Journal of Destination Marketing & Management ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Destination Marketing & Management

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

Research Paper

An investigation of the relationships among destination familiarity,

destination image and future visit intention
Wee-Kheng Tan n, Cheng-En Wu
Kainan University, No. 1, Kainan Road, Luchu, Taoyuan County 33857, Taiwan

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The presence or absence of differences in the perceptions of previous visitors and non-visitors toward a
Received 8 July 2015 destination is important to tourist theorists and practitioners. Destination familiarity, destination image,
Received in revised form and future visit intention are suitable marketing variables for investigations into these two groups.
18 December 2015
Destination familiarity has been defined in many different ways. Adding to the complexity, related
Accepted 19 December 2015
concepts, such as awareness, knowledge, experience, and expertise, have, in one way or another, been
used in combination with familiarity. There is also inconsistency in whether familiarity is a unidimen-
Keywords: sional or multidimensional construct. Considering previous studies, Prentice (2004) provided an inter-
Destination familiarity related seven-dimension familiarity construct. Taking into account previous familiarity and familiarity-
Experiential familiarity
related studies and setting experiential familiarity as a moderator, this study aims to achieve a deeper
Destination image
understanding of familiarity by examining how Prentice's familiarity dimensions are interrelated, as well
Future visit intention
Destination marketing organizations as to gain insights into the structural relationships among familiarity, destination image, and future visit
intention via the comparison of previous visitors and non-visitors. Hong Kong was selected as the tourist
destination, and the partial least squares method was applied to analyze 493 surveys collected from
residents in Taiwan. The findings provide a range of academic and practical implications. In this light,
certain previous findings may have to be reconsidered. The present work indicates the importance of
experience as a criterion for segmenting consumers, and it demonstrates the usefulness of a critical
examination of non-visitors. This study offers numerous suggestions regarding how destination mar-
keting organizations can formulate effective strategies for both previous visitors and non-visitors.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction costs in market communication (Kastenholz, Eusebio, & Carneiro,

2013; Lau & McKercher, 2004; Zhang, Fu, Cai, & Lu, 2014). A good
Tourism researchers have investigated the presence or absence appreciation of the differences between previous visitors and non-
of differences in the perceptions and behaviors of previous visitors visitors and the contributory factors to these differences will help
(individuals who have visited a particular destination) and non- DMOs design appropriate strategies for different segments of
visitors (individuals who have not visited the destination) toward consumers.
a destination. These differences include how they perceive the Familiarity is useful in explaining differences in various aspects
image of the destination (Baloglu, Henthorne, & Sahin, 2014; of touristic behavior between previous visitors and non-visitors
Hughes & Allen, 2008; Phillips & Jang, 2010), as well as their at- because it represents ‘a key marketing variable in segmenting and
titudinal and behavioral patterns (Choi, Tkachenko, & Sil, 2011; targeting certain groups and developing a marketing action plan,
Phillips & Jang, 2010; Riscinto-Kozub & Childs, 2012). In addition to including product, distribution, pricing and promotion decisions'
their theoretical importance, these studies also have practical (Baloglu, 2001, p. 127). Destination familiarity enables us to un-
purposes. Destination marketing organizations (DMOs) are inter- derstand how individuals shape the image of a destination (Chen
ested in encouraging non-visitors to visit and previous visitors to & Lin, 2012). Furthermore, familiarity, by itself or in combination
revisit specific destinations. Repeat visitation is a stabilizing in- with the destination image, can affect an individual's choice of
fluence, and repeat visitors are a cost-effective market segment for destination, satisfaction, and word-of-mouth behavior (Chen & Lin,
most destinations. They provide continued revenues and lower 2012; Ozdemir et al., 2012). Excessive familiarity may also make a
visit less interesting and involving (Kastenholz, 2010). Thus, des-
n
Corresponding author. tination familiarity is an important topic for tourism research and
E-mail address: [email protected] (W.-K. Tan). DMOs. This study aims to further investigate one of the most

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.12.008
2212-571X/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Tan, W.-K., & Wu, C.-E. An investigation of the relationships among destination familiarity, destination image
and future visit intention. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.12.008i
2 W.-K. Tan, C.-E. Wu / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

Familiarity
Educational H1b Self-described (Part 1)
Familiarity Familiarity
H1c
H3a
H1a H1d H3c

H1e
H2a

Informational H2b Self-assured

Familiarity Familiarity
H3b
H2d H4a
H2c H4b

Expected Proximate
Familiarity H5 Familiarity

Familiarity (Part 2)

(a) Relationships among familiarity dimensions

H13-H16
Familiarity
(Part 1)

H7-H10
Destination
Image
H19-
Cognitive H6 Affective H20 Future Visit
Destination Destination
Intention
Image Image

H11-H12

H17-H18
Familiarity
(Part 2)

Familiarity

(b) Relationships among familiarity, destination image, and future visit intention
Fig. 1. Research model: (a) relationships among familiarity dimensions, (b) relationships among familiarity, destination image, and future visit intention.

important stakeholders of a destination, i.e. visitors, and consider feel connected to a destination), educational (the extent of formal
the destination familiarity of previous visitors and non-visitors. and informal education), self‐assured (own judgments and feel-
Destination familiarity is also worthy of further examination. ings of safety), and expected (the extent of coziness and attrac-
This important concept has been defined in many different ways tions expected) familiarity. However, further research regarding
(Baloglu, 2001). Related concepts, such as awareness, knowledge, the composition of familiarity remains necessary because these
experience, expertise, and prior knowledge, have, in one way or seven dimensions are interrelated (Prentice, 2004).
another, been used in combination with familiarity, i.e. as a sy- The holistic overview by Prentice (2004) serves as a useful
nonym, a component, or an umbrella term with familiarity as a launch pad for further examination of the destination familiarity of
component (Lee, Floyd, & Shinew, 2002; Sharifpour, Walters, previous visitors and non-visitors, and its subsequent impact on
Ritchie, & Winter, 2014). There is also inconsistency in whether the destination image and future behavioral intention to visit the
familiarity should represent a unidimensional or multidimensional destination. Experiential familiarity can be used to segment in-
construct: the answer depends on how familiarity is defined. Fa- dividuals into non-visitors and previous visitors. Although some
miliarity has traditionally been treated as a unidimensional con- studies have examined a limited number of the components of
struct, such as the number of previous trips (Snepenger, Meged, familiarity, to the best of our knowledge, few researchers have
Snelling, & Worrall, 1990). However, current researchers have in- demonstrated how all dimensions of Prentice's familiarity tax-
creasingly recognized the multidimensionality of familiarity. For onomy are interrelated and how this interrelationship affects fa-
example, Baloglu (2001) operationalized familiarity as a multi- miliarity as an antecedent of destination image and visit intention
dimensional construct that consists of previous experiences (ex- within a single study. The question that arises is, when viewed
periential familiarity), the extent of information used (informa- from Prentice's familiarity taxonomy, does the familiarity of non-
tional familiarity), and how familiar with a place individuals be- visitors significantly differ from previous visitors to cause them to
lieve themselves to be (self-rated familiarity). Based on previous behave differently in terms of future visit intention?
studies, Prentice (2004) gathered and expanded the familiarity Through a comparison of previous visitors and non-visitors,
taxonomy into seven dimensions: experiential, informational, self‐ with experiential familiarity as a moderator, the present study
described (self-rated), proximate (the extent to which individuals aims to achieve a deeper theoretical understanding of familiarity

Please cite this article as: Tan, W.-K., & Wu, C.-E. An investigation of the relationships among destination familiarity, destination image
and future visit intention. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.12.008i
 W.-K. Tan, C.-E. Wu / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 3

