Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 711718

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
b
c

Department of Marketing, Business School, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, OX33 1HX, UK
The University of Wollongong, Australia
College of Hospitality, Retail, and Sport Management, The University of South Carolina, Columbia, Carolina Coliseum, 1010C, Columbia, SC 29208, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 1 November 2010
Received in revised form 1 June 2011
Accepted 1 August 2011
Available online 24 October 2011
Keywords:
Destination brands
Self-congruence
Social identication
Lifestyle-congruence

a b s t r a c t
This study investigates the symbolic meaning of tourism destination brands. Specically, this study examines the
relationship between symbolic consumption of tourism destination brands and destination brand loyalty. A
structural equation model tests data collected from international tourists (n= 361) who visited a Mediterranean
resort city. The results validate three dimensions of symbolic tourism destination brandself-congruence, brand
identication, and lifestyle-congruence affect destination brand loyalty. Practical and theoretical implications are
discussed within the general framework of consumer behavior theory.
2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
What is consumption? How does consumption's meaning differ
for individuals and groups across cultures? These questions seem
straightforward, yet the topics are the focus of literarily thousands
of research papers in the past century. Consumption is more than a
single activity associated with using a material object; the process includes pre-purchase and post-purchase activities. In marketing,
Campbell (1987, p. 102) denes consumption as the selection, purchase, 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, and
use products to assist individuals in the creation, conrmation and
communication of their identity (Belk, Bahn, & Mayer, 1982; Bhat &
Reddy, 1998). Product value extends beyond the satisfying immediate
needsplaying an important role in the psychological and social aspects of consumers' lives (Ahuvia, Lacobucci, & Thompson, 2005;
Banister & Hogg, 2003; Wattanasuwan, 2005). Another key point is
symbolic consumption should include both enquiry from the perspective of accepting products as well as from consumption avoidance (e.g., Hogg, Banister, & Stephenson, 2009; McGinnis & Gentry,
2009).

Corresponding author at: Department of Marketing, Business School, Oxford

Brookes University, Oxford, OX33 1HX, UK.
E-mail addresses: yekinci@brookes.ac.uk (Y. Ekinci), ercan@hrsm.sc.edu
(E. Sirakaya-Turk), spreciado@brookes.ac.uk (S. Preciado).
0148-2963/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.09.008

Consumption's symbolic meaning is particularly important in the

world of brands, because their creation and commercialization depends greatly on their symbolic properties. Focusing on positive consumption, brands increasingly are seen as symbolic resources for
expressing the individuals' self-concept and lifestyle (McCracken,
1987). Consuming a specic brand and associated brand image allows
consumers to create, transform, and express their self-identity (Belk
et al., 1982; Dittmar, 2008). Although symbolic consumption receives
great attention in the marketing literature (e.g., possessions, products
and brands), the concept's application to leisure and tourism is limited (e.g., Brown, 1992; Dimanche & Samdahl, 1994; Echtner, 1999;
Veblen, 1994). Specically, the investigation of symbolic consumption related to destination brands is scarce in the English literature.
To address this gap, the present study's aims are (1) to evaluate consumption's symbolic meaning for tourism destination brands using
self- and socio-cultural theories, and (2) to investigate symbolic
brand consumption's effect on destination brand loyalty.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Symbolic consumption
The symbolic property of consumption objects has gained renewed
attention in the last two decades. Levy (1959) and Elliott (1999)
argue people engage in consumption activities for both symbolic properties and functional benets. Accordingly, symbolic consumption
describes the fundamental part in the creation, enhancement, maintenance, transformation, disposition, expression, association, and differentiation of the self (e.g., Ahuvia et al., 2005; Bhat & Reddy, 1998;
Dittmar, 2008). For instance, Belk (1988) explains how possessions

712

Y. Ekinci et al. / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 711718

have an important role in creating the self, expression of the individual's

personal history, achievement, representation of interpersonal ties,
demonstration of cultural values, and exhibition of social status. By
the same token, peoples' notions of self can be linked to their possessions, the services they use, and the tourism destinations they visit.
The consumption's symbolic meaning occurs in private (or inward facing) and socio-cultural world (or outward facing) contexts
(Elliott & Perry, 2007; Holt, 1995; Richins, 1994). The private context
views consumption objects as mediums facilitating the creation and
expression of the self. Consumption choices, objects, and practices
create the individual self by saying something about the consumer
or 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. Consumers imply we are what we wear, hear, see, and otherwise sense
or experience; the times and places at which we do these things
and the company in which we do them (Shipman, 2004, p. 278).
The socio-cultural context suggests consumption objects represent
something about the individual's social self including status, prestige,
and association or disassociation from a group (Srensen & Thomsen,
2006).
Since Veblen's (1994) theory of conspicuous consumption, different researchers (e.g., Shipman, 2004) argue about consumption
behavior's social implications. In Veblen's study, the rich classes of
the late 19th century in United States focused on emulating, acquiring, and using consumption objects to differentiate themselves from
lower classes, and also to distance themselves from the world of
work (Timothy, 2005). Consumption served as a sign of social class
and distinction. Holt's (1997) research supports this notion by demonstrating how brands displayed and owned in households reect
class membership. Accordingly, people use consumption objects as
symbolic materials to dene social reality, clarify social roles, and present social advantages (Shipman, 2004; Solomon, 1983). Consumption 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 leisure
activity. Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) argue leisure activities
are good examples of consumption behavior because they are
charged with meaning. Dimanche and Samdahl (1994) conclude a
growing recognition that symbolic connotations exist in leisure activities since the publication of Veblen's (1994) the theory of the leisure
class. In Veblen's sense, the consumption of objects and practices,
such as travel, sports, and arts help to dene the leisure class.
Smith's (1979) study of why middle-class Americans visit prestigious resorts to keep up with social appearances and Wynne's
(1990) research of how middle-class English participate in leisure
activities to form a construction and afrmation of social position
are two examples of tourism studies that incorporate tourism's symbolic consumption. Tourism activities' social meaning also is described by Timothy (1998). He argues people are motivated to visit
different places for competitive reasons and admiration of others to
engage conspicuous consumption.
Brown (1992) discusses the symbolic nature of tourism experiences,
and their materialization in the consumption of tourist objects. For
instance, passport stamps, souvenirs, post-cards, photographs, among
other objects make tourism experiences tangible. Tourists also extend
tourism experiences to their ordinary life at home. People bring souvenirs from sacred places to help them to freeze the time (Gordon,
1986). Wallendorf and Arnould (1988) state that when Americans
talk about their favorite possessions that contain personal memories,
amongst the most common objects are souvenirs purchased during vacation trips. The meaning of souvenirs progress from the most mundane
objects such as the Hawaiian t-shirt from Hawaii to objects charged

with cultural values and symbolic meanings (e.g., Smith & Olson,
2001; Timothy, 2005).
Previous studies focus on the conspicuousness and materialization
of the tourism consumption (e.g., purchasing of souvenirs). A fundamental issue in tourism research is how symbolic consumption affects the tourist's choice and post-purchase evaluation of a tourism
destination (e.g., Crouch, 1994). Investigating destination choice has
implications for academics, destination management organizations
(DMO), and policymakers (see Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005). Sirgy
and Su (2000) develop a behavioral model outlining the relationship
between self-congruence and tourist behavior and explaining an interaction between destination environment, destination visitor
image, tourists' self-concept, self-congruence, functional congruence,
and travel behavior. Recent consumer behavior studies link self-concept and consumption of tourism destinations. These studies extend
Aaker's (1997) research by demonstrating tourism destinations
evoke strong symbolic values and their adjectives describing them
pertaining to human beings (e.g., outgoing, fun, friendly and boring)
(Ekinci & Hosany, 2006, p. 127; Sirgy & Su, 2000). For instance, destination personality is dened as a group of human personality characteristics associated with a destination. Like human beings,
destinations' personalities can be linked to the visitors' personalities.
These destination personality images inuence the traveler's intention to re-visit a destination.
Some evidence suggests congruence between the tourist's self-concept and the destination's image inuencing destination choice (Goh &
Litvin, 2000; Litvin & Goh, 2002). Later, Kastenholz (2004) conrms
self-congruence's role in selecting rural travel places as destinations.
The authors argue higher involvement in leisure tourism leads to greater ability of congruence theory to predict destination choice. Chon's
(1992) seminal study applies self-congruence theory to predict the
tourist's post-consumption evaluation of a tourism destination. His
study shows tourist's satisfaction with the destination depends on the
congruence between self image and destination image.
A literature review indicates tourist objects, practices, and places
evoke symbolic meanings. A rich body of literature examines the meaning of travel experiences and objects combined with self-congruence
and the tourism destination; however, scant attention is paid to the
symbolic meanings of tourism destination brands. This present study
aims to ll this gap.
3. The research model and hypotheses development
Blain, Levy, and Ritchie (2005, p. 331) dene destination-branding
as: the set of marketing activities that (1) support the creation of a
name, symbol, logo, word mark or other graphic that readily identies and differentiates a destination; that (2) consistently convey
the expectation of a memorable travel experience that is uniquely associated with the destination; that (3) serve to consolidate and reinforce the emotional connection between the visitor and the
destination; and that (4) reduce consumer search costs and perceived
risk. In the context of general consumption, Levy (1959, p. 118)
states people buy things not only for what they can do, but also for
what they mean. For brands, consumers view them as signs guiding
the object's consumption based on perceived distinctive characteristics (Aaker, 1991). Arguably, destination or place brands are collective
creations of stakeholders (residents, managers and other intermediaries) 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), brand management (Aaker, 1991; Kapferer, 1997) and
destination loyalty (e.g., Chen & Gursoy, 2001), shape a symbolic
tourism destination brand model (see Fig. 1).
As Fig. 1 shows, a destination brand's symbolic consumption includes three components; self-congruence, brand identication and
lifestyle-congruence. Self congruence expresses the tourist's self-

Y. Ekinci et al. / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 711718

713

Symbolic Consumption of Tourism Destination Brands

Self-Congruence

H1 (+)

H2 (+)

Brand Identification

Destination Brand Loyalty

H3 (+)

Lifestyle-Congruence

Fig. 1. The research model.

identity, whereas brand identication and lifestyle-congruence express the tourist's social identity and consumption values. The
model postulates these three symbolic consumption components
positively inuence destination brand loyalty. The next section addresses these concepts' meanings and their relationship with destination brand loyalty.
3.1. Destination brand loyalty
Most consumer loyalty research over the past three decades investigates loyalty from two perspectives: behavioral and attitudinal (e.g.,
Bandyopadhyay & Martell, 2007; Dick & Basu, 1994). Behavioral
loyalty refers to the frequency of repeat brand purchase. Attitudinal
loyalty describes a person's favorable feeling about a destination.
Although tourists may not visit again, they provide positive wordof-mouth. Chen and Gursoy (2001) criticize the rst approach for
assessing destination loyalty. They argue the attitudinal approach
(e.g., a positive attitude a person has about a destination) is best suited for assessing the tourist's loyalty because tourism destination experiences are different from other consumption objects. Positive trip
experiences lead to tourists re-booking the same airline or hotel because they trust them. Tourists become loyal to a destination even if
they do not plan to re-visit the same place. The re-purchasing criteria
are different for tourism destinations because tourists usually look
for exciting and novel experiences. According to these authors, destination loyalty should be seen as the level of tourist's perception of
a destination as a recommendable place (Chen & Gursoy, 2001,
p. 79). Destination brand loyalty differs from the attitudinal loyalty
by the tourists' intentions to visit or willingness to recommend a
destination.
3.2. Self-congruence's effect on destination brand loyalty
As previously discussed, self references the perception the individual has about him/herself (Todd, 2001). The marketing literature
argues consumer choices are linked to their self-concept (Sirgy,
1982). This theory's premise suggests people buy and/or use brands
for their symbolic meanings, related the self-concept (Birdwel,
1968). Sirgy (1982) explains people judge different product attributes by a set of beliefs about themselvesconsumption reinforces
their ideas or ideals of self.
Self's complexity evolved from a uni-dimensional concept to a
multidimensional concept with actual, ideal, social (Newcombe,
1950), and aspirational self (Rosenberg, 1981). An aspirational self
relates to the idea of possible selves (Markus & Nurious, 1986),
where people approach or avoid possible positive or negative selfimages. Thus, self not only focuses on the present and objective characteristics, but also a future ideal, desired, and planned image. In other
words, the focus includes what I am as well as what I want to be.

Therefore the self-concept requires two common componentsthe

actual self and the ideal self (e.g., Belch & Landon, 1977). Consistent
with previous research, self-congruence is the degree of match/
mismatch between the destination brand's image and the tourist's
actual or ideal self-image.
Self-concept studies suggest consumers achieve self-consistency and
self-esteem by holding positive attitudes towards brands perceived to
be similar to their self-image. Greater consistency between the consumer's self-concept and the brand image leads to a greater purchase intention (Graeff, 1996). For example, Sirgy, Dong-Jin, Johar, and Tidwell
(2008) describe how self-congruence, the self image, and the image of
a sponsorship event contribute to brand loyalty.
In the tourism literature, Chon (1992) shows the degree of congruence between self image and destination image inuences tourists' trip satisfaction. Therefore we propose that;
H1. Self-congruence positively affects destination brand loyalty.
3.3. Brand identication's effect on destination brand loyalty
Mick (1986, p. 196) explains the consumer world is a web of
meanings among consumers and marketers woven from signs and
symbols ensconced in their cultural space and time. Accordingly,
consumption objects such as brands evolve from having individual
value (personal meaning) to becoming important objects in the social
world, where they act as symbols with social meaning. Generally
speaking, individuals desire respect and acceptance by other people.
Social behaviors, including purchasing of brands, help fulll these
needs. Brand consumption not only differentiates people but also
helps them to integrate into a particular social group (e.g., Slater,
1997). When consumers associate themselves with brands, they reinforce their social identities (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003).
Social identity and organizational identication theories help explain consumption's social aspects. The social identity theory postulates people dene themselves according to their relationship with
particular groups and in distinction from the members of other social
groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1985). The organizational identication theory
states a person adopts an identity as a member of a social group or a
company consistent with social values in order to support a sense of
belonging (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). According to Scott and Lane
(2000, p. 46), group identication does not have to be necessarily formal. Identity can be informal, and even imaginary or inspirational.
When consumers share a joint identication, they consider themselves as part of an imaginary or real group and distance themselves
from rival groups (Kuenzel & Halliday, 2008).
Recent marketing studies nd the collective identication between consumers and brands such as brand communities (Cova &
Pace, 2006; McAlexander, Schouten, & Keonig, 2002; Schouten &
McAlexander, 1995) and brand tribes (Arnould, Price, & Zinkham,

714

Y. Ekinci et al. / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 711718

2002; Solomon, 2003). Primarily, this research stream investigates

the characteristics of the brand communities. Carlson, Suter, and
Brown (2008, p. 284) state that brand communities may be characterized by an unobservable, psychological sense of community that
could precede, or even work in lieu of, social interaction. According
to these authors brand consumption behaviors (e.g., brand commitment) are inuenced by not only community-related dimensions,
but also brand-related constructs such as the identication with a
brand. Brand identication differs from self-congruence. The direction of brand identication is not from brand image to actual or
ideal self-concept (inward); instead, brand identication is from
brand image to social self or social group (outward). Thus, tourists express their social identity and sense of belonging to a social group
through identication with a tourism destination brand.
Consequences of social identication have been examined by organizational researchers; a psychological self-orientation, such that individuals dene themselves in terms of their group membership,
appeared in studies on identication (e.g., Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail,
1994). Generally speaking, these studies suggest that the stronger the
relationship between the group members, the greater the willingness
to commit to the group. For example, social identication theory states
that consumer identication with certain groups leads to developing an
afnity towards them (Del Rio, Vazquez, & Iglesias, 2001). Tajfel and
Turner (1979) explain social group identication leads to positive selfesteem. Belonging to a group or group membership must provide a
sense of pride. If that pride is absent, leaving or distancing from the
group becomes an option. Promotional messages commonly suggest
consumers need to express their social identity by associating themselves with a particular brand (Kim, Han, & Park, 2001). Consumers
identify with brands having a good reputation among their reference
groups, or aspiration groups, and distance themselves from brands having no reputation in those groups (Long & Shiffman, 2000). Shamir
(1990) suggests group identication positively affects the willingness
to contribute to collective work. Dutton et al. (1994) argue a positive relationship exists between group identication and group cooperation.
Fisher and Wakeeld (1998) state customers who identify themselves with a specic brand usually remain loyal to that brand. Mael
and Ashforth (1992) report alumni who identify more strongly with
their alma maters donated more money and participated more frequently to alumni events. Consumer research studies show that customer identication with a brand leads to high brand loyalty and
positive word-of-mouth communication (e.g., Kim et al., 2001).
Peter and Olson (1993) report that 94% of Harley-Davidson buyers
likely will buy a Harley-Davison again. According to Aaker (1994),
96% of Saturn buyers said they would recommend the car and retailer
to others. These nds suggest a strong relationship between brand
loyalty and brand identication for consumer goods.
The following hypothesis posits a similar relationship for destinations.
H2. Brand identication affects destination brand loyalty positively.

3.4. Lifestyle-congruence's effects on destination brand loyalty

Although no commonly accepted denition of lifestyle exists in the
marketing literature, the term refers to person's unique living patterns as expressed by activities, interests, and opinions (Brassington
& Pettitt, 2003). Solomon (2002) suggests that lifestyle consists of
shared values, tastes in consumption patterns, and contains symbolic
nuances differentiating groups. Consumers' lifestyle research ndings
expenditure patterns, time usage, and feelings constitute the reality
of life and its unfolding (Foxall, Goldsmith, & Brown, 1998; Solomon,
2002). Other studies show how different consumption objects embody links to different lifestyle groups (e.g., Gelder & Thornton,
1997). Lifestyle includes not only peoples' demographic characteristics but also their attitudes towards life.

Building on aforementioned studies, lifestyle-congruence is dened

as the degree of match/mismatch between the destination brand experience and tourist's actual or desired lifestyle. Lifestyle-congruence
differs from self-congruence and brand identication because its
comparison standards and antecedents are different. Tourists consciously use consumption goals, activities, interests, and opinions as
tangible reference points for assessing their lifestyle-congruence. In
the case of self-congruence and brand identication, the reference
point is self-concept or social identity which is less tangible and less
conscious. Lifestyle-congruence's antecedents can have common
ground with actual and social self but also include different personal
and social values not captured by self-congruence and brand identication (e.g., Foxall et al., 1998; Rokeach, 1973).
A particular lifestyle generates goals, often including demand for
specic products. Solomon (2002) shows a link between brand consumptions and lifestyle expression. Consumers see brands as representation 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 to
a desired lifestyle.
Similarly, lifestyle marketing scholars argue an observable link between consumers' lifestyle and brand loyalty exists (Foxall et al.,
1998; Solomon, 2002). For example, consumers develop personal attachments to brands because they help to sustain a particular lifestyle
(Onkvisit & Shaw, 1987). Westbrook (1987) argues consumers develop
repeat purchase patterns because the brand improves consumers' lifestyle. Consumers who identify their lifestyle with a particular brand
develop positive feelings of afnity towards them (Orth, McDaniel,
Shellhammer, & Lopetcharat, 2004). Although the relationship between
lifestyle-congruence and brand loyalty generally is assumed, only Del
Rio et al. (2001) show that lifestyle-congruence positively inuences
consumers' intention to recommend.
A brand's ability to reect a tourist's lifestyle likely leads to stronger 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 known
as the Turkish Riviera, a tourism hot spot for European and Russian
tourists. A questionnaire was designed and pilot tested on a small
sample (n = 15) of students majoring in hospitality and tourism.
After making the suggested changes, the survey instrument was
translated to German by a professional translator and then backtranslated to English by the second author. The questionnaire was
sent to a major tour operator for data collection from German speaking clients. A random sample of tourists was collected at various resorts during summer in 2009. A reasonable attempt was made to
randomize the sampling process via selecting random days for data
collection. A lottery of three, two-person, all-expense paid trips
were offered by the company as an incentive to participate. Of the
500 questionnaires distributed, a total of 421 questionnaires
returned, among which 361 were useable representing an overall response rate of approximately 72%. Most respondents were Germans
(81%), with Austrians being the second largest group (9.7%). The
remaining groups were from a German speaking region of France
(2.2%) and Holland (1.7%). A large percentage of the respondents
were repeat visitors (63.2%). The sample was divided almost equally
between males (45.7%) and females (54.3%). The sample includes
people who had a wide variety of years spent in formal education,
ranging from less than 10 years (19.2%), to some college (25.2%) or
highly educated with a graduate degree (17.6%) or a university
degree (8.3%). Almost all income levels were present in the sample

Y. Ekinci et al. / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 711718

with 39% of them making less than 30,000 Euros and only 7.7% making more than 90,000 Euros. The remaining majority of the sample
households made anywhere from 30,000 to 90,000 Euros a year before taxes.
4.2. The measures
The current research was designed to investigate effects of the three
symbolic consumption concepts (self-congruence, brand identication
and lifestyle-congruence) on destination brand loyalty. All the statements were taken from past studies and a 7-point attitudinal scales
ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree was used
(Nam & Ekinci, 2009). The following directions were provided to measure perceived self-congruence using three self-related statements.
Please take a moment to think about the overall image of City X as
a vacation destination. Consider the kind of person who typically
visits City X. Imagine this person in your mind and then describe
this person using one or more personal adjectives such as organized, classy, poor, stylish, friendly, modern, traditional, popular,
or whatever personal adjectives you can use. Once you have
done this in your mind, check () your agreement or disagreement with each of the following statements using the scale of 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Brand identication and lifestyle-congruence were measured
using 3 statements adopted from previous studies (e.g., Del Rio et
al., 2001; Johnson, Herrmann, & Huber, 2006a,b; Nam & Ekinci,
2009; Vazquez, Del Rio, & Iglesias, 2002). Finally, destination brand
loyalty was measured by 3 statements capturing the tourist's intentions 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 reliability
were established. According to Malhotra (2004), the scale's validity
should be tested by exploratory or conrmatory factor analysis. Cronbach Alpha statistic was used to establish the scale's reliability. The
instruments' convergent and discriminant validity were tested by
conrmatory factor analysis using the Maximum Likelihood estimator
of LISREL 8.80 (Jreskog & Srbom, 1996). Table 1 shows the
Table 1
Descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations, average variances extracted and
measurements.
Concepts

Mean

SD

1.
2.
3.
4.

4.31
4.22
4.95
5.07

1.23
1.57
1.51
1.26

.64
.28
.27
.31

.53*
.67
.19
.25

.52*
.44*
.91
.54

.56*
.50*
.74*
.59

Self-congruence
Brand identication
Lifestyle-congruence
Destination brand loyalty

*Correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed). The diagonal gures in bold
indicate the average variances extracted (AVE) for each construct. The scores in the
upper diagonal are correlations. The scores in the lower diagonal are square of the
correlations.
Measurements: Self-congruence (1. A typical tourist of Antalya has an image similar to
how I see myself. 2. The image of Antalya is consistent with how I see myself. 3. A
typical tourist to Antalya has an image similar to how I like to see myself.) Brand
identication (1. When someone criticizes Antalya, it feels like a personal insult. 2. If
a story in the media criticized Antalya, I would feel embarrassed. 3. If someone
praised Antalya, it would felt like a personal compliment. 4. I am interested in what
others think about Antalya. Lifestyle-congruence (1. Vacationing in Antalya reects my
personal 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, I
will come back to Antalya. 2. Even if another destination offered more attractive
prices, I would come back to Antalya. 3. I will advise other people to visit Antalya.)

715

descriptive statistics, bi-variate correlations, and the average variance

extracted (AVE) for the variables included in the model.
Discriminant validity of the scales was assessed by Fornell and
Larcker's (1981) formula. Discriminant validity exists when the AVE
from each construct is greater than the square of the inter-correlations.
Findings of the study from Table 1 suggest that the three symbolic consumption scales meet this criterion. The AVE for self congruence (0.64),
brand identication (0.67), lifestyle-congruence (0.91) and destination
brand loyalty (0.59) are higher than the square of the correlation
between each of the constructs. The factor loadings are high and statistically signicant (p b 0.05), which satises the criteria for convergent
validity. Furthermore, the internal consistency reliability for each symbolic consumption (self-congruence= 0.84, brand identication= 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 equations
modeling using LISREL8.80 and the co-variance matrix as input
(Jreskog & Srbom, 1996). This testing conrms a model's goodness
of t, and the hypothesized paths. PRELIS generated the variancecovariance matrix as the input and the overall t of the structural model
was determined initially by examining the 2 statistic. The 2(59df)
statistic (160.97) and the associated probability value are statistically
signicant (p b 0.001). This nding suggests an inadequate t. However, the 2 statistic is inuenced by sample size and model complexity; model rejection based on this evidence alone is insufcient
(Bollen, 1989; Jreskog & Srbom, 1996). Other t indices such as
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Goodness of Fit
Index (GFI), Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), Norm Fit Index
(NFI), and Critical Fit Index (CFI) assess goodness of t (Hu & Bentler,
1999). The structural equation model results and the other t indices
provide further support for the validity of the measures and the proposed model. Accordingly, RMSEA (0.06) is less than 0.07 and the
other goodness of t indices (GFI = 0.94, NFI = 0.98, CFI = 0.99) are
substantially high (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 2006). Overall,
the model's predictive ability is very good as the three symbolic consumption measures explained 75% of the variance of destination
brand loyalty.
5.2. Hypothesis testing
All three research hypotheses are supported at the 95% condence
level. For H1, the results support that self-congruence has a positive
relationship with destination brand loyalty (SPC = 0.22, t = 3.63,
p b 0.05). Testing H2, the ndings support brand identication positively affects destination brand loyalty (SPC = 0.16, t = 3.02,
p b 0.001). Finally, support for H3, suggests that lifestyle congruence
positively relates to destination brand loyalty (SPC = 0.62, t = 11.00,
p b 0.001).
6. Conclusions
6.1. Theoretical implications
Due to a dearth of research addressing the complex nature of tourism's symbolic consumption, this study extends symbolic meaning of
tourism destination brands. The results contribute to the growing literature on destination branding in two ways. Firstly, drawing on symbolic
consumption and brand management literatures, an integrative symbolic destination brand model is developed. The results show self-congruence, brand identication, and lifestyle-congruence are key
components of tourism destination brands.
Second, this study investigates the inuence of symbolic meaning
of destination brands on destination brand loyalty. The ndings suggest tourists develop loyalty to a particular tourism destination
brand not only on the basis of functional attributes (e.g., service

716

Y. Ekinci et al. / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 711718

quality, accommodation, sea, sun, and location), but on the basis of

destination's ability to provide a suitable venue for the enactment of
self-concept, social identity, and enhancement of lifestyles which
are symbolic. Investigating the effect of brand identication and lifestyle-congruence on destination brand loyalty expands the theory of
symbolic consumption beyond application of the self-congruence theory on goods (e.g., cars, clothes). This study applies destination brands to
examine social and lifestyle congruencies. Accordingly, the current
study supports the growing body of research on brand management
using the relationship based approach. The results corroborate the ndings of the study by Kuenzel and Halliday (2008) which highlights the
importance of brand identication as the psychological foundation
that delineates deep and meaningful relationships as the precursor to
successful brand management.
The study ndings demonstrate self-congruence positively inuences destination brand loyalty. In other words, tourists intend to revisit a tourism destination because of symbolic characteristics and the
extent to which their self image matches the image of the destination
brand (Antalya). This result conrms previous studies (Birdwel,
1968; Ekinci et al., 2008; Graeff, 1996; Sirgy, 1982).
H2 posits that brand identication positively affects destination
brand loyalty. The ndings support the second hypothesis. Visiting a
particular destination brand not only helps to differentiate the travelers
in society, but also allows tourists to associate into different social
groups. This result conrms earlier studies conducted in general consumer behavior (Arnould et al., 2002; Cova & Pace, 2006; McAlexander
et al., 2002; Schouten & McAlexander, 1995; Solomon, 2003). Tourists
seem to express their social identity and expressed sense of belonging
to a social group via their self-identication with Antalya as their preferred tourism destination brand. Those visitors who identied themselves with a destination brand likely will revisit or recommend the
destination in the future. Tourism destination marketers should create
new and/or monitor existing travel groups and social networks, and
encourage opinion leaders and general travelers to actively participate
in discussions related to tourism destination brand to encourage loyalty.
Creating travel forums and communities of travelers who visited a destination brand (e.g., Antalya) would provide pride for the members, encouraging outside observers to develop and enhance positive images
and identity. Ultimately, potential visitors are likely to identify themselves with the groups of travelers who visit a destination brand and
create additional positive word-of-mouth communication.
Similarly, H3 states lifestyle congruence positively relates to destination brand loyalty also is supported. Lifestyle marketing refers to
person's unique lifestyle patterns as expressed by activities, interests,
and opinions (Brassington & Pettitt, 2003). Thus, lifestyle-congruence
refers to the degree of a match between destination brand experience
and tourist's actual or desired lifestyle. Corroborating the study by
Onkvisit and Shaw (1987), a successful promotional message might
suggest visiting the destination brand (e.g., Antalya) could be especially satisfying and thus help the target audience develop personal
attachment to the destination. Potential tourists may re-visit or spread
positive word-of-mouth about a destination brand (e.g., Antalya) offering a specic lifestyle message (e.g., living the Turkish or Mediterranean
resort style). In the long run, travelers who identify their lifestyle with a
destination brand may develop feelings of afnity towards that brand as
Orth et al. (2004) suggest in consumer behavior studies.
6.2. Managerial implications
As self-congruence positively inuences destination brand loyalty,
tourism marketers should study destination personality characteristics from the tourist's point of view. Destination brand image development should match the tourists' actual and ideal self-concept.
Destination personality helps position destination brands in relation
to the competing options (in this case, Greece, Spain or Egypt). For
example, if a destination is viewed as a friendly and hospitable

place from tourists' point of view, tourism marketers may benet

from designing promotion messages featuring the local people, service employees, and landscapes to position the destination brand in
competing markets. Alternatively, destination marketers and destination planners can use carefully selected colors, designs, music, or
words 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 create image and service experience congruence with the traveler's self
concept and avoid contradicting their beliefs. New tourism products
should be developed or the existing services should be adopted
according to the traveler's personality. Such an approach already is
implemented by some hotels and tour operators to stimulate brand
loyalty. For example, the Wyndam Hotel group encourages guests to
display their personal items (e.g., family photographs) in their hotel
rooms so they can express their individuality during their stay. Thus
guests form congruence between the hotel image and their actual
self-image (Piccoli, O'connor, Capaccioli, & Alvarez, 2003). Moreover,
the hotel room's layout is modied to create a fantasy type environment or an extrovert, rock-star type personality which may be desirable by the travelers. Fun and entertainment is experienced through
this form of symbolic consumption.
Similar tactics can be implemented by tour operators. An organized African safari tour would be suitable for an outgoing or adventure seeking tourist. Participating on an African safari would create
excitement and fun for these types of traveler. The present study suggests that tourists experience symbolic consumption of tourism
brands not only through self-congruence but also brand identication. The tourism brand identication empowers the tourist by associating or disassociating themselves with a social group in society
and therefore this process strengthens destination brand loyalty. Destination brands offer versatile opportunities to help to dene tourists'
social identity and to enrich their travel experiences through associating themselves to a specic social group different from their own domicile. For example, a sensible, designer-suite wearing, Sony laptopcarrying businessman becomes a hedonistic clubber, a sea captain, a
maverick, or an explorer by participating a specic leisure activity in
a tourism destination.
Tourism destination marketers must think strategically about
strengthening their brand identication by capitalizing on opportunities for networking and organizing social events, local festivals with
themes that match tourists' social identity. Tourism marketers would
benet from developing innovative communication strategies (e.g., storytelling via movies, or celebrity advertising) to enable tourists to dene
their identication with the destination brand. As Woodside, Blair, and
Ning (2007) suggest story telling enriches the destination brand's offering and associations with tourist's social identity.
The study ndings suggest tourists develop loyalty to destination
brands because the destination visit experience ts well with their
lifestyles. Thus, lifestyle information helps determine whether or
not a destination experience ts the tourist's lifestyle in order to increase visitor satisfaction with the visit experience. Lifestyle information also can inuence product development to increase destination
brand loyalty. Tourists' lifestyles are not xed and immutable because
they mature through their life cycle. Fast food brands such as Burger
King and McDonalds recognize this phenomena and open restaurants
at gas stations to serve customers with busy lifestyles. The growth of
coffee bars such as the Starbucks partly is fuelled by the demand for
leisure activities that can t into the work schedule. Thus, tourism
marketers should monitor tourists' lifestyles continuously to understand their needs and develop goods or services to enhance destination brand offerings and destination loyalty.
This study has some limitations. First, the sample is not a truly
randomized sample creating problems with external validity. Convenient samples pose a problem when results need to be generalized
beyond the sample size. However, the nature of the research question

Y. Ekinci et al. / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 711718

posed guards against a compromise of the study's integrity. Although,

the paper suffers from limitations related to the characteristics of the
sample, the ndings associated with the model identify unique
relationships with brand loyalty, self- and lifestyle-congruence,
and brand identication. To improve the result's external validity,
future studies should investigate and put study results to test with
larger and representative samples. Another fruitful study area
would be looking into the effects of online travel networks on study
constructs.
References
Aaker DA. Managing brand equity: capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New
York: Free Press; 1991.
Aaker DA. Building a brand: the Saturn story. California Management Review
1994;36(2):11433.
Aaker JL. Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research 1997;34(3):
34756.
Ahuvia AC, Lacobucci D, Thompson CJ. Beyond the extended self: loved objects and
consumers identity narratives. Journal of Consumer Research 2005;32(1):17184.
Arnould EJ, Price L, Zinkham GM. Consumers. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2002.
Bandyopadhyay S, Martell M. Does attitudinal loyalty inuence behavioural loyalty? A
theoretical and empirical study. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services
2007;14(1):3544.
Banister EN, Hogg MK. Possible selves? Identifying dimensions for exploring the dialectic between positive and negative selves in consumer behavior. Advances in Consumer Research 2003;30:14950.
Belch GE, Landon LE. Discriminant validity of a product-anchored self-concept measure. Journal of Marketing Research 1977;14:2526.
Belk RW. Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research 1988;15:
13967.
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 Consumer
Marketing 1998;15(1):3243.
Bhattacharya CB, Sen S. Consumercompany identication: a framework for understanding consumers' relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing
2003;67(2):7688.
Birdwel AE. A study of the inuence of image congruence on consumer choice. Journal
of Business 1968;41:7688.
Blain C, Levy SE, Ritchie. Destination branding: insights and practices from destination
management organizations. Journal of Travel Research 2005;43:32838.
Bloemer JM, de Ruyter K, Wetzels M. Linking perceived service quality and service loyalty: a multi-dimensional perspective. European Journal of Marketing
1999;33(11/12):1082106.
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. Choice
and demand in tourism. London: Mansell Publishing; 1992. p. 5771.
Cai LA. Cooperative branding for rural destinations. Annals of Tourism Research
2002;29(3):72042.
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 role
of psychological sense of brand community. Journal of Business Research
2008;61(4):28491.
Chen J, Gursoy D. An investigation of tourist' destination loyalty and preferences. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 2001;13(2):7985.
Chon KS. Self image-destination image congruity. Annals of Tourism Research
1992;13(3):3603.
Churchill GA. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs.
Journal of Marketing Research 1979;16(1):6473.
Cova B, Pace S. Brand community of convenience products: new forms of customer empowermentthe case of my Nutellathe community. European Journal of Marketing 2006;40(9/10):1087105.
Crouch GI. The study of international tourism demand: a survey of practice. Journal of
Travel Research 1994;32(4):4155.
Del Rio A, Vazquez R, Iglesias V. The effects of brand associations on consumer response. Journal of Consumer Marketing 2001;18(5):41025.
Dick AS, Basu K. Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science 1994;22(2):99-113.
Dimanche F, Samdahl DM. Leisure as symbolic consumption: a conceptualization and
prospectus for future research. Leisure Sciences 1994;6(2):11929.
Dittmar H. Consumer society, identity, and well-being: the search for the good life and
the body perfect. In: Brown R, editor. European monographs in social psychology
series. London: Psychology Press; 2008.
Douglas M, Isherwood B. The world of goods: towards anthropology of consumption.
2nd Ed. London: Allen Lane; 1996.

717

Dutton JM, Dukerich JM, Harquail CV. Organizational images and member identication. Administrative Science Quarterly 1994;39(34):23963.
Echtner C. The semiotic paradigm: implications for tourism research. Tourism Management 1999;20:4757.
Ekinci Y, Dawes P, Massey G. A model of consumer satisfaction for hospitality services.
European Journal of Marketing 2008;42(1):3568.
Ekinci Y, Hosany S. Destination personality: an application of brand personality to tourism destinations. Journal of Travel Research 2006;45:12739.
Elliott R. Symbolic meaning and postmodern consumer culture. In: Brownlie D, Saren
M, Wensley R, Whittington R, editors. Rethinking marketing. London: Sage;
1999. p. 11225.
Elliott R, Perry L. Strategic brand management. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
Fisher RJ, Wakeeld K. Factors leading to group identication: a eld study of winners
and losers. Psychology and Marketing 1998;15(1):2340.
Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equity models with unobservable variables
and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 1981;18(1):3950.
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 Research Association Annual Conference Proceedings; 2000. USA.
Gordon B. The souvenir: messenger of the extraordinary. Journal of Popular Culture
1986;20(3):13546.
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):14859.
Holbrook MB, Hirschman EC. The experiential aspects of consumption: consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research 1982;9:13240.
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 consumption in post modernity. Journal of Consumer Research 1997;23(4):32650.
Holt DB. Does cultural capital structure American consumption? Journal of Consumer
Research 1998;25:1-25.
Hu L, Bentler PM. Cut off criteria for t indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling
1999;6(1):1-55.
Johnson MD, Herrmann A, Huber F. The evolution of loyalty intentions. Journal of Marketing
2006a;70(2):12232.
Johnson MD, Herrmann A, Huber F. The evolution of loyalty intentions. Journal of Marketing
2006b;70(2):12232.
Jreskog KG, Srbom D. LIRSEL 8 user's reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientic Software
International; 1996.
Kapferer J. Strategic brand management: creating and sustaining brand equity long
term. London: Kogan Page Limited; 1997.
Kastenholz E. Assessment and role of destination-self-congruity. Annals of Tourism Research 2004;31:71923.
Kim CK, Han D, Park S. The effect of brand personality and brand identication on
brand loyalty: applying the theory of social identication. Japanese Psychological
Research 2001;43(4):195206.
Kuenzel S, Halliday SV. Investigating antecedents and consequences of brand identication. Journal of Product and Brand Management 2008;17(5):293304.
Levy SJ. Symbols for sale. Harvard Business Review 1959;37:11724.
Litvin SW, Goh HK. Self-image congruity: a valid tourism theory? Tourism Management 2002;23:813.
Long MM, Shiffman LG. Consumption values and relationships: segmenting the market
for frequency programs. Journal of Consumer Marketing 2000;17(3):21432.
Mael F, Ashforth B. Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test of the reformulated
model of organizational identication. Journal of Organizational Behavior
1992;13(2):10323.
Malhotra NK. Marketing research: an applied orientation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Prentice Hall; 2004.
Markus H, Nurious P. Possible selves. The American Psychologist 1986;41(9):95469.
McAlexander JH, Schouten JW, Keonig HF. Building brand community. Journal of Marketing
2002;66:3854.
McCracken G. Culture and consumption: a theoretical account of the structure and movement of the cultural meaning of consumer goods. Journal of Consumer Research
1986;13(1):7184.
McCracken A. Emotional impact of possession loss. Journal of Gerontological Nursing
1987;13(2):149.
McCracken G. Culture and consumption: new approaches to the symbolic character of
consumer goods and activities. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press; 1990.
McGinnis LP, Gentry JW. Underdog consumption: an exploration into meanings and
motives. Journal of Business Research 2009;62(2):1919.
Mick DG. Consumer research and semiotics: exploring the morphology of signs, symbols, and signicance. Journal of Consumer Research 1986;13:196213.
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. 1098109.
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):37185.
O'Shaughnessy J. Why people buy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1987.

718

Y. Ekinci et al. / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 711718

Onkvisit S, Shaw J. Self-concept and image congruence: some research and managerial
implications. Journal of Consumer Marketing 1987;4(1):1323.
Orth UR, McDaniel M, Shellhammer T, Lopetcharat K. Promoting brand benets: the
role of consumer psychographics and lifestyle. Journal of Consumer Marketing
2004;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 a
driver for change in the structure of the US lodging industry. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 2003;61:6173.
Richins M. Valuing things: the public and private meanings of possessions. Journal of
Consumer Research 1994;21(3):50421.
Rokeach M. The nature of human values. New York: Free Press; 1973.
Rosenberg M. The self-concept: social product and social force. In: Rosenberg M, Turner R,
editors. Social psychology: sociological perspectives. New York: Basic Books; 1981.
p. 591624.
Schouten JW, McAlexander JH. Subcultures of consumption: an ethnography of the
new bikers. Journal of Consumer Research 1995;22:4361.
Scott SG, Lane VR. A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. The Academy of
Management Review 2000;25(1):4362.
Shamir B. Calculations, values, and identities: the sources of collectivistic work motivation. Human Relations 1990;43(4):31332.
Shipman A. Lauding the leisure class: symbolic content and conspicuous consumption.
Review of Social Economy 2004;62(3):27789.
Sirakaya E, Woodside AG. Building and testing theories of decision making by travellers. Tourism Management 2005;26(6):81532.
Sirgy MJ. Self concept in consumer behavior: a critical review. Journal of Consumer Research
1982;9:287300.
Sirgy MJ, Dong-Jin L, Johar JS, Tidwell J. The effect of self-congruity with sponsorship on
brand loyalty. Journal of Business Research 2008;61(10):10917.
Sirgy MJ, Su C. Destination image, self-congruity, and travel behaviour: towards integrative model. Journal of Travel Research 2000;38(4):34052.
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 sophistication. Visions in Leisure and Business 2001;20(1):2333.

Solomon MR. The role of products as social stimuli: a symbolic interactions perspective.
Journal of Consumer Research 1983;10:31929.
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.
Srensen EB, Thomsen TU. The lived meaning of symbolic consumption and identity
construction in stable and transitional phases: towards and analytical framework.
European Advances in Consumer Research 2006;7:5716.
Tajfel H, Turner J. An integrative theory of intergroup conict. In: Austin GW, Worchel S,
editors. The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole;
1979. p. 3348.
Tajfel H, Turner J. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In: Worchel S, Austin
W, editors. Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall; 1985. p. 6-24.
Timothy DJ. Collecting places: geodetic lines in tourist space. Journal of Travel and
Tourism Marketing 1998;7(4):1239.
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):
18496.
Vazquez R, Del Rio AB, Iglesias V. Consumer-based brand equity: development and validation of a measurement instrument. Journal of Marketing Management
2002;18(1/2):2748.
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 attachment, possessiveness, and social linkage. Journal of Consumer Research
1988;14:53147.
Wattanasuwan K. The self and symbolic consumption. Journal of American Academy of
Business 2005;6(1):17984.
Westbrook RA. Product/consumption-based affective responses and post-purchase
processes. Journal of Marketing Research 1987;24(3):25870.
Woodside AG, Blair FC, Ning D. Stories visitors tell about Italian cities as destination
icons. Tourism Management 2007;28(1):16274.
Wynne D. Leisure, lifestyle and the construction of social position. Leisure Studies
1990;9:2134.