-identification with Antalya as their pre-ferred tourism destination brand. Those visitors who identified them-selves with a destination brand likely will revisit or recommend thedestination in the future. Tourism destination marketers should createnew and/or monitor existing travel groups and social networks, andencourage opinion leaders and general travelers to actively participatein discussions related to tourismdestinationbrand to encourage loyalty.Creating travel forums and communities of travelers who visited a des-tination brand (e.g., Antalya) would provide pride for themembers, en-couraging outside observers to develop and enhance positive imagesand identity. Ultimately, potential visitors are likely to identify them-selves with the groups of travelers who visit a destination brand andcreate additional positive word-of-mouth communication.
Similarly, H3 states lifestyle congruence positively relates to desti-nation brand loyalty also is supported. Lifestyle marketing refers toperson's unique lifestyle patterns as expressed by activities, interests,and opinions (Brassington & Pettitt, 2003). Thus, lifestyle-congruencerefers to the degree of a match between destination brand experienceand tourist's actual or desired lifestyle. Corroborating the study byOnkvisit and Shaw (1987), a successful promotional message mightsuggest visiting the destination brand (e.g., Antalya) could be espe-cially satisfying and thus help the target audience develop personalattachment to the destination. Potential tourists may re-visit or spreadpositive word-of-mouth about a destination brand (e.g., Antalya) offer-ing a specific lifestylemessage (e.g., living the Turkish orMediterraneanresort style). In the long run, travelers who identify their lifestyle with adestination brandmay develop feelings of affinity towards that brand asOrth et al. (2004) suggest in consumer behavior studies.
6.2. Managerial implications
As self-congruence positively influences destination brand loyalty,tourism marketers should study destination personality characteris-tics from the tourist's point of view. Destination brand image devel-opment should match the tourists' actual and ideal self-concept.Destination personality helps position destination brands in relationto the competing options (in this case, Greece, Spain or Egypt). Forexample, if a destination is viewed as a friendly and hospitable
Please cite this article as: Ekinci Y, et al, Symbolic consumptionj.jbusres.2011.09.008
place from tourists' point of view, tourism marketers may benefitfrom designing promotion messages featuring the local people, ser-vice employees, and landscapes to position the destination brand incompeting markets. Alternatively, destination marketers and destina-tion planners can use carefully selected colors, designs, music, orwords as symbols for creating symbolic consumption experiences.The self concept exists to both protect and enhance a person's ego.A destination brand advertisement or tourism employees should cre-ate image and service experience congruence with the traveler's selfconcept and avoid contradicting their beliefs. New tourism productsshould be developed or the existing services should be adoptedaccording to the traveler's personality. Such an approach already isimplemented by some hotels and tour operators to stimulate brandloyalty. For example, the Wyndam Hotel group encourages guests todisplay their personal items (e.g., family photographs) in their hotelrooms so they can express their individuality during their stay. Thusguests form congruence between the hotel image and their actualself-image (Piccoli, O'connor, Capaccioli, & Alvarez, 2003). Moreover,the hotel room's layout is modified to create a fantasy type environ-ment or an extrovert, rock-star type personality which may be desir-able by the travelers. Fun and entertainment is experienced throughthis form of symbolic consumption.
Similar tactics can be implemented by tour operators. An orga-nized African safari tour would be suitable for an outgoing or adven-ture seeking tourist. Participating on an African safari would createexcitement and fun for these types of traveler. The present study sug-gests that tourists experience symbolic consumption of tourismbrands not only through self-congruence but also brand identifica-tion. The tourism brand identification empowers the tourist by asso-ciating or disassociating themselves with a social group in societyand therefore this process strengthens destination brand loyalty. Des-tination brands offer versatile opportunities to help to define tourists'social identity and to enrich their travel experiences through associat-ing themselves to a specific social group different from their own do-micile. For example, a sensible, designer-suite wearing, Sony laptop-carrying businessman becomes a hedonistic clubber, a sea captain, amaverick, or an explorer by participating a specific leisure activity ina tourism destination.
Tourism destination marketers must think strategically aboutstrengthening their brand identification by capitalizing on opportuni-ties for networking and organizing social events, local festivals withthemes that match tourists' social identity. Tourism marketers wouldbenefit from developing innovative communication strategies (e.g., sto-rytelling viamovies, or celebrity advertising) to enable tourists to definetheir identification with the destination brand. As Woodside, Blair, andNing (2007) suggest story telling enriches the destination brand's offer-ing and associations with tourist's social identity.
The study findings suggest tourists develop loyalty to destinationbrands because the destination visit experience fits well with theirlifestyles. Thus, lifestyle information helps determine whether ornot a destination experience fits the tourist's lifestyle in order to in-crease visitor satisfaction with the visit experience. Lifestyle informa-tion also can influence product development to increase destinationbrand loyalty. Tourists' lifestyles are not fixed and immutable becausethey mature through their life cycle. Fast food brands such as BurgerKing and McDonalds recognize this phenomena and open restaurantsat gas stations to serve customers with busy lifestyles. The growth ofcoffee bars such as the Starbucks partly is fuelled by the demand forleisure activities that can fit into the work schedule. Thus, tourismmarketers should monitor tourists' lifestyles continuously to under-stand their needs and develop goods or services to enhance destina-tion brand offerings and destination loyalty.
This study has some limitations. First, the sample is not a trulyrandomized sample creating problems with external validity. Conve-nient samples pose a problem when results need to be generalizedbeyond the sample size. However, the nature of the research question
of tourism destination brands, J Bus Res (2011), doi:10.1016/
7Y. Ekinci et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
posed guards against a compromise of the study's integrity. Although,the paper suffers from limitations related to the characteristics of thesample, the findings associated with the model identify uniquerelationships with brand loyalty, self- and lifestyle-congruence,and brand identification. To improve the result's external validity,future studies should investigate and put study results to test withlarger and representative samples. Another fruitful study areawould be looking into the effects of online travel networks on studyconstructs.
References
Aaker DA. Managing brand equity: capitalizing on the value of a brand name. NewYork: Free Press; 1991.
Aaker DA. Building a brand: the Saturn story. California Management Review 1994;36(2):114–33.
Aaker JL. Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research 1997;34(3):347–56.
Ahuvia AC, Lacobucci D, Thompson CJ. Beyond the extended self: loved objects andconsumers identity narratives. Journal of Consumer Research 2005;32(1):171–84.
Arnould EJ, Price L, Zinkham GM. Consumers. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2002.Bandyopadhyay S, Martell M. Does attitudinal loyalty influence behavioural loyalty? A
theoretical and empirical study. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services2007;14(1):35–44.
Banister EN, Hogg MK. Possible selves? Identifying dimensions for exploring the dialec-tic between positive and negative selves in consumer behavior. Advances in Con-sumer Research 2003;30:149–50.
Belch GE, Landon LE. Discriminant validity of a product-anchored self-concept mea-sure. Journal of Marketing Research 1977;14:252–6.
Belk RW. Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research 1988;15:139–67.
Belk RW, Bahn DK, Mayer RN. Developmental recognition of consumption symbolism.Journal of Consumer Research 1982;9:4-17.
Bhat S, Reddy SY. Symbolic and functional positioning of brands. Journal of ConsumerMarketing 1998;15(1):32–43.
Bhattacharya CB, Sen S. Consumer–company identification: a framework for under-standing consumers' relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing 2003;67(2):76–88.
Birdwel AE. A study of the influence of image congruence on consumer choice. Journalof Business 1968;41:76–88.
Blain C, Levy SE, Ritchie. Destination branding: insights and practices from destinationmanagement organizations. Journal of Travel Research 2005;43:328–38.
Bloemer JM, de Ruyter K, Wetzels M. Linking perceived service quality and service loy-alty: a multi-dimensional perspective. European Journal of Marketing 1999;33(11/12):1082–106.
Bollen KA. Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley and Sons;1989.
Bourdieu P. Distinction: a social critique of the judgment of taste. London: Routledge;1984.
Brassington F, Pettitt S. Principles of marketing. 3rd Ed. Harlow, UK: Prentice Hall;2003.