by examining how Prentice's various familiarity dimensions are et al., 2014). Prior knowledge has also been measured via famil-
interrelated. Furthermore, the study aims to use Prentice's famil- iarity or expertise (Khosrowjerdi & Iranshahi, 2011). However,
iarity taxonomy to gain deeper insights into the structural re- some researchers do not equate expertise with familiarity. For
lationships among familiarity, destination image, and future visit example, Gursoy (2003) treated prior knowledge as two separate
intention. In addition to its theoretical contribution, under- dimensions: expertise and familiarity. Kerstetter and Cho (2004)
standing familiarity and its implications for destination image and postulated that prior knowledge is accumulated via familiarity,
visit intention will facilitate a better design of strategies by DMOs expertise, and past experience. However, an empirical analysis
to address the concerns of these two tourist groups. The city demonstrated that the dimensions of familiarity and expertise are
destination chosen for this study is Hong Kong, which represents a loaded together. Their study further suggested that ‘given the ease
popular and nearby (flight duration of approximately 1 h) tourist with which individuals can find and gain in-depth knowledge
destination for Taiwanese residents. about destinations today, the original contention that they are
distinctly separate constructs in tourism may be misleading’
(Kerstetter & Cho, 2004, p. 974).
2. Literature review and hypothesis development Familiarity may be equated with subjective knowledge. Sub-
jective knowledge indicates how much individuals think they
This study uses experiential familiarity as a moderator for know and often reflects consumer self-confidence (Brucks, 1985).
segmenting individuals into two groups: previous visitors and According to Brucks (1985), familiarity is referred to as subjective
non-visitors. The research model subsequently discussed is pro- knowledge and, in addition to objective knowledge and previous
posed for investigating the relationship between the dimensions experience, constitutes consumer knowledge.
of Prentice's familiarity taxonomy (Fig. 1a) and understanding how By considering familiarity as affect-as-information (Prentice,
familiarity, destination image, and future visit intention are related 2006), researchers, such as Baloglu (2001) and Prentice (2004),
(Fig. 1b) in previous visitors and non-visitors. interpreted familiarity as a multidimensional construct and oper-
ationalized it as a combination of experiential, self-described (self-
2.1. Destination familiarity rated), and informational familiarity. Experiential familiarity is the
extent of previous experience and may be operationalized as first-
2.1.1. Types of destination familiarity timer or repeater (Chen & Lin, 2012) and number of visits (Pre-
The concept of familiarity often appears in combination with ntice, 2004). As a subjective measure of familiarity, self-described
other related concepts, such as awareness, knowledge, experience, familiarity represents how familiar with a place individuals be-
and expertise (Sharifpour et al., 2014). Furthermore, the different lieve themselves to be without the necessity of previous visitation
definitions of familiarity result in inconsistencies in the oper- (Prentice, 2004). Some researchers have operationalized self-de-
ationalization of the concept. Through a review of the literature scribed familiarity as a single-item construct (Elliot & Papado-
regarding familiarity and its related concepts, this study attempts poulos, 2015; Lu, Chi, & Lu, 2014; Sun et al., 2013). Informational
to build a model for investigating the interdependency between familiarity refers to the extent of exposure to destination-related
different types of familiarity. information and is operationalized as a single or multiple sources
Alba and Hutchinson (1987) linked familiarity with experience (Baloglu, 2001). Prentice (2004) made a distinction between per-
and defined it as ‘the number of product-related experiences that sonal education and destination-related information sources and
have been accumulated by the consumer’ (Alba & Hutchinson, categorized destination familiarity gained through the former as
1987, p. 411). As a result, familiarity has often been conceptualized educational familiarity. Personal education may be obtained via
as a single dimension of previous visitation (Milman & Pizam, formal mediated learning (such as learning through educational
1995) or the number of previous visits (Sun, Chi, & Xu, 2013; Tasci, institutions) or informal mediated learning (such as learning
Gartner, & Cavusgil, 2007), or it has been operationalized as the through watching television and movies or reading novels). Pre-
contrasts between repeaters and newcomers (Prentice, 2006). Si- ntice (2004) narrowly operationalized educational familiarity as
milar to familiarity, experience has also been conceptualized and having read the works of novelists and poets but also argued for
operationalized in various ways (Sharifpour et al., 2014), including the inclusion of having watched movies and TV programs as
general international travel experience (Kozak, Crotts, & Law, components of educational familiarity. Educational familiarity is
2007) or previous visitation to a particular destination (Fuchs & therefore related to movie-induced tourism (Connell, 2012).
Reichel, 2011). Considering other familiarity-related studies, Prentice (2004)
Other researchers have argued that familiarity does not need to added three additional familiarity dimensions: self-assured, ex-
originate from actual experience (Srull, 1983). Non-visitors may pected, and proximate. Safety and security are a priority for a
have a certain level of destination familiarity created by education, prosperous tourism industry in any destination (Tasci & Boylu,
mass media, travel guides and personal contact with other in- 2010). The related concept of self-assured familiarity refers to the
dividuals (Gursoy, 2011; Prentice & Andersen, 2003). The Internet extent of assurance regarding traveling in the destination (Pre-
is also widely used for travel planning across all customer seg- ntice, 2004), and some researchers have considered self-assured
ments (Xiang, Magnini, & Fesenmaier, 2015). Thus, familiarity may familiarity as judgments and feelings regarding safety (Jansen,
be related to the information search and is associated with the 2011). Expected familiarity is the extent of coziness, comfort, and
amount of time spent processing information (Baker, Hutchinson, attractions expected. This definition is consistent with Cohen
Moore, & Nedungadi, 1986). (1972), who considered familiarity as a preference for the tourist
For some researchers, the previously described experience and bubble, i.e., comfort. Proximate familiarity is the extent to which
familiarity gained via information sources are components of prior individuals feel connected to the tourist destination and whether
knowledge. Webb (2000) distinguished between familiarity and they can identify with the destination (Jansen, 2011). Prentice
experience by defining the former as ‘knowledge gained through (2004) operationalized proximate familiarity as nationality. How-
exposure to various information concerning the service provider’ ever, in a subsequent study of visits to Scandinavian countries,
(Webb, 2000, p. 6) and the latter as ‘knowledge gained through Prentice (2006) included Scandinavian language proficiency and
direct involvement with a service provider’ (Webb, 2000, p. 6). membership in organizations that promote cultural ties when
This prior destination knowledge is thus viewed as a multi- investigating visits to Scandinavian countries. Jansen (2011) con-
dimensional construct (Huang, Gursoy, & Xu, 2014; Sharifpour sidered proximate familiarity as the presence of an emotional

Please cite this article as: Tan, W.-K., & Wu, C.-E. An investigation of the relationships among destination familiarity, destination image
and future visit intention. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.12.008i
4 W.-K. Tan, C.-E. Wu / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

connection with a place and/or having friends or relatives who live ‘a set of beliefs, ideas, and impressions that people have of a place
in the destination. It is thus related to the concept of place at- or destination’ (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999, p. 871). As a subjective
tachment and connection, which refers to the affective bond and concept (Martin & Bosque, 2008), it is a complex amalgam of
connection between individuals and specific places (Hammitt, products and attributes woven into a complete impression (Gart-
Backlund, & Bixler, 2006; Yuksel, Yuksel, & Bilim, 2010). ner, 1993; Kim, 2014). Destination image attributes can be classi-
fied as cognitive or affective, and ‘the coexistence of both com-
2.1.2. Inter-dependency between types of destination familiarity ponents (cognitive and affective) may explain in a better way the
Prentice (2004) suggested that the seven types of destination image a tourist has of a place’ (Martin & Bosque, 2008, p. 264).
familiarity are interdependent. However, there is a lack of re- Cognitive image refers to an individual's perceptions, beliefs and
search, at least within a single study, regarding the extent of in- attitudes regarding the destination (Martin & Bosque, 2008; Qu,
terdependency. In the present work, the research model shown in Kim, & Im, 2011). Cognitive attributes may be functional/tangible
Fig. 1a is used to determine the relationships between these fa- (e.g. landscape and cultural attractions) or psychological/abstract
miliarity dimensions. (e.g. feelings of hospitality and atmosphere) (Martin & Bosque,
Studies regarding familiarity and its related concepts (such as 2008). Affective image is related to the feelings and emotions that
knowledge, experience and expertise) on information search be- a tourist destination evokes (Baloglu, 1999; Martin & Bosque,
havior have provided contradictory results (Lee et al., 2002). Some 2008). Given that previous studies have demonstrated that the
studies have demonstrated that familiarity has a negative influ- cognitive destination image contributes to the affective destina-
ence on information searches; other studies have suggested a tion image (Chen & Phou, 2013; Kim & Richardson, 2003; Papa-
positive or an inverted-U relationship (Kerstetter & Cho, 2004). dimitriou, Kaplanidou, & Apostolopoulou, 2015; Sonmez & Sir-
Sharifpour et al. (2014) determined that tourists with a higher akaya, 2002). Thus it is proposed that (Fig. 1b):
level of subjective knowledge prefer to depend on their personal
knowledge. One potential reason for these contradicting results is H6. Cognitive destination image influences affective destination
that researchers have different ideas regarding these familiarity- image.
related concepts, which results in the non-uniform application of
the concepts to their studies. Movies, a type of information source 2.2.2. Relationship between destination image and familiarity
and a component of educational familiarity, have been demon- While imagery is related to the production side of tourism,
strated to help increase familiarity with a destination. However, familiarity is distinct from imagery and is related to the production
Kim and Richardson (2003) demonstrated that a movie on Vienna side (Prentice, 2004). Despite their distinctiveness, previous stu-
did not increase the viewers' level of familiarity with the city. dies have demonstrated that, in general, increased familiarity
Familiarity can provide individuals with feelings of safety and provides a more favorable destination image (Beerli & Martín,
security perceptions regarding a destination (Tasci & Boylu, 2010). 2004; Kerstetter & Cho, 2004; Milman & Pizam, 1995). One's
Self-assured familiarity is an indicator of consumer confidence. subjective familiarity with a destination can influence the desti-
Information from secondary sources (Frias, Rodriguez, & Castane- nation image (Sharifpour et al., 2014; Sun et al., 2013).
da, 2008) and subjective knowledge (Sharifpour et al., 2014) may Similar to familiarity, individuals may have an image of a des-
minimize tourist risk perception. In turn, feeling safe in the des- tination without visiting it (Echtner & Ritchie, 2003) by consulting
tination may lead tourists to have a feeling of coziness (Jansen, various information sources (Greaves & Skinner, 2010). Movies and
2011). TV programs are useful sources of image formation (Kim & Ri-
Information from secondary sources and familiarity provides chardson, 2003). For example, Kim and Richardson (2003) de-
individuals with a sense of comfort (Tasci & Knutson, 2004), helps monstrated that the effects of a movie were significant for some
individuals to create a greater connection, and provides a frame of components of the image of Vienna. However, it is interesting to
reference for individuals to imagine themselves as part of an en- note that movies may also create negative images (McCartney,
vironment and to develop a person-place image (Hammitt et al., Butler, & Bennett, 2008; Sonmez & Sirakaya, 2002). Some re-
2006). Thus, increased familiarity can contribute to the emotional searchers, such as Baloglu and McCleary (1999), and Gartner
connection to a destination (Yang, Yuan, & Hu, 2009). (1993), have further proposed that information sources affect the
By extrapolating the results of previous studies, this study cognitive evaluation of a destination. External information is less
proposes the following hypotheses (Fig. 1a): capable of changing the affective aspect of an image (Li, Pan,
Zhang, & Smith, 2009).
H1. Educational familiarity influences informational familiarity When making travel decisions, individuals consider factors that
(H1a), self-described familiarity (H1b), self-assured familiarity will reduce risk as much as possible (Chang, 2011). Self-assured
(H1c), expected familiarity (H1d), and proximate familiarity (H1e). familiarity refers to the extent of feeling assured and safe (Pre-
H2. Informational familiarity influences self-described familiarity ntice, 2004). Thus, it measures the perception that mechanisms
(H2a), self-assured familiarity (H2b), expected familiarity (H2c), have been put in place to mitigate and address perceived dangers
and proximate familiarity (H2d). to an acceptable level. The safety and security of a destination have
been considered from two approaches. The first approach in-
H3. Self-described familiarity influences self-assured familiarity vestigates the safety and security of a destination as part of the
(H3a), expected familiarity (H3b), and proximate familiarity (H3c). destination image and forms one of the many cognitive attributes.
Another approach is to investigate risk perception in isolation
H4. Self-assured familiarity influences expected familiarity (H4a),
from the destination image (Fuchs & Reichel, 2011). Chew and
and proximate familiarity (H4b).
Jahari (2014) treated the perceived risk and destination image as
H5. Expected familiarity influences proximate familiarity. distinctive constructs and determined that certain types of risk
influence the destination image.
2.2. Destination familiarity and image From the cognitive perspective, familiarity with a destination
may provide a feeling of comfort (Yang et al., 2009). Studies have
2.2.1. Destination image indicated that the destination image may represent an antecedent
Destination image remains one of the most popular research of destination attachment (Prayag & Ryan, 2012; Veasna, Wu, &
topics in tourism (King, Chen, & Funk, 2015). Destination image is Huang, 2013). Thus, it is postulated that (Fig. 1b):

Please cite this article as: Tan, W.-K., & Wu, C.-E. An investigation of the relationships among destination familiarity, destination image
and future visit intention. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.12.008i
 W.-K. Tan, C.-E. Wu / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 5

