Australasian Marketing Journal 19 (2011) 713

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Australasian Marketing Journal

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/amj

Halo effects of tourists destination image on domestic product perceptions

Richard Lee , Larry Lockshin 1
University of South Australia, School of Marketing, North Terrace, Adelaide 5000, Australia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Country-of-origin (COO) image may imbue product beliefs, just as beliefs about a travel destination can form from destination image. As COO and destination image both concern belief formations from images, we meld these research streams to investigate the inuence of destination image on beliefs of and preference for the destinations local products. We posit that consumers may non-consciously form a COO image from destination image, which in turn inuences product preference. Consumers in China (n = 226) and Chinese tourists in Australia (n = 235) self-reported their perceptions of Australia as a tour destination and of Australian wine. The results show that destination image positively inuences product beliefs with both samples, but the inuence is stronger with Chinese consumers who are unfamiliar with Australia. Destination image inuences product preference indirectly via product beliefs. A key managerial implication is that exporters and tourism authorities should cooperate to harness a countrys destination image for exports. Crown Copyright 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 24 March 2010 Revised 10 November 2010 Accepted 19 November 2010 Available online 14 December 2010 Keywords: Country-of-origin Destination image Halo effects Tourist behaviour Familiarity

1. Introduction Country-of-origin research and travel destination research have developed separately through different streams even though they seem to be measuring similar constructs country images that are reected by cognitive beliefs. Although these two research streams appear to share common ground in relating a countrys image to products, as we elaborate below, no empirical studies have attempted to meld them into a more coherent whole. Country-of-origin (COO) effects concern how consumers use images of a products origin country to form product perceptions and preferences (Demirbag et al., 2010; Roth and Diamantopoulos, 2009). Especially when they are unfamiliar with the products, consumers may use this image as a halo to infer product attributes such as quality (Bilkey and Nes, 1982) or even social status (Batra et al., 2000). Since Schoolers (1965) seminal work, COO studies have traditionally focused on how consumers derive product beliefs from mere made in country cues (e.g., Han, 1989), or from their overall perceptions of a country, such as its state of development or the technology skills of its workforce (e.g., Demirbag et al., 2010; Pappu et al., 2010). None have attempted to relate product beliefs to images specically from a tourism perspective. Also, COO research mostly concerns consumers perceptions of products available in their own countries (Srinivisan and Jain, 2003; Verlegh
Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 8 83027120; fax: +61 8 83020442.
E-mail addresses: richard.lee@unisa.edu.au (R. Lee), larry.lockshin@unisa.edu.au (L. Lockshin). 1 Tel.: +61 8 83020621; fax: +61 8 83020442.

and Steenkamp, 1999) with little regard to consumer visits to other countries. In contrast to COO image, destination image research centres on tourism as the product category and countries as tourism brands (Beerli and Martin, 2004; Gallarza et al., 2002; Pike, 2002). Studies in this area show that favourable destination images increase intentions or behaviour to visit/revisit the destinations. Although some destination image studies have investigated destinations as shopping havens (Moscardo, 2004) or tourists propensity to buy souvenirs (Tosun et al., 2007), little is known about the relationship between tourists image of a destination and their beliefs about the destinations domestic products (e.g., see Pikes, 2002, review of 142 destination image papers). In this study, we meld COO image and destination image concepts, and seek answers to the following questions:  Rather a traditional COO image, would an image of a country specically as a tour destination (e.g., whether it has beautiful and interesting places to visit) inuence perceptions of the countrys products?  If so, does the relationship between destination image and product perceptions differ between those who are familiar and those who are unfamiliar with the country as a tour destination?  How does destination image inuence preference for the countrys products? In order to be clear in our language, we use the word domestic to delineate products of a focal country, the one visited by the tourists. These products (e.g., Australian wine) may be sold in the

1441-3582/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ausmj.2010.11.004

R. Lee, L. Lockshin / Australasian Marketing Journal 19 (2011) 713

country visited (Australia), but may also be exported to the tourists home country (e.g., China). Papadopoulos and Heslop (2002, p. 295) lament that acceptance of the country-image concept is still low, and that marketing a country or place is often a little-understood panacea [used by governments out of] necessity rather than choice because their counties or cities were on the economic sick list and in dire need of exports, tourism and foreign investment. This study provides a test of our contention that COO and travel destination research can be blended to better understand the effects of a nations image on tourism and consumer behaviour in a globalising world. As we elaborate later, a successful validation of our research model would also have applied implications, particularly the links between tourism and product exports. 2. Conceptual development Before providing support for our arguments that product beliefs may form from destination image, we briey review literature on the two distinct research streams. 2.1. Country-of-origin Image COO effects on product evaluations and preferences are well known (see reviews by Srinivisan and Jain, 2003; Verlegh and Steenkamp, 1999). Research concurs that when consumers do not know or are unable to detect a products true characteristics, they often use their perceptions of the products country-of-origin to form stereotypical perceptions of the product. Consequently, consumers favour products from countries with positive images to those with negative images. Researchers liken COO image to an extrinsic and intangible cue that is distinct from the physical product (Chattalas and Takada, 2008; Verlegh and Steenkamp, 1999). Like retailer reputation or price, COO image can signal and be used to manipulate perceived product quality without material changes to a product. For example, an early study found that when they were told of the countryof-origin, Japanese consumers associated the US with complex industrial products, such as cars, that were more expensive and less reliable than German or UK products (Nagashima, 1970). Likewise, US consumers associated made-in-Japan labels with massproduced and technologically advanced electronic products, and preferred Japanese cameras and radios to those from other countries. Similarly, Liu and Johnson (2005) found that when experimental participants were exposed to a products country-oforigin, they automatically formed country-specic beliefs about the product. The participants had sufcient information about the products attributes to evaluate the product without bias and were told that COO information was irrelevant, but they still formed stereotypical beliefs that inuenced their evaluations. While positive COO images may lead to favourable product evaluations, negative COO images can be formidable barriers to marketers, even if the perceptions are misguided or erroneous (Johansson et al., 1994). Indeed, COO image may give rise to idiosyncratic product beliefs. For instance, Leclerc et al. (1994) demonstrated that French-sounding brand names improved the evaluation of hedonic products such as perfume, but lowered the evaluation of utilitarian ones such as computers. Moreover, the evaluations persisted after consumers had actually experienced the products. We also comment here that the COO literature has not used travel destination images as part of the measurement of the country of origin image. 2.2. Destination image In contrast to COO image, destination image in tourism research is an overall representation of beliefs, ideas, and impressions of a

travel destination (Pike, 2002; Stepchenkova and Morrison, 2008). Similar to the relationship between COO image and product preference, favourable destination images may result in visits or revisits to the destinations (Beerli and Martin, 2004; Gallarza et al., 2002). Many researchers credit Hunts (1975) seminal work on how interstate US residents viewed other states as travel destinations how they viewed the residents from those other states with spurring research interest in destination image (e.g., see Beerli and Martin, 2004; Gallarza et al., 2002). Hunt (1975) surveyed people from different US regions about their views of the Rocky Mountain states of Colorado, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming and after nding similar positive responses, suggested that states should capitalise on their images as destinations through promotion. In his review of 142 destination image studies conducted between 1973 and 2000, Pike (2002) showed that tourists image perceptions of a destination may inuence a wide range of matters including top of mind awareness, length of stay, frequency of visits, and even perceived value of the destination. Supporting Pikes ndings, Stepchenkova and Morrison (2008) found that when potential US travellers lacked objective information about Russian tourism attractions, those with more (less) negative image of Russia as a tour destination were less (more) willing to tour Russia. The authors stressed the importance of marketing efforts to correct the negative perceptions in order to help spur Russian tourism. In summary, there is substantial evidence to support the positive inuence of favourable destination image on tourist behaviour and tourism business. 2.3. The non-conscious inuence of destination image on product beliefs As the above review shows, a countrys image may stem from characteristics such as its history, people, or even its military and political involvement in the world stage. By contrast, destination image focuses narrowly on what interests temporary visitors to a country, such as the standards of its hotels and its places of interests. Some researchers postulate that the two concepts COO image and destination image overlap, but they are unsure to what degree or have not tested the relationship empirically (Gnoth, 2002; Stepchenkova and Morrison, 2008). In this study, we attempt to show that destination image may inuence product beliefs, much like COO image does. A conrmation of our hypothesis would mean that tourists may form product beliefs from their perceptions of a tour destination. It also provides support to researchers postulation that country image and destination image overlap. As we further elaborate, consumers may unconsciously overlap COO image and destination image, resulting in them using destination image to colour beliefs about the countrys products. COO images are likened to halos that extend their inuence to perceptions about the countrys products (Boatwright et al., 2008; Han, 1989). Early research suggests that the effectiveness of halos stems from people having a fundamental inability to resist the affective inuence of global evaluation on evaluation of specic attributes, especially when they are unaware of the halos existence (Nisbett and Wilson, 1977, p. 255). Furthermore, when consumers are unconscious of the stimulus that biases their perceptions, the stimulus may be triggered by the mere presence of a related mental concept (Bargh, 2002; Fitzsimons et al., 2002). For example, Nisbett and Wilson (1977) provide evidence that people unconsciously base their judgments of an object on their overall impression or halo about the object. In their experiment, participants rated a college teachers appearance, mannerism and accent after being shown one of two videos of the teacher. One video showed the teacher as likeable and approachable, while the

R. Lee, L. Lockshin / Australasian Marketing Journal 19 (2011) 713

other portrayed him as cold and aloof, although the rated attributes were identical in both videos. Not only did the two groups of participants rate the identical attributes differently, they reported that their attribute ratings led to their overall evaluation of the teacher; they wrongly believed that their overall impression of the teacher stemmed from their objective attribute ratings. The authors concluded that the participants were unaware of a halo operating on their judgments, and had they known the outcome might be different. In other words, such altered judgments require the absence of awareness [of the global evaluation driving the judgments] (p. 256, italic original). Bargh (2002) similarly cited a series of experiments to show that behaviour may be unconsciously modied by passive activation of mental stimuli related to the behaviour. The author gave an example, where presenting subjects with words related to politeness resulted in them acting more politely than subjects who were not shown the words. This phenomenon was already observed in early psychology experiments, which found that repeated exposures to an object could inuence attitude towards the object (Zajonc, 1968), especially when conscious processing was minimal or even absent (Bornstein and DAgostino, 1992). Likewise, Fitzsimons et al. (2002) surmise that salient visual cues play a key role in non-conscious consumer decisions. Collectively, the above studies suggest that consumers may non-consciously form a COO image from the presence of a related mental concept, destination image. Although they may be unaware of the presence of this stimulus (i.e., COO image), they nonetheless rely on this stimulus as a halo to derive their perceptions about the destinations products. We therefore hypothesise that: H1. Destination image relates positively to beliefs about domestic products. That is, the more (less) positive the destination image, the more (less) favourable the beliefs about the destinations products.

H2. Destination familiarity negatively moderates the relationship between destination image and product beliefs. That is, consumers who are more (less) familiar with a destination rely less (more) on destination image to form their beliefs about the destinations domestic products.

2.5. Inuence of destination image on product preference While destination image may inuence beliefs about domestic products, we further argue that these product beliefs mediate the inuence of destination image on preference for domestic products. Support comes from Han (1989), who demonstrates that COO image is a halo that directly inuences product beliefs, which in turn inuence brand attitude, but COO image does not relate directly to brand attitude. Similarly, investigating the directional relationships among COO image, product beliefs and brand attitude, Erickson et al. (1984; also see Johansson et al., 1985) show that country image determines the formation of inferential beliefs, which in turn have a forward effect on brand attitude. In contrast, COO image does not relate to brand attitude directly, nor does attitude possesses a halo that ows back to beliefs. Besides, it makes sense that the image of a travel location, such as its places of interest and landscape, should not directly bring to mind preferences for domestic products over those from other countries. Furthermore, for the past few decades, research in COO effects (see meta-analyses by Srinivisan and Jain (2003), Verlegh and Steenkamp (1999)) have well established the positive relationship between beliefs and outcomes arising from the beliefs. In this study, we similarly expect that positive beliefs about domestic products would lead to increased preference for the products. Hence, we hypothesise that: H3. Product beliefs mediate the relationship between destination image and product preference. That is, destination image does not inuence product preference directly, but via product beliefs. H4. Product beliefs have a direct and positive impact on product preference. That is, consumers with more (less) positive beliefs about a destinations domestic products are more (less) likely to prefer the products. Fig. 1 summarises the relationships in the four hypotheses.

2.4. The moderating inuence of destination familiarity As we contend earlier, the effectiveness of a halo decreases with its awareness (Bargh, 2002; Nisbett and Wilson, 1977). This contention is similar to studies that show that familiarity with a country or its products may interfere with the workings of COO effects (Chattalas and Takada, 2008; Johansson et al., 1985). People who are more (less) familiar with a country or its products may rely less (more) on COO image to form product beliefs. Some researchers draw on cognitive processing theory to explain the moderating inuence of familiarity on COO effects. Liu and Johnson (2005; also see Knight and Calantone, 2000) suggest that when consumers can easily assess their belief structure from memory, they rely more on cognitive information than images to judge products. Otherwise, consumers automatically activate stereotypical images from their long-term memory to form judgments. This implies that when familiarity is high, COO effects tend to be weak as consumers rely on cognitions to form overall judgments. That increasing familiarity through actual travel experience may change consumers overall country image as well as product perceptions is illustrated in an early study by Papadopoulos and Heslop (1986). The authors found that compared with those who had not been to a country, those who had might hold different images about the country and preferences for the countrys products. For example, non-visitors to Sweden held high regards for the country possibly from their knowledge of Swedish icons such as Volvo and the rock-group ABBA. Those who had visited Sweden, however, reduced their images to more ordinary level presumably by drawing on their actual country knowledge (p. 196). Hence, we hypothesise that:

Destination Image (DI) moderates

H2 H1

Destination Familiarity

H3

Beliefs about Domestic Product (PB)

H4

Preference for Domestic Product (PDP)

Fig. 1. The research model.

10

R. Lee, L. Lockshin / Australasian Marketing Journal 19 (2011) 713

3. Methods This research context involved Chinese consumers and Australian wine. Chinese tourists are one of the largest tourist groups into Australia (ABS, 2010). Accounting for only 2.6% by volume and 3.3% by value of Australias total wine exports in 2008, China holds vast potential for Australian wine. Yet, awareness of Australian wine in China is relatively low compared to imports from France and Italy (AWBC, 2008). This combination of increasing Chinese tourists into Australia and a relatively low market share and awareness of Australian wine in China means that COO effects may be developing mainly from a tourist perspective in a product category with few initial impressions, thereby providing a suitable platform to test our hypotheses. Using an identical questionnaire, two surveys helped shed light on the relationship between destination image and product beliefs. The rst survey involved Chinese consumers in the Chinese city of Changsa, while the second survey tapped Chinese tourists in Sydney. We rst developed the questionnaire in English. Following common back-translation procedures (Craig and Douglas, 2005), a Chinese postgraduate student translated the questionnaire into Chinese, followed by a back-translation by another student to English. Other than a few minor semantic revisions, we found no problems with the consistency and accuracy of the questionnaire when comparing the original English and the back-translated versions. In the rst survey, mall intercept surveys took place over two weeks at three major shopping precincts in Changsa. Surveying in multiple locations and at different times should help minimise potential response bias (Hair et al., 2006). In each location, about six to eight interviewers stationed at shopping centre exits approached people as they entered or left the centres. We did not ask whether wine was bought at the shopping centres, nor was the issue a criterion for selecting potential respondents. Respondents were given token gifts for participation. Fourteen cases were deleted either for missing data or for invalid responses (e.g., respondents answered all ones or sevens in seven-point scale questions). Similar to some studies (e.g., Stepchenkova and Morrison, 2008), we operationalised destination familiarity as an actual behaviour of having toured a country, rather than relying on a self-report. Hence, deleting 12 cases for those who had been to Australia at least once, the nal sample (n = 226) constituted those who were unfamiliar with Australia as a tour destination. In the second survey, a Sydney travel agent that specialises in inbound Chinese tourists carried out the data collection. Surveys onboard tour buses tapped Chinese tourists about one to two weeks after their arrival in Australia. Conducting the surveys durTable 1 Descriptive statistics and results of conrmatory factor analyses. Factor/Items Destination image (DI) DI1: Australia is safe and secure DI2: Australia offers exciting and interesting places to visit DI3: Australia has beautiful scenery and natural attractions DI4: Australia has a pleasant climate DI5: As a tourism destination, Australia offers good value for money Product beliefs (PB) PB1: Australian wine is suitable for formal occasions PB2: Australian wine is suitable for informal occasions PB3: The quality of Australian wine is good PB4: Australian wine is good value for money PB5: Serving Australian wine conveys high status Product preference (PP) PP1:When buying wine, I prefer Australian wine to Chinese wine PP2: When buying wine, I prefer Australian wine to other foreign wine PP3: In general, Australian wine is better than Chinese wine PP4: In general, Australian wine is better than other foreign wine

ing lull periods onboard tour buses ensured that the tourists gave their cooperation and attention. Tour leaders announced that the surveys were for academic purposes, and the tourists self-administered the questionnaires. As a goodwill gesture, tourists received token souvenirs after completing the questionnaires. To minimise response bias, data collection took place over four weeks, in thirteen buses, and with tourists from different regions in China. Forty-four cases were discarded either for missing data or invalid responses (e.g., respondents answered all ones or sevens in seven-point scale questions), a further outlying 18 cases were deleted (when factor scores exceeded standard deviations by more than three times). This yielded a nal sample of 235. Consistent with our earlier operationalisation, this sample constituted respondents who were familiar with Australia as a tour destination. 3.1. Measures The questionnaire recorded Chinese consumers or tourists beliefs of Australia as a travel destination, beliefs about Australian wine, preference for buying Australian wine, and familiarity with Australian wine. Table 1 lists the items and their descriptive statistics. Destination image was operationalised as a latent constructed reected by tourist beliefs about Australia as a travel destination. Gallarza et al.s (2002) review of 25 studies shows that destination image stems from multiple attributes. We initially adapted six common items from their study to measure respondents beliefs of Australia as a travel destination, including places of interest and safety. However, conrmatory factor analyses revealed that one of the six items (Australia has good nightlife such as restaurants, pubs, and theatres) did not load onto the factor, and was removed. Common with studies on COO effects (e.g., Erickson et al., 1984; Gallarza et al., 2002), product beliefs were operationalised as a reective latent construct via ve items measuring the overall quality, status, and value of Australian wine. Four items determined preferences for Australian wine. Two questions (item PP1 and PP3; see Table 1) asked whether respondents preferred Australian wine over Chinese wine, while another two questions (PP2 and PP4) tapped their preference for Australian wine over other foreign wines. The purpose of distinguishing Chinese and foreign wines was to control for possible ethnocentricism, where Chinese tourists may prefer Chinese wine due to nationalistic reasons (Shimp and Sharma, 1987). Data analyses showed that perceptions of Chinese and foreign wine were closely and positively correlated (Spearmans rho between item PP1 and PP2 = 0.72, p < 0.001; rho between PP2 and PP4 = 0.656, p < 0.001).

Mean (std dev) 5.45 6.01 6.18 5.85 5.26 4.27 3.84 4.46 4.29 4.11 3.72 3.86 3.79 3.73 (1.467) (1.109) (1.161) (1.361) (1.437) (2.12) (2) (2.055) (2.027) (2.142) (2.239) (2.116) (2.166) (2.075)

Std regression weights 0.765 0.778 0.812 0.741 0.724 0.859 0.801 0.914 0.908 0.878 0.91 0.922 0.899 0.904

Cronbachs alpha 0.815

0.921

0.929

R. Lee, L. Lockshin / Australasian Marketing Journal 19 (2011) 713

11

Within-subject t-tests further conrmed that the PP1PP2 pair (p = 0.478) and PP3PP4 pair (p = 0.726) did not differ signicantly. Collectively, the results suggested that ethnocentricism did not seem to be an issue. Conrmatory factor analysis indicated that the four preference items loaded well and possessed adequate reliability. Hence, we adopted all four items for the construct. Finally, to control for possible inuence of familiarity with Australian wine, respondents self-reported their level of familiarity with Australian wine via a seven-point scale question Prior to this trip, how familiar are you with Australian wine?. 3.2. Data analysis We used structural equation modelling with maximum likelihood estimation (www.spss.com/Amos) to specify the conceptual model in Fig. 1. Prior to running the model, we analysed the data for reliability and validity. Correlation coefcients among all items ranged from 0.101 to 0.816, well below the 0.9 collinearity threshold (Hair et al., 2006). Following Fornell and Larckers (1981, p. 45) procedure, we further determined that construct reliability ranged from 0.875 to 0.95, above the recommended threshold of 0.7. As an exploratory study, construct reliability scores for the three factors destination image, product beliefs, and product preference were also acceptable with Cronbachs alphas ranging from 0.815 to 0.929 (Hair et al., 2006). We further tested construct validity by comparing the varianceextracted estimates of a pair of constructs with the square of the correlation between the constructs, and repeating the test for all construct-pairs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981, p. 46). Variance extracted estimates for the three constructs ranged from 0.585 to 0.826, and exceeded the squared correlations for the corresponding construct-pairs (r2 ranged from 0.018 to 0.415), thereby supporting construct validity. Finally, as an exploratory study, tting the measurement model yielded satisfactory indices (CFI = 0.939, GFI = 0.9015, TLI = 0.925, RMR = 0.068, normed v2 = 4.811) (Hair et al., 2006). Explained variances (R2) were 59% and 65% for the China and Australia samples, respectively. 4. Results Table 2 shows the standardised structural path coefcients after tting the two samples. As the results indicate, destination image related strongly and positively to product beliefs with both samples. Hence, H1 was supported. The path coefcient between destination image and product beliefs was higher for the China sample (b = 0.736) than the Australian sample (b = 0.165). We tested whether the two path coefcients differed signicantly using a procedure suggested by Holmes-Smith et al. (2006). First, we estimated a baseline structural model by assigning each sample to a group, which yielded v2 = 499; df = 148. Next, an invariant structural model made the parameter value for each corresponding structural path of both groups equal. Running the invariant model produced the corresponding v2 = 507; df = 151. A chi-square test showed that the difference between the baseline and invariant models was signicant (p = 0.046), meaning that all corresponding path coefcients in the two samples were statistically different. Hence, H2 was supported. That is, as destination familiarity increased, respondents were less likely to rely on destination image to form product beliefs. Hypothesis H3 contended that destination image inuences product preference indirectly via product beliefs, while H4 argued that product beliefs positively relate to product preference. As Table 2 shows, the relationships between destination image and product preference were insignicant with both samples. By contrast, product beliefs related signicantly and positively to product preference. Thus, both H3 and H4 were supported.

Table 2 Fitting the conceptual models using structural equation modelling. Low familiarity (China sample; n = 226) Structural model ts CFI = 0.898, GFI = 0.891, TLI = 0.874,RMR = 0.057, normed v2 = 2.519 High familiarity (Australia sample; n = 235) CFI = 0.924, GFI = 0.845, TLI = 0.906, RMR = 0.069, normed v2 = 4.227 0.165 0.03 0.809 <0.001 0.052 0.283 0.644

Destination image ? product beliefs Product beliefs ? product preference Destination image ? product preference Squared multiple correlations

D p D p D p

0.736 <0.001 0.828 <0.001 0.08 0.519 0.585

To test whether consumers familiarity with Australian wine had impacted the results, two tests were conducted. A betweensubjects t-test (t = 0.347; df = 459; p = 0.728) showed that product familiarity did not differ between the two samples. Adding an interaction term (destination image product familiarity) to the model in Fig. 1 yielded insignicant path coefcients for the China (p = 0.09) and Australian (p = 0.083) samples. Combined, the results suggested that product familiarity was not an issue. 5. Discussions and conclusions Research in country-of-origin (COO) effects suggests that especially consumers often rely on an overall image or halo of a products country-of-origin to form product beliefs. Tourism research in destination image shows that tourists with positive images of a destination tend to favour visiting or revisiting the destination. Our study melds these two distinct but related research streams into one theoretical framework to investigate the relationships among destination image, product beliefs, and preference for domestic products. In addition, it investigates the moderating inuence of destination familiarity on these relationships. The results show that rather than using COO image, a traditional construct used in COO studies, consumers may use destination image to form product beliefs. With both samples, a favourable destination image leads to positive product beliefs. However, the relationship is stronger with the China sample (where destination familiarity is low) than with the Australian sample (where destination familiarity is high). Also, product beliefs mediate the inuence of destination image on product preference. These results have several implications. Firstly, it does appear that the perceived image of a country, be it a country in general or specically as a travel destination, has signicant inuence on how people develop beliefs about the countrys products. Thorndike (1920) rst noticed this halo effect when he noticed that army superiors were unable to analyse different aspects of ofcers under their command. Instead, the superiors were apparently affected by a marked tendency to think of the person in general as rather good or rather inferior and to color the judgments of his/her qualities by this general feeling [by] suffusing ratings of special features with a halo belonging to the individual as a whole (Thorndike, 1920, p. 25). Secondly, our ndings suggest that there may an underpinning relationship between destination image and COO image. What we are unsure of is whether the two images relate sequentially, where destination image rst give rise to a COO image and then to product beliefs. If so, to what extent is the formation of a COO image

12

R. Lee, L. Lockshin / Australasian Marketing Journal 19 (2011) 713

from destination image a non-conscious process? Alternatively, the two images may overlap in that there are common elements in consumers memory structures of the two concepts, and it is this common subset that inuences product beliefs. We defer the investigation of an underpinning relationship between the two image concepts to future research. Nonetheless, by crossing domain from travel to products, the halo effects may have a wider effect than currently acknowledged or understood. Thirdly, destination image in tourism may be similar to the concept of national brand articulated by some researchers (Fan, 2006; Gallarza et al., 2002). Unlike COO image, which becomes meaningless when separated from a product, national brand encapsulates a countrys intangible assets without explicit links to specic products. While product brands may come and go, national brands are virtually perpetual. Hence, a national brand may serve as umbrella brand across a countrys products, although the national brand should not be perceived as nebulously suited to help promote all types of products; the product categories must be related to the overall country image. Fourthly, destination familiarity plays an important role in determining how destination image may determine product beliefs. We nd that destination image determines product beliefs and subsequently product preference more (less) under low (high) familiarity conditions. This result is consistent with the notion that once people are more aware of the presence of a halo, they are less likely to rely on the halo for judgments (Bargh, 2002; Nisbett and Wilson, 1977). The results also corroborates with researchers (Han, 1989; Liu and Johnson, 2005), who show that consumers who are familiar with an object tend to rely more on cognitions, than on images, about the object for judgments. Finally, our results show that destination image does not directly relate to product preference, but via product beliefs. This outcome contrasts with other studies that report direct links between COO image and purchase intentions (e.g., Han, 1990). Although more tests are needed, this result does provide hint of a possible sequential process whereby consumers rst form a COO image from destination image before using image to form product beliefs. 5.1. Applied implications As trade globalisation increases business activities and makes brands from multiple countries compete in common markets, this studys ndings should interest exporters and policy makers, particularly for the tourism and tourism-related (e.g., food and wine) businesses. These parties would benet from knowing how destination images relate to perceptions of domestic products, especially when compared with competing foreign products available in the consumers home country. Furthermore, favourable or unfavourable perceptions with a particular product may bias evaluations of the countrys other products or brands (Johansson et al., 1985). In this instance, tourist perceptions of Australian wine experienced during their visit may inuence their views of other Australian products, such as cheese or meat. We would also expect that promoting domestic products to tourists in a subtle and enjoyable way would result in favourable purchase intentions and even word-of-mouth when the tourists return home. That destination image inuences product beliefs more under low destination familiarity has important marketing implications. Tourism authorities need to ensure that their marketing efforts in foreign countries result in portraying the destination favourably. Not only does the perceived destination image inuence visits to the country, it also inuences perceptions of the countrys products available in the foreign countries. This is particularly clear from the strong relationship between destination image and product beliefs in the China sample, where respondents are unfamiliar with and

have not visited Australia. Similarly, tourism authorities and indeed tourism businesses have to ensure that they deliver the expectations created by the marketing efforts. Tourists also rely on destination image to imbue product beliefs. The signicant inuence of destination image on product beliefs also means that exporters can use their home country image to help differentiate their products from foreign competitors. This requires exporters to work closely with tourism bodies or other policy makers, who are responsible for promoting a country (be it for trade or for tourism). For example, government sponsored national branding (tourism) campaigns in a foreign country may aid exporters wishing to do business in the country. An example of this cooperation is the Space for Minds initiative launched by Sweden, where tourism bodies and private industries come together to on a common country-brand platform (Kleppe and Mossberg, 2006). However, the synergies to be gained from country branding and tourism campaigns within a specic product category would depend on the congruence between the overall country image and the product category (e.g., see Chao et al., 2003). This congruence would be easy to measure with simple surveys or interviews prior to developing the joint campaign. Inbound tourists could be targeted with both information and specic product experiences while on their visit. For example, many of Australias tourists visit Sydney and the beaches of the central Australian coast to the north. Very few visit wine regions, which are located further south and inland nearer to Melbourne and Adelaide. Australian wine producers could develop suitable wine tastings with trained translators delivered in hotels or other scenic locations where the tourists visit, rather than expecting the tourists to visit their winery directly. These types of activities could also involve other export food categories, such as seafood or meat quite easily. Finally, our measures for product beliefs were based on intangible benets, such as status, value for money, and product quality. These product beliefs were seen as more positive, when destination image was more positive, even though the individual items in both scales were quite dissimilar. Therefore, marketing efforts to enhance tourists preference for domestic products should assist tourists cognitive processing of information by rst linking the destination image to product beliefs, rather than directly to preference for domestic products. In some ways, this pathway relates to the soft sell approach, where product benets are communicated to potential buyers rather than a push to make the sale directly.

5.2. Limitations This study has several limitations that future research should address. A key limitation is that while we draw on literature in non-conscious consumer behaviour to support our hypotheses, we did not directly test whether destination images inuence on product beliefs was non-conscious. As an exploratory study using a quantitative eld survey, this measurement was impractical, if not impossible. Future research could test this contention under experimental conditions by using different positive and negative prompts. Another limitation is the cross sectional methodology, which makes exploring causal links difcult. A future survey could be longitudinal, where we rst tap tourists before they arrive in a destination, followed by a survey during their tour, and nally a survey a period after their return. Surveying tourists before their arrival would ensure that their perceptions of a destination and its domestic products are not based on actual experiences. Follow-up surveys could then determine whether actual experiences change perceptions, and how these changes may impact the relationships among destination image, product beliefs and product preferences, including post visit purchase behaviour.

R. Lee, L. Lockshin / Australasian Marketing Journal 19 (2011) 713

13

Studies show that COO effects are stronger when country and product match, rather than mismatch (Chao et al., 2003; Insch and McBride, 2004). In this study, we only used wine as the contextual product, and wine may be related to tourism in that some tourists to Australia visit or patronise vineyards and wineries. Future research should replicate the research model across multiple products, including those that tourists are unlikely to buy during their tours (e.g., cars or computers). Better yet, research should involve tourists from different countries, including those from wellknown wine markets such as France or the US. This may help shed light on whether ethnocentrism or nationalistic pride would impact the relationships in our research model. In conclusion, both country-of-origin and destination image research have long traditions, and have consistently shown how those umbrella constructs lead to beliefs about specic products or places. As with any exploratory research, there are many issues to resolve as we note above. However, we are condent that the studys ndings should provide some direction to the growing popularity of tourism marketing, country branding and export promotion undertaken around the world. References
ABS. 2010. Overseas Arrivals and Departures, Australia (August 2010). <http:// www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3401.0> (accessed 20.09.07). AWBC, 2008. Wine export approval report (July 2008). Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation, Australia. Bargh, J.A., 2002. Losing consciousness: automatic inuences on consumer judgment, behavior, and motivation. Journal of Consumer Research 29 (2), 280285. Batra, R., Ramaswamy, V., Alden, D.L., Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M., Ramachander, S., 2000. Effects of brand local and nonlocal origin on consumer attitudes in developing countries. Journal of Consumer Psychology 9 (2), 8395. Beerli, A., Martin, J.D., 2004. Factors inuencing destination image. Annals of Tourism Research 31 (3), 657681. Bilkey, W.J., Nes, E., 1982. Country-of-origin effects on product evaluations. Journal of International Business Studies 13 (1), 8999. Boatwright, P., Kalra, A., Wei, Z., 2008. Should consumers use the halo to form product evaluations? Management Science 54 (1), 217223. Bornstein, R.F., DAgostino, P.R., 1992. Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63 (4), 545552. Chao, P., Samiee, S., Yip, L.S.-C., 2003. International marketing and the Asia-Pacic region: developments, opportunities, and research issues. International Marketing Review 20 (5), 480492. Chattalas, M., Takada, T.K.H., 2008. The impact of national stereotypes on the country of origin effect: a conceptual framework. International Marketing Review 25 (1), 5474. Craig, C.S., Douglas, S.P., 2005. International Marketing Research, 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK. Demirbag, M., Sahadev, S., Mellahi, K., 2010. Country image and consumer preference for emerging economy products: the moderating role of consumer materialism. International Marketing Review 27 (2), 141163. Erickson, G.M., Johansson, J.K., Chao, P., 1984. Image variables in multi-attribute product evaluations: country-of-origin effects. Journal of Consumer Research 11 (2), 694699. Fan, Y., 2006. Branding the nation: what is being branded? Journal of Vacation Marketing 12 (1), 514. Fitzsimons, G.J., Hutchinson, J.W., Williams, P., Alba, J.W., Chartrand, T.L., Huber, J., Kardes, F.R., Menon, G., Raghubir, P., Russo, J.E., Shiv, B., Tavassoli, N.T., 2002. Non-conscious inuences on consumer choice. Marketing Letters 13 (3), 269 279. Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1), 3950. Gallarza, M.G., Saura, I.G., Garcia, H.C., 2002. Destination image: towards a conceptual framework. Annals of Tourism Research 29 (1), 5678. Gnoth, J., 2002. Leveraging export brands through a tourism destination brand. Journal of Brand Management 9 (4/5), 262280. Hair, J.F.J., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., 2006. Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Han, C.M., 1989. Country image: halo or summary construct? Journal of Marketing Research 26 (2), 222229. Han, C.M., 1990. Testing the role of country image in consumer choice behavior. European Journal of Marketing 26 (6), 2440. Holmes-Smith, P., Coote, L., Cunningham, E., 2006. Structural Equation Modeling: From Fundamentals to Advanced Topics. SREAMS, Melbourne, Australia. Hunt, J.D., 1975. Image as a factor in tourism development. Journal of Travel Research 13 (3), 17.

Insch, G.S., McBride, J.B., 2004. The impact of country-of-origin cues on consumer perceptions of product quality: a binational test of the decomposed country-oforigin construct. Journal of Business Research 57 (3), 256265. Johansson, J.K., Douglas, S.P., Nonaka, I., 1985. Assessing the impact of country of origin on product evaluations: a new methodological perspective. Journal of Marketing Research 22 (4), 388396. Johansson, J.K., Ronkainen, I.A., Czinkota, M.R., 1994. Negative country-of-origin effects: the case of the new Russia. Journal of International Business Studies 157, 176. Kleppe, I.A., Mossberg, L.L., 2006. Company versus country branding: same, same but different. In: Asche, F. (Ed.), Primary Industries Facing Global Markets: The Supply Chains and Markets for Norwegian Food. Copenhagen Business School Press, Herndon, VA, pp. 217246. Knight, G.A., Calantone, R.J., 2000. A exible model of consumer country-of-origin perceptions. International Marketing Review 17 (2/3), 127145. Leclerc, F., Schmitt, B.H., Dub, L., 1994. Foreign branding and its effects on product perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research 31 (2), 263270. Liu, S.S., Johnson, K.F., 2005. The automatic country-of-origin effects on brand judgments. Journal of Advertising 34 (1), 8797. Moscardo, G., 2004. Shopping as a destination attraction: an empirical examination of the role of shopping in tourists destination choice and experience. Journal of Vacation Marketing 10 (4), 294307. Nagashima, A., 1970. A comparison of Japanese and U.S. attitudes toward foreign products. Journal of Marketing 34 (1), 6874. Nisbett, R.E., Wilson, T.D., 1977. The halo effect: evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35 (4), 250256. Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L.A., 1986. Travel as a correlate of product and country image. In: Muller, T. (Ed.), Administrative Sciences Association of Canada Conference, vol. May. Whistler, BC, pp. 191200. Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L.A., 2002. Country equity and country branding: problems and prospects. Journal of Brand Management 9 (4/5), 294314. Pappu, R., Quester, P.G., Cooksey, R.W., 2010. Consumer-based brand equity and country-of-origin relationships: some empirical evidence. European Journal of Marketing 40 (5/6), 696717. Pike, S., 2002. Destination image analysis a review of 142 papers from 1973 to 2000. Tourism Management 23 (5), 541549. Roth, K.P., Diamantopoulos, A., 2009. Advancing the country image construct. Journal of Business Research 62 (7), 726740. Schooler, R.D., 1965. Product bias in the central american common market. Journal of Marketing Research 2 (4), 394397. Shimp, T.A., Sharma, S., 1987. Consumer ethnocentrism: construction and validation of the cetscale. Journal of Marketing Research 24 (3), 280289. Srinivisan, N., Jain, S.C., 2003. Country of origin effect: synthesis and future direction. In: Jain, S.C. (Ed.), Handbook of Research in International Marketing. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 458476. Stepchenkova, S., Morrison, A.M., 2008. Russias destination image among American pleasure travelers: revisiting Echtner and Ritchie. Tourism Management 29 (3), 548560. Thorndike, E.L., 1920. A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology 4 (1), 2529. Tosun, C., Temizkan, S.P., Timothy, D.J., Fyall, A., 2007. Tourist shopping experiences and satisfaction. International Journal of Tourism Research 9 (2), 87102. Verlegh, P.W.J., Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M., 1999. A review and meta-analysis of countryof-origin research. Journal of Economic Psychology 20 (5), 521546. Zajonc, R.B., 1968. Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 9 (2/Part 2), 127.

Richard Lee teaches consumer behaviour and marketing research courses with the University of South Australia. Prior to academia, Dr. Lee spent more than 10 years managing the marketing functions of IT/telecommunication companies in Asia. His research interests are in the areas of consumer behaviour, particularly with customer loyalty, social inuences, and word-ofmouth.

Larry Lockshin is Professor of Wine Marketing at the University of South Australia. Dr. Lockshin has spent more than 20 years working with the wine industry, rst as a viticulturist and now as a marketing academic. He has published over 80 academic articles on wine marketing. He is Associate Editor for the Journal of Wine Research and the International Journal of Wine Business Research. His research interests are consumer choice behaviour for wine and wine industry strategy.