See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/293011322

The Effects of Associative Slogans on Tourists Attitudes and Travel Intention:

The Moderating Effects of Need for Cognition and Familiarity

Article in Journal of Travel Research · February 2016

DOI: 10.1177/0047287515627029

CITATIONS READS

5 295

3 authors, including:

Zhang Hui Honggang Xu

Sun Yat-Sen University Sun Yat-Sen University
3 PUBLICATIONS 22 CITATIONS 113 PUBLICATIONS 925 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Lifestyle tourism entrepreneurs' mobility motivations: A case study on Dali and Lijiang, China View project

Therapeutic mobilities, spatial-temporal behaviours and health tourists, NSF project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Zhang Hui on 04 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Empirical Research Article
Journal of Travel Research

The Effects of Associative Slogans on 2017, Vol. 56(2) 206–220

© The Author(s) 2016

Tourists’ Attitudes and Travel Intention:

Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0047287515627029
The Moderating Effects of Need for journals.sagepub.com/home/jtr

Cognition and Familiarity

Hui Zhang1, Dogan Gursoy2,3, and Honggang Xu1

Abstract
The study tests a model that examines the influence of characteristics of associative slogans on tourists’ attitudes toward
slogan, attitudes toward destination, and travel intentions as well as the moderating effects of the need for cognition and
destination familiarity on these relationships. Findings reveal that extremity has negative effects on attitudes toward slogan,
attitudes toward destination, and travel intention; specificity has a positive effect on attitudes toward slogan; and relevancy has
positive effects on attitudes toward slogan, and attitudes toward destination. Need for cognition moderates the relationship
between extremity and intention, relevancy and attitudes toward slogan and destination, and intention. Familiarity moderates
the relationships between extremity and attitudes toward slogan, attitudes toward destination, and the relationship between
relevancy and attitudes toward destination.

Keywords
associative slogan, need for cognition, destination familiarity, attitudes, travel intention

Introduction
Destination slogans play a significant role in the develop-
ment of strong destination brands because a slogan repre-
sents a configuration of symbols and meanings that are
embodied in a destination (Murphy, Moscardo, and
Benckendorff 2007), helping develop an affective experi-
ence for tourists (Beckman, Kumar, and Kim 2013). A brand
slogan serves as a useful “hook” or “handle” to help tourists
capture the meaning of a destination (Keller 2003). A slogan
is one of the most critical tools available to marketers to
communicate a destination’s unique characteristics to its
prospects (Lehto, Lee, and Ismail 2014). Therefore, it is criti-
cal for destination management organizations (DMOs) to
measure the effectiveness of their slogans in order to improve
their communication strategies (Kohli, Leuthesser, and Suri
2007).
Although tourism in China is a recent phenomenon, it has
grown significantly during the last decade because of the
rapidly increasing size of the middle class (State Information
Center 2014). This has resulted in the formulation and imple-
mentation of tourism development plans and policies in
almost every province in China. As a result, the competition
among destinations has become fierce. Destinations have
started developing and implementing various marketing
activities to improve the perceptions of their destination
brands. Many of those destinations have launched slogans in
recent years (Morrison 2013), most of which have been asso-
ciative slogans. As reflected in the Chinese idiom “Pan long
fu feng,” which literally translates as “clamber over the
dragon and follow the phoenix,” the use of associative slo-
gans has a long tradition in China (Han 2012). The most
famous one is “Up above, there is paradise; down below,
there are Suzhou and Hangzhou,” which associates Suzhou
and Hangzhou with paradise. It has been so successful that
many people visit Suzhou and Hangzhou because of this say-
ing (Ma 2006). Slogans designed based on this saying, such
as “Paradise on earth, travel in Suzhou” of Suzhou, and
“Paradise city” of Hangzhou, are considered excellent slo-
gans (Hu 2006). These examples suggest that associative slo-
gans can be very effective for destination marketing. Many
other destinations have developed similar associative slo-
gans; however, most of them have not been very successful.
1
School of Tourism Management, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, P.R.
China
2
School of Hospitality Business Management, Washington State University,
Pullman, WA, USA
3
School of Tourism and Hospitality, University of Johannesburg,
Johannesburg, South Africa
Corresponding Author:
Hui Zhang, School of Tourism Management, Sun Yat-sen University,
Building 329, 135 Xin’gangxi Road, Guangzhou 510275, P.R. China.
Email: zhangh46@mail.sysu.edu.cn
Zhang et al.
For example, the slogan “Oriental Venice” of Zhouzhuang in
Jiangsu Province is considered a failure because of the low
perceived relevancy between Zhouzhuang and Venice
(Zhang and Gan 2006).
Even though the utilization of associative slogans is very
common in China, empirical research on associative slogans
is very limited. This study aims to close this research gap by
empirically investigating the communication effectiveness
of associative slogans in China. Therefore, the purposes of
this study are to investigate the effectiveness of associative
slogans on Chinese tourists’ attitudes toward slogans, atti-
tudes toward destinations, and travel intentions, as they have
been widely used in previous studies for assessing the effec-
tiveness of an advertisement (Stienmetz, Maxcy, and
Fesenmaier 2015). This study also aims to examine the mod-
erating effects of tourists’ need for cognition and their level
of familiarity on those relationships, because studies have
suggested that the effectiveness of a slogan depends on an
individual’s motives for processing it (Laran, Dalton, and
Andrade 2011) and his or her familiarity with a destination
(Gursoy and McCleary 2004a). In short, this study specifi-
cally aims to investigate the effects of three characteristics
(extremity, relevancy, and specificity) of associative slogans
on tourists’ attitudes and intentions as well as the moderating
effects of the need for cognition and familiarity on these
relationships.
In order to achieve these objectives, the remainder of this
article is structured as follows. The first section deals with
the theoretical foundations for the development of the
research, followed by a detailed description of an associative
slogan, its characteristics, and the hypothetical model. The
research methodology is presented in the second section, and
the results are then presented. Finally, the results are dis-
cussed, theoretical and managerial implications are made,
and potential limitations are discussed.
Literature Review and Hypothesis
Development
Several studies have examined destination slogans (Lehto,
Lee, and Ismail 2014; Pike and Page 2014). The majority of
those studies have focused on their categorizations (Lee, Cai,
and O’Leary 2006), their design and evaluation (Avraham
and Ketter 2008; Hosany et al. 2015), and their linguistic
characteristics (Dong 2013). For example, Lee, Cai, and
O’Leary (2006) identified five types of destination slogans:
they buy us because we are good, common attribute–based,
unique attribute–focused, exclusive appeal, and Average Joe.
Dong (2013) found that more than half of Chinese destina-
tion slogans contained modified vocabulary, and a lot of rhe-
torical terminologies are used. Pike (2007) argued that
destination slogans should reflect at least some characteris-
tics of a destination, such as functional attributes, affective
qualities, symbols of self-expression, etc. Avraham and
207
Ketter (2008) noted that slogan design should depend on the
target market’s characteristics and the communication goals.
Hosany et al. (2015) concluded that effective slogans should
evoke strong, positive emotions in tourists. Furthermore,
researchers have developed a variety of principles to guide
the design of an effective slogan; however, most of those
have not been empirically tested, particularly associative
slogans.
Associative Slogans
Associative slogans refer to slogans that are often designed
by lesser-known destinations to highlight their core values,
attributes, or benefits by associating themselves with other
well-known objects (Dröge and Darmon 1987), such as other
destinations (e.g., Hawaii) or even virtual objects (e.g., para-
dise). An associative slogan is different from indirect com-
parative messages in that the associated object is named
directly and explicitly (Dröge and Darmon 1987); however,
the lesser-known destination and the associated object are
not in competition, which makes it different from most other
direct comparative messages, in which two brands compete
with each other (Lamb, Pride, and Pletcher 1978). It is also
different from co-branding in two aspects: that is, co-
branding involves two or more well-known brands into a
single product (Chang 2008), while in an associative slogan,
one brand is lesser known and the other is well known;
besides this, the lesser-known destination brand and the
associated brand are not in a partner relationship. Cai (2002,
728) developed the concept of cooperative branding and
defined it as “a strategy that redefines the size of a destina-
tion by bringing together two or more adjoining communi-
ties of similar natural and cultural compositions of
attractions.” An associative slogan differs from cooperative
branding because the relationship between the lesser-known
destination and the associated object is not limited to geo-
graphical location. The following are some examples of
associative slogans used by destinations in China: “land-
scape picturesque, called Oriental Geneva,” for Zhaoqing in
Guangdong Province, and “Hawaii of the Orient,” for Sanya
in Hainan Province (Li and Wu 2004).
Characteristics of Associative Slogans
Although the use of associative slogans is not uncommon in
China, it has received little attention from tourism research-
ers (Li and Wu 2004). Previous studies in marketing and
comparative advertisement provide the theoretical bases for
this study. First, as associative strategies are used to achieve
positioning similar to a well-known brand, perceived rele-
vancy between the advertised and the referenced objects has
received considerable attention (Ang and Leong 1994).
Second, superiority-based comparison, which reflects the
extremity of a slogan, is frequently used in comparative
advertisement (Miniard et al. 2006; Snyder 1989). Third,
208
information specificity is an important factor influencing
consumer responses to a slogan (Alniacik and Yilmaz 2012;
Davis 1993). These three characteristics are important in that
they reflect three important aspects of an associative slogan.
Relevancy answers the question “what to associate,” extrem-
ity answers “how to associate,” and specificity answers “to
what extent to associate,” hence comprehensively reflecting
the characteristics of an associative slogan.
Relevancy. Because an associative slogan involves compar-
ing a lesser-known destination to a well-known one or a vir-
tual object, its goal is to anchor the lesser-known destination
to the position of the well-known object in the consumer’s
mind (Wilkie and Farris 1975). Perceived similarity between
the lesser-known destination and the associated object in
consumers’ minds is an important characteristic of associa-
tive slogans (Rose et al. 1993). Relevancy refers to the extent
to which tourists would associate the referred-to well-known
objects with the lesser-known destination (Dröge and Dar-
mon 1987). In the high-relevancy condition, when the lesser-
known destination is mentioned, the likelihood that the other
destination or object comes into consumers’ mind is high.
Relevancy between the lesser-known destination and the
associated destination can be geographical, but relevancy
can also be built on the association established in consumers’
minds (e.g., Suzhou and paradise).
Extremity. An associative slogan compares a lesser-known
destination with an associated object in order to improve the
brand awareness of the lesser-known destination and to
occupy a similar position in consumers’ minds as the associ-
ated object (Dröge and Darmon 1987). Although the lesser-
known destination and the associated object are not in direct
competition, sometimes the lesser-known destination can
take an extreme approach by emphasizing that it is better
than the well-known destination, and hence an extremity
issue arises. Extremity refers to the extent to which the slo-
gan exaggerates the lesser-known destination without a qual-
ifier (Goldberg and Hartwick 1990). Slogans high in
extremity usually contain descriptions or words like “the fin-
est,” “better than,” etc.
Specificity. Associative slogans are designed to communicate
to consumers a destination’s essence or core benefits (Bregoli
2013), while specific slogans present the concrete, tangible
characteristics and benefits a destination offers, supported by
objective, factual information. Studies have suggested that
specific slogans are better received by consumers (Davis
1993) as compared to unspecific ones. Specificity refers to
the extent to which a slogan provides a clear claim or value
proposition (Alniacik and Yilmaz 2012). A specific slogan
can provide a wealth of information, while an unspecific slo-
gan contains abstract, vague wording without factual support
(Davis 1993). From a consumer’s perspective, specific slo-
gans provide detailed, useful information and present real,
meaningful benefits (Davis 1993).
Journal of Travel Research 56(2)
Effects of Associative Slogans on Tourists’
Attitudes and Intentions
Studies have examined the influences of extremity on product
attitude and purchase intentions. High-extremity words used
in brand slogans, such as “the best,” are likely to be less believ-
able because of a “too good to be true” effect (Tan 2002). It is
hard for consumers to believe that an unknown destination can
provide such an outstanding experience, so their attitudes
toward these slogans tend to be unfavorable. According to the
affect-transfer theory (Shimp 1981), the negative effect gener-
ated by a high-extremity brand slogan will be transferred from
attitudes toward the slogan to attitudes and intentions toward
the destination. In addition, because tourism is high in experi-
ential attributes and tourists cannot evaluate a destination’s
quality before experiencing it, they are likely to evaluate high-
extremity slogans more cautiously in order to reduce the risks
involved in travel decisions.
A target market’s culture is also likely to influence how
consumers evaluate an associative slogan. Numerous studies
(e.g., Lu and Chen 2014) have argued that consumers respond
differently across cultures to marketing stimuli. “Cultures”
could be broadly classified along the lines of individualism–
collectivism into individualist and collectivist cultures
(Huang, Gursoy, and Xu 2014). Although Chinese society
has undergone significant changes after the introduction of a
market economy, some of the traditional beliefs, such as
“harmony and modesty,” are still regarded as important val-
ues. Superiority-based comparisons are not culturally com-
patible in collectivist cultures (Gürhan-Canli and
Maheswaran 2000), and thus, we posit that
Hypothesis 1: Extremity negatively affects tourists’ (a)
attitudes toward a slogan, (b) attitudes toward a destina-
tion, and (c) travel intentions.
Compared with unspecific or vague slogans, specific slo-
gans provide much more information. Information-rich
claims tend to be more likeable and induce more positive
responses (Strutton and Roswinanto 2014). Davis (1993)
argued that specific claims are better received by consumers,
while Chan and Lau (2004) suggested that substantive claims
generate positive attitudes toward the advertisement, the
brand, and purchase intentions. Petty and Cacioppo (1981)
reported that product messages with concrete arguments
result in more favorable cognitive responses regarding the
perceived attributes of a product than messages with general
arguments. Therefore, the more specific an associative slogan
is, the more effective it is (Plog 2004). Thus, we posit that
Hypothesis 2: Specificity positively affects tourists’ (a)
attitudes toward a slogan, (b) attitudes toward a destina-
tion, and (c) travel intentions.
The meaning-transfer model (McCracken 1989) suggests
that in comparative advertisements that associate a new
Zhang et al.
brand with a dominant brand, consumer perception of rele-
vancy between the dominant and the new product plays a
significant role in forming their attitudes toward the new
product. In the case of associative slogans, the associated
destinations or objects often enjoy high popularity and repu-
tations, and tourists’ attitudes toward them tend to be favor-
able. Based on the premises of the meaning-transfer model,
we expect that tourists’ attitudes toward the lesser-known
destinations will be more favorable if relevancy between the
two is high. Thus, we posit that
Hypothesis 3: Relevancy positively affects tourists’ (a)
attitudes toward a slogan, (b) attitudes toward a destina-
tion, and (c) travel intentions.
Moderating Effects of the Need for Cognition and
Destination Familiarity
Although the importance of brand slogans is widely accepted
by researchers, there is no general consensus on what consti-
tutes a successful slogan (Kohli, Leuthesser, and Suri 2007),
indicating the existence of factors that may moderate the
effects of a slogan (Ju-Pak 2013). In the context of associa-
tive slogans, consumers’ personal traits in information-pro-
cessing (i.e., need for cognition) and their familiarity with a
destination may make significant differences (Gursoy and
McCleary 2004a).
A slogan provides information about a destination.
However, information itself will not persuade consumers to
change their attitudes. The persuasion effectiveness of a slo-
gan depends on consumers’ motives for processing it (Laran,
Dalton, and Andrade 2011). Studies have suggested that the
need for cognition is likely to be a significant determinant of
the type of processing approach a consumer will adopt
(Arceneaux and Vander Wielen 2013). “Need for cognition”
describes an individual’s propensity to engage in and enjoy
cognitively demanding tasks (Cacioppo, Petty, and Kao
1984). Consumers high in need for cognition are more likely
to follow the Elaboration Likelihood Model’s central route to
persuasion, forming attitudes on the basis of rational evalua-
tion of a message. They enjoy solving complex problems and
report greater cognitive effort relative to consumers with a
low need for cognition (Lu, Gursoy, and Del Chiappa 2014).
Need for cognition is associated with the amount of
thought that goes into making a decision. Consumers high in
need for cognition make their decisions based on multiple
sources of information and evidence. It is hard to persuade
them to accept a high-extremity slogan, so their attitudes
toward a high-extremity slogan and the destination tend to be
unfavorable (Vanden Bergh and Reid 1980). Consumers high
in need for cognition are more likely to form their attitudes by
paying close attention to relevant arguments (Petty and
Cacioppo 1986). They will assess the lesser-known destina-
tions based on their prior knowledge about the associated des-
tinations. In contrast, consumers low in need for cognition
will put less effort into information processing (i.e., they
209
process peripherally) (Lu, Gursoy, and Del Chiappa 2014).
They are less likely to form attitudes and behaviors about
lesser-known destinations based on their associated destina-
tions or objects (Petty and Cacioppo 1986), so relevancy will
have a small impact on their attitudes toward a slogan, atti-
tudes toward a destination, and travel intentions. Consumers
high in need for cognition have more cognitive resources and
are more likely to use systematic rules to process information
(Cacioppo, Petty, and Kao 1984). Compared with unspecific
slogans, specific slogans provide more information (Davis
1993), and tourists high in need for cognition can make the
best use of that information (Cacioppo et al. 1996), and hence
their attitudes toward the slogan, the destination, and travel
intentions would be more positive. Thus, we posit
Hypothesis 4: Need for cognition positively moderates
the negative relationship between extremity and tourists’
(a) attitudes toward a slogan, (b) attitudes toward a desti-
nation, and (c) travel intentions.
Hypothesis 5: Need for cognition positively moderates
the positive relationship between specificity and tourists’
(a) attitudes toward a slogan, (b) attitudes toward a desti-
nation, and (c) travel intentions.
Hypothesis 6: Need for cognition positively moderates
the positive relationship between relevancy and tourists’
(a) attitudes toward a slogan, (b) attitudes toward a desti-
nation, and (c) travel intentions.
Numerous studies (e.g., Gursoy and McCleary 2004a,
2004b) have stressed that destination familiarity influences
tourists’ decision-making processes. If tourists are familiar
with a destination, they may make decisions based on the
internal information they have, and searching for additional
external information may not be needed (Gursoy and
McCleary 2004b). In contrast, tourists who are low in
familiarity are more likely to rely on external information
than tourists with more familiarity. As posited above, the
extremity, specificity, and relevancy of an associative slo-
gan are likely to have significant impacts on tourists’ atti-
tudes toward the slogan, attitude toward a destination, and
travel intentions. Further, these effects are asymmetric in
different tourists because of the differences in their levels
of destination familiarity. More specifically, tourists high in
familiarity may rely heavily on their internal knowledge,
making the role of external information (i.e., an associative
slogan) a relatively small one. On the other hand, those low
in familiarity are likely to depend on external information
for their decision making. Therefore, external information
can play a relatively important role in their decision-mak-
ing process.
No matter how extreme, how specific, or how relevant an
associative slogan may be, it may not have much of an effect
on tourists who are high in familiarity, because those individu-
als who are familiar with a destination may form their attitudes
and make their travel decisions based on what they already
know about a destination. On the other hand, associative
210
slogans may play a critical role in the decision-making process
of individuals who are low in familiarity. Because of their lack
of information and knowledge about a destination, these indi-
viduals are likely to rely on external information such as asso-
ciative slogans to make their decisions. Thus, we posit
Hypothesis 7: Destination familiarity negatively moder-
ates the negative relationship between extremity and tour-
ists’ (a) attitudes toward a slogan, (b) attitudes toward a
destination, and (c) travel intentions.
Figure 1. Hypotheses model.
Methodology
Questionnaire Design
The measures for the extremity, specificity, and relevancy
of an associative slogan were developed specifically for this
study, as there were no existing, established measure-
ments. The procedures recommended by Churchill (1979)
for developing a standardized survey instrument provided
guidance for this research. The first step was specifying the
construct domain of the three characteristics of asso- ciative
slogans. At this stage, an online focus group con- sisting of
five PhD students majoring in marketing and tourism
management was established to discuss and define the
characteristics of associative slogans. Online discus- sions
combined with an extensive literature review helped us
identify extremity, specificity, and relevancy as three
dimensions of associative slogans. After the construct
domains were specified, both deductive and inductive
approaches were used to generate an item pool to measure
each dimension (Liang and Farh 2012). Descriptions of
extremity (Goldberg and Hartwick 1990; Cowley 2006;
Snyder 1989; Reznik 2008; Tan 2002), specificity (Alniacik
and Yilmaz 2012), and relevancy (Alniacik and Yilmaz
2012) were collected and adapted from the
Journal of Travel Research 56(2)
Hypothesis 8: Destination familiarity negatively moder-
ates the positive relationship between specificity and
tourists’ (a) attitudes toward a slogan, (b) attitudes toward
a destination, and (c) travel intentions.
Hypothesis 9: Destination familiarity negatively moder-
ates the positive relationship between relevancy and tour-
ists’ (a) attitudes toward a slogan, (b) attitudes toward a
destination, and (c) travel intentions.
The hypotheses model is presented in Figure 1.
literature to generate the initial items. Further items to
measure each construct were identified from the focus
group discussions. This process resulted in the identifica-
tion of a total of 12 items: 4 items measuring each dimen-
sion. Thereafter, a professor in tourism management and a
PhD student in marketing were invited to assess the con-
tent validity of these items. They were asked to provide
comments on the content and understandability of the
items and to edit and improve the items to enhance their
clarity and readability. They were also requested to iden-
tify any items that were redundant and to offer sugges-
tions for improving the proposed scale. After the content
adequacy and validity were ensured, an initial question-
naire was designed and a small-scale pretest was con-
ducted. The purpose of the pretest was to determine
whether our planned measures for those variables were
meaningful to respondents. The pretest was conducted on
a small group of residents (n = 20) in Guangzhou,
Guangdong Province, in China. Based on the pretest, the
introduction and the rating options for the survey were
revised.
The items for extremity, specificity, and relevancy were orig-
inally developed in Chinese, and no translation was involved.
The items measuring attitude toward a slogan, attitude toward a
Zhang et al. 211

destination, travel intentions, need for cognition, and destination Table 1. Measurement Sources.
familiarity were adopted from the existing literature. These Construct Items Source
items were initially translated into Chinese by a bilingual aca-
demic and were back-translated by a different scholar for com- Destination DF1. Know a lot about X Mechinda,
parison with the original English version. After discussing and familiarity Serirat, and
resolving any discrepancies, the survey was considered to be DF2. Know more than others Guild (2009),
appropriate for data collection. The items for need for cognition, about X Kerstetter
DF3. X feels familiar to me and Cho
destination familiarity, and travel intentions were measured on a DF4. Feel close to X (2004)
seven-point Likert-type scale with “very unlikely” at the low DF5. Have much knowledge
end and “very likely” at the high end, and the items for other about X
constructs were measured on a seven-point semantic differential
scale. A complete list of all items is presented in Tables 1 and 4.
Need for NFC1. I prefer complex to Cacioppo,
cognition simple problems Petty, and
Data Collection Kao (1984)
NFC2. I like to have the
Two typical associative slogans were chosen for this study: responsibility of handling a
“Shangluo is the most beautiful place in Qinling Mountains,” situation that requires a lot
and “A place beyond the frontier like the south of the lower of thinking
reaches of the Yangtze River (Jiangnan), Ningxia is a world NFC3. Thinking is my idea
full of wonders and miracles.” The former associates of fun
Shangluo with the Qinling Mountains, and the latter associ- NFC4. I would rather do
ates Ningxia with Jiangnan. Both the Qinling Mountains and something that challenges
Jiangnan enjoy a high popularity in China. The purpose of my thinking abilities than
something that requires
this two-slogan design was to maximize systematic variance
little thought
(Farh, Liang, and Chen 2012).
NFC5. I find satisfaction in
Data for this study were collected in four cities: Xi’an and deliberating hard for long
Ankang in Shaanxi Province, Changsha in Hunan Province, hours
and Wuhan in Hubei Province. The sample areas were NFC6. I really enjoy a task
selected because these are the closest and the most significant that involves coming up with
source markets for the two destinations (Shangluo and new solutions to problems
Ningxia), as indicated by the historical tourist arrival data for NFC7. I would prefer a task
Shangluo and Ningxia (e.g., Shangluo Tourism Administration that is intellectual, difficult,
and more important to one
2013; Ningxia Tourism Administration 2014). These prov-
that is somewhat important
inces are located very close to each other in the central part of but does not require much
China. Because of their proximity, cultural differences thought
between these provinces are minimal and unnoticeable. In NFC8. I usually end up
general, they each have a collectivism-oriented culture in deliberating about issues
which a sense of group and harmonious relationships are val- even when they do not
ued (Moura, Gnoth, and Deans 2015). As mentioned above, affect me personally
slogans are created to communicate descriptive or persuasive Extremity 4 items (see Table 4) Newly
information to influence potential customers’ perceptions and developed
Specificity 4 items (see Table 4) Newly
behavior (Keller 2003), so it is appropriate to use data gath-
developed
ered from these four cities to test the effectiveness of associa-
Relevancy 4 items (see Table 4) Newly
tive slogans. Four research assistants were instructed to developed
intercept every 10th person at the most-frequented locations, Attitude 5 items (see Table 4) Dröge (1989)
such as the business circle, library, university town, and com- toward slogan and Muehling
mercial pedestrian streets. The data were collected between (1987)
February 10 and 20 in 2014, which coincides with the Chinese Attitude 5 items (see Table 4) Hsu, Kang,
spring festival. Both the locations where the data were col- toward and Lam
lected and the timing of the data collection enhanced the destination (2006)
diversity of the population reached, which helped maximize Travel intention 3 items (see Table 4) Hsu, Kang,
and Lam
systematic variance (Farh, Liang, and Chen 2012). A total of
(2006)
1,323 questionnaires were distributed (632 for Ningxia, 691
for Shangluo), and 1,192 completed questionnaires were col- Note: X denotes the lesser known destination, that is, Shangluo and
lected (557 for Ningxia, 635 for Shangluo), for a response Ningxia, in this article.
212 Journal of Travel Research 56(2)

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics (n = 1,049).

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. EX 4.042 1.299 0.858
2. SP 3.694 1.397 0.032 0.871
3. RE 3.193 1.571 –0.021 649** 0.871
4. AS 4.510 1.215 –0.116** 0.377** 0.406** 0.899
5. AD 4.625 1.147 –0.070* 0.283** 0.357** 0.743** 0.913
6. TI 4.051 1.580 –0.107** 0.000 0.025 0.197** 0.355** 0.912
7. NFC 4.359 1.335 –0.017 0.161** 0.167** 0.303** 0.310** 0.142** 0.915
8. DF 1.982 1.178 0.025 0.270** 0.363** 0.220** 0.189** 0.130** 0.199** 0.922

Note: EX = extremity; SP = specificity; RE = relevancy; AS = attitude toward slogan; AD = attitude toward destination; TI = travel intention; NFC = need
for cognition; DF = destination familiarity. The boldfaced diagonal elements are Cronbach’s  values.
**p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.

Table 3. EFA (n = 552) and CFA (n = 497) Results of Associative Slogans.

EFA CFA

Factor Loading Eigenvalue Variance Explained (%) Factor Loading CR AVE

Specificity 4.020 36.548 0.859 0.605
SP2 0.853 0.778
SP4 0.837 0.812
SP1 0.815 0.670
SP3 0.809 0.840
Extremity 2.850 25.910 0.864 0.614
EX2 0.871 0.813
EX3 0.849 0.813
EX1 0.823 0.768
EX4 0.786 0.738
Relevancy 1.255 11.408 0.877 0.705
RE3 0.879 0.868
RE2 0.864 0.861
RE4 0.812 0.788

Note: EFA = exploratory factor analysis; CFA = confirmatory factor analysis; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average varian ce extracted.

rate of 90.1%, and 1,049 valid questionnaires were retained
(497 for Ningxia, 552 for Shangluo), for a valid response rate
of 79.3%. Although the data were collected in the four cities,
10.5% (n = 109) of the respondents reported that they lived in
other cities, such as Huanggang in Hubei Province, Yiyang
and Yueyang in Hunan Province, etc. The authors decided to
retain those respondents, as they are also considered potential
tourists to Shangluo and Ningxia (e.g., Geng 2009; Xinhuanet
Hunan 2015).
Data Analysis
First, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and a confirma-
tory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to identify and
verify the dimensionality of the associative slogans.
Structural equation modeling was used to empirically test
the effects of extremity, specificity, and relevancy on tourists’
attitudes and intentions using AMOS 17.0 with a maximum
likelihood (ML) method of estimation. The normality
assumption for each item was met, as all absolute skewness
values were less than 2 and all absolute kurtosis values were
less than 7 (West, Finch, and Curran 1995). A two-stage
approach was employed. First, a confirmatory measurement
model was tested, and afterwards, the structural model was
tested.
To test the moderating effects of need for cognition and
destination familiarity, we averaged the scores of each mod-
erating variable and divided the sample into high- and low-
score groups based on its median. A multiple group analysis
was then performed to check the moderating effects of the
two variables.
Results
Respondents’ Profile
There was an approximately equal distribution of males and
females among the respondents, with 52.1% of the
Zhang et al. 213

Table 4. Measurement Model (n = 1049).

Factor/Item SFL SE t Value CR AVE

Extremity 0.860 0.606
EX1. This slogan is (reasonable–exaggerated) 0.765 – –
EX2. This slogan (understates–exaggerates) the reality 0.830 0.041 25.913
EX3. This slogan seems (understated–overstated) to X 0.800 0.038 25.156
EX4. This slogan is (consistent–distorted) with X I imagined 0.714 0.038 22.419
Specificity 0.871 0.630
SP1. Vague–clear 0.699 – –
SP2. Ambiguous–explicit 0.790 0.047 23.214
SP3. General–specific 0.844 0.048 24.524
SP4. Empty–meaningful 0.834 0.048 24.309
Relevancy 0.873 0.696
RE2. The probability X and Y come up into my mind together is (low–high) 0.835 – –
RE3. When Y is mentioned, the probability I would associate it with X is (low–high) 0.872 0.032 31.578
RE4. The similarities between X and Y are (low–high) 0.795 0.032 28.704
Attitude toward slogan 0.885 0.608
AS1. Negative–positive 0.745 – –
AS2. Unfavorable–favorable 0.798 0.039 25.695
AS3. Offensive–inoffensive 0.845 0.041 27.290
AS4. Dull–interesting 0.735 0.042 23.529
AS5. Irritating–not irritating 0.770 0.043 24.725
Attitude toward destination 0.891 0.621
AD1. Boring–fun 0.744 – –
AD2. Unpleasant–pleasant 0.776 0.039 24.979
AD3. Unfavorable–favorable 0.816 0.041 26.333
AD4. Worthless–valuable 0.811 0.041 26.172
AD5. Unwise–wise 0.790 0.040 25.458
Travel intention 0.919 0.792
TI1. I intend to visit X in future 0.857 – –
TI2. I want to visit X 0.919 0.028 39.319
TI3. It is likely that I will visit X in future 0.892 0.029 37.926

Note: X = lesser-known destination; Y = associated object; SFL = standardized factor loading; SE = standard error; CR = composite reliability;
AVE = average variance extracted.

respondents being female. More than half of the respondents
(72.6%) held university degrees. Monthly income levels var-
ied, with 47.8% earning between US$240 and US$800.
Among the 552 respondents who took the Shangluo ques-
tionnaire, the overwhelming majority (91.7%) reported that
they had never been there, and for the respondents who took
the Ningxia questionnaire, the percentage was 93%.
Descriptive Analysis
The descriptive statistics for the 38 survey items were calcu-
lated as presented in the appendix. A series of independent
sample t tests was conducted on these items to examine the
similarities and differences between the Shangluo sample
and the Ningxia sample. The results indicated that there were
significant differences between the Shangluo sample and the
Ningxia sample in SP2, SP3, SP4, RE2, RE3, AS4, NFC3,
NFC5, and NFC6 (see appendix). Descriptive statistics for
eight constructs were also calculated (see Table 2).
Destination familiarity had the lowest mean score, indicating
that the respondents did not consider themselves as very
familiar with the destinations. The Cronbach’s α coefficients
for the constructs ranged between 0.858 and 0.915 (i.e., all
above 0.70) (Nunnally 1978), indicating acceptable internal
consistency.
EFA and CFA of Associative Destination Brand
Slogan
Utilizing the Shangluo sample (n = 552), a principal compo-
nent factor analysis with a varimax rotation was employed.
The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value was 0.837, indicating the
sampling adequacy, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was
3421.159 (df = 66, p < 0.001), supporting the factorability of
the data (Hair et al. 1995). Three underlying dimensions of
associative slogans, corresponding to extremity, specificity,
and relevancy, were identified. These three factors explained
64.03% of the variance in associative slogans. One item
214 Journal of Travel Research 56(2)

Table 5. Measurement Invariance Test (n = 552, n = 497).

Shangluo Ningxia

² df p CFI Δ² Δdf p ΔCFI

M0 2018.007 670 0.000 0.928
M1 2045.019 692 0.000 0.927 27.012 22 0.211 0.001
M2 2149.908 713 0.000 0.923 104.888 21 0.000 0.004
M3 2255.963 741 0.000 0.919 106.055 28 0.000 0.004

Note: M0 = baseline model; M1 = Factor loadings between two samples were constrained to equal; M2 = factor loadings and structural covariances
between two samples were constrained to equal; M3 = factor loadings, structural covariances, and measurement residuals were constrained to equal.

(RE1: The relationship between X and Y is low–high) was Table 6. Structural Model Estimates (n = 1049).
removed from the analysis because it cross-loaded on both
relevancy (0.491) and specificity (0.408). The results are Unstandardized Standardized
presented in Table 3. Hypothesis Estimates Estimates t Value Acceptance
Afterwards, a CFA was conducted utilizing the Ningxia 1a –0.129 –0.125*** –3.882 
sample (n = 497) (see Table 3), and the findings indicated 1b –0.083 –0.085* –2.580 
an acceptable model fit: χ² = 77.292, df = 41, comparative 1c –0.151 –0.113** –3.258 
fit index (CFI) = 0.987, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = 0.983, 2a 0.141 0.175*** 3.810 
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 2b 0.058 0.077 1.647 ×
0.042. t values for the standardized factor loadings of the 2c –0.036 –0.035 –0.711 ×
items were significant (p < 0.001), suggesting that they are 3a 0.258 0.322*** 6.885 
significant indicators of their respective constructs. All of 3b 0.259 0.342*** 7.079 
the CRs for extremity, specificity, and relevancy were 3c 0.074 0.071 1.459 ×
above 0.7, indicating the internal consistency of these three
***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.
constructs. All AVEs were above 0.5, suggesting that the
indicators were representative of the constructs. Therefore,
convergent validity was supported (Fornell and Larcker loadings, structural covariances, and measurement residuals
1981). Discriminant validity was also supported, as the were supported.
square root of AVE for each construct is greater than its cor-
relation with other factors (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Structural Equation Modeling
Measurement Model To test the hypotheses, a structural equation model was
tested. The fit indices suggested that the model fit the data
The measurement model for all six variables in the structural reasonably well for the overall group (χ² = 1,355.528, df =
model was tested (see Table 4). The model achieved an accept- 240, CFI = 0.926, TLI = 0.915, RMSEA = 0.067).
able level of fit with χ² = 762.659, df = 237, CFI = 0.965, TLI = As shown in Table 6, extremity negatively affects attitudes
0.959, RMSEA = 0.046. t values for all the standardized factor toward a slogan (γ = –0.125, p < 0.001), attitudes toward a des-
loadings of the items were significant, all CRs were above 0.7, tination (γ = –0.085, p < 0.05), and travel intentions (γ = –0.113,
and all AVEs were above 0.5, indicating that convergent valid- p < 0.05), supporting hypotheses 1a, 1b, and 1c. Specificity
ity was supported. The square roots of the AVEs were larger positively affects attitudes toward a slogan (γ = 0.175, p <
than their correlations with other constructs (Fornell and 0.001), supporting hypothesis 2a. Relevancy positively affects
Larcker 1981), and hence discriminant validity was supported. attitudes toward a slogan (γ = 0.322, p < 0.001) and attitudes
To test measurement invariance between the Shangluo toward a destination (γ = 0.342, p < 0.001), supporting hypoth-
sample and the Ningxia sample, a multiple-group CFA was eses 3a and 3b. However, specificity had no significant effect
conducted (Dimitrov 2010). First, the measurement model on attitudes toward a destination (γ = 0.077, p > 0.05) or travel
for the six constructs was tested for the two samples, respec- intentions (γ = –0.035, p > 0.05), and thus hypotheses 2a and 2b
tively, and both achieved an acceptable level of fit (for were rejected. Hypothesis 3c, which posited a positive relation-
Shangluo sample, CFI = 0.951, TLI = 0.943, RMSEA = ship between relevancy and travel intentions (γ = 0.071, p >
0.055; for Ningxia sample, CFI = 0.957, TLI = 0.949, 0.05), was not supported either. The R2 values of travel inten-
RMSEA = 0.052), and so configural invariance was achieved tions, attitude toward a slogan, and attitude toward a destina-
(Dimitrov 2010). After that, four models were conducted tion were found to be 1.6%, 22.4%, and 16.5%, respectively.
(see Table 5), and the findings indicated no difference
between M0 and M1, in that ∆χ²(22) = 27.012, p = 0.211,
Moderating Effects
∆CFI = 0.001. There was also no difference between M1 and
M2, and M3 and M2, in that all ∆CFIs were below 0.01 The results (Table 7) indicate that for tourists high in need for
(Cheung and Rensvold 2002). Hence, invariances of factor cognition, the effects of extremity on travel intentions (γ =
Zhang et al. 215

Table 7. Moderating Effect of Need for Cognition. hypotheses 8a and 8b, specificity has greater effects for tour-
Hypothesis Δ² Low (n = 508) High (n = 509) ists high in familiarity on attitudes toward a slogan (γ =
0.304, p < 0.001) and attitudes toward a destination (γ =
4a 0.162 –0.158(–3.221)** –0.136(–2.836)** 0.268, p < 0.001) than for tourists low in familiarity
4b 2.224 –0.051(–1.022) –0.152(–3.127)** (γ = 0.139, p < 0.05; γ = –0.023, p > 0.05), rejecting hypoth-
4c 17.506*** 0.023(0.455) –0.267(–5.172)*** eses 8a and 8b. For tourists low in familiarity, specificity
5a 0.215 0.197(2.966)** 0.168(2.633)** negatively affects travel intentions (γ = –0.135, p < 0.05),
5b 0.007 0.086(1.250) 0.094(1.471) and this effect for tourists high in familiarity was insignifi-
5c 5.078* 0.106(1.532) –0.113(–1.702)† cant (γ = 0.115, p > 0.1), and thus hypothesis 8c was rejected.
6a 3.064† 0.191(2.785)** 0.389(5.889)*** Hypotheses 7c, 9a, and 9c were also rejected because the
6b 3.097† 0.228(3.171)** 0.406(6.108)*** findings indicated no significant differences between the two
6c 7.187** –0.069(–0.960) 0.192(2.910)** groups on the proposed relationships.
Note: t values are in parentheses.
***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, †p < 0.1. Discussions and Implications
This study enriches the literature by empirically investigat-
Table 8. Moderating Effect of Destination Familiarity. ing the effects of a widely used type of slogan in China: the
Hypothesis Δ² Low (n = 496) High (n = 495)
associative slogan. The results indicate that both the specific-
ity and relevancy of associative slogans positively influence
7a 4.748* –0.195(–4.192)*** –0.014(–0.285) tourists’ attitudes and travel intentions, while extremity neg-
7b 8.597** –0.176(–3.771)*** 0.047(0.932) atively influences tourists’ attitudes and intentions. The find-
7c 1.148 –0.170(–3.448)*** –0.061(–1.176) ings further suggest that the effectiveness of associative
8a 4.000* 0.139(2.184)* 0.304(4.405)*** slogans depends on tourists’ need for cognition and destina-
8b 9.040** –0.023(–0.350) 0.268(3.800)*** tion familiarity.
8c 5.914* –0.135(–1.975)* 0.115(1.613) The results suggest that if a lesser-known destination
9a 1.703 0.338(5.104)*** 0.184(2.683)** exaggerates itself in an associative slogan, tourists may form
9b 4.306* 0.402(5.919)*** 0.170(2.418)* negative attitudes toward this slogan and the destination
9c 0.997 –0.011(–0.164) 0.089(1.230)
itself, and they are less likely to visit this destination. The
Note: t values are in parentheses. desire to minimize or completely avoid risks associated with
***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05. travel decisions may force tourists to be more careful in
forming their travel intentions (Sharifpour et al. 2014).
The results also show that specificity positively affects
–0.267, p<0.001), relevancy on attitudes toward a slogan (γ
tourists’ attitudes toward the slogan, indicating that tourists
= 0.389, p < 0.001), relevancy on attitudes toward a destina-
form more favorable attitudes toward the slogan if they can
tion (γ = 0.406, p < 0.001), and relevancy on travel intentions get specific information from it. Compared with vague slo-
(γ = 0.192, p < 0.01) were significant, while these effects gans, specific ones can provide clearer information about a
were smaller or insignificant for tourists low in need for cog- destination, which can help tourists reduce the risks involved
nition, supporting hypotheses 4c, 6a, 6b, and 6c. Although in travel decision making.
the effect of specificity on travel intentions was moderated This study finds that relevancy positively affects tourists’
by need for cognition, the results show that the influence of attitudes, suggesting that if tourists perceive a high relevancy
specificity on travel intentions was not significant for tour- between a lesser-known destination and the associated
ists low in need for cognition (γ = 0.106, p > 0.05), while object, they will form positive attitudes toward this slogan
specificity had a marginally negative effect on travel inten- and the lesser-known destination, which is consistent with
tions for tourists high in need for cognition (γ = –0.113, p < the meaning-transfer theory (McCracken 1989).
0.1), rejecting hypothesis 5c. Hypotheses 4a, 4b, 5a, and 5b Contrary to our expectations, the effects of specificity and
were also rejected because the findings indicated no signifi- relevance on tourists’ intentions are not found, possibly in
cant differences between the two groups on the proposed part because travel intentions are a kind of tourist response
relationships. that require stronger drives than that of attitude (Bagozzi
The results (Table 8) suggested that for tourists low in 1992). Although specificity positively affects tourists’ atti-
familiarity, the effects of extremity on attitudes toward a slo- tudes, it does not provide a strong enough incentive to influ-
gan (γ = –0.195, p < 0.001), attitudes toward a destination (γ ence tourists’ intentions. In terms of relevance, it is likely
= –0.176, p < 0.001), and relevancy on attitudes toward a that when tourists perceive significant similarities between a
destination (γ = 0.402, p < 0.001) were significant, while the lesser-known destination and the associated destination, they
effects for tourists high in familiarity were smaller or insig- may prefer to visit the associated destination rather than vis-
nificant, supporting hypotheses 7a, 7b, and 9b. Contrary to iting the lesser-known one.
216
The findings suggest that the effects of associative slogans
are greater for tourists high in need for cognition than those low
in need for cognition. Although need for cognition moderates
the relationship between specificity and travel intentions, the
results show that specificity has a marginal negative effect on
travel intentions for tourists high in need for cognition. However,
the negative effect for tourists low in need for cognition is not
significant. One explanation for this is that the positive relation-
ship between specificity and travel intentions merely holds true
when specificity is moderate. Very specific or very vague slo-
gans may lead to tourists’ unfavorable responses.
The results also show that destination familiarity is an
important moderator between the characteristics of a slogan,
tourists’ attitudes toward a destination, and travel intentions.
However, its relationship with these variables is compli-
cated. The study finds that the effects of extremity and rele-
vancy are greater for tourists who are not familiar with a
destination than those high in destination familiarity, indicat-
ing that a brand slogan is an external source of information
for tourists low in destination familiarity but not for tourists
high in destination familiarity.
Although destination familiarity moderates the relation-
ships between specificity and attitudes toward a slogan as
well as specificity and attitudes toward a destination, the
results indicate that the patterns of the moderating effects are
opposite to our expectations. This could be due to the fact
that the specificity may not match the prior knowledge of
tourists who are familiar with a destination (Lee and Ulgado
1994). The information a brand slogan provides may contra-
dict what tourists think they know and may result in cogni-
tive dissonance. The results also show that specificity
negatively influences travel intentions for tourists who are
not familiar with the destination; a partial explanation for
this may lie in the fact that although slogans high in specific-
ity provide more information (Alniacik and Yilmaz 2012),
tourists who are low in familiarity with a lesser-known desti-
nation may prefer to visit the associated one in order to mini-
mize the risks associated with traveling to the lesser-known
one, because the associated destination usually enjoys a
higher reputation and hence provides a better experience
(Dröge and Darmon 1987).
Theoretical Contributions
This article offers several theoretical contributions.
Comparing a lesser-known brand with a dominant brand is a
popular technique for promoting products (Pechmann and
Ratneshwar 1991), but most previous research has primarily
investigated the effectiveness of comparative messages with
noncomparative messages; such research has focused on
messages that compare the brands of competing firms. In this
study, we investigated the associative slogan, in which the
lesser-known destination and the associated object are not in
direct competition; this is different from traditional compara-
tive advertising. This study enriches the existing knowledge
Journal of Travel Research 56(2)
and theory of comparative advertising by testing the effects
of this new type of comparative message.
A substantial body of research on comparative messages in
Western cultures has been published in the past several
decades (Grewal et al. 1997). However, tourists respond dif-
ferently to comparative messages in different cultures, and
studies on this topic in collectivist cultures is rare. This study
extends the existing body of knowledge on comparative mes-
sages by testing the effects of the characteristics of associa-
tive slogans on Chinese tourists’ attitudes and intentions.
Compared with Western cultures, characterized by individu-
alism, the Chinese culture is that of a typical collectivist soci-
ety where confrontation is avoided and harmony is sought.
Chinese cultural norms are inconsistent with tactics such as
the superiority-based comparison used in comparative adver-
tising (Miracle and Choi 1997). However, if comparative slo-
gans provide specific information, and consumers perceive a
high relevancy between the compared brands, the consumers
may form favorable attitudes toward the slogan and the lesser-
known brand being compared to a well-known brand.
This study also extends the body of knowledge in tourism
marketing. To our knowledge, the current study is the first to
empirically examine the effects of the characteristics of asso-
ciative slogans, namely, extremity, specificity, and relevancy,
on tourists’ attitudes and intentions. Unlike physical products,
tourism services cannot be experienced before they are pur-
chased (Gursoy and McCleary 2004a), and the risks involved
in making a travel decision are relatively high. Through a strat-
egy of association with a well-known object, a lesser-known
destination can lower the perceived risk and quickly achieve a
desired position in the market (Dröge and Darmon 1987).
The current study also contributes to the existing theory by
examining the conditions under which extremity, specificity, and
relevancy have the strongest influence on tourists’ attitudes and
intentions. This study finds that associative slogans have stron-
ger influences when the destination is unfamiliar to prospective
visitors, and it has greater effects when tourists are highly in need
of cognition. This is an important contribution because previous
studies on destination brand slogans have not demonstrated how
different tourists may respond to the same slogan.
Managerial Implications
The results of our research have many implications for desti-
nation marketers in China. If Destination Management
Offices (DMOs) in China are considering using associative
slogans, special attention should be paid to the following
aspects. Given that extremity negatively affects tourists’ atti-
tudes and intentions, it is recommended that DMOs for lesser-
known destinations should not use high-extremity words in
their slogans, as the findings of this study suggest that Chinese
tourists do not really think positively about high-extremity
words such as “better than,” “more beautiful than,” etc.
The effectiveness of associative slogans largely relies on the
relevancy between the lesser-known destination and the associ-
ated object. If the relevancy between the two is high, tourists’
Zhang et al. 217

attitudes and behaviors toward the associated object will be Appendix

transferred to the lesser-known destination. Therefore, when
DMOs consider using associative slogans, the first thing they Descriptive Statistics for All Survey Items (nShangluo = 552,
need to do is choose the right associated object, and then iden- nNingxia = 497).
tify the similarities between their destination and the associated Standard Standard
object. We recommend that relevancy be based on existing Item Sample Mean Deviation Error Significance
similarities, such as relevancy in gaining widespread accep-
tance, between the lesser-known destination and the associated EX1 Shangluo 4.112 1.646 0.070 0.188
object. Ningxia 3.980 1.601 0.072
EX2 Shangluo 4.150 1.589 0.068 0.182
Specific slogans elicit better attitudes toward the slogan than
Ningxia 4.020 1.566 0.070
others. However, the results do not provide evidence to support
EX3 Shangluo 4.007 1.488 0.063 0.119
the influences of specificity on tourists’ attitudes toward desti-
Ningxia 3.863 1.500 0.067
nations and travel intentions. Therefore, DMOs should carefully
EX4 Shangluo 4.121 1.489 0.063 0.470
decide the level of specificity for their slogans in order to influ-
Ningxia 4.054 1.514 0.068
ence potential tourists’attitudes toward those slogans. SP1 Shangluo 3.627 1.779 0.076 0.094
DMOs should adjust their communication strategies Ningxia 3.801 1.561 0.070
based on the modes of information-processing utilized by SP2 Shangluo 3.502 1.677 0.071 0.001
their target markets. For example, for individuals who are Ningxia 3.847 1.532 0.069
low in need for cognition, DMOs can place pictures next to SP3 Shangluo 3.560 1.703 0.072 0.001
their slogans in order to better persuade these potential tour- Ningxia 3.903 1.533 0.069
ists taking routes in peripheral regions, while for individuals SP4 Shangluo 3.536 1.745 0.074 0.003
who are high in need for cognition, DMOs can provide Ningxia 3.841 1.520 0.068
detailed information about the destination. Although tour- RE1 Shangluo 3.873 1.704 0.073 0.051
ists’ level of need for cognition can be determined by their Ningxia 3.676 1.568 0.070
score on a Need for Cognition scale, it is impossible for a RE2 Shangluo 3.201 1.826 0.078 0.111
DMO to get a score for the entire population. However, Ningxia 3.378 1.767 0.079
DMOs can easily determine the profiles for differences in RE3 Shangluo 2.890 1.755 0.075 0.003
personal habits and preferences for tourists who differ in Ningxia 3.207 1.747 0.078
need for cognition by sampling a small group of travelers RE4 Shangluo 3.120 1.689 0.072 0.008
from each target segment (Haugtvedt, Petty, and Cacioppo Ningxia 3.402 1.757 0.079
1992). AS1 Shangluo 4.583 1.528 0.065 0.458
As familiarity moderates the relationships between asso- Ningxia 4.515 1.438 0.065
ciative slogans and tourists’ attitudes and intentions, there is AS2 Shangluo 4.431 1.383 0.059 0.260
a need for DMOs to identify the factors that are critical in Ningxia 4.529 1.435 0.064
AS3 Shangluo 4.504 1.460 0.062 0.192
enhancing destination familiarity. DMOs that use associative
Ningxia 4.622 1.469 0.066
slogans should employ a variety of strategies, such as tour-
AS4 Shangluo 4.169 1.465 0.062 0.000
ism TV commercials (Pan 2011), public relations, poems,
Ningxia 4.521 1.461 0.066
etc. to communicate their destinations in order to increase
AS5 Shangluo 4.574 1.538 0.065 0.226
tourists’ familiarity with those destinations. Ningxia 4.688 1.499 0.067
AD1 Shangluo 4.471 1.482 0.063 0.064
Limitations Ningxia 4.634 1.347 0.060
AD2 Shangluo 4.678 1.339 0.057 0.857
This study is not without limitations. To improve the generaliz- Ningxia 4.692 1.289 0.058
ability of the hypotheses tested in this study, future researchers AD3 Shangluo 4.716 1.430 0.061 0.289
could undertake an extension of this study using a number of Ningxia 4.624 1.365 0.061
slogans and samples from across different parts of China. AD4 Shangluo 4.591 1.396 0.059 0.916
Another limitation is that the measures for extremity, specific- Ningxia 4.600 1.375 0.062
ity, and relevancy of associative slogans are newly developed, AD5 Shangluo 4.611 1.357 0.058 0.673
and their applicability should be reexamined in future. Ningxia 4.646 1.350 0.061
Furthermore, this study was conducted on a collectivist culture, TI1 Shangluo 3.893 1.610 0.069 0.983
and therefore it is not known whether the current findings are Ningxia 3.895 1.744 0.078
relevant to individualist cultures like the United States. Future TI2 Shangluo 4.120 1.630 0.069 0.460
studies are needed utilizing data from individualist cultures to Ningxia 4.042 1.756 0.079
determine if culture moderates the relationships examined in (continued)
this study.
218 Journal of Travel Research 56(2)

Appendix (continued) Beckman, E., A. Kumar, and Y.-K. Kim. 2013. “The Impact of
Brand Experience on Downtown Success.” Journal of Travel
Standard Standard Research 52 (5): 646–58.
Item Sample Mean Deviation Error Significance Bregoli, I. 2013. “Effects of DMO Coordination on Destination
TI3 Shangluo 4.248 1.685 0.072 0.160 Brand Identity: A Mixed-Method Study on the City of
Ningxia 4.097 1.806 0.081 Edinburgh.” Journal of Travel Research 52 (2): 212–24.
Cacioppo, J. T., R. E. Petty, J. A. Feinstein, and W. B. G. Jarvis.
NFC1 Shangluo 3.962 1.778 0.076 0.758
1996. “Dispositional Differences in Cognitive Motivation:
Ningxia 3.928 1.835 0.082
The Life and Times of Individuals Varying in the Need for
NFC2 Shangluo 4.263 1.616 0.069 0.308
Cognition.” Psychological Bulletin 119 (2): 197–253.
Ningxia 4.159 1.678 0.075 Cacioppo, J. T., R. E. Petty, and C. E. Kao. 1984. “The Efficient
NFC3 Shangluo 4.533 1.606 0.068 0.010 Assessment of Need for Cognition.” Journal of Personality
Ningxia 4.270 1.678 0.075 Assessment 48 (3): 306–7.
NFC4 Shangluo 4.489 1.661 0.071 0.057 Cai, A. 2002. “Cooperative Branding for Rural Destinations.”
Ningxia 4.296 1.612 0.072 Annals of Tourism Research 29 (3): 720–42.
NFC5 Shangluo 4.616 1.777 0.076 0.012 Chan, R. K., and L. B. Lau. 2004. “The Effectiveness of Environmental
Ningxia 4.348 1.675 0.075 Claims among Chinese Consumers: Influences of Claim Type,
NFC6 Shangluo 4.803 1.611 0.069 0.031 Country Disposition and Ecocentric Orientation.” Journal of
Ningxia 4.586 1.646 0.074 Marketing Management 20 (3/4): 273–319.
NFC7 Shangluo 4.308 1.646 0.070 0.467 Chang, W.-L. 2008. “A Typology of Co-Branding Strategy:
Ningxia 4.233 1.669 0.075 Position and Classification.” Journal of American Academy of
NFC8 Shangluo 4.542 1.741 0.074 0.055 Business 12 (2): 220–26.
Ningxia 4.336 1.720 0.077 Cheung, G. W., and R. B. Rensvold. 2002. “Evaluating Goodness-
DF1 Shangluo 2.044 1.384 0.059 0.738 of-Fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance.” Structural
Ningxia 2.016 1.259 0.056 Equation Modeling 9 (2): 233–55.
DF2 Shangluo 1.996 1.409 0.060 0.805 Churchill, G. A., Jr. 1979. “A Paradigm for Developing Better
Ningxia 1.976 1.273 0.057 Measures of Marketing Constructs.” Journal of Marketing
DF3 Shangluo 1.973 1.334 0.057 0.369 Research 16 (1): 64–73.
Cowley, E. 2006. “Processing Exaggerated Advertising Claims.”
Ningxia 1.901 1.228 0.055
Journal of Business Research 59 (6): 728–34.
DF4 Shangluo 2.016 1.436 0.061 0.513
Davis, J. J. 1993. “Strategies for Environmental Advertising.”
Ningxia 1.960 1.355 0.061
Journal of Consumer Marketing 10 (2): 19–36.
DF5 Shangluo 2.000 1.413 0.060 0.348
Dimitrov, D. M. 2010. “Testing for Factorial Invariance in
Ningxia 1.920 1.355 0.061 the Context of Construct Validation.” Measurement and
Evaluation in Counseling and Development 43 (2): 121–49.
Dong, H. 2013. “The Linguistics Constitute Analysis of Tourism
Declaration of Conflicting Interests Destination Branding Slogans: Taking Province and Major
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect Excellent Tourism Cities as Examples.” Human Geography 28
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. (2): 148–53.
Dröge, C. 1989. “Shaping the Route to Attitude Change: Central
versus Peripheral Processing through Comparative versus
Funding
Noncomparative Advertising.” Journal of Marketing Research
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author- 26 (2): 193–204.
ship, and/or publication of this article. Dröge, C., and R. Y. Darmon. 1987. “Associative Positioning
Strategies through Comparative Advertising: Attribute ver-
sus Overall Similarity Approaches.” Journal of Marketing
References
Research 24 (4): 377–88.
Alniacik, U., and C. Yilmaz. 2012. “The Effectiveness of Green Farh, J. L., J. Liang, and Z. J. Chen. 2012. “The Design and
Advertising: Influences of Claim Specificity, Product’s Evaluation of Empirical Research.” In Empirical Methods
Environmental Relevance and Consumers’ Pro-Environmental in Organization and Management Research, edited by X.
Orientation.” Amfiteatru Economic Journal 14 (31): 207–22. P. Chen, A. S. Tsui, and J. L. Farh, 121–46, Beijing: Peking
Ang, S.-H., and S.-M. Leong. 1994. “Comparative Advertising: University Press.
Superiority despite Interference?” Asia Pacific Journal of Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. 1981. “Evaluating Structural Equation
Management 11 (1): 33–46. Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error.”
Arceneaux, K., and R. J. Vander Wielen. 2013. “The Effects of Need Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1): 39–50.
for Cognition and Need for Affect on Partisan Evaluations.” Geng, L. 2009. “A Study on the Evaluation of Shangluo’s Tourism
Political Psychology 34 (1): 23–42. Resources and Tourism Spatial Structure.” Master’s thesis,
Avraham, E., and E. Ketter. 2008. Media Strategies for Marketing Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an, Shaanxi.
Places in Crisis. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Goldberg, M. E., and J. Hartwick. 1990. “The Effects of Advertising
Bagozzi, R. P. 1992. “The Self-Regulation of Attitudes, Intentions, Reputation and Extremity of Advertising Claim on Advertising
and Behavior.” Social Psychology Quarterly 55 (2): 178–204. Effectiveness.” Journal of Consumer Research 17 (2): 172–79.
Zhang et al.
Grewal, D., S. Kavanoor, E. F. Fern, C. Costley, and J. Barnes.
1997. “Comparative versus Non-comparative Advertising: A
Meta-analysis.” Journal of Marketing 61 (4): 1–15.
Gürhan-Canli, Z., and D. Maheswaran. 2000. “Cultural Variations
in Country of Origin Effects.” Journal of Marketing Research
37 (3): 309–17.
Gursoy, D., and K. W. McCleary. 2004a. “An Integrative Model
of Tourists’ Information Search Behavior.” Annals of Tourism
Research 31 (2): 353–73.
Gursoy, D., and K. W. McCleary. 2004b. “Travelers’ Prior
Knowledge and Its Impact on Their Information Search
Behavior.” Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 28
(1): 66–94.
Hair, J. F., Jr., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, and W. C. Black. 1995.
Multivariate Data Analysis, 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan.
Han, J. 2012. Commentary on Fayan. Beijing: Zhonghua.
Haugtvedt, C. P., R. E. Petty, and J. T. Cacioppo. 1992. “Need
for Cognition and Advertising: Understanding the Role of
Personality Variables in Consumer Behavior.” Journal of
Consumer Psychology 1 (3): 239–60.
Hosany, S., G. Prayag, S. Deesilatham, S. Cauševic, and K. Odeh.
2015. “Measuring Tourists’ Emotional Experiences: Further
Validation of the Destination Emotion Scale.” Journal of
Travel Research 54 (4): 482–95.
Hsu, C. H. C., S. K. Kang, and T. Lam. 2006. “Reference Group
Influence among Chinese Travelers.” Journal of Travel
Research 44 (4): 474–84.
Hu, X. 2006. “A Cultural Analysis on the Theme Words of Online
Tourism Destination Image.” Journal of Guangzhou University
(Social Science Edition) 5 (3): 70–75.
Huang, L., D. Gursoy, and H. Xu. 2014. “Impact of Personality
Traits and Involvement on Prior Knowledge.” Annals of
Tourism Research 48:42–57.
Ju-Pak, K.-H. 2013. “How Effective Are Slogans for Building: A
Destination Brand in the Social Media Environment?” Journal
of Advertising and Promotion Research 2 (1): 165–93.
Keller, K. L. 2003. Strategic Brand Management: Building,
Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kerstetter, D., and M. Cho. 2004. “Prior Knowledge, Credibility
and Information Search.” Annals of Tourism Research 31 (4):
961–85.
Kohli, C., L. Leuthesser, and R. Suri. 2007. “Got Slogan?
Guidelines for Creating Effective Slogans.” Business Horizons
50 (5): 415–22.
Lamb, C. W., W. M. Pride, and B. A. Pletcher. 1978. “A Taxonomy
for Comparative Advertising Research.” Journal of Advertising
7 (1): 43–47.
Laran, J., A. Dalton, and E. B. Andrade. 2011. “The Curious Case
of Behavioral Backlash: Why Brands Produce Priming Effects
and Slogans Produce Reverse Priming Effects.” Journal of
Consumer Research 37 (6): 999–1014.
Lee, G., L. A. Cai, and J. O’Leary. 2006. “WWW.Branding.States.
US: An Analysis of Brand-Building Elements in the US State
Tourism Websites.” Tourism Management 27 (5): 815–28.
Lee, M., and F. M. Ulgado. 1994. “Alternative Models of Cognitive
Processes Underlying Consumer Reactions to Conjunction
Categories.” Advances in Consumer Research 21 (1): 483–88.
Lehto, X. Y., G. Lee, and J. Ismail. 2014. “Measuring Congruence
of Affective Images of Destinations and Their Slogans.”
International Journal of Tourism Research 16:250–60.
219
Li, Y., and B. Wu. 2004. “A Study on the Mechanism and Creation
Models of Tourism Advertising Theme.” Tourism Tribune 19
(1): 82–86.
Liang, J., and J. L. Farh. 2012. “Theoretical Construct and Its
Measurement.” In Empirical Methods in Organization and
Management Research, edited by X. P. Chen, A. S. Tsui, and J.
L. Farh, 323–55. Beijing: Peking University Press.
Lu, A. C. C., D. Gursoy, and G. Del Chiappa. 2014. “The Influence
of Materialism on Ecotourism Attitudes and Behaviors.”
Journal of Travel Research 8:1–14.
Lu, C. C., and B. T. Chen. 2014. “Information Search Behavior of
Independent Travelers: A Cross-Cultural Comparison between
Chinese, Japanese, and American Travelers.” Journal of
Hospitality Marketing and Management 23 (8): 865–84.
Ma, P. 2006. “Research on the Branding of Tourism Destination.”
Master’s thesis, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing.
McCracken, G. 1989. “Who Is the Celebrity Endorser? Cultural
Foundations of the Endorsement Process.” Journal of
Consumer Research 16 (3): 310–21.
Mechinda, P., S. Serirat, and N. Guild. 2009. “An Examination
of Tourists’ Attitudinal and Behavioral Loyalty: Comparison
between Domestic and International Tourists.” Journal of
Vacation Marketing 15 (2): 129–49.
Miniard, P. W., M. J. Barone, R. L. Rose, and K. C. Manning. 2006.
“A Further Assessment of Indirect Comparative Advertising
Claims of Superiority over All Competitors.” Journal of
Advertising 35 (4): 53–64.
Miracle, G. E., and Y. K. Choi. 1997. “Culture and Advertising
Regulation in Korea and the U. S. A.” Paper presented at the
Conference of the American Academy of Advertising, St Louis,
Missouri.
Morrison, A. 2013. “Destination Positioning and Branding: Still on
the Slow Boat to China.” Tourism Tribune 28 (2): 6–9.
Moura, F. T., J. Gnoth, and K. R. Deans. 2015. “Localizing Cultural
Values on Tourism Destination Websites: The Effects on
Users’ Willingness to Travel and Destination Image.” Journal
of Travel Research 54 (4): 528–42.
Muehling, D. D. 1987. “Comparative Advertising: The Influence
of Attitude-toward-the-Ad on Brand Evaluations.” Journal of
Advertising 16 (4): 43–49.
Murphy, L., G. Moscardo, and P. Benckendorff. 2007. “Using Brand
Personality to Differentiate Regional Tourism Destinations.”
Journal of Travel Research 46 (1): 5–14.
Ningxia Tourism Administration. 2014. “The Number of Tourists
Coming into Ningxia Achieved 1.92 Million during the Week-
Long National Day Holiday 2014.” http://travel.news.cn/2014-
10/08/c_127071185.htm (accessed October 23, 2015).
Nunnally, J. C. 1978. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Pan, S. 2011. “The Role of TV Commercial Visuals in Forming
Memorable and Impressive Destination Images.” Journal of
Travel Research 50 (2): 171–185.
Pechmann, C., and S. Ratneshwar. 1991. “The Use of Comparative
Advertising for Brand Positioning: Association versus
Differentiation.” Journal of Consumer Research 18 (2): 145–60.
Petty, R. E., and J. T. Cacioppo. 1981. Attitudes and Persuasion:
Classic and Contemporary Approaches. Dubuque, IA: William
C. Brown.
Petty, R. E., and J. T. Cacioppo. 1986. Communication and
Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change.
New York: Springer-Verlag.
220
Pike, S. 2007. “Consumer-Based Brand Equity for Destinations:
Practical DMO Performance Measures.” Journal of Travel and
Tourism Marketing 22 (1): 51–61.
Pike, S., and S. J. Page. 2014. “Destination Marketing Organizations
and Destination Marketing: A Narrative Analysis of the
Literature.” Tourism Management 41:202–27.
Plog, S. C. 2004. Leisure Travel. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Reznik, R. 2008. “Exaggerate or Understate? The Effects of
Unexpected Levels of Claim Extremity and Message Explicitness
on Advertising Effectiveness.” http://arc.hhs.se/
download.aspx?MediumId=475 (accessed February 13, 2015).
Rose, R. L., P. W. Miniard, M. J. Barone, K. C. Manning, and B.
D. Till. 1993. “When Persuasion Goes Undetected: The Case
of Comparative Advertising.” Journal of Marketing Research
30 (3): 315–30.
Shangluo Tourism Administration. 2013. “The number of Tourists
Coming into Shangluo Achieved 1.86 Million during the
Week-Long National Day Holiday 2013.” http://shangluo.hsw.
cn/system/2013/10/08/051769501.shtml (accessed October 23,
2015).
Sharifpour, M., G. Walters, B. W. Ritchie, and C. Winter. 2014.
“Investigating the Role of Prior Knowledge in Tourist Decision
Making: A Structural Equation Model of Risk Perceptions and
Information Search.” Journal of Travel Research 53 (3): 307–22.
Shimp, T. A. 1981. “Attitude toward the Ad as a Mediator of
Consumer Brand Choice.” Journal of Advertising 10 (2): 9–15.
State Information Center. 2014. “Current Situation and Problem
in China’s Tourism Industry.” http://www.sic.gov.cn/
News/82/3135.htm (accessed February 13, 2015).
Snyder, R. 1989. “Misleading Characteristics of Implied-Superiority
Claims.” Journal of Advertising 18 (4): 54–61.
Stienmetz, J. L., J. G. Maxcy, and D. R. Fesenmaier. 2015.
“Evaluating Destination Advertising.” Journal of Travel
Research 54 (1): 22–35.
Strutton, D., and W. Roswinanto. 2014. “Can Vague Brand Slogans
Promote Desirable Consumer Responses?” Journal of Product
and Brand Management 23 (4/5): 282–94.
View publication stats
Journal of Travel Research 56(2)
Tan, S. J. 2002. “Can Consumers’ Scepticism Be Mitigated by
Claim Objectivity and Claim Extremity?” Journal of Marketing
Communications 8 (1): 45–64.
Vanden Bergh, B., and L. Reid. 1980. “Effects of Product Puffery
on Response to Print Advertisements.” Current Issues and
Research in Advertising 3 (1): 123–45.
West, S. G., J. F. Finch, and P. J. Curran. 1995. “Structural Equation
Models with Non-normal Variables: Problems and Remedies.”
In Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and
Applications, edited by R. Hoyle, 56–75. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Wilkie, W. L., and P. Farris. 1975. “Comparative Advertising:
Problems and Potential.” Journal of Marketing 39 (4): 7–15.
Xinhuanet Hunan. 2015. “Ningxia Tourism Promoting Event Held
in Hunan: Showing You the Beautiful Sai Shang Jiang Nan.”
http://www.hn.xinhuanet.com/2015-10/19/c_1116870966.htm
(accessed October 23, 2015).
Zhang, L., and Q. Gan. 2006. “On The Destination Brand
Positioning Slogans and Some Common Mistakes.” Tourism
Tribune 21 (6): 48–51.
Author Biographies
Hui Zhang is a lecturer in School of Tourism Management at Sun
Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, P. R., China. His research interests
include customer engagement, internal branding, and destination
branding.
Dogan Gursoy, PhD, is a Distinguished Professor in the School of
Hospitality Business Management at the Washington State
University, USA and a Senior Research Fellow in the School of
Tourism and Hospitality at University of Johannesburg, South
Africa. His research interests include tourism impacts, mega events,
generational leadership and consumer behavior.
Honggang Xu is a Professor in School of Tourism Management at
Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, P. R., China. Her research
interests include sustainable tourism, tourism geography and com-
plexity theory in tourism.