H7. Educational familiarity influences cognitive destination image on their own experience as their major source of information
(H7a) and affective destination image (H7b). (Assael, 2004), other studies have indicated that the information
search efforts of repeat visitors are not necessarily reduced (Lehto,
H8. Informational familiarity influences cognitive destination
O'Leary, & Morrison, 2004). Choi et al. (2011) also determined that
image (H8a) and affective destination image (H8b).
visitors tend to be more active than non-visitors in searching for
H9. Self-described familiarity influences cognitive destination information regarding Korea. Furthermore, past experience miti-
image (H9a) and affective destination image (H9b). gates consumer risk (Lehto et al., 2004; Sharifpour et al., 2014) and
generates a connection with the destination (Ednie, Daigle, &
H10. Self-assured familiarity influences cognitive destination im- Leahy, 2010).
age (H10a) and affective destination image (H10b). Experience may also affect an individual's perception of the
H11. Cognitive destination image influences expected familiarity image of a destination (Beerli & Martin, 2004; Martin & Bosque,
(H11a) and proximate familiarity (H11b). 2008). Chew and Jahari (2014, p. 383) have suggested that ‘repeat
tourists have different cognitive processes in image formation and
H12. Affective destination image influences expected familiarity travel behavior than those of first-time visitors’; thus, the desti-
(H12a) and proximate familiarity (H12b). nation image held by visitors who have made previous visits tends
to be different from the image held by first-time visitors (Frias-
2.3. Destination familiarity, image, and future visit intention Jamilena et al., 2012). Milman and Pizam (1995) empirically de-
monstrated that individuals who had previously visited Central
Studies have often demonstrated that familiarity positively in- Florida had a more positive image of the destination compared
fluences visit intention (Chen & Lin, 2012; Jeong, Holland, Jun, & with non-visitors. Phillips and Jang (2010) also identified differ-
Gibson, 2012; Tsai, 2012). For example, educational familiarity, in ences in how visitors and non-visitors construct their destination
the forms of place-specific films and TV programs, affect visit in- image of New York. However, there are also results that point in a
tention (Connell & Meyer, 2009; Hao & Ryan, 2013). Baloglu (2001) different direction. Hughes and Allen (2008) used semi-structured
also demonstrated the positive effect of informational familiarity interviews and determined there were few significant differences
on travel intention. In addition to external information sources, between the views of visitors and non-visitors regarding Central
one's subjective knowledge of a destination is an important in- and Eastern Europe.
dicator of decision-making (Sharifpour et al., 2014). Previous stu- Finally, experiential familiarity explains why tourists choose to
dies, such as Chen and Phou (2013), Loureiro (2014), Morais and visit a destination (Kerstetter and Cho, 2004). Baloglu (2001) de-
Lin (2010), and Yuksel et al. (2010), have also indicated that an termined that previous visitors who are familiar with a destination
individual's emotional connection to a destination influences are more likely to revisit the destination. Individuals who had
tourist behavioral intentions, such as future visit intention. How- previously visited Central Florida were also more interested in
ever, an individual's perceived risks may undermine the will- revisiting it compared with individuals who were merely aware of
ingness to visit a destination (Chew & Jahari, 2014). It is thus the destination (Milman & Pizam, 1995). Motivational differences
reasonable to assume that visit intention may increase if the between first-time and repeaters affect their activities while in
tourists perceive that the risks have been addressed by specific Hong Kong (Lau & McKercher, 2004).
mechanisms (i.e. assured familiarity). Thus, we suggest that Thus, past experience, such as whether an individual has vis-
(Fig. 1b): ited a destination, has often emerged as an important factor that
influences tourism decision-making. This study uses experiential
H13. Educational familiarity influences future visit intention.
familiarity as a variable for segmenting travelers into two groups:
H14. Informational familiarity influences future visit intention. non-visitors and previous visitors. The previously described hy-
potheses are subsequently tested and compared across these two
H15. Self-described familiarity influences future visit intention.
visitor groups.
H16. Self-assured familiarity influences future visit intention.

H17. Expected familiarity influences future visit intention. 3. Research method

H18. Proximate familiarity influences future visit intention.
A key step in the research method is to generate a destination
Destination image is also a significant predictor of behavioral image attribute list for Hong Kong that is comprehensive, yet short
intentions, such as destination choice and visit intention (Beerli & and easy to understand. Furthermore, the list should not com-
Martin, 2004; Greaves & Skinner, 2010; Lu et al., 2014; Zhang et al., promise the quality of the study. Previous studies have identified
2014). This finding is especially true for non-visitors (Greaves & many cognitive attributes: however, no uniform scale exists (Chen
Skinner, 2010). Thus, we propose that (Fig. 1b): & Lin, 2012). Using structured methodologies, Echtner and Ritchie
(2003) summarized a list of common attributes of destination
H19. Cognitive destination image influences future visit intention.
image. This list is encompassing in scope and has received wide-
H20. Affective destination image influences future visit intention. spread attention and application (Bornhorst, Ritchie, & Sheehan,
2010). Thus, this study adopted this approach as an initial list to
2.4. Experiential familiarity (previous visitors versus non-visitors) as construct the destination image of Hong Kong. A literature review
moderator and discussion with tourists who have visited Hong Kong were
subsequently implemented to modify this list, taking into account
Previous experience may affect other dimensions of familiarity. the suggestion by Crompton, Fakeye, and Lue (1992) that the at-
Related to informational familiarity, Frias-Jamilena, Barrio-Garcia tributes considered by tourists as important or unique to the
and Lopez-Moreno (2012) determined that there is a distinct dif- destination should be identified.
ference in the information sources used by first-time visitors and The attributes that are not relevant or crucial to tourists of
repeat visitors. Experience tends to affect the amount of external Hong Kong, such as sports facilities and activities, beaches, fairs
information search; however, the findings have been mixed. and exhibits, natural attractions, and national parks/wilderness
Whereas some studies have demonstrated that repeat visitors rely activities, were removed. Considering the characteristics and

Please cite this article as: Tan, W.-K., & Wu, C.-E. An investigation of the relationships among destination familiarity, destination image
and future visit intention. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.12.008i
6 W.-K. Tan, C.-E. Wu / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

Table 1 Table 2
Destination image of Hong Kong. Constructs and items.

Category Attribute Educational familiarity (Source: Jansen, 2011; Prentice, 2004)

Degree of use of the following items to obtain information on Hong Kong:
Cognitive destination image (fame and Modernized metropolis – TV programs
activities) Convenient local transport system – Movies
Good night life and entertainment – Educational institutions
Reputation – Novels
Excellent tourism infrastructure Informational familiarity (Sources: Frias et al., 2008; Osti et al. 2009; Wong &
Liu, 2011)
Degree of use of the following sources to obtain information on Hong Kong:
Cognitive destination image (basic Good value for money – Destination-specific brochures/pamphlets
infrastructure) Friendly locals – Official website of destination
Suitable accommodation – Friends and relatives
Good service quality – Newspapers and magazines
Cleanliness – Electronic word of mouth
– Travel guidebook
– Travel agency
Affective destination image Sleepy-arousing
Self-described familiarity (Source: Hammitt et al., 2006)
Gloomy-exciting
I can mentally draw a rough map of Hong Kong
Unpleasant-pleasant
I know Hong Kong like the back of my hand
Distressing-relaxing
Self-assured familiarity (Source: Tasci and Boylu, 2010)
Note: Feeling safe in Hong Kong
The attributes of experiencing local customs/culture and pleasant weather were Possibility of complaining about problems faced in Hong Kong
removed in the first round of the factor analysis. Hygiene and health
Source: Baloglu and McCleary (1999), Beerli and Martin (2004), Echtner and Ritchie Possibility of receiving compensation for damages incurred while touring
(2003), and discussions with tourists who have visited Hong Kong. Hong Kong
Sensitivity regarding tourist rights (removed)
Expected familiarity (Source: Jansen, 2011; Prentice, 2004)
In my opinion, Hong Kong is a cozy place
offerings of Hong Kong, duplicate or related attributes were
The physical and social elements in Hong Kong are cozy
grouped together. Hong Kong has acquired a reputation as a Proximate familiarity (Sources: Chen and Phou, 2013; Jansen, 2011)
shopping paradise and a place for culinary discoveries. Thus, the I feel emotionally attached to Hong Kong
attributes of fame/reputation, cuisine/food and drink, and shop- I feel a sense of belonging in Hong Kong
Future visit intention (Source: Horng et al., 2012)
ping facilities were combined and labeled as reputation. This
I may visit Hong Kong in the future
process produced a final list of twelve cognitive destination image I plan to visit Hong Kong in the future
attributes (Table 1). Respondents rated how agreeable they were I hope to visit Hong Kong in the future
with each of the cognitive attributes using a five-point Likert scale.
The four affective destination image attributes were measured by
two orthogonal bipolar dimensions. This type of scale has been harness the popularity of the Internet by creating destination-
widely used in related studies (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Beerli & specific websites. Thus, this study included seven information
Martin, 2004). sources as items under informational familiarity (Table 2). The
As suggested by Jansen (2011) and Prentice (2004), educational survey respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which
familiarity was operationalized using TV programs, movies, edu- they use the various means to obtain information regarding Hong
cational institutions, and novels. The informational familiarity Kong, based on a five-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 (not at
construct was operationalized via multiple external sources be- all) to 5 (a lot), as measures of educational familiarity and in-
cause consumers often acquire external information by simulta- formational familiarity.
neously examining various sources (Crotts, 1999). The items under The items for the other constructs were adapted from previous
informational familiarity were based on the literature survey research, with modifications made to fit the context of the present
which is discussed as below. Examples of external information study (Table 2). The items for expected familiarity were obtained
sources as ‘brochures and material published by visitor informa- from Prentice (2004) and Jansen (2011), the items for self-de-
tion centers and tourist boards, articles in specialized journals or scribed familiarity were obtained from Hammitt et al. (2006), the
magazines, the Internet, TV, word-of-mouth by friends and re- items for self-assured familiarity were obtained from Tasci and
latives, travel guidebooks, tour guides, travel agents’ (Osti, Turner, Boylu (2010), the items for proximate familiarity were obtained
& King, 2009, p. 64–65). Travel guidebooks provide a general fra- from Chen and Phou (2013) and Jansen (2011), and the items for
mework for viewing places and have been demonstrated to in- future visit intention were obtained from Horng, Liu, Chou, and
fluence the destination image (McGregor, 2000). Furthermore, Tsai (2012). The respondents indicated their level of agreement
they are considered an essential tool for backpackers (Wong & Liu, with the items for these constructs using a five-point Likert scale.
2011). Travel agencies may be a source of both formal and social To have a good spread of demographic profiles, Taiwanese
information because they provide information, as well as advice candidates were selected based on a convenience sampling
(Frias et al., 2008). Given that the tourism product is an experience method, and they were personally approached to invite them to
good (McIntosh, 1972) and a high-involvement product (Pa- participate in the survey. Recruitment was conducted from March
pathanassis & Knolle, 2011), firsthand knowledge of other travelers to July 2014. If the candidates accepted the invitation, the purpose
who have visited the destination is useful. Word of mouth, via of the survey was explained to them. The respondents were sub-
friends and relatives (traditional word of mouth) or online blogs sequently asked to complete a self-administered survey at loca-
and social networking sites (electronic word of mouth), is useful in tions convenient to them, such as schools, work places, eating
providing information and has been demonstrated to be more outlets and homes. A hard-copy survey form was used to increase
credible than other commercial sources (Gunter, Campbell, Touri, accuracy, achieve a higher response rate, and obtain a better
& Gibson, 2009). Tasci et al. (2007) suggested that the image of a spread of respondents.
destination may also be influenced by promotional information This study used the partial least squares (PLS) method with
from the destination. Facing increasing competition, DMOs have to SmartPLS 2.0 software (Ringle, Wende, & Will, 2008) to validate

Please cite this article as: Tan, W.-K., & Wu, C.-E. An investigation of the relationships among destination familiarity, destination image
and future visit intention. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.12.008i
 W.-K. Tan, C.-E. Wu / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 7

the measurement model, test the hypotheses and conduct a multi- Table 4
group analysis. PLS was applied because few researchers have Descriptive statistics, AVE, CR and Cronbach's alpha of the constructs.
empirically examined, within a single study, the relationships
Previous visitors Non-visitors
among the different types of familiarity and their effects on des-
tination image and future visit intention. Many existing studies Mean SD AVE CR Alpha Mean SD AVE CR Alpha
have considered only a limited number of the relationships ex-
F(Edn) 3.74 0.82 0.63 0.87 0.81 3.33 0.79 0.59 0.85 0.77
amined in the present work. PLS is also suitable for complex
F(Info) 3.54 0.65 0.51 0.88 0.83 3.27 0.75 0.58 0.91 0.88
models with a substantial number of constructs, which is the case F(SD) 2.68 0.84 0.81 0.90 0.77 2.26 0.86 0.83 0.91 0.80
in this study (Urbach & Ahlemann, 2010). Furthermore, the F(SA) 3.17 0.72 0.64 0.90 0.86 2.83 0.72 0.62 0.89 0.85
method has the added advantage of placing minimal demands on F(Exp) 2.86 0.85 0.85 0.92 0.83 2.84 0.80 0.85 0.92 0.83
the measurement scales, sample size, and residual distributions F(Prox) 3.07 0.80 0.85 0.92 0.83 2.82 0.78 0.80 0.89 0.75
DI(Fame) 3.82 0.56 0.56 0.86 0.80 3.55 0.67 0.64 0.90 0.86
(Chin, 1998). The bootstrap procedure was used to generate the t-
DI(Infra) 3.37 0.68 0.60 0.88 0.83 3.18 0.64 0.61 0.86 0.84
values. DI(Aff) 3.86 0.71 0.71 0.91 0.86 3.48 0.72 0.73 0.92 0.88
INT 3.52 0.80 0.75 0.90 0.84 3.31 0.85 0.81 0.93 0.88

Note: F(Edn), educational familiarity; F(Info), informational familiarity; F(SD), self-

4. Data analysis
described familiarity; F(SA), self-assured familiarity; F(Exp), expected familiarity; F
(Prox), proximate familiarity; DI(Fame), cognitive destination image (fame and
Four hundred ninety-three valid questionnaires were obtained activities); DI(Infra), cognitive destination image (basic infrastructure); DI(Aff), af-
(Table 3); 232 of the respondents had visited Hong Kong at least fective destination image; INT, future visit intention.
once (previous visitors), whereas the remaining 261 respondents
had never visited Hong Kong (non-visitors). The respondents ex- image (fame and activities) comprises crucial attributes that make
hibited a good mix in terms of their demographic profiles. Hong Kong different from other destinations.
According to the procedure adopted in previous studies, such as Table 4 shows the descriptive statistics, composite reliability
Beerli and Martin (2004), Eusebio and Vieira (2013), Lim and (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE) of the constructs. With
Weaver (2014), Sonmez and Sirakaya (2002), and Tasci (2009), a the exception of expected familiarity, the other constructs ex-
factor analysis with the use of principal axis factoring with var- hibited significantly different means (ρ o0.05) across the two
imax rotation as the extraction method was applied to the 16 groups of respondents.
image attributes. Two cognitive attributes were removed because Previous visitors (mean¼ 3.52) exhibited a higher level of in-
their loading was not more than 0.5 (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & tent to visit Hong Kong in the future compared with non-visitors
Black, 1998). A rerun of the remaining 14 attributes indicated KMO (mean¼3.31). The two groups were demonstrated to differ in the
statistics of 0.880, and the result of the Bartlett's test of sphericity way they perceived the destination. Thus, the current study con-
was significant (3657.77, ρ ¼0.000), which indicates a good factor firms previous findings that the destination image held by pre-
solution (Hair et al., 1998). Three factors were extracted (cumula- vious visitors differs from non-visitors (Frias-Jamilena et al., 2012).
tive variance explained¼ 66.24%): cognitive destination image For previous visitors, affective destination image had the highest
(fame and activities), cognitive destination image (basic infra- mean (3.86), followed by cognitive destination image (fame and
structure), and affective destination image (Table 1). Cognitive activities) (mean¼ 3.82) and cognitive destination image (basic
destination image (fame and activities) is associated with re- infrastructure) (mean ¼3.37). For non-visitors, cognitive destina-
putation and activities that make Hong Kong a famous tourist tion image (fame and activities) (mean ¼3.55) exhibited the
destination, whereas cognitive destination image (basic infra- highest mean, followed by affective destination image
structure) is related to the elements required for Hong Kong to (mean¼3.48) and cognitive destination image (basic infra-
become a general tourist destination. Thus, cognitive destination structure) (mean ¼3.18).
Among the various types of familiarity, educational (mean:
Table 3 previous visitors¼ 3.74, non-visitors¼ 3.33) and informational
Survey respondents.
(mean: previous visitors¼3.54, non-visitors ¼3.27) familiarity had
Previous visitors Non-visitors the highest and second highest means for both groups. The level of
(n ¼232) (n¼ 261) self-described familiarity was the lowest for previous visitors
(mean¼2.68) and non-visitors (mean¼2.26).
No. Percent No. Percent
The constructs demonstrated good internal consistency relia-
Gender Male 119 51.3 122 46.7 bility, with CR values that exceeded the recommended value of 0.7
Female 113 48.7 139 53.3 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The convergent validity was supported
by AVE values greater than the recommended value of 0.5. Each
Age (years) 18–20 25 10.8 96 36.8 item loaded on its latent construct at the significance level of t-
21–30 87 37.5 103 39.5 statistic values (t 41.96), which indicates the presence of in-
31–40 40 17.2 19 7.3
dividual item reliability. All measurement items loaded higher on
41–50 60 25.9 29 11.0
450 20 8.6 14 5.4 their own latent constructs than on other constructs. The square
root of AVE of each construct was greater than the correlation
coefficients of the construct (Table 5), which thus confirms the
Education High school and below 33 14.2 37 14.2
Undergraduate 138 59.5 186 71.3 discriminant validity (Chin, 1998).
Postgraduate 61 26.3 38 14.6 Table 6 indicates the results of the PLS for hypothesis testing
and the multi-group analysis for the comparison of the coefficients
No. of visits 0 – – 261 100.0 of the respective paths of the two groups. The Q2 values of the
1 155 66.8 – – endogenous constructs of the two groups considered in this study
2 45 19.4 – – are greater than zero, which suggests that the model has pre-
3 17 7.3 – –
dictive relevance for all endogenous constructs examined (Chin,
43 15 6.5 – –
1998).

Please cite this article as: Tan, W.-K., & Wu, C.-E. An investigation of the relationships among destination familiarity, destination image
and future visit intention. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.12.008i
8 W.-K. Tan, C.-E. Wu / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

Table 5
Discriminant validity assessment.

DI1 DI2 DI3 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 INT

Previous visitors
DI(Fame) 0.745
DI(Aff) 0.243 0.843
DI(Infra) 0.448 0.526 0.774
F(SA) 0.208 0.379 0.398 0.801
F(Edn) 0.182 0.332 0.504 0.418 0.796
F(Exp) 0.076 0.434 0.373 0.394 0.306 0.924
F(Info) 0.382 0.389 0.535 0.172 0.415 0.279 0.711
F(Prox) 0.197 0.090 0.104 0.237 -0.021 0.150 0.123 0.924
F(SD) 0.339 0.017 -0.005 0.215 0.009 0.119 0.073 0.316 0.901
INT 0.483 0.502 0.544 0.277 0.335 0.288 0.471 0.168 0.094 0.867

Non-visitors
DI(Fame) 0.802
DI(Aff) 0.469 0.856
DI(Infra) 0.660 0.549 0.780
F(SA) 0.480 0.292 0.551 0.789
F(Edn) 0.610 0.340 0.521 0.524 0.770
F(Exp) 0.398 0.373 0.525 0.510 0.377 0.924
F(Info) 0.452 0.298 0.421 0.358 0.493 0.222 0.763
F(Prox) 0.326 0.399 0.440 0.396 0.425 0.547 0.336 0.894
F(SD) 0.163 0.218 0.304 0.391 0.323 0.506 0.309 0.499 0.913
INT 0.393 0.531 0.521 0.341 0.430 0.330 0.390 0.447 0.196 0.898

Note:
DI(Fame), cognitive destination image (fame and activities); DI(Aff), affective destination image; DI(Infra), cognitive destination image (basic infrastructure); F(SA), self-
assured familiarity; F(Edn), educational familiarity; F(Exp), expected familiarity; F(Info), informational familiarity; F(Prox), proximate familiarity; F(SD), self-described fa-
miliarity; INT, future visit intention.
DI1, cognitive destination image (fame and activities); DI2, affective destination image; DI3, cognitive destination image (basic infrastructure); F1, self-assured familiarity; F2,
educational familiarity; F3, expected familiarity; F4, informational familiarity; F5, proximate familiarity; F6, self-described familiarity; INT, future visit intention.
The diagonal elements (bold) are the square roots of AVE. The off-diagonal elements denote the correlations between the constructs.

4.1. Relationships between types of destination familiarity not of non-visitors (H4b); however, the difference is not significant
across the two groups. Expected familiarity only affects the prox-
The empirical analysis indicates that the extent of inter- imate familiarity of non-visitors (H5; path coefficient ¼0.288);
dependency among the different types of destination familiarity. however, the latter relationship is significantly different across the
Overall, educational familiarity is more influential than informa- two visitor groups.
tional familiarity: both educational familiarity and informational
familiarity are felt more intensely by non-visitors compared with 4.2. Destination familiarity and image
previous visitors. Educational familiarity influences informational
(H1a; previous visitor path coefficient ¼0.415, non-visitor path Not all destination familiarity types as suggested by hypotheses
coefficient ¼0.493) and self-assured (H1c; previous visitor path 7–10 influence the attributes of destination image. The cognitive
coefficient ¼0.424, non-visitor path coefficient ¼0.407) familiarity; destination image (fame and activities) of non-visitors is positively
however, it has no impact on expected familiarity (H1d). An in- influenced by educational (H7a(1); path coefficient ¼0.433), self-
crease in educational familiarity leads to an increase in proximate assured (H10a(1); path coefficient ¼ 0.233) and informational (H8a
familiarity for non-visitors (path coefficient ¼0.162), whereas the (1); path coefficient ¼0.195) familiarity; however, it is negatively
effect is reversed for previous visitors (path coefficient ¼  0.188) affected by self-described familiarity (H9a(1); path
(H1e). Its influence on self-described familiarity applies only to coefficient ¼ 0.128). The cognitive destination image (fame and
non-visitors (path coefficient ¼0.225), but not to previous visitors, activities) of previous visitors is influenced by fewer types of fa-
which causes a significant difference across the two visitor groups miliarity, i.e., informational (H8a(1); path coefficient ¼ 0.346) and
(H1b). On the other hand, the influence of informational famil- self-described (H9a(1); path coefficient ¼ 0.296) familiarity.
iarity is more restrictive. Informational familiarity positively in- Furthermore, the influence of the various types of familiarity on
fluences the self-described familiarity (H2a; path the cognitive destination image (basic infrastructure) is more
coefficient ¼0.198) and negatively affects the expected familiarity uniform across the two visitor groups. The educational (H7a(2);
(H2c; path coefficient ¼  0.138) of non-visitors. previous visitor path coefficient ¼0.234, non-visitor path
Self-described familiarity has a positive influence on the self- coefficient ¼0.245), informational (H8a(2); previous visitor path
assured (H3a; previous visitor path coefficient ¼0.212, non-visitor coefficient ¼0.401, non-visitor path coefficient ¼ 0.164), and self-
path coefficient ¼0.233) and proximate (H3c; previous visitor path assured (H10a(2); previous visitor path coefficient ¼0.250, non-
coefficient ¼0.238, non-visitor path coefficient ¼0.234) familiarity visitor path coefficient ¼0.349) familiarity types positively influ-
of both visitor groups; however, it only positively affects the ex- ence the cognitive destination image (basic infrastructure) of both
pected familiarity of non-visitors (H3b; path coefficient ¼0.354). visitor groups.
The relationship between self-described and expected familiarity However, the influence of destination familiarity types on af-
is significantly different across the two visitor groups. fective destination image, as compared to cognitive destination
Self-assured familiarity adds to the expected familiarity of both image, is weaker. Only the self-assured (H10b; path coefficient ¼
visitor groups (H4a; previous visitor path coefficient ¼ 0.208, non- 0.223) and informational (H8b; path coefficient ¼ 0.172) familiarity
visitor path coefficient ¼0.213). It only contributes to the prox- types influence the affective destination image; furthermore, this
imate familiarity of previous visitors (path coefficient ¼ 0.208), but influence only applies to previous visitors.

Please cite this article as: Tan, W.-K., & Wu, C.-E. An investigation of the relationships among destination familiarity, destination image
and future visit intention. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.12.008i
 W.-K. Tan, C.-E. Wu / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 9

Table 6 infrastructure) (path coefficient ¼ 0.242) influences the expected

Path analysis. familiarity of non-visitors (H11a and H12a). Affective destination
image impacts the proximate familiarity (path coefficient ¼0.166)
Previous visitors Non-visitors MGA
of non-visitors (H12b).
Path value t-Value Path value t-Value
4.3. Destination familiarity, image, and future visit intention
Relationships between familiarity constructs
H1a: F(Edn)-F(Info) 0.415 7.460n 0.493 10.228 n

H1b: F(Edn)-F(SD)  0.026 0.343 0.225 3.308n Y

The future visit intention of previous visitors is most influenced
H1c: F(Edn)-F(SA) 0.424 6.797n 0.407 6.034n by cognitive destination image (fame and activities) (H19(1); path
H1d: F(Edn)-F(Exp) 0.042 0.483 0.003 0.043 coefficient¼0.285), followed by affective destination image (H20;
H1e: F(Edn)-F(Prox)  0.188 2.411n 0.162 1.988n Y path coefficient¼0.259), cognitive destination image (basic infra-
H2a: F(Info)-F(SD) 0.084 0.948 0.198 2.770n
structure) (H19(2); path coefficient¼ 0.163), and informational fa-
H2b: F(Info)-F(SA)  0.020 0.281 0.085 1.401
H2c: F(Info)-F(Exp) 0.100 1.408  0.138 2.164n Y miliarity (H14, path coefficient¼0.139). Cognitive destination image
H2d: F(Info)-F(Prox) 0.105 1.191 0.081 1.304 (fame and activities) plays no role in encouraging non-visitors to
H3a: F(SD)-F(SA) 0.212 4.155n 0.233 3.497n visit the destination (H19(1)), and the difference with previous
H3b: F(SD)-F(Exp) 0.129 1.721 0.354 6.067n Y visitors is significant. In contrast, the future visit intention of non-
H3c: F(SD)-F(Prox) 0.238 3.964n 0.234 3.460n
H4a: F(SA)-F(Exp) 0.208 3.276n 0.213 3.369n
visitors is positively influenced by affective destination image (H20;
H4b: F(SA)-F(Prox) 0.208 2.256n 0.000 0.002 path-coefficient¼ 0.306), cognitive destination image (basic infra-
H5: F(Exp)-F(Prox) 0.066 0.745 0.288 3.666n structure) (H19(2); path-coefficient¼ 0.228), proximate familiarity
Relationships between destination image constructs (H18; path-coefficient¼0.207), and informational familiarity (H14;
H6(1): DI(Fame)-DI(Aff)  0.016 0.241 0.201 1.950 path-coefficient¼ 0.141); however, it is negatively affected by self-
H6(2): DI(Infra)-DI(Aff) 0.357 4.374n 0.423 4.283n described familiarity (H15; path-coefficient¼ 0.118).
Relationships between familiarity and destination image constructs
H7a(1): F(Edn)-DI(Fame) 0.000 0.006 0.433 6.829n Y
H7a(2): F(Edn)-DI(Infra) 0.234 3.506n 0.245 3.652n 5. Discussion
H7b: F(Edn)-DI(Aff)  0.010 0.129  0.005 0.063
H8a(1): F(Info)-DI(Fame) 0.346 4.362n 0.195 2.587n
H8a(2): F(Info)-DI(Infra) 0.401 6.336n 0.164 2.504n Y 5.1. Relationships between types of destination familiarity
H8b: F(Info)-DI(Aff) 0.172 2.795n 0.035 0.571
H9a(1): F(SD)-DI(Fame) 0.296 4.313n  0.128 2.001n Y Educational familiarity and informational familiarity are the
H9a(2): F(SD)-DI(Infra)  0.090 1.891 0.039 0.590 two most important types of familiarity, and non-visitors are more
H9b: F(SD)-DI(Aff)  0.036 0.671 0.078 1.491
H10a(1): F(SA)-DI(Fame) 0.085 1.280 0.233 4.029n
dependent on external information (in the form of educational and
H10a(2): F(SA)-DI(Infra) 0.250 3.796n 0.349 5.044n informational familiarity) compared with previous visitors. These
H10b: F(SA)-DI(Aff) 0.223 3.267n  0.077 1.127 Y two familiarity types are also related to the way that the desti-
H11a(1): DI(Fame)-F(Exp)  0.194 2.338n 0.093 1.048 Y nation information received by previous visitors and non-visitors
H11a(2): DI(Infra)-F(Exp) 0.166 2.041n 0.242 2.919n
via formal and informal mediated learning (educational famil-
H11b(1): DI(Fame)-F(Prox) 0.057 0.647 0.080 0.926
H11b(2): DI(Infra)-F(Prox) 0.025 0.237 0.061 0.668 iarity) encourages them to search for additional information from
H12a: DI(Aff)-F(Exp) 0.260 4.213n 0.097 1.777 Y other external sources (informational familiarity).
H12b: DI(Aff)-F(Prox)  0.027 0.317 0.166 2.731n However, educational familiarity is more influential than in-
Relationships between familiarity constructs and intention formational familiarity in the ability to influence other types of
H13: F(Edn)-INT 0.053 0.765 0.146 1.917 familiarity, which thus justifies the usefulness of classifying ex-
H14: F(Info)-INT 0.139 2.221n 0.141 2.411n ternal information sources into two categories: educational and
H15: F(SD)-INT  0.039 0.675  0.118 1.981n
informational. On the whole, educational familiarity influences
H16: F(SA)-INT  0.014 0.185 0.020 0.284
H17: F(Exp)-INT 0.038 0.701  0.012 0.164 self-assured and proximate familiarity in both visitor groups, as
H18: F(Prox)-INT 0.065 1.168 0.207 2.887n well as self-described familiarity in the non-visitor group. How-
Relationships between destination image categories and intention
ever, informational familiarity only affects self-described and ex-
H19(1): DI(Fame)-INT 0.285 3.697n  0.107 1.302 Y pected familiarity, and its influence only applies to non-visitors.
H19(2): DI(Infra)-INT 0.163 2.162 0.228 2.477 The effect of educational familiarity on the self-perceived
H20: DI(Aff)-INT 0.259 3.702 0.306 5.079 knowledge level of Hong Kong (self-described familiarity) of non-
visitors and its lack of influence among previous visitors are suf-
Note:
F(Edn), educational familiarity; F(Info), informational familiarity; F(SD), self-de- ficiently strong to cause a significant difference between the two
scribed familiarity; F(SA), self-assured familiarity; F(Exp), expected familiarity; F visitor groups. Although informational familiarity also affects the
(Prox), proximate familiarity; DI(Fame), cognitive destination image (fame and self-described familiarity of non-visitors, but not previous visitors,
activities); DI(Infra), cognitive destination image (basic infrastructure); DI(Aff), af-
its impact is not as sufficiently strong as educational familiarity to
fective destination image; INT, future visit intention.
MGA, multigroup analysis. “Y” indicates a statistically significant difference at
produce a significant difference between the two visitor groups.
ρ o0.05 in the path coefficients between previous visitors and non-visitors. In contrast to informational familiarity, educational familiarity
Previous visitors: R2 of INT¼ 0.454; DI(Fame)¼ 0.250; DI(Infra)¼0.432; DI(Aff) ¼ also provides a more lasting impression and influences proximate
0.332; F(Info) ¼0.173; F(SD) ¼0.006; F(SA) ¼ 0.219; F(Exp) ¼0.298; F(Prox) ¼0.163. familiarity. Interestingly, increasing educational familiarity may
Non-visitors: R2 of INT¼ 0.429; DI(Fame)¼ 0.443; DI(Infra)¼0.400; DI(Aff) ¼0.329;
make non-visitors feel more connected to the destination, whereas
F(Info) ¼0.243; F(SD) ¼ 0.134; F(SA)¼0.335; F(Exp) ¼ 0.459; F(Prox)¼ 0.438.
n the effect is reversed for previous visitors. Thus, the presence or
Statistically significant.
absence of experience may cause previous visitors and non-visi-
tors to draw different conclusions from movies and TV programs.
Affective destination image (path coefficient ¼ 0.260), cognitive Furthermore, the results also point to a theoretical implication, i.e.
destination image (basic infrastructure) (path coefficient ¼0.166), a connection to a place may be generated even without visiting a
and cognitive destination image (fame and activities) (path destination.
coefficient ¼  0.194) affect the expected familiarity of previous There have been many discussions regarding how tourism in-
visitors. However, only cognitive destination image (basic formation influences consumer behavior. However, less attention

Please cite this article as: Tan, W.-K., & Wu, C.-E. An investigation of the relationships among destination familiarity, destination image
and future visit intention. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.12.008i
10 W.-K. Tan, C.-E. Wu / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

has focused on the subjective aspects of familiarity. In contrast to differently. The findings suggest that compared with non-visitors,
the educational and informational familiarity types, which tend to individuals with experience with a destination (previous visitors)
be objective measures of familiarity and are related to the in- are more active and are in a better position to use external sources
formation-processing ability (Sharifpour et al., 2014), self-de- of informational familiarity to build a cognitive image of the
scribed familiarity is a subjective measure. Previous visitors de- destination.
pend on their experiences and do not need educational and in- Previous studies have also proposed that information sources
formational familiarity to form their subjective familiarity. How- affect the cognitive evaluation of a destination and are less capable
ever, non-visitors do not have this experience: thus they must of changing the affective aspect (Gartner, 1993; Li et al., 2009).
depend on educational and informational familiarity. The present Although this finding is generally correct, the statement requires
study also identified a potential influence of subjective familiarity modification given that when experiential familiarity is the mod-
on the feeling that individuals have toward the destination, such erator, informational familiarity affects the cognitive image, and it
as assurance, coziness, or connection. also influences the affective image of previous visitors, but not
As expected, the feeling that there are mechanisms in place to non-visitors. Thus, experience further enhances the usefulness of
mitigate and address risks (self-assured familiarity) may make an external information sources by assisting the affective evaluation
individual feel comfortable about a place. Self-assured familiarity of the destination.
contributes to the proximate familiarity of previous visitors, but Familiarity has been frequently demonstrated to lead to a
not non-visitors: however, the difference between the two groups better destination image (Kerstetter & Cho, 2004): however, the
is not significant. Feeling cozy (expected familiarity) toward a present study indicates that this statement is too general. When
destination does not necessarily indicate a connection with the considered from the perspective of subjective familiarity (self-
place because expected familiarity only affects the proximate fa- described familiarity), and taking into account experiential famil-
miliarity of non-visitors, but not previous visitors. iarity, a higher subjective familiarity may lead to a lower opinion
of the cognitive destination image (fame and activities) among
5.2. Destination familiarity and image non-visitors and a better opinion of the cognitive destination
image (fame and activities) among previous visitors.
The empirical results indicate the usefulness of classifying in- Past experience, along with self-assured familiarity, also exerts
formation sources as educational or informational familiarity. an influence on the cognitive destination image. Non-visitors,
Whereas information shapes the destination image (Greaves & without a personal past experience of observing the risks, are less
Skinner, 2010), this study further demonstrates that the educa- confident and factor the self-assured element into both types of
tional and informational familiarity types differ in their influences cognitive images. Previous visitors, who have a past experience
on the cognitive image, i.e. the factual aspects of the destination with the destination, are in a better position to allocate the self-
(Yang et al., 2009). These findings also indicate the strengths and assured element to the cognitive destination image (basic infra-
limitations of educational familiarity. structure), which consists of the necessary conditions for a tourist
In general, among non-visitors, educational familiarity has a destination and to leave the cognitive destination image (fame and
wider sway of influence on cognitive image compared with in- activities) alone.
formational familiarity. The opposite is true for previous visitors, The coziness of a destination is best felt when the destination
with informational familiarity exerting a more substantial influ- image is coupled with past experience. Cognitive destination im-
ence on cognitive image compared with educational familiarity. age (fame and activities), cognitive destination image (basic in-
Thus, the usefulness of educational familiarity decreases when frastructure), and affective destination image influence the ex-
past experience is available. This diminishing influence is best pected familiarity of previous visitors: however, only cognitive
demonstrated in the relationship between educational familiarity destination image (basic infrastructure) affects the expected fa-
and cognitive destination image (fame and activities), in which miliarity of non-visitors. The expected familiarity of both groups is
educational familiarity plays no role among previous visitors but also influenced by self-assured familiarity. This finding is not
has the highest path coefficient among non-visitors. surprising because if an individual feels assured in a place, and
The characteristics of the information sources can be used to Hong Kong has the necessary elements of a general tourist desti-
explain the previously described results. Educational familiarity nation, the individual should likely feel comfortable with Hong
includes information obtained from educational institutions, mo- Kong. Only affective destination image influences the proximate
vies, and TV programs. Destination-specific information received familiarity of non-visitors. Furthermore, it requires more than
from educational institutions is often part of the academic curri- being a famous tourist destination to generate a connection to a
culum. Movies and TV programs primarily provide entertainment place, and substantially more is needed for previous visitors to
and relaxation, and destination-specific information is often pas- connect with a place after a visit compared with non-visitors.
sively received by viewers. Furthermore, this information flow Affective destination image is related to how an individual feels
tends to be consistent given that movies and TV programs with about the destination. Surprisingly, cognitive destination image
Hong Kong as the backdrop are common in Taiwan. Thus, medi- (basic infrastructure), but not cognitive destination image (fame
ated learning is particularly useful in providing individuals with- and activities), influences the affective destination image. Whereas
out Hong Kong travel experience with the information necessary informational familiarity is unable to touch the heart of non-visi-
to construct a cognitive image. Past experience with Hong Kong tors when they think about the destination (affective destination
leads to a substantially more diversified and detailed demand for image), informational familiarity, combined with the past experi-
information (Morais & Lin, 2010). Individuals also need to be more ences of previous visitors, is capable of influencing the affective
proactive when seeking information covered by informational fa- destination image. Cognitive destination image (fame and activ-
miliarity. Previous visitors, using their experience as a guide, ities) is related to the reputation of and activities in Hong Kong.
gather additional information via external sources of informational Non-visitors may not be too concerned with and attracted by the
familiarity to update themselves on the destination and fill the reputation of Hong Kong, or they may not be able to judge the
gaps in their experience. activities of Hong Kong without first experiencing them. Thus,
Thus, the general statement that information helps to shape the cognitive destination image (fame and activities) plays no part in
destination image has to be modified because non-visitors and influencing the affective destination image of non-visitors. How-
previous visitors use informational and educational familiarity ever, the importance of cognitive destination image (fame and

Please cite this article as: Tan, W.-K., & Wu, C.-E. An investigation of the relationships among destination familiarity, destination image
and future visit intention. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.12.008i
 W.-K. Tan, C.-E. Wu / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 11

activities) as viewed by previous visitors cannot be ignored be- study thus supports the argument that the effectiveness of TV
cause cognitive destination image (fame and activities) directly travel programs depends on whether the destination is attracting
influences visit intention rather than through the affective desti- an emerging or a mature market, and fresh new angles are needed
nation image. for mature destinations (McCartney et al., 2008).

5.3. Destination familiarity, image, and future visit intention 5.4. Practical implications

Destination image studies are in agreement that a positive Several practical implications have emerged from this study.
image is needed to attract tourists (Greaves & Skinner, 2010). This When the path coefficients of the significant positive relationship
study confirms this observation, with a slight modification. The between the various constructs and future visit intention were
future visit intention of previous visitors is most influenced by the ranked, informational familiarity often ranked relatively low.
reputation of Hong Kong and its activities, followed by the visitors DMOs should note that merely pushing destination information to
feeling toward the destination, the general features of the tourist potential customers is not sufficient: there should be other stra-
destination, and informational familiarity. Cognitive destination tegies to generate interest to visit the destination. The findings
image (fame and activities) plays no role in encouraging non- clearly indicate that previous visitors and non-visitors differ in
visitors to visit the destination, and the difference with previous many ways. Thus, there is a need for DMOs to devise different
visitors is sufficiently significant. In contrast, the future visit in- marketing strategies for these two groups. For example, whereas it
tention of non-visitors is most positively affected by the affective is useful to encourage individuals to revisit Hong Kong by high-
destination image, cognitive destination image (basic infra- lighting the activities individuals can do there, it is more difficult
structure), proximate familiarity, and informational familiarity; to persuade non-visitors via this mean.
however, it is negatively influenced by self-described familiarity. DMOs need to be aware of the importance of affective desti-
Similar to other studies (Baloglu, 2001), the present work nation image to both groups, i.e. the affective destination image
provides empirical evidence that indicates the importance of ex- affects future visit intention. However, the levers for influencing
ternal information given that informational familiarity directly the affective destination image of non-visitors are substantially
influences future visit intention in both visitor groups and in- more limited compared with previous visitors. Thus, there is a
directly affects this intention via other constructs. However, pre- need to increase the number of levers available. DMOs also need to
vious studies have not often highlighted or adequately considered carefully consider the issue that cognitive destination image (fame
some of the other results of the current research. and activities) is not a direct antecedent of affective destination
First, emotional connection and attachment to a place are often image. Hong Kong DMOs have been actively creating the image
investigated from the perspective of individuals who have visited a that Hong Kong is a place to eat, shop, and have fun. However, this
destination or have participated in an activity. In contrast to some approach is not convincing for non-visitors.
studies, such as Morais and Lin (2010), few studies have in- Practitioners should also further investigate the potential in-
vestigated the place connection among non-visitors. The present fluence of self-described familiarity on self-assured, expected, and
study has demonstrated that proximate familiarity (which is re- proximate familiarity. Self-described familiarity may provide sur-
lated to the connection to a place) may also exist in the minds of prises for DMOs. Whereas familiarity leads to a better destination
non-visitors (although at a lower level than in previous visitors) image, this study indicates that this statement is too general. As
and influence visit intention. Place connection is formed through previously discussed, a high self-described familiarity among non-
educational, self-described, and expected familiarity, as well as visitors may lead to a lower opinion of the cognitive destination
affective destination image. image (fame and activities) and adversely affect future visit in-
Second, familiarity is often assumed to lead to visit intention tention. This finding implies that non-visitors may be more diffi-
(Chen & Lin, 2012). However, this is not always true for self-de- cult to please and may have preconceived, unfavorable ideas re-
scribed familiarity. This study has demonstrated that the more garding Hong Kong. In addition to addressing their concerns,
non-visitors think they know about Hong Kong, the less likely they DMOs should also constantly generate ‘surprises’ so that non-
will visit the place. This finding may imply that non-visitors are visitors never feel too familiar with Hong Kong. However, self-
more difficult to please and may already have a preconceived, described familiarity can add to self-assured and proximate fa-
unfavorable idea about Hong Kong. These outcomes should also miliarity, as well as positively and indirectly influence future visit
take into account the specifics of a destination. Hong Kong is intention via other routes. Thus, DMOs need to make trade-offs
geographically and culturally close to Taiwan: thus, a substantial when dealing with self-described familiarity.
portion of individuals who are attracted by its reputation should Feeling coziness toward a destination helps non-visitors to
have already visited Hong Kong, which leaves the individuals who generate proximate familiarity and, subsequently, future visit in-
have not visited Hong Kong (the non-visitor group) as being less tention. However, the negative relationship between informational
moved by this reason. Instead, non-visitors are more concerned and expected familiarity among non-visitors may imply that the
regarding what they feel about the destination (i.e. affective des- content of the information gathered does not provide non-visitors,
tination image and proximate familiarity). who have no firsthand experience to rely on, with the perception
Third, educational familiarity does not directly influence visit that Hong Kong is a comfortable place. Because of their past ex-
intention, and its effect is only indirectly felt through other con- perience, previous visitors have less need for expected and prox-
structs, given that many studies have demonstrated that movie- imate familiarity to influence their future visit intention.
induced tourism plays a role in drawing visitors (Connell & Meyer, In the previous visitor group, expected familiarity had the
2009). One potential reason is that Hong Kong is a relatively ma- lowest mean among the different types of familiarity, and cogni-
ture market in Taiwan, and movies and TV programs with Hong tive destination image (fame and activities) exhibited a negative
Kong as the backdrop are a common feature in the Taiwan en- impact on expected familiarity. Thus, Hong Kong DMOs need to
tertainment scene. Hong Kong is also frequently mentioned in ask previous visitors whether their trip to Hong Kong provided
formal education media. As a result, although educational famil- them with the impression that the place was crowded, disorderly,
iarity had the highest mean in both groups, short of special or fast-paced, among other characteristics, which could have un-
themes, new storylines, or ‘shocks’, it would be difficult for this dermined the feeling of coziness. Whereas Hong Kong is definitely
familiarity type to induce a direct impact on visit intention. This a bustling city, DMOs may want to compare it with other

Please cite this article as: Tan, W.-K., & Wu, C.-E. An investigation of the relationships among destination familiarity, destination image
and future visit intention. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.12.008i
12 W.-K. Tan, C.-E. Wu / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

international tourist cities, such as Singapore and London, and References

consider whether this is an issue that is worth further investiga-
tion. Ultimately, a hectic, fast-paced, and crowded image may be Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of
interpreted by some tourists as signs of a vibrant city, and the Consumer Research, 13, 411–454.
Assael, H. (2004). Consumer behavior: A strategic approach. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
spectacle of a bustling city may be something that they look for- Baker, W., Hutchinson, J., Moore, D., & Nedungadi, P. (1986). Brand familiarity and
ward to including in their experience. advertising: effects on the evoked set and brand preference. Advances in Con-
sumer Research, 13(1), 637–642.
As a fairly mature and culturally similar destination for the
Baloglu, S. (1999). A path analysis model of visitation intention involving in-
Taiwanese, and with many movies and TV programs using Hong formation sources, socio-psychological motivations, and destination image.
Kong as the backdrop, the use of movie-induced tourism by Hong Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 8, 81–90.
Baloglu, S. (2001). Image variations of Turkey by familiarity index. Tourism Man-
Kong DMOs to stimulate future visit intention needs to be carefully
agement, 22, 127–133.
planned. An avalanche of movies and TV programs will not help. Baloglu, S., Henthorne, T. L., & Sahin, S. (2014). Destination image and brand per-
There also exists a negative path between educational and prox- sonality of Jamaica: A model of tourist behavior. Journal of Travel Tourism
Marketing, 31(8), 1057–1070.
imate familiarity among previous visitors. Thus, experience may Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. W. (1999). A model of destination image formation.
interfere with educational familiarity and consequently decrease Annals of Tourism Research, 26, 868–897.
place connection. DMOs must investigate how movies and past Beerli, A., & Martin, J. (2004). Factors influencing destination image. Annals of
Tourism Research, 31(3), 657–681.
experience interact to provide this outcome given that movies Bornhorst, T., Ritchie, J., & Sheehan, L. (2010). Determinants of tourism success for
alone increase attachment among non-visitors. DMOs and destinations: An empirical examination of stakeholders’ perspec-
tives. Tourism Management, 31, 572–589.
Brucks, M. (1985). The effects of product class knowledge on information search
5.5. Limitations and further research behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 1–16.
Chang, S. Y. (2011). The influence of novelty-seeking and risk-perception behavior
on holiday decisions and food preferences. International Journal of Hospitality
The present study has several limitations. First, it adopted a Tourism Administration, 12, 305–329.
convenience sampling method. Thus, although the respondent Chen, C., & Lin, Y. H. (2012). Segmenting mainland Chinese tourists to Taiwan by
destination familiarity: A factor-cluster approach. International Journal of
profile is broad, generalizing the results to the general population
Tourism Research, 14(4), 339–352.
should be performed with caution. The generalizability of the Chen, C., & Phou, S. (2013). A closer look at destination: Image, personality, re-
findings may also be limited because only a single destination, lationship and loyalty. Tourism Management, 36, 269–278.
Chew, Y., & Jahari, S. (2014). Destination image as a mediator between perceived
specifically an international city destination, was considered. Fu- risks and revisit intention: A case of post-disaster Japan. Tourism Management,
ture studies should investigate other destinations. To avoid over- 40, 382–393.
loading the respondents with too many questions related to Chin, W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling
In: G. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–358).
proximate familiarity, this study did not consider the concept of Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
place attachment in substantial detail. Previous studies have noted Choi, J. G., Tkachenko, T., & Sil, S. (2011). On the destination image of Korea by
different types of place attachment (Hammitt et al., 2006). For Russian tourists. Tourism Management, 32, 193–194.
Cohen, E. (1972). Towards a sociology of international tourism. Social Research, 39,
future research, a multidimensional approach to proximate fa- 164–182.
miliarity is recommended. More research is also needed to un- Connell, J. (2012). Film tourism: Evolution, progress and prospects. Tourism Man-
derstand how the more objective educational and informational agement, 33, 1007–1029.
Connell, J., & Meyer, D. (2009). Balamory revisited: An evaluation of the screen
familiarity types are assimilated by non-visitors to form subjective tourism destination-tourist nexus. Tourism Management, 30, 194–207.
familiarity. Interestingly, educational familiarity increases prox- Crompton, J., Fakeye, P., & Lue, C. (1992). Positioning: The example of the lower Rio
Grande Valley in the winter long stay destination market. Journal of Travel
imate familiarity among non-visitors: however, it decreases
Research, 31, 20–26.
proximate familiarity among previous visitors. How the presence Crotts, J. (1999). Consumer decision making and prepurchase information search In:
or absence of experience may cause previous visitors and non- Y. Mansfield, & A. Pizam (Eds.), Consumer behavior in travel and tourism (pp.
149–168). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.
visitors to draw different conclusions from movies and TV pro- Echtner, C., & Ritchie, J. (2003). The meaning and measurement of destination
grams requires further investigation. image. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 14(1), 37–48.
Ednie, A., Daigle, J., & Leahy, J. (2010). The development of recreation place at-
tachment on the Maine Coast: User characteristics and reasons for visiting.
Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 28, 36–51.
6. Conclusions Elliot, S., & Papadopoulos, N. (2015). Of products and tourism destinations: An in-
tegrative, cross-national study of place image. Journal of Business Research, 69,
1157–1165.
The present study takes a modest step forward and helps to Eusebio, C., & Vieira, A. L. (2013). Destination attributes' evaluation, satisfaction and
elucidate the complexity of destination familiarity and its re- behavioural intentions: a structural modelling approach. International Journal of
Tourism Research, 15, 66–80.
lationship with destination image and visit intention. The findings Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with un-
provide a range of academic and practical implications. In this observable and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
Frias, D., Rodriguez, M., & Castaneda, J. (2008). Internet vs. travel agencies on pre-
light, some of the findings of previous studies that linked famil-
visit destination image formation: An information processing view. Tourism
iarity with destination image and visit intention may have to be Management, 29, 163–179.
reconsidered. The empirical results indicate the different impacts Frias-Jamilena, D., Del Barrio-Garcia, S., & Lopez-Moreno, L. (2012). Determinants of
satisfaction with holidays and hospitality in rural tourism in Spain: The mod-
of informational and educational familiarity on other constructs:
erating effect of tourists' previous experience. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54
however, taken literally, both types originate from external in- (3), 294–307.
formation sources. The study also points to a need for further in- Fuchs, G., & Reichel, A. (2011). An exploratory inquiry into destination risk per-
ceptions and risk reduction strategies of first time vs. repeat visitors to a highly
vestigation of non-visitors' emotional connections to a place and volatile destination. Tourism Management, 32(2), 266–276.
the potential effects of subjective knowledge. Furthermore, the Gartner, W. (1993). Image formation process. Journal of Travel and Tourism Mar-
present work indicates the importance of experience as a criterion keting, 2(2/3), 191–216.
Greaves, N., & Skinner, H. (2010). The importance of destination image analysis to
(i.e. as a moderator) for segmenting consumers, demonstrates the UK rural Tourism. Marketing Intelligence Planning, 28(4), 486–507.
usefulness of a critical examination of non-visitors, and suggests Gunter, B., Campbell, V., Touri, M., & Gibson, R. (2009). Blogs, news and credibility.
that non-visitors are not easy to please. Finally, this study offers Aslib Proceedings: Newly Information Perspectives, 61(2), 185–204.
Gursoy, D. (2003). Prior product knowledge and its influence on the traveler's in-
numerous suggestions regarding how DMOs can formulate effec- formation search behavior. Journal of Hospitality Leisure Marketing, 10(3/4),
tive strategies for both previous visitors and non-visitors. 113–131.

Please cite this article as: Tan, W.-K., & Wu, C.-E. An investigation of the relationships among destination familiarity, destination image
and future visit intention. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.12.008i
 W.-K. Tan, C.-E. Wu / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 13

Gursoy, D. (2011). Modeling tourist information search behavior: A structural mod- Ozdemir, B., Aksu, A., Ehtiyar, R., Cizel, B., Cizel, R. B., & Icigen, E. T. (2012). Re-
eling approach. Saarbrucken: Lambert Academic Publishing. lationships among tourist profile, satisfaction and destination loyalty: Ex-
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data amining empirical evidence in Antalya region in Turkey. Journal of Hospitality
analysis ((5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Marketing Management, 21(5), 506–540.
Hammitt, W. E., Backlund, E. A., & Bixler, R. D. (2006). Place bonding for recreation Papadimitriou, D., Kaplanidou, K. K., & Apostolopoulou, A. (2015). Destination im-
places: Conceptual and empirical development. Leisure Studies, 25, 17–41. age components and word-of-mouth intentions in urban tourism: A multi-
Hao, X., & Ryan, C. (2013). Interpretation, film language and tourist destinations: A group approach. Journal of Hospitality Tourism Research.
case study of Hibiscus Town, China. Annals of Tourism Research, 42, 334–358. Papathanassis, A., & Knolle, F. (2011). Exploring the adoption and processing of
Horng, J. S., Liu, C. H., Chou, H. Y., & Tsai, C. Y. (2012). Understanding the impact of online holiday reviews: A grounded theory approach. Tourism Management, 32,
culinary brand equity and destination familiarity on travel intentions. Tourism 215–224.
Management, 33, 815–824. Phillips, W. M. J., & Jang, S. C. (2010). Destination image differences between visitors
Huang, L., Gursoy, D., & Xu, H. (2014). Impact of personality traits and involvement and non-visitors: a case of New York City. International Journal of Tourism Re-
on prior knowledge. Annals of Tourism Research, 48, 42–57. search, 12, 642–645.
Hughes, H. L., & Allen, D. (2008). Visitor and non-visitor images of Central and Prayag, G., & Ryan, C. (2012). Antecedents of tourists' loyalty to Mauritius: The role
Eastern Europe: A qualitative analysis. International Journal of Tourism Research, and influence of destination image, place attachment, involvement, and sa-
10, 27–40. tisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, 51(3), 342–356.
Jansen, H. J. (2011). Tourist familiarity in Amsterdam: Route choice behaviour of (un) Prentice, R. (2004). Tourism familiarity and imagery. Annals of Tourism Research, 31
familiar domestic tourists within Amsterdam's inner city (Master's dissertation). (4), 923–945.
The Netherlands: Universiteit Utrecht. Prentice, R. (2006). Evocation and experiential seduction: Updating choice-sets
Jeong, C., Holland, S., Jun, S. H., & Gibson, H. (2012). Enhancing destination image modeling. Tourism Management, 27, 1153–1170.
through travel website information. International Journal of Tourism Research, 14 Prentice, R., & Andersen, V. (2003). Festival as creative destination. Annals of
(1), 16–27. Tourism Research, 30, 7–30.
Kastenholz, E. (2010). ‘Cultural proximity’ as a determinant of destination image. Qu, H. L., Kim, L. H., & Im, H. H. (2011). A model of destination branding: Integrating
Journal of Vacation Marketing, 16, 313–322. the concepts of the branding and destination image. Tourism Management, 32,
Kastenholz, E., Eusebio, C., & Carneiro, M. J. (2013). Studying factors influencing 465–476.
repeat visitation of cultural tourists. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 19(4), Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., and Will, A. (2008). SmartPLS 2.0 (Beta). Available at 〈http://
343–358. www.smartpls.de〉.
Kerstetter, D., & Cho, M. (2004). Prior knowledge, credibility and information Riscinto-Kozub, K., & Childs, N. (2012). Conversion of local winery awareness. In-
search. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4), 961–985. ternational Journal of Wine Business Research, 24(4), 287–301.
Khosrowjerdi, M., & Iranshahi, M. (2011). Prior knowledge and information-seeking Sharifpour, M., Walters, G., Ritchie, B., & Winter, C. (2014). Investigating the role of
behavior of PhD and MA students. Library Information Science Research, 33, prior knowledge in tourist decision making: A structural equation model of risk
331–335. perceptions and information search. Journal of Travel Research, 53(3), 307–322.
Kim, J. H. (2014). The antecedents of memorable tourism experiences: The devel- Snepenger, D., Meged, K., Snelling, M., & Worrall, K. (1990). Information search
opment of a scale to measure the destination attributes associated with strategies by destination-native tourists. Journal of Travel Research, 29(1), 13–16.
memorable experiences. Tourism Management, 44, 34–45. Sonmez, S. F., & Sirakaya, E. (2002). A distorted destination image? The case of
Kim, H., & Richardson, S. (2003). Motion picture impacts on destination images. Turkey. Journal of Travel Research, 41(2), 185–196.
Annals of Tourism Research, 30(1), 216–237. Srull, T. (1983). The role of prior knowledge in the acquisition, retention, and use of
King, C., Chen, N., & Funk, D. C. (2015). Exploring destination image decay: A study new information In: R. Bagozzi, & A. Tybout (Eds.), Advances in consumer re-
of sport tourists' destination image change after event participation. Journal of search, 10 (pp. 572–576). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.
Hospitality Tourism Research, 39(1), 3–31. Sun, X., Chi, C. G. Q., & Xu, H. (2013). Developing destination loyalty: The case of
Kozak, M., Crotts, J. C., & Law, R. (2007). The impact of the perception of risk on Hainan Island. Annals of Tourism Research, 43, 547–577.
international travelers. International Journal of Tourism Research, 9(4), 233–242. Tasci, A. (2009). Social distance: The missing link in the loop of movies, destination
Lau, A., & McKercher, B. (2004). Exploration versus acquisition: A comparison of image, and tourist behavior? Journal of Travel Research, 47(4), 494–507.
first-time and repeat visitors. Journal of Travel Research, 42, 279–285. Tasci, A., & Boylu, Y. (2010). Cultural comparison of tourists' safety perception in
Lee, I., Floyd, M. F., & Shinew, K. J. (2002). The relationship between information use relation to trip satisfaction. International Journal of Tourism Research, 12,
and park awareness: A study of urban park users. Journal of Park and Recreation 179–192.
Administration, 20(1), 22–41. Tasci, A., Gartner, W., & Cavusgil, S. (2007). Conceptualization and operationaliza-
Lehto, X., O'Leary, J. T., & Morrison, A. (2004). The effect of prior experience on tion of destination image. Journal of Hospitality Tourism Research, 31(2),
vacation behavior. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4), 801–818. 194–223.
Li, X., Pan, B., Zhang, L., & Smith, W. (2009). The effect of online information search Tasci, A., & Knutson, B. (2004). An argument for providing authenticity and famil-
on image development: Insights from a mixed-methods study. Journal of Travel iarity in tourism destinations. Journal of Hospitality Leisure Marketing, 11(1),
Research, 48(1), 45–57. 85–109.
Lim, Y., & Weaver, P. A. (2014). Customer-based brand equity for a destination: The Tsai (2012). Place attachment and tourism marketing: Investigating international
effect of destination image on preference for products associated with a des- tourists in Singapore. International Journal of Tourism Research, 14, 139–152.
tination brand. International Journal of Tourism Research, 16, 223–231. Urbach, N., & Ahlemann, F. (2010). Structural equation modeling in information
Loureiro, S. M. C. (2014). The role of the rural tourism experience economy in place systems research using partial least squares. Journal of Information Technology
attachment and behavioral intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Theory and Application, 11(2), 5–40.
Management, 40, 1–9. Veasna, S., Wu, W., & Huang, C. (2013). The impact of destination source credibility
Lu, A. C. C., Chi, C. G. Q., & Lu, C. Y. (2014). Sensation seeking, message sensation on destination satisfaction: The mediating effects of destination attachment
value, and destinations: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Hospitality
and destination image. Tourism Management, 36, 511–526.
Tourism Research.
Webb, D. (2000). Understanding customer role and its importance in the formation
Martin, H. S., & Bosque, I. A. R. (2008). Exploring the cognitive-affective nature of
of service quality expectations. The Service Industries Journal, 20(1), 1–21.
destination image and the role of psychological factors in its formation. Tourism
Wong, C., & Liu, F. (2011). A study of pre-trip use of travel guidebooks by leisure
Management, 29, 263–277.
travelers. Tourism Management, 32, 616–628.
McCartney, G., Butler, R., & Bennett, M. (2008). A strategic use of the commu-
Xiang, Z., Magnini, V. P., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2015). Information technology and
nication mix in the destination image-formation process. Journal of Travel Re-
consumer behavior in travel and tourism: Insights from travel planning using
search, 47(2), 183–196.
the internet. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 22, 244–249.
McGregor, A. (2000). Dynamic texts and tourist gaze: Death, bones and buffalo.
Yang, J., Yuan, B., & Hu, P. (2009). Tourism destination image and visit intention:
Annals of Tourism Research, 27, 27–50.
Examining the role of familiarity. Journal of China Tourism Research, 5, 174–187.
McIntosh, R. W. (1972). Tourism principles, practices, and philosophies. Columbus,
Yuksel, A., Yuksel, F., & Bilim, Y. (2010). Destination attachment: Effects on customer
OH: Grid.
satisfaction and cognitive, affective and conative loyalty. Tourism Management,
Milman, A., & Pizam, A. (1995). The role of awareness and familiarity with a des-
31(2), 274–284.
tination: The central Florida case. Journal of Travel Research, 33, 21–27.
Zhang, H., Fu, X., Cai, L. A., & Lu, L. (2014). Destination image and tourist loyalty: A
Morais, D., & Lin, C. (2010). Why do first-time and repeat visitors patronize a
meta-analysis. Tourism Management, 40, 213–223.
destination? Journal of Travel Tourism Marketing, 27, 193–210.
Osti, L., Turner, L., & King, B. (2009). Cultural differences in travel guidebooks in-
formation search. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 15(1), 63–78.

Please cite this article as: Tan, W.-K., & Wu, C.-E. An investigation of the relationships among destination familiarity, destination image
and future visit intention. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.12.008i