The role of online travel reviews in evolving tourists’ perceived destination image

Figures & data

Figure 1. The flowchart of the research process.

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of participants.

Variables	Categories	Group A* (N = 329)	Group B (N = 323)	Group C (N = 325)	Group D (N = 328)	Total (N = 1305)
Gender	Male	49.20%	55.40%	47.10%	47.60%	49.80%
	Female	50.80%	44.60%	52.90%	52.40%	50.20%
Age	Below 18	0.30%	0	0.30%	0.30%	0.20%
	18–25	5.20%	3.40%	4.90%	4.60%	4.50%
	26–30	23.10%	20.70%	22.20%	24.40%	22.60%
	31–40	46.50%	45.80%	44.30%	47.00%	45.90%
	41–50	17.60%	20.40%	18.50%	16.50%	18.20%
	Above 50	7.30%	9.60%	9.80%	7.30%	8.50%
Education	High school and below	6.10%	5.90%	4.90%	7.60%	6.10%
	Vocational school	18.20%	16.10%	15.40%	16.80%	16.60%
	Lower University Degree	70.50%	71.50%	70.80%	68.90%	70.40%
	Higher University Degree (Máster, Phd)	5.20%	6.50%	8.90%	6.70%	6.80%
Family Income per month	Below 5000￥	4.90%	3.70%	6.80%	6.10%	5.40%
	5000–10000 ￥	20.70%	17.60%	20.60%	17.70%	19.20%
	10001–15000 ￥	35.30%	33.40%	30.80%	31.10%	32.60%
	15001–20000 ￥	25.50%	29.70%	25.50%	28.70%	27.40%
	Above 20000 ￥	13.70%	15.50%	16.30%	16.50%	15.50%

* Group A: Concrete & 5-star rating review; Group B: Abstract & 5-star rating review; Group C: Concrete & 1-star rating review; Group D: Abstract & 1-star rating review.

Table 2. The baseline destination image of Santa Claus Village.

Variables	Items	Group A (Concrete & 5-star)		Group B (Abstract & 5-star)		Group C (Concrete & 1-star)		Group D (Abstract & 1-star)
		M*	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Baseline Cognitive Image (α=0.92)	Friendly and receptive residents	1.50	1.17	1.62	1.05	1.52	1.13	1.58	1.08
	Appealing local food	1.46	1.25	1.48	1.11	1.47	1.26	1.48	1.18
	Good value for money	1.64	1.17	1.60	1.14	1.64	1.10	1.72	1.07
	Suitable accommodations	1.41	1.17	1.52	1.10	1.52	1.14	1.53	1.18
	Quality of infrastructure (transportation)	1.34	1.29	1.40	1.13	1.48	1.19	1.42	1.14
	Good entertainment	1.36	1.26	1.41	1.16	1.49	1.15	1.42	1.20
	Good shopping opportunities	1.25	1.35	1.32	1.26	1.29	1.25	1.33	1.27
Baseline Affective Image (α=0.89)	Pleasant	1.69	1.09	1.80	1.11	1.76	1.25	1.80	1.08
	Stimulating	1.63	1.15	1.69	1.11	1.65	1.18	1.73	1.13
	Interesting	1.70	1.11	1.75	1.11	1.73	1.10	1.79	1.05
Baseline Overall Image (α=0.90)	An intention to visit	1.57	1.31	1.65	1.29	1.61	1.34	1.61	1.29
	A willingness to speak positively	1.53	1.25	1.56	1.21	1.56	1.13	1.59	1.23
	An intention to recommend	1.40	1.31	1.48	1.30	1.45	1.24	1.51	1.34

* M refer to Mean; SD refers to Standard Deviation.

Table 3. The destination image of Santa Claus Village after reading online travel reviews.

Variables	Items	Group A (Concrete & 5-star)		Group B (Abstract & 5-star)		Group C (Concrete & 1-star)		Group D (Abstract & 1-star)
		M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Enhanced Cognitive Image (α=0.96)	Friendly and receptive residents	1.83	1.10	1.92	1.05	1.08	1.61	0.82	1.72
	Appealing local food	1.84	1.13	1.78	1.24	0.70	1.87	0.59	1.90
	Good value for money	1.69	1.15	1.80	1.07	0.75	1.80	0.67	1.81
	Suitable accommodations	1.74	1.20	1.77	1.17	0.69	1.89	0.69	1.81
	Quality of infrastructure (transportation)	1.76	1.17	1.74	1.25	0.66	1.87	0.63	1.88
	Good entertainment	1.74	1.14	1.78	1.17	0.66	1.86	0.70	1.84
	Good shopping opportunities	1.54	1.26	1.54	1.30	0.64	1.92	0.55	1.88
Enhanced Affective Image (α=0.94)	Pleasant	1.96	1.03	1.99	1.09	0.96	1.70	0.81	1.79
	Stimulating	1.86	1.11	1.85	1.21	0.75	1.83	0.62	1.92
	Interesting	1.99	1.06	1.90	1.14	0.88	1.74	0.69	1.88
Enhanced Overall Image (α=0.94)	An intention to visit	1.88	1.12	1.87	1.19	0.90	1.77	0.78	1.91
	A willingness to speak positively	1.84	1.13	1.78	1.22	0.86	1.79	0.73	1.89
	An intention to recommend	1.75	1.21	1.72	1.30	0.65	1.95	0.48	2.04

Table 4. Changes in cognitive image affective image and overall image.

Variables	Items	Group A (Concrete & 5-star)		Group B (Abstract & 5-star)		Group C (Concrete & 1-star)		Group D (Abstract & 1-star)
		M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Changes of Cognitive Image	Friendly and receptive residents	0.33	1.16	0.30	0.98	−0.44	1.65	−0.76	1.80
		***		***		***		***
	Appealing local food	0.37	1.18	0.30	1.19	−0.77	1.81	−0.89	1.90
		***		***		***		***
	Good value for money	0.05	1.16	0.20	1.04	−0.89	1.72	−1.05	1.84
		0.38		***		***		***
	Suitable accommodations	0.33	1.22	0.25	1.10	−0.83	1.79	−0.84	1.86
		***		***		***		***
	Quality of infrastructure (transportation)	0.42	1.34	0.33	1.14	−0.82	1.72	−0.79	1.90
		***		***		***		***
	Good entertainment	0.38	1.23	0.37	1.06	−0.83	1.71	−0.72	1.86
		***		***		***		***
	Good shopping opportunities	0.29	1.10	0.22	1.08	−0.66	1.67	−0.78	1.76
		***		***		***		***
	Total Average	0.31		0.28		−0.74		−0.83
Changes of Affective Image	Pleasant	0.26	0.94	0.20	0.86	−0.80	1.63	−0.99	1.85
		***		***		***		***
	Stimulating	0.23	1.00	0.17	0.99	−0.90	1.71	−1.11	1.93
		***		***		***		***
	Interesting	0.30	0.91	0.16	0.97	−0.85	1.78	−1.10	2.01
		***		**		***		***
	Total Average	0.26		0.18		−0.85		−1.07
Changes of Overall Image	An intention to visit	0.32	1.00	0.22	0.93	−0.71	1.54	−0.83	1.85
		***		***		***		***
	A willingness to speak positively	0.31	0.99	0.22	1.01	−0.70	1.53	−0.86	1.75
		***		***		***		***
	An intention to recommend	0.36	1.04	0.24	0.94	−0.80	1.65	−1.03	1.89
		***		***		***		***
	Total Average	0.33		0.23		−0.74		−0.91