Brown G. Tourism and symbolic consumption. In: Johnson P, Thomas B, editors. Choiceand demand in tourism. London: Mansell Publishing; 1992. p. 57–71.
Cai LA. Cooperative branding for rural destinations. Annals of Tourism Research2002;29(3):720–42.
Campbell C. The romantic ethic and the spirit of modern consumerism. Oxford: Blackbell;1987.
Carlson BD, Suter TA, Brown TJ. Social versus psychological brand community: the roleof psychological sense of brand community. Journal of Business Research 2008;61(4):284–91.
Chen J, Gursoy D. An investigation of tourist' destination loyalty and preferences. Inter-national Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 2001;13(2):79–85.
Chon KS. Self image-destination image congruity. Annals of Tourism Research 1992;13(3):360–3.
Churchill GA. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs.Journal of Marketing Research 1979;16(1):64–73.
Cova B, Pace S. Brand community of convenience products: new forms of customer em-powerment—the case of my Nutella—the community. European Journal of Market-ing 2006;40(9/10):1087–105.
Crouch GI. The study of international tourism demand: a survey of practice. Journal ofTravel Research 1994;32(4):41–55.
Del Rio A, Vazquez R, Iglesias V. The effects of brand associations on consumer re-sponse. Journal of Consumer Marketing 2001;18(5):410–25.
Dick AS, Basu K. Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework. Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science 1994;22(2):99-113.
Dimanche F, Samdahl DM. Leisure as symbolic consumption: a conceptualization andprospectus for future research. Leisure Sciences 1994;6(2):119–29.
Dittmar H. Consumer society, identity, and well-being: the search for the ‘good life’ andthe ‘body perfect’. In: Brown R, editor. European monographs in social psychologyseries. London: Psychology Press; 2008.
Douglas M, Isherwood B. The world of goods: towards anthropology of consumption.2nd Ed. London: Allen Lane; 1996.
Please cite this article as: Ekinci Y, et al, Symbolic consumptionj.jbusres.2011.09.008
Dutton JM, Dukerich JM, Harquail CV. Organizational images and member identifica-tion. Administrative Science Quarterly 1994;39(34):239–63.
Echtner C. The semiotic paradigm: implications for tourism research. Tourism Manage-ment 1999;20:47–57.
Ekinci Y, Dawes P, Massey G. A model of consumer satisfaction for hospitality services.European Journal of Marketing 2008;42(1):35–68.
Ekinci Y, Hosany S. Destination personality: an application of brand personality to tour-ism destinations. Journal of Travel Research 2006;45:127–39.
Elliott R. Symbolic meaning and postmodern consumer culture. In: Brownlie D, SarenM, Wensley R, Whittington R, editors. Rethinking marketing. London: Sage;1999. p. 112–25.
Elliott R, Perry L. Strategic brand management. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.Fisher RJ, Wakefield K. Factors leading to group identification: a field study of winners
and losers. Psychology and Marketing 1998;15(1):23–40.Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equity models with unobservable variables
and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 1981;18(1):39–50.Foxall GR, Goldsmith RE, Brown S. Consumer psychology for marketing. 2nd Ed. London:
International Thomson Business Press; 1998.Gelder K, Thornton S. The subcultures reader. London: Routledge; 1997.Goh HK, Litvin SW. Destination preference and self-congruity. Travel and Tourism Re-
search Association Annual Conference Proceedings; 2000. USA.Gordon B. The souvenir: messenger of the extraordinary. Journal of Popular Culture
1986;20(3):135–46.Graeff TR. Using promotional messages to manage the effects of brand and self-image
on brand evaluation. Journal of Consumer Marketing 1996;13(3):2-18.Hair FJ, Anderson RL, Tatham RE, Black W. Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 2006.Hogg MK, Banister EN, Stephenson CA. Mapping symbolic (anti-) consumption. Journal
of Business Research 2009;62(2):148–59.Holbrook MB, Hirschman EC. The experiential aspects of consumption: consumer fan-
tasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research 1982;9:132–40.Holt DB. How consumers consume: a taxonomy of consumption practices. Journal of
Consumer Research 1995;22(1):1-16.Holt DB. Postructuralist lifestyle analysis: conceptualizing the social patterning of con-
sumption in post modernity. Journal of Consumer Research 1997;23(4):326–50.Holt DB. Does cultural capital structure American consumption? Journal of Consumer
Research 1998;25:1-25.Hu L, Bentler PM. Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling1999;6(1):1-55.
JohnsonMD, HerrmannA, Huber F. The evolution of loyalty intentions. Journal ofMarketing2006a;70(2):122–32.
JohnsonMD, HerrmannA, Huber F. The evolution of loyalty intentions. Journal ofMarketing2006b;70(2):122–32.
Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D. LIRSEL 8 user's reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific SoftwareInternational; 1996.
Kapferer J. Strategic brand management: creating and sustaining brand equity longterm. London: Kogan Page Limited; 1997.
Kastenholz E. Assessment and role of destination-self-congruity. Annals of Tourism Re-search 2004;31:719–23.
Kim CK, Han D, Park S. The effect of brand personality and brand identification onbrand loyalty: applying the theory of social identification. Japanese PsychologicalResearch 2001;43(4):195–206.
Kuenzel S, Halliday SV. Investigating antecedents and consequences of brand identifi-cation. Journal of Product and Brand Management 2008;17(5):293–304.
Levy SJ. Symbols for sale. Harvard Business Review 1959;37:117–24.Litvin SW, Goh HK. Self-image congruity: a valid tourism theory? Tourism Manage-
ment 2002;23:81–3.Long MM, Shiffman LG. Consumption values and relationships: segmenting the market
for frequency programs. Journal of Consumer Marketing 2000;17(3):214–32.Mael F, Ashforth B. Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test of the reformulated
model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior1992;13(2):103–23.
Malhotra NK. Marketing research: an applied orientation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: PearsonPrentice Hall; 2004.
Markus H, Nurious P. Possible selves. The American Psychologist 1986;41(9):954–69.McAlexander JH, Schouten JW, Keonig HF. Building brand community. Journal of Marketing
2002;66:38–54.McCracken G. Culture and consumption: a theoretical account of the structure and move-
ment of the cultural meaning of consumer goods. Journal of Consumer Research1986;13(1):71–84.
McCracken A. Emotional impact of possession loss. Journal of Gerontological Nursing1987;13(2):14–9.
McCracken G. Culture and consumption: new approaches to the symbolic character ofconsumer goods and activities. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press; 1990.
McGinnis LP, Gentry JW. Underdog consumption: an exploration into meanings andmotives. Journal of Business Research 2009;62(2):191–9.
Mick DG. Consumer research and semiotics: exploring the morphology of signs, sym-bols, and significance. Journal of Consumer Research 1986;13:196–213.
Nam J, Ekinci Y. Antecedents and consequences of brand equity in the service industry.Proceedings of the AUMEC Marketing and Entrepreneurship Conference, Antalya,Turkey; 2009. p. 1098–109.
Newcombe TM. Social psychology. New York: Dryden Press; 1950.Niininen O, Hosany S, Ekinci Y, Airey D. Building a place brand: the case study of Surrey
Hills. Tourism Analysis 2007;12(5/6):371–85.O'Shaughnessy J. Why people buy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1987.
of tourism destination brands, J Bus Res (2011), doi:10.1016/
8 Y. Ekinci et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2011) xxx–xxx
Onkvisit S, Shaw J. Self-concept and image congruence: some research and managerialimplications. Journal of Consumer Marketing 1987;4(1):13–23.
Orth UR, McDaniel M, Shellhammer T, Lopetcharat K. Promoting brand benefits: therole of consumer psychographics and lifestyle. Journal of Consumer Marketing2004;21(2/3):97-108.
Peter JP, Olson JC. Consumer behaviour and marketing strategy. Homewood, ILL: Irwin;1993.
Piccoli G, O'connor P, Capaccioli C, Alvarez R. Customer relationship management adriver for change in the structure of the US lodging industry. Cornell Hotel and Res-taurant Administration Quarterly 2003;61:61–73.
Richins M. Valuing things: the public and private meanings of possessions. Journal ofConsumer Research 1994;21(3):504–21.
Rokeach M. The nature of human values. New York: Free Press; 1973.RosenbergM. The self-concept: social product and social force. In: RosenbergM, Turner R,
editors. Social psychology: sociological perspectives. New York: Basic Books; 1981.p. 591–624.
Schouten JW, McAlexander JH. Subcultures of consumption: an ethnography of thenew bikers. Journal of Consumer Research 1995;22:43–61.
Scott SG, Lane VR. A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. The Academy ofManagement Review 2000;25(1):43–62.
Shamir B. Calculations, values, and identities: the sources of collectivistic work motiva-tion. Human Relations 1990;43(4):313–32.
Shipman A. Lauding the leisure class: symbolic content and conspicuous consumption.Review of Social Economy 2004;62(3):277–89.
Sirakaya E, Woodside AG. Building and testing theories of decision making by travel-lers. Tourism Management 2005;26(6):815–32.
SirgyMJ. Self concept in consumer behavior: a critical review. Journal of Consumer Research1982;9:287–300.
Sirgy MJ, Dong-Jin L, Johar JS, Tidwell J. The effect of self-congruity with sponsorship onbrand loyalty. Journal of Business Research 2008;61(10):1091–7.
Sirgy MJ, Su C. Destination image, self-congruity, and travel behaviour: towards inte-grative model. Journal of Travel Research 2000;38(4):340–52.
Slater D. Consumer culture and modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press; 1997.Smith V, editor. Host and guests: the anthropology of tourism. University of Pennsylvania
Press: Philadelphia; 1979.Smith RK, Olson LS. Tourist shopping activities and development of travel sophistica-
tion. Visions in Leisure and Business 2001;20(1):23–33.
Please cite this article as: Ekinci Y, et al, Symbolic consumptionj.jbusres.2011.09.008
SolomonMR. The role of products as social stimuli: a symbolic interactions perspective.Journal of Consumer Research 1983;10:319–29.
Solomon MR. Consumer behaviour: buying, having, and being. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall; 2002.
Solomon MR. Conquering consumer space, marketing strategies for a branded world.New York: Amacom; 2003.
Sørensen EB, Thomsen TU. The lived meaning of symbolic consumption and identityconstruction in stable and transitional phases: towards and analytical framework.European Advances in Consumer Research 2006;7:571–6.
Tajfel H, Turner J. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: Austin GW, WorchelS, editors. The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole; 1979. p. 33–48.
Tajfel H, Turner J. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In: Worchel S, AustinW, editors. Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall; 1985. p. 6-24.
Timothy DJ. Collecting places: geodetic lines in tourist space. Journal of Travel andTourism Marketing 1998;7(4):123–9.
Timothy DJ. Shopping tourism, retailing and leisure. Clevedon, UK: Cronwell Press;2005. p. 96-117.
Todd S. Self concept: a tourism application. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 2001;1(2):184–96.
Vazquez R, Del Rio AB, Iglesias V. Consumer-based brand equity: development and val-idation of a measurement instrument. Journal of Marketing Management 2002;18(1/2):27–48.
Veblen T. The theory of the leisure class. New York: Macmillan; 1994.Wallendorf M, Arnould EJ. My favorite things: a cross-cultural enquiry into object at-
tachment, possessiveness, and social linkage. Journal of Consumer Research1988;14:531–47.
Wattanasuwan K. The self and symbolic consumption. Journal of American Academy ofBusiness 2005;6(1):179–84.
Westbrook RA. Product/consumption-based affective responses and post-purchaseprocesses. Journal of Marketing Research 1987;24(3):258–70.
Woodside AG, Blair FC, Ning D. Stories visitors tell about Italian cities as destinationicons. Tourism Management 2007;28(1):162–74.
Wynne D. Leisure, lifestyle and the construction of social position. Leisure Studies1990;9:21–34.
of tourism destination brands, J Bus Res (2011), doi:10.1016/
