Destination Positioning Analysis through a Comparison of Cognitive, Affective, and Conative Perceptions

By S. Pike, C. Ryan. 2004

1,105 citations recorded by the source corpus.

There has been exponential growth in the number of studies of destination image appearing in the tourism literature. However, few have addressed the issues of destination positioning analysis and the role of affective perceptions. This article analyzes the market positions held by a competitive set of destinations through a comparison of cognitive, affective, and conative perceptions. Cognition was identified by trialing a factor analytic adaptation of importanceperformance analysis. Affect was measured using an affective response grid, while conation was gauged by stated intent to visit. The alignment of the results from these techniques identified leadership positions held by two quite different destinations on two quite different dimensions of destination attractiveness. It is suggested that this method of positioning analysis offers a practical means for destination marketers faced with the challenge of identifying the one or few features from their diverse and multiattributed product range that could be developed to differentiate their destination in a meaningful way to consumers.

Subfields: Sociology and Political Science, Transportation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e55ddb321d5a491d364ad7d6ece3971ef18edd77

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Sociology and Political Science

In Transportation

Citations in the corpus

Destination loyalty explained through place attachment, destination familiarity and destination image (2020, background): “Practically, this knowledge can be used for effective positioning of tourism destinations and increased re-visitation, assisting local authorities to more efficiently allocate resources in achieving positive word-of-mouth (WOM) and repeat visits (Pike & Ryan, 2004).”
Antecedents of Tourists’ Loyalty to Mauritius (2012, methodology): “The questionnaire was developed using the mixed method approach recommended by others (e.g., Echtner and Ritchie 1991; Pike and Ryan 2004; Tasci and Gartner 2007).”
Affect, Travel Motivation, and Travel Intention: a Senior Market (2009, background): “As noted, affect is an outcome of an individual’s psychological evaluation in response to a stimulus and also functions as a stimulus to customer behavior or behavioral intention (Bradburn, 1969; Gartner, 1993; Pike & Ryan, 2004; Westbrook, 1987).”
Destination service quality, affective image and revisit intention: the moderating role of past experience. (2015, background): “Similarly, destination quality and destination components are used as substitutes for each other (see Chen, Chen & Lee, 2011; Kayat & Hai, 2014; Pike & Ryan, 2004; Zabkar et al., 2010).”
Testing an integrated destination image model across residents and tourists (2017, background): “The cognitive component of the image refers to a person's beliefs and knowledge about a destination and its attributes, which together help form an internally accepted mental picture of the place (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Pike & Ryan, 2004).”
Exploring Destination Image Decay (2015, background): “Existing leisure studies concerning consumers’ emotion/affect are mainly focused on creating an emotional touristic experience (e.g., Pike & Ryan, 2004) or enhancing behavioral prediction by measuring affect (e.g., Smith, Haugtvedt, & Petty, 1994).”
Identifying the Role of Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Components in Understanding Residents’ Attitudes toward Place Marketing (2010, methodology): “Numerous studies (Gupta and Pirsch 2006; Lwin, Williams, and Lan 2002; MacKenzie 1986; Pike and Ryan 2004; Smith 1993) used the concepts of TRA to predict individuals’ attitudes toward or perception of an object or entity related to marketing and promotion (advertising).”
A structural model for examining how destination image and interpretation services affect future visitation behavior: a case study of Taiwan's Taomi eco-village (2009, background): “Destination image is considered to be multifaceted, including a variety of elements related to cognitive image, affective aspect, and overall image ( Baloglu & McCleary, 1999 ; Bigne, Sanchez, & Sanchez, 2001 ; Pike & Ryan, 2004 ).”
A Structural Model to Examine How Destination Image, Attitude, and Motivation Affect the Future Behavior of Tourists (2009, background): “Destination image is multifaceted and consists of cognitive, affective and behavioral elements ( Pike & Ryan, 2004 ; White, 2004 ).”
Exploring the cognitive–affective nature of destination image and the role of psychological factors in its formation (2008, background): “According to more recent studies, cognitive and affective image attributes should be incorporated into the measurement of destination image (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999a; Beerli & Martı́n, 2004; Kim & Richardson, 2003; Pike & Ryan, 2004).”
Linking the dots among destination images, place attachment, and revisit intentions: A study among British and Russian tourists (2017, background): “…image is indispensable and irreplaceable for rendering tourists’ perceived image, having a distinct role compared to behavioral intentions (e.g. Chen, Ji, & Funk, 2014; Nadeau, Heslop, O’Reilly, & Luk, 2008; Pike & Ryan, 2004; Stepchenkova & Morrison, 2008; Stylos et al., 2016; White, 2014).”
Structuring Destination Image: A Qualitative Approach (2005, methodology): “…his doctoral thesis, used Kelly’s (1955) repertory grid to elicit items for a subsequent questionnaire, which was later used with more than 700 respondents to not only identify image of competing destinations (Pike and Ryan 2004) but also the role of Maori in place perception (Ryan and Pike 2003).”