*** refer to significant value (p) <0.001; ** refer to significant value (p) <0.01

Table

Part 1
1. What is your gender?
Male	Female
2. How old are you?
Less than 18
18–25
26–30
31–40
41–50
> = 51
3. Education
High school and below
Vocational school
Lower University Degree (Bachelor)
Higher University Degree (Máster, Phd)
4. Monthly income
Under 5000 ¥
5000–10000 ¥
10001–15000 ¥
15001–20000 ¥
>20000 ¥
Part 2
Please rate the following options based on your current real impression of Santa Claus Village.
(−3 = Completely Disagree; −2 = Mostly Disagree; −1 = Slightly Disagree; 0 = Don't Know; 1 = Slightly Agree; 2 = Mostly Agree; 3 = Completely Agree)
5. Cognitive image: I think Santa Claus Village has … (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Kim et al., 2017)
Friendly and receptive residents.			−3	−2	−1	0	1	2	3
Appealing local food (cuisine).			−3	−2	−1	0	1	2	3
Good value for money.			−3	−2	−1	0	1	2	3
Suitable accommodations.			−3	−2	−1	0	1	2	3
Quality of infrastructure (transportation).			−3	−2	−1	0	1	2	3
Good entertainment.			−3	−2	−1	0	1	2	3
Good shopping opportunities.			−3	−2	−1	0	1	2	3
6. Affective image: I think Santa Claus Village has the atmosphere of … (Kim et al., 2017)
Pleasant.			−3	−2	−1	0	1	2	3
Stimulating.			−3	−2	−1	0	1	2	3
Interesting.			−3	−2	−1	0	1	2	3
7.Conative Image: Based on the current impression of the Santa Claus Village you have, rate your possible actions. (Agapito et al., 2013)
I have an intention to visit Santa Claus village.			−3	−2	−1	0	1	2	3
I have a willingness to speak positively about Santa Claus village.			−3	−2	−1	0	1	2	3
I have an intention to recommend Santa Claus village.			−3	−2	−1	0	1	2	3
Part 3
(Note: the weights of the four groups are the same, respondents are randomly assigned different groups of travel reviews, each group contain 7 travel reviews.)
Group A: Concrete & 5-star rating (7 online travel reviews)
Group B: Abstract & 5-star rating (7 online travel reviews)
Group C: Concrete & 1-star rating (7 online travel reviews)
Group D: Abstract & 1-star rating (7 online travel reviews)
Objective description, also known as concrete description, is a description of the attributes of things themselves, without personal emotions added in the description. For example, “The entrance ticket is 100 Yuan. There is fried rice on the restaurant menu.” This is an objective description, a description of the nature of things.
Subjective description, also known as abstract description, is an individual's view of things based on his own experience. For example, “The attraction ticket is expensive. The rice in the restaurant is terrible.” This is a subjective description because the acceptance of the ticket price and the tasting of the rice are personal feelings.
There is no distinction between right and wrong and good or bad in objective description or subjective description.
8. Manipulation check question: Do you think the above travel reviews are more objective or more subjective in general? (Shin et al., 2019)
(1 =  Very objective; 2 =  Mostly objective; 3 =  Slightly objective; 4 =  Half objective and half subjective; 5 =  Slightly subjective; 6 =  Mostly subjective; 7 =  Very subjective)
I think the above reviews overall are …			1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Part 4
After reading the above 7 online travel reviews, please rate the following options again based on your current impression of Santa Claus Village.
(−3 = Completely Disagree; −2 = Mostly Disagree; −1 = Slightly Disagree; 0 = Don’t know; 1 = Slightly Agree; 2 = Mostly Agree; 3 = Completely Agree)
9. Cognitive image: I think Santa Claus Village has … (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Kim et al., 2017)
Friendly and receptive residents.				−3	−2	−1	1	2	3
Appealing local food (cuisine).				−3	−2	−1	1	2	3
Good value for money.				−3	−2	−1	1	2	3
Suitable accommodations.				−3	−2	−1	1	2	3
Quality of infrastructure (transportation).				−3	−2	−1	1	2	3
Good entertainment.				−3	−2	−1	1	2	3
Good shopping opportunities.				−3	−2	−1	1	2	3
10. Affective image: I think Santa Claus Village has the atmosphere of … (Kim et al., 2017)
Pleasant.				−3	−2	−1	1	2	3
Stimulating.				−3	−2	−1	1	2	3
Interesting.				−3	−2	−1	1	2	3
11.Conative Image: Based on the impression of the Santa Claus Village you have now, rate your possible actions again. (Agapito et al., 2013)
I have an intention to visit Santa Claus village.				−3	−2	−1	1	2	3
I have a willingness to speak positively about Santa Claus village.				−3	−2	−1	1	2	3
I have an intention to recommend Santa Claus village.				−3	−2	−1	1	2	3

Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. W. (1999). U.S. International pleasure travelers’ images of four Mediterranean destinations: A comparison of visitors and nonvisitors. Journal of Travel Research, 38(2), 144–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759903800207

 Google Scholar

Kim, S. E., Lee, K. Y., Shin, S. I., & Yang, S. B. (2017). Effects of tourism information quality in social media on destination image formation: The case of sina weibo. Information & Management, 54(6), 687–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2017.02.009

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Agapito, D., Oom do Valle, P., & da Costa Mendes, J. (2013). The cognitive-affective-conative model of destination image: A confirmatory analysis. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 30(5), 471–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2013.803393

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shin, S., Chung, N., Xiang, Z., & Koo, C. (2019). Assessing the impact of textual content concreteness on helpfulness in online travel reviews. Journal of Travel Research, 58(4), 579–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287518768456

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar