Article

Journal of Vacation Marketing

1–24
Effect of social media sharing ª The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:

on destination brand sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1356766719858644
journals.sagepub.com/home/jvm
awareness and destination
quality

Bekir Bora Dedeoğlu

Nevsehir HBV University, Turkey

Mathilda van Niekerk

University of Central Florida, USA

Kemal Gürkan Küçükergin

Atılım University, Turkey

Marcella De Martino
National Research Council, Italy

Fevzi Okumuş
University of Central Florida, USA; National Kaohsiung University of Hospitality and Tourism, Taiwan

Abstract
This study examines the effect of social media sharing on tourism destination brand awareness and
destination natural and service quality and also examines the moderating roles of country of origin
(COI; macro and micro) image on destination natural and service quality. Data were collected from
568 domestic and international tourists who have visited Alanya, Turkey. Relationships in the study
were examined through structural equation modeling. As one of the components of social media
sharing, participant sharing positively affects destination brand awareness, whereas any significant effect
of nonparticipant sharing on destination brand awareness was not found. Destination brand awareness
positively influences tourist perceptions of both destination service quality and destination natural
quality. COI image moderates most of the relationships.

Keywords
Brand awareness, country of origin image, Destination Management Organization (DMO), destination
quality, macro image of country, micro image of country, social media sharing

Introduction which is defined as “the sum of the elements that

As the number of similar tourism products and
services increases, tourism destinations also
increase their branding activities to differentiate
their products and services from those of other
competing tourism destinations (Ampountolas,
2018; Qu et al., 2011). Accordingly, it can be
said that the number of tourism destination
brands is increasing on a daily basis. An increase
in the number of tourism destination brands,
help to identify—in a systemic manner—the
image of a destination and guide consumers
towards a conscious decision, through various
Corresponding author:
Bekir Bora Dedeoğlu, Tourism Faculty, Nevsehir HBV
University, 2000 Evler Mahallesi, Zübeyde Hanim Cd.,
50300 Merkez, Nevsehir, Turkey.
Email: b.bora.dedeoglu@nevsehir.edu.tr
2 Journal of Vacation Marketing XX(X)
elements: brand value, favorable reputation,
prestige, meaning warranty” (Di Matteo and
Cavuta, 2016: 348), may create more difficult
decision-making processes for tourists and pre-
vent some tourism destination brands from
reaching their desired target markets, due to
insufficient promotion efforts. At this point with
so much competition, it is necessary to focus on
brand awareness. Defined as “the ability of a
potential buyer to recognize or recall that a brand
is a member of a certain product category”
(Aaker, 1991: 61), brand awareness increases not
only a destination’s potential of being preferred
more often compared with other unknown desti-
nations (Kladou and Kehagias, 2014a) but also
the potential of being chosen among all rival
destination brands (Hoyer and Brown, 1990).
The creation and sustainability of destination
brand awareness are important because they pro-
vide optimistic information and create positive
emotions that will likely increase the possibility
of purchasing the brand’s offerings (Baldauf
et al., 2003). Moreover, brand awareness also
plays a critical role in tourists’ tourism destina-
tion quality perception (Buil et al., 2013; Nika-
badi et al., 2015), and the communication
channels facilitating the creation of destination
brand awareness in customers should be taken
into notice. Besides the fast developing technol-
ogy, the increase in the number of destination
brands has led to an increase in the variety of
channels from which consumers obtain infor-
mation about the brands. In this regard, it is
necessary to focus on the communication chan-
nels that affect destination brand awareness.
Today, the Internet and social media come to
the forefront as two of the most important com-
munication channels determining brand aware-
ness of customers.
The Internet and social media platforms are
the leading information channels used today by
potential tourists, and they have become one of
the major sources of online travel information
(Kang, 2018; Uşaklı et al., 2017; Xiang and Gret-
zel, 2010). Therefore, Destination Management
Organizations (DMOs), in addition to traditional
media sources, engage with Internet and social
media platforms for destination branding com-
munications. Content over these channels can
be generated either by firms or by customers.
Firm-generated content (FGC) provides informa-
tion and guidance about the tourism destination
brand directly to consumers. Conversely,
consumer-generated content (CGC) is created
by the tourist with various motives in mind
(Huang et al., 2007; Yang and Lai, 2010; Ye
et al., 2011), such as self-expression, socializa-
tion, prestige, and status. CGC can indirectly
influence the tourism destination brand-related
opinions of other tourists (Lee and Ma, 2012;
Leung, 2009; Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development, 2007; Smock
et al., 2011; Stoeckl et al., 2007; Urista et al.,
2009). Although FGC has a direct influence on
consumers, CGC is a better determinant of
brand-related attitudes and behaviors of consu-
mers, as individuals perceive it to be sincerer and
more reliable (Brown and Hayes, 2008; Chen
et al., 2013). Both CGC and brand postings can
have a positive or a negative impact on the brand
purchase (Hipperson, 2010), and CGC is a par-
ticularly crucial factor affecting brand awareness
(Tuten, 2008).
Specifically referencing tourist destinations,
CGC can have an impact on brand awareness in
two different ways (Dedeoglu, 2019). First, by
generating and sharing content within processes
where brands are included either directly or
indirectly, such as the destination’s Facebook
page (direct) or a Facebook page managed by
a person who is not managed by the DMO (indi-
rect). Second, by generating content within pro-
cesses where brands are not included under any
circumstances (such as a personal Facebook
page). As these two different types of CGC
cause different effects (Chen et al., 2013), it is
crucial for DMOs to understand their influences
on brand awareness and to convey this informa-
tion in a way that positively influences consu-
mers’ purchasing decisions (Kim et al., 2017;
Pike, 2007).
Another important point to take into consid-
eration in the relationship between destination
brand awareness and destination quality percep-
tion is country of origin (COI) image. By means
of the halo and summary effect, consumers’ COI
perceptions can positively affect their quality
perceptions of available products and services
(Prendergast et al., 2010). Furthermore, as refer-
enced in cognitive dissonance theory (Goldsmith
et al., 2004), when harmonizing process comes
into play, positive COI perceptions can allow
COI to function as a harmonizing element and
lead customers to perceive products and services
as good quality (Magnusson et al., 2019). Desti-
nation brand awareness can play a leading role in
destination quality perceptions, where consu-
mers hold a positive perception of COI images.
Despite being an important component, the role
of COI’s macro and micro images in the creation
Dedeoğlu et al.
of destination brand awareness and natural and
service quality has not been adequately
investigated.
Tourism destinations offer a compilation of
products and services, and the consumption of
these products and services of a destination
occurs, by its nature, in the place where the prod-
ucts and services are provided. Therefore, it is
vitally important for DMOs to understand the
elements influencing brand awareness, which is
positioned as the primary component of branding
in terms of encouraging consumers in decision-
making processes by means of increasing their
knowledge on the brand in question. Because of
this importance, how CGC affects brand aware-
ness in the context of destination should be
examined. By taking COI perceptions into con-
sideration, the determinative power of brand
awareness, which is expected to affect such an
important factor as destination brand quality
playing a critical role in consumers’ revisiting
and recommendation intentions, can yield more
clear and understandable findings/information
for DMOs. The primary objective in the current
research is to examine the relationship among
social media sharings, destination brand aware-
ness, and destination brand quality. Second, it
will investigate the moderating role of COI in
the effect of destination brand awareness on des-
tination brand quality.
Literature review
Social media sharings and destination brand
awareness
Content generated through social media is
becoming increasingly important and can have
a crucial impact on consumer destination brand
awareness (Aluri et al., 2015; Aydın, 2016; Kim
and Park, 2017; Moro and Rita, 2018; Park et al.,
2009; Sigala, 2018). Consumers can be affected
by social media content, particularly while com-
paring destination brands and making their final
travel purchasing decisions (Kim and Chae,
2018; Morosan and Bowen, 2018; O’Connor,
2008; Sotiriadis, 2017). In addition to providing
information to consumers, social media content
can also introduce consumers to each other, satis-
fying their expectations for social status and
prestige (Leung, 2009; Urista et al., 2009). For
instance, if an individual who has visited a spe-
cific tourism destination posts about it on social
media, others can like the content, and those
3
followers and friends may then desire to visit the
same tourist destination at a later stage.
Desire to be liked by others can be interpreted
through social learning and social identity the-
ories. Social learning theory examines how
human behaviors can be explained in terms of
continuous reciprocal interaction among cogni-
tive, behavioral, and environmental factors (Ban-
dura, 1977). According to social learning theory,
human behaviors are learned through observa-
tion; individuals can mimic the behaviors of oth-
ers to obtain the desired outcomes (Bandura,
1977). From this perspective, it can be expected
that the behaviors of consumers are formed and
strengthened by the activities carried out by their
friends, especially through the observation of
those in their immediate vicinity (Webb and
Zimmer-Gembeck, 2014). In addition, social
media can be used to promote each individual’s
unique form of self-expression, which is one of
the main components of social identity theory
(Valkenburg et al., 2006). Accordingly, an indi-
vidual will share something on social media with
a desire to be recognized and in the hope to
encourage others to experience the same activity,
for instance, the tourism destination. However,
these individuals can be pressured by the same
community to show uniformity of behaviors, in
other words that they feel the same about a tour-
ism destination (Deaux, 2000).
Besides these notions, social influence
theories can explain why consumers attach
importance to the content generated by other
consumers. According to social influence the-
ories, individuals can adapt similar beliefs, atti-
tudes, and behaviors through communication
(direct contact between people and their influen-
cers) and comparison (triggered if actors are in
competition with one another) (Leenders, 2002).
According to social contagion theory, individu-
als can adopt beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of
other people they care about (Megehee and
Spake, 2008). Behavioral change, in other words
social adaptation, occurs when an individual
(potential consumer) adapts other individuals’
behaviors and opinions (Zheng et al., 2010). The
primary element required for this change is com-
munication (Scherer and Cho, 2003), and CGC in
many ways ensures communication between
individuals. Thus, potential tourists encountering
the content may tend to show similar behaviors.
According to social comparison theory, an indi-
vidual compares himself or herself with other
individuals and groups and adopts similar opi-
nions, attitudes, and behaviors through upward
4 Journal of Vacation Marketing XX(X)
social comparison (Dawson et al., 2012; Lee and
Watkins, 2016). Individuals (potential consu-
mers) may show similar attitudes and behaviors
as a result of the fear of social disapproval (Cox
and Bauer, 1964) or the desire of social approval
(Jellison and Gentry, 1978). Therefore, it can be
expected based on both theories that an individ-
ual attaching importance to the experiences men-
tioned in the content generated by other
consumers can also attach importance to the con-
tent itself and can show a tendency to display
similar behaviors.
Based on social learning, social identity, and
social influence theories, this sharing behavior
could encourage others who encounter the CGC
to behave in the same way. In other words, attach-
ing importance to these pieces of content could
increase an individual’s involvement in the
experiences referred to in the content and stimu-
late the desire to have the same experiences. For
this reason, this type of sharing could be consid-
ered a stimulant creating involvement of the con-
sumer who encounters CGC (e.g., scrolling down
a Facebook profile) or sees/reads/watches the con-
tent to achieve a specific purpose (e.g., getting
information; Mitchell, 1979). Increase in involve-
ment level toward an object could lead individuals
to start seeking information about the object in
question. At this point, as supported by social
influence theories, if tourists attach importance
to the content generated by other consumers, their
intentions to have the same experiences in the
destination will increase, and they will start seek-
ing information about the experiences encoun-
tered in the sharings of others. The importance
attached to CGC could act as a driving force to
increase awareness levels by providing individu-
als with information. The brand-related contents
generated in social media channels are important
predictives for destination brand awareness,
known as the strength of the brand node or trace
in memory, as reflected by consumers’ ability to
identify the tourism destination brand under dif-
ferent conditions (Keller, 1993). Therefore, social
media content can play a crucial role in terms of
consumer destination brand awareness.
As previously mentioned, social media con-
tent can be generated both by consumers (CGC)
and by firms themselves (FGC). FGC can be
generated with the purpose of providing informa-
tion about the tourism destination brand to an
audience, and consumers generate CGC for var-
ious motives and reasons. If there is an experi-
ence to be shared, Word of Mouth is a popular
source of those sharings (Kimmel and Kitchen,
2014). In addition, certain motivations and rea-
sons such as being liked (Gerlitz and Helmond,
2013), maintaining social connections and
friendships (Munar and Jacobsen, 2014; Oh and
Syn, 2015), and being more recognized for their
experiences (Munar and Jacobsen, 2014) could
be the driving forces behind this behavior.
Despite the fact that social media content is
divided into two categories (FGC and CGC), in
extant research, it is mostly examined within the
framework of the CGC or “user-generated
media” (Mangold and Faulds, 2009) or user-
generated content (Heinonen, 2011). One under-
lying reason for this emphasis is that CGC is
more effective at shaping consumer behaviors
and decisions, and consumers are more likely
to use and trust CGC than FGC.
Although the structure of CGC is examined in
general terms in the literature (Gretzel and Yoo,
2008; O’Connor, 2008), consumers primarily
generate content in one of the following two
ways: either through participant sharing or
through nonparticipant sharing. Participant shar-
ing stems from the term “customer participation”
and is related to the content where tourism desti-
nations are included, whereas nonparticipant
sharing is related to content where tourism des-
tination is excluded (Dedeoglu, 2019). In con-
sumer behavior literature, participant behavior
may cover such components as generating a
common product and contributing to the devel-
opment of new products (Ngo and O’Cass,
2013). Therefore, participant sharing refers to the
sharing generated in social media through using
platforms related to the organization or with the
purpose of achieving a specific purpose related to
the organization (e.g., providing information or
making an assessment) (Dedeoglu, 2019). For
example, participant sharing is the content that
an individual creates on the organization’s web-
site or company-sponsored social media, and in
response, the tourism destination might respond
to a request to add a tourism product. When an
individual has an experience in a destination and
generates content in both their personal social
media accounts and the destination’s official or
third-party social media platforms, this content
becomes an information input to be processed by
the DMO. The input in question is valuable infor-
mation to be utilized in developing new products
and services. For instance, the content generated
by a tourist regarding the problems they experi-
enced with products and services offered by one
component of the destination can provide DMOs
with the necessary information required for
Dedeoğlu et al.
eliminating the problem. In this way, DMOs can
provide a new and advanced product.
People also use social media postings as a way
to boost others’ perception of their status. These
desires can shape their daily behavior (Osumi
et al., 2016), as social media allow individuals
to gain status by sharing their experiences. When
a consumer shares this content on their own or
friends’ social media accounts (e.g., microblogs
and social networks), they are doing so because
of their own motives (e.g., a desire to be liked
and approved of by society, socialization, self-
expression) related to their or others’ personal
social media channels. In these sharings, there
is no interaction with the tourism destination
(e.g., through the tourism destination’s own web-
site, forum, Facebook account, or assessment
websites) or seeking of any goal associated with
the tourism destination. Because of this, nonpar-
ticipant sharing can be perceived as more sincere
than participant sharing (Dedeoglu, 2019).
Therefore, understanding the effect of the impor-
tance attached to both participant sharing and
nonparticipant sharing on brand awareness can
provide important clues for DMOs.
Although CGC is an important factor for tour-
ism destinations to consider, examining this factor
based on both participant and nonparticipant shar-
ings may lead to questioning which one contri-
butes more to the creation of the tourism
destination’s brand awareness. Participant shar-
ings are based on the extent to which tourism
destination brand managers can motivate potential
visitors through their actions and planning,
whereas nonparticipant sharing is related to what
the tourism destination brand means to the visitors
themselves. For example, Bruhn et al. (2012)
found that the FGC is a more effective factor on
the functional brand image, while the CGC is a
more effective factor on the hedonic brand image.
For this reason, different types of CGCs should be
examined separately in order to understand which
type of sharing is more effective for the tourism
destination. Considering the above, the following
hypotheses are developed.
H1: The importance attached to participant
sharing in social media influences tourism
destination brand awareness in a positive and
significant way.
H2: The importance attached to nonparticipant
sharing (INPS) in social media influences tour-
ism destination brand awareness in a positive
and significant way.
5
Tourism destination brand awareness
and destination quality
Quality is important for tourism destinations try-
ing to determine their own product and service
production standards. It is also important because
it positively affects consumers’ attitudes and
future behaviors toward the tourism destination
(Egede, 2013). In addition, quality perception
can diversify the products of the brand and lead
to positive consumer attitudes toward the brand
or tourism destination (Dean, 2004). Therefore,
tourism destinations should pay attention to the
quality assessments of products and services they
deliver. Quality has been defined in different
ways in the literature. According to the tradi-
tional approach, it can be defined as the organi-
zation’s ability to take action in line with certain
standards (Tapiero, 1996). Under this definition,
quality can be determined ex ante in accordance
with specific (i.e., objective) criteria or stan-
dards. Another approach is to measure the qual-
ity from the consumer’s perspective. In this case,
as individuals differ from each other, the quality
cannot be assessed objectively (Baldauf et al.,
2003), and therefore, the assessment is subjective
(Zeithaml, 1988). With this approach, quality
can be defined as the extent through which a
service satisfies the needs, demands, and expec-
tations of the individual customer (Lovelock and
Wright, 2001), or as consumer judgment on ori-
ginality, or perfection of a product (Zeithaml,
1988). However, in terms of increasing sales, it
is a more logical approach for organizations to
specify the quality level of a product and service
in line with consumer perceptions, rather than
specific standards (Ozment and Morash, 1998),
and take the necessary actions accordingly.
As tourism destinations vary in nature (Buha-
lis, 2000), destination quality structures can be
diverse and multidimensional, in comparison
with traditional product and service structures.
Tosun et al. (2015) indicated that tourism desti-
nation quality consists of two components: ser-
vice quality and natural quality. Destination
service quality refers to customers’ quality per-
ceptions, which relate to the quality of services
they have experienced while staying at a destina-
tion (Kayat and Abdul Hai, 2014). Unlike desti-
nation natural quality, destination service quality
can be created and formed by DMOs themselves
(Tosun et al., 2015). The natural quality of a
destination covers its inherent cultural character-
istics and location, as well as pure features based
on nature, and it can be quite challenging for
6 Journal of Vacation Marketing XX(X)
DMOs to change these features (Tosun et al.,
2015). Therefore, as destinations’ natural quality
components cannot be imitated or copied, they
are more prominent in terms of distinguishing the
destination from the competition.
Perceptions related to a destination’s service
and natural quality could form before or after
experiencing a particular destination. However,
the influence of destination brand information
gathered before the experience should not be
overlooked in regard to perceived quality arising
after the experience. At this point, brand aware-
ness is expected to take on the role of the “halo
effect” (Hsiao et al., 2014; Kapferer, 2012).
Brand awareness references to what extent con-
sumers are knowledgeable and familiar with a
brand (Keller, 1993). As an individual becomes
more knowledgeable and familiar with a brand,
they will have certain stereotypes about other
features of the same brand, and because of those
stereotypes, they will then perceive other fea-
tures of the brand positively. This situation rep-
resents the formation of a halo effect (Nisbett and
Wilson, 1977), as the individual evaluates the
product positively based on his knowledge about
other features of the same product. Tourists’ spe-
cific awareness levels related to the destination
can act as a guide (halo effect) for destination
brand components and can play a significant role
in tourists’ assessments of destination brand
components (e.g., quality perceptions of tourists)
(Kotler et al., 2006). It can then be expected that
destination awareness has a specific impact on
destination brand features. In particular, when
awareness is high, consumers tend to have a
more positive perception of certain destination
characteristics (Baldauf et al., 2003; Nikabadi
et al., 2015). On the other hand, where awareness
remains low, it may negatively affect destination
characteristics’ perceptions. This is because hav-
ing no detailed information about the destination
brand could increase the risk perceptions of the
destination. In both cases, it can be expected that
destination brand awareness influences destina-
tion brand quality positively. In this regard, the
following hypotheses are developed.
H3: Tourism destination brand awareness
influences destination service quality percep-
tions in a positive and significant way.
H4: Tourism destination brand awareness
influences destination natural quality percep-
tions in a positive and significant way.
COI image
COI image refers to “a set of country-of-origin
associations organized into groups in a meaning-
ful way” (Pappu et al., 2007: 727). It is a form of
stereotype, which acts as a cue for product assess-
ments and impacts the preferences of consumers
(Bilkey and Nes, 1982; Verlegh and Steenkamp,
1999). The act of stereotyping is a psychological
process, utilized when explaining how tourists
react to a COI image knowledge (Ahmed and
d’Astous, 2008). This process operates in two
ways: the halo effect and summary construct
(Han, 1989). The halo effect, which indirectly
impacts consumers’ perceptions of the tourism
destination characteristics, plays an important role
in deriving the meaning of the tourism destina-
tion’s characteristics, when tourists are not famil-
iar with a tourism destination (Han, 1989). More
precisely, because the tourist is not familiar with
the tourism destination, they form an idea about
the characteristics of the tourism destination,
thanks to their perception of the COI image. In
this case, when tourists are familiar with the coun-
try, they summarize all the information they pos-
sess about the country’s product. This summary
construct directly influences their attitudes. In
both instances, COI image can be utilized for
eliminating risk and determining the product qual-
ity (Cilingir and Basfirinci, 2014).
COI image is of great importance for tourism
destination brand awareness. However, there are
different perspectives concerning its measure-
ment and examination. COI image has mainly
been examined in the literature within the scope
of cognitive and affective components; neverthe-
less, it is a predominant approach in research
through cognitive terms (Roth and Diamanto-
poulos, 2009). On the other hand, in line with
the cognitive scope, dimensions such as eco-
nomic, political, cultural, people, labor, climate,
natural landscape, creativity, and competence are
examined on a country basis (Papadopoulos
et al., 1990; Verlegh, 2001; Wang and Lamb,
1980; 1983). Product attributes (e.g., quality),
product (hedonic and utilitarian) beliefs, product
evaluation, innovation, prestige, and design were
studied on a product basis (Heslop et al., 2004;
Laroche et al., 2005; Pappu et al., 2007; Van
Ittersum et al., 2003; Verlegh, 2001). Therefore,
COI image is examined in the present study
within the scope of cognitive components. Pappu
et al. (2007) indicate that COI image can be con-
ceptualized both at the country level (macro
level) and at the product level (micro level).
Dedeoğlu et al.
Martin and Eroglu (1993: 93) define COI
image as “the total of all descriptive, inferential
and informational beliefs one has about a partic-
ular country”; this definition is related to the
macro level of COI image. Nagashima (1970:
68), on the other hand, defines it as “the total
of beliefs one has about the products of a given
country,” and Han (1989: 222) regards it as
“consumers’ general perceptions of quality for
products made in a given country.” It is clear that
these latter two definitions are related to the
micro level of COI image. The macro level cov-
ers economic, technological, and political
dimensions, while the micro level includes such
dimensions as innovation, prestige, and design
(Pappu et al., 2007). Examining both levels of
COI image in regard to tourism, the macro level
can be approached within the scope of percep-
tions that facilitate or complicate destination
choices, holiday purchasing processes, and the
destination experiences of tourists. On the other
hand, the micro level can be examined as a gen-
eral stereotype, facilitating the way tourists
assess a particular destination’s features. More
clearly, a country’s macro image describes the
overall impressions regarding a country, and a
country’s micro image refers to the sum of
impressions its products leave in individuals’
minds. Examination of two different country
image components in the current study not only
enriches the research findings but also provides
more clear recommendations for practitioners. It
can help practitioners better manage both image
perceptions which are based on products and
overall impressions. For instance, thanks to per-
ceptions of a country’s macro image, a tourist
can develop stereotypes about the general image
of a country, whereas a country’s micro image
can play a more determinative and effective role
in perceptions of the country’s products. In order
to yield more fruitful findings for practitioners,
the current study uses a multidimensional con-
struct to better understand the COI image.
Accordingly, both COI image components play
an important role in the destination choices and
perceptions of tourists.
Although it is expected that the tourism desti-
nation brand awareness of tourists has a positive
impact on their perceptions of the destination’s
service and natural qualities, it is not clear what
role COI image-related perceptions play in this
regard. It can be expected that tourists’ percep-
tions of COI elements can play a moderating role
in the relationship between these elements. This
expectation with regard to the moderating effect
7
can be explained as such: Consumers purchase
the products and services that they consider to be
good, and following the purchasing action, they
show a tendency of expecting that those products
and services are good in reality, as well. More
clearly, if an individual thinks during the pur-
chasing process that the product is of good qual-
ity, they attempt to convince themselves of this,
even if they develop perceptions of low quality
after experiencing the product. This situation can
be explained via cognitive dissonance theory.
According to this theory, individuals may
show a tendency to feel harmony or confutation
toward the products they use after the purchasing
action. Individuals assume that any dissonance
will decrease if they are convinced that they pur-
chased the right product; therefore, they start
showing attitudes of justifying their decisions
after they decide to purchase the product. At this
point, individuals show the tendency to attain
harmony and seek information to support their
decisions. Even when they incidentally encoun-
ter dissonant information, they show a tendency
to avoid disharmony by rejecting the validity of
information or falsifying the information (Festin-
ger, 1964; Harmon-Jones and Harmon-Jones,
2007). Then, these consumers can perceive the
quality of the products and services in a more
positive way (Keng and Liao, 2013).
According to this theory, COI could serve as
an important persuasive factor and a tool for pro-
viding harmonizing information, which contri-
butes to an individual’s quality perceptions of
products and services (Cakici and Shukla,
2017; Herz and Diamantopoulos, 2013). It can
be expected that COI has the power to direct
consumers’ product perceptions, as it provides
information and cues to support the decisions and
perceptions of consumers. Therefore, it can be
expected that the impact of tourism destination
brand awareness on the destination’s service and
natural quality perceptions is more determinative
for those with positive COI image perceptions
than for those with negative COI image percep-
tions. This is particularly the case for the tourism
industry, and as a result, the following hypoth-
eses are developed.
H5a: The impact of tourism destination brand
awareness on destination service quality is
more determinative for tourists with positive
perceptions of the macro image of COI than
those with negative perceptions of the macro
image of COI.
8 Journal of Vacation Marketing XX(X)
Macro Image of
Country of Origin
Importance
attached to
participant H1
sharing
Destination
Brand
Awareness
Importance H2
attached to
non-participant
sharing
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
H5b: The impact of tourism destination brand
awareness on destination natural quality is
more determinative for tourists with positive
perceptions of the macro image of COI than
those with negative perceptions of the macro
image of COI.
H6a: The impact of tourism destination brand
awareness on destination service quality is
more determinative for tourists with positive
perceptions of the micro image of COI than
those with negative perceptions of the micro
image of COI.
H6b: The impact of tourism destination brand
awareness on destination natural quality is
more determinative for tourists with positive
perceptions of the micro image of COI than
those with negative perceptions of the micro
image of COI.
Therefore, after the above theoretical discus-
sion, the research study proposes the conceptual
model shown in Figure 1.
Methodology
Instrument
The research instrument used was a question-
naire, which was structured into two parts. The
first part investigates the importance attached to
social media sharing, destination brand aware-
ness, COI image, and destination quality. Con-
sidering the study of Dedeoğlu (2016) and
Dedeoglu (2019), the importance attached to
social media sharing scale was examined under
H6 H3 Destination
Service Quality
H5
Destination
H4
H7 Natural Quality
H8
Micro Image of
Country of Origin
two dimensions, with importance attached to
both participant and nonparticipant sharing. Fol-
lowing the study of Ferns and Walls (2012), five
items were adapted for the destination brand
awareness scale. The COI image scale was
examined under two dimensions, as the micro
image of COI and the macro image of COI, in
accordance with Pappu et al. (2007), which
investigated micro and macro dimensions of the
COI image as a second-order structure. Due to
the better fit indices of the second-order structure
related to COI image, both macro and micro
images of COI are considered to be one-
dimensional. For this reason, a similar approach
will be used in this study. Macro and micro coun-
try of image statements were adapted from the
study of Pappu et al. (2007), which had initially
adapted the macro image of COI statements from
the study of Martin and Eroglu (1993) and micro
image of COI statements from the studies of
Nagashima (1970; 1977). The micro image of
COI was subsequently measured via six items,
and the macro image of COI was measured via
eight items. The second part of the questionnaire
consists of participants’ demographic informa-
tion, such as age, gender, and education.
As recommended by Tosun et al. (2015), des-
tination quality was examined within the scope
of service and natural quality. Destination ser-
vice quality was examined across eight dimen-
sions: Accommodation was measured via three
items, transportation was measured via three
items, cleanliness was measured via three items,
hospitality was measured via five items, activi-
ties were measured via five items, security was
Dedeoğlu et al.
measured via four items, amenities was mea-
sured via three items, and language was mea-
sured via two items. This examination was
adapted from the studies of Ferns and Walls
(2012), Kozak (2001), Küçükergin and Dedeoğlu
(2014), Teng and Chang (2013), and Narayan
et al. (2008). On the other hand, destination nat-
ural quality was examined under one dimension,
measured via eight items, and it was adapted
from the studies of Baloglu and McCleary
(1999), Beerli and Martı́n (2004), Ferns and
Walls (2012), Narayan et al. (2008), and Tosun
et al. (2015). In Appendix 1, all measurement
items are reported. Additionally, the statements
were prepared as a seven-point Likert-type scale.
To conduct the study with tourists of different
nationalities, the questionnaires were developed
in German, Russian, English, and Turkish. These
were the countries from which individuals visited
Turkey the most frequently in 2015 (The Republic
of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism,
2016). The questionnaires were developed in their
original languages, then translated to English, and
then translated back into their original languages
(Brislin, 1976). This method helped to eliminate
any possible mistakes in the questionnaires that
could occur after translation took place (see
Appendix 2 for measurement invariance tests).
After the questionnaire was finalized, 10 individ-
uals were chosen to pretest the questionnaire.
Based on Malhotra (2015), 10 individuals were
considered as representative of the sample for
each (language) questionnaire. The criterion for
sampling was based on whether an individual was
an experienced tourist or not. Therefore, for each
(language) questionnaire, 10 people were consid-
ered: two people from a hotel, two people from a
restaurant, two people from a souvenir shop, two
people from the beach, and two people from the
bazaar. In order to improve the reliability of the
questionnaire assessment, for each group, unifor-
mity of gender-related context (five women and
five men) and age distribution were ensured. The
questionnaires were conducted between June and
October 2016 in Alanya. Based on their sugges-
tions, changes were made to the questionnaires.
Sampling
While choosing the respondents for the studies to
be carried out on brands, the identified brands
need to be well-known to the respondents (Boo
et al., 2009; Kladou and Kehagias, 2014a; 2014b;
Leuthesser et al., 1995). Therefore, a similar
approach was used in the present study, and
9
respondents were selected among national and
international tourists visiting the Alanya destina-
tion in Turkey.
Alanya is an important tourist destination in
Antalya, Turkey. It accounts for 21.7% of
domestic and 8.84% of international tourist
income in Turkey (Alanya Economic Report,
2017), and it is the tourism destination hosting
the highest number of international tourists in
Turkey. Thanks to its tourism characteristics,
Alanya offers holiday opportunities and 3 S
tourism, which are the main motivations of the
tourists from Germany, Russia, and England.
Tourists from these three countries comprise the
highest number of active foreign tourists in Tur-
key; 4 million 570 thousand tourists from Russia,
2 million 227 thousand tourists from Germany,
and 624 thousand tourists from England visited
Antalya in 2017 (Hotel Association of Turkey,
2018). Leuthesser et al. (1995) highlight that
respondents to participate in the studies on
brands should be composed of those from the
main target market and are well educated about
the brand. Therefore, tourists from these coun-
tries were preferred while determining the
respondent group of international tourists.
Both a professional research company and the
authors of this study conducted surveys. During
the data collection process, the research com-
pany assigned four professional interviewers;
they were informed about the study and subse-
quently trained by the authors. The professional
interviewers conducted surveys by speaking with
tourists personally in areas such as beaches, sou-
venir shops, restaurants, and hotel lobbies. The
questionnaires conducted by the authors of the
study were dropped off at various locations and
collected after a period of 1–2 weeks. Respon-
dents were selected using convenience sampling;
of the 800 total questionnaires, 214 were found to
be not suitable for analysis, while the remaining
586 questionnaires were deemed sufficient.
Data analysis
The collected data were statistically evaluated
through structural equation modeling (SEM). This
technique “is particularly useful in testing theories
that contain multiple equations involving depen-
dence relationships” (Hair et al., 2013: 542). As
the conceptual model developed in this study
includes multiple equations involving dependence
relationships (research hypothesis), a two-step
approach of examining the conceptual model was
followed (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988).
10
However, prior to carrying out analyses on the
models, data cleaning/screening was undertaken.
In the context of data cleaning, firstly, missing
data were detected, and the appropriate substitu-
tion method was chosen (Usakli and Kucukergin,
2018). The procedures proposed by Hair et al.
(2013) were taken into consideration in the
assignment of missing data and in the removal
of responses. Accordingly, the mean substitution
method was used to replace missing data. Sec-
ondly, in the context of data cleaning, the Maha-
lanobis distance was examined to determine
outliers in the study. According to the result of
the Mahalanobis distance, there were not any
outliers (Mahalanobis D(66) ¼ 148.688, p <
0.001) (Hair et al., 2009). In the context of data
cleaning, finally, the normal distribution
assumption was checked, as the maximum like-
lihood method was used in estimating both the
measurement model and the structural model.
Because skewness values were between
0.641/0.065 and kurtosis values were between
1.436 and 0.007, it can be stated that the
data had a normal distribution (Kline, 2011).
After the data cleaning process concluded, the
measurement model was examined, followed by
the structural model.
A multiple group analysis was performed in
order to examine the moderating effect of COI
image. Hair et al. (2009) suggested that the cate-
gorical variable can be used to determine the
moderating effect. The K-means cluster analysis
method is often preferred when the variable is
transformed into a categorical variable (Han
et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2012). Therefore, the
K-means cluster analysis was performed by con-
sidering the responses on micro and macro image
perceptions, and the respondents were divided
into two groups: high–low micro and high–low
macro. However, in order to make group com-
parisons in multiple group analysis, it is neces-
sary to provide measurement invariance. For this
reason, after the K-means cluster analysis phase,
the measurement invariance was examined.
After the measurement invariance was exam-
ined, the multiple group analysis was applied.
SPSS and AMOS version 24 software were used
to complete the analysis.
Results
Demographic findings
According to the findings, 51.9% of respondents
were female and 48.1% male. The majority of
Journal of Vacation Marketing XX(X)
respondents were individuals who had graduated
from high school (26.5%), undergraduate
(25.6%), and associate degree programs
(25.4%). Of all the respondents, 34.5% were vis-
iting Alanya for the first time, while the remain-
ing 65.5% had visited Alanya previously. Of the
respondents, 20.1% indicated that they did not
have any children. Additionally, 26.5% and
18.1% of respondents specified that they were
from Germany and Russia, respectively. The
remainder of the participants came from Eng-
land (11.3%), Turkey (10.1%), Sweden (6.1%),
Denmark (4.6%), and other countries (23.4%).
Finally, concerning the age distribution, 31% of
participants (n ¼ 184) were over 50 years of
age, 15% (n ¼ 92) were between 42 and 49
years of age, and 54% (n ¼ 310) were under
41 years of age.
Measurement model
The measurement model was examined first. As
the factor loadings of particular items were
below the recommended value of 0.50, these
items were removed, and then, the analysis was
performed again (see Appendix 1 for removed
items). Goodness-of-fit indices (2 ¼
2598.409; df ¼ 1147; 2/df ¼ 2.265; compara-
tive fit index ¼ 0.92; Tucker–Lewis index ¼
0.91; root mean square error approximation ¼
0.047) were obtained as a result of the second
analysis of the conceptual model and this time
were deemed acceptable (Mulaik et al., 1989;
Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003).
In addition to goodness-of-fit indices for scale
reliability and validity, composite reliability,
Cronbach’s a, convergent validity, and discrimi-
nant validity were tested. The Cronbach’s as and
composite reliability were greater than the rec-
ommended level of 0.70 (Nunnally and Bern-
stein, 1994). This suggests that these measures
are internally consistent. Convergent validity
requires a factor loading greater than 0.50 and
an average variance-extracted (AVE) of no less
than 0.50 (Hair et al., 2009). As presented in
Table 1, all indicators registered significant fac-
tor loadings higher than 0.50, while AVE ranged
from 0.52 to 0.75, showing a strong convergent
validity. This suggests that the specified indica-
tors were sufficient in their representation of the
constructs. Thusly, the discriminant validity of
each construct was subsequently assessed. The
discriminant validity was measured by compar-
ing the AVE and the squared latent factor corre-
lation between each pair of constructs (Fornell
Dedeoğlu et al. 11

Table 1. Results of the measurement model.

Standardized Factor
Dimension Items Loadings (SFL) t CR a

IPS When choosing the destination, comments of 0.79 Fixed* 0.87 0.86
others on a destination website and/or on social
media websites (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) about
the destination are important to me.
When choosing the destination, ratings of others on 0.80 19.784
a destination website and/or on social media
websites (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) about the
destination are significant to me.
When choosing the destination, ratings of other 0.83 20.433
users on websites (e.g., TripAdvisor, booking.com)
where travel evaluations are included and holiday
packages are sold are important to me.
When choosing the destination, comments of other 0.73 17.960
users on websites (e.g. TripAdvisor, booking.com)
where travel evaluations are included and holiday
packages are sold are important to me.
INPS Holiday-related comments of other users on their 0.76 Fixed* 0.84 0.83
own social media accounts (profiles; Facebook,
Twitter, blogs, etc.) are important to me.
Holiday-related sharings of other users on their own 0.66 15.084
social media accounts (profiles; Facebook, Twitter,
blogs, etc.) are important to me.
Holiday recommendations of other users on their 0.80 17.831
own social media accounts (profiles; Facebook,
Twitter, blogs, etc.) are important to me.
Holiday-related sharings (photo, video) of other 0.77 17.352
users on social media accounts of others (profiles;
Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc.) are important to me.
DBA I can imagine what Alanya looks like. 0.75 Fixed* 0.86 0.85
I am aware of Alanya as a travel destination. 0.54 12.541
I can recognize Alanya among other similar 0.78 18.513
destinations.
Some characteristics of Alanya come to my mind 0.81 19.277
quickly.
I can quickly recall the marketing activities about Alanya. 0.84 19.976
DSQþ Accommodation 0.92 Fixed* 0.96 0.96
Transport 0.89 22.354
Cleanliness 0.78 17.584
Hospitality 0.81 17.917
Activities 0.86 19.919
Amenities 0.93 25.965
Language 0.80 20.665
Security 0.92 20.704
DNQ Cultural attractions in Alanya are interesting. 0.77 Fixed* 0.84 0.84
Climate in Alanya is good. 0.63 14.491
Alanya has an outstanding scenery. 0.72 16.645
Cultural exchange with local people in Alanya is possible. 0.70 16.106
Unusual ways of life and customs are available in Alanya. 0.76 17.408
MIC There is excellent quality workmanship in Turkey. 0.72 Fixed* 0.86 0.87
Turkey is innovative. 0.84 18.697
Turkey has recognizable brand names. 0.84 18.780
Turkey is reliable. 0.68 15.438
Turkey is dependable. 0.65 14.602
MAC Turkey is a producer of high-quality products. 0.74 Fixed* 0.87 0.87
Turkey has a high standard of living. 0.76 17.581
There are high labor costs in Turkey. 0.87 19.632
Turkey has a highly developed economy. 0.78 17.955
Goodness-of-fit w2 ¼ 2598.409; df ¼ 1147; w2/df ¼ 2.265; CFI ¼ 0.92; TLI ¼ 91; RMSEA ¼ 0.047
statistics
(continued)
12 Journal of Vacation Marketing XX(X)

Table 1. (continued)

Correlation matrix, discriminant validity, and AVE values**

Dimensions PS NPS DBA DSQ DNQ MIC MAC

PS 0.62
NPS 0.26 (0.07) 0.56
DBA 0.48 (0.23) 0.21 (0.04) 0.56
DSQ 0.18 (0.03) 0.08 (0.01) 0.33 (0.11) 0.75
DNQ 0.07 (0.00) 0.05 (0.00) 0.23 (0.05) 0.42 (0.18) 0.52
MIC 0.13 (0.02) 0.07 (0.00) 0.17 (0.03) 0.22 (0.05) 0.18 (0.03) 0.56
MAC 0.02 (0.00) 0.01 (.00) 0.13 (0.02) 0.12 (0.01) 0.24 (0.06) 0.21 (0.04) 0.62
IPS: importance attached to participant sharing; INPS: importance attached to nonparticipant sharing; DBA: destination brand
awareness; DSQ: destination service quality; DNQ: destination natural quality; MIC: micro image of country of origin; MAC:
macro image of country of origin; df: degree of freedom; TLI: Tucker–Lewis index; CFI: comparative fit index; RMSEA: root mean
square error approximation; PS: participant sharing; CR: construct reliability; a: Cronbach’s a; AVE: average variance-extracted.
*Parameter fixed at 1.0 during maximum likelihood estimation.
**Squared correlations between constructs are in parentheses. Diagonal elements (in bold) are AVE values. For discriminant
validity, the diagonal elements should be larger than the off-diagonal elements (squared correlations) in parentheses.
þ
This construct was examined as second order.

H1 H3
Destination
IPS γ= .45* γ= .33* Service Quality
Destination
Brand
Awareness
γ= .09NS γ= .24* Destination
H4 Natural Quality
INPS H2

Figure 2. Results of the structural model.

and Larcker, 1981). All latent variables used in (g ¼ 0.33; t ¼ 7.003; p < 0.001) and destination
this study had discriminant validity. To put it natural quality (g ¼ 0.24; t ¼ 4.925; p < 0.001).
more clearly, the variance-extracted was greater Therefore, hypotheses 1, 3, and 4 were sup-
than the squared correlations. ported, while hypothesis 2 was not supported.

Structural model Testing of COI image’s moderating effect

SEM was used to test the causalities that were
developed in the first stage within the scope of
this research. As seen from SEM results (see
Figure 2), it is evident that goodness-of-fit
indices of the model are acceptable (Mulaik
et al., 1989; Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003).
As shown in Figure 2, the importance attached
to participant sharing had a positive and signifi-
cant influence on destination brand awareness,
with a 0.001 significance level and the corre-
sponding t-value of 9.083 (g ¼ .45). However,
nonparticipant sharing did not have a significant
influence on destination brand awareness (g ¼
.09; t ¼ 1.899; p > 0.05). Also, destination brand
awareness had a positive and significant
influence on both destination service quality
To measure the moderating effect of any factor,
at least partial metric invariances related to cate-
gorize groups for the related factor must be ver-
ified (Hair et al., 2009). In order to check metric
invariances of high–low groups formed for both
the micro and the macro images of country, a
baseline model in which factor loadings for each
image factor could be freely estimated was
developed. A metric invariance model, in which
factor loadings are constrained, was then estab-
lished. As it must be verified at first to check
metric invariance, configural invariance of
high–low groups was checked for both the micro
and the macro images of country. As seen in
Table 2, configural invariance has been verified,
as goodness-of-fit indices are at acceptable levels
Dedeoğlu et al.
Table 2. Results of metric invariance test for micro and macro images of country of origin groups.
Moderator Models w2 df
MIC CI 2669.394 1524
MI 2710.540 1560
MAC CI 2829.656 1524
MI 2871.390 1560
MIC: micro image of country of origin; MAC: macro image of country of origin; CI: configural invariance; MI: metric invariance;
df: degree of freedom; RMSEA: root mean square error approximation; CFI: comparative fit index.
for both the micro and the macro images of COI
(Oh and Hsu, 2014). After verifying the config-
ural invariance—which is a prerequisite to con-
trol metric invariance—configural invariance of
high–low groups was checked, both for the micro
and the macro images of COI. The 2difference
between the configural and metric invariance
model was found to be not significant (micro
image of COI 2(36) ¼ 41.15, p ¼ 0.255;
macro image of COI 2(36) ¼ 41.73, p ¼
0.236). This finding implies that the factor struc-
ture involving loadings is invariant across the
high–low groups for both the micro and the
macro images of COI, thus supporting the metric
invariance.
To examine the moderating effect of the
micro image of COI, a configural model (see
Figure 2) was developed, in accordance with the
metric invariance model of high–low groups first
for the micro image of COI. Next, this configural
model was compared with a series of nested
models, in which a particular parameter of inter-
est is constrained to be equal across (Hair et al.,
2009). The same steps were then repeated in
order to examine the moderating effect of the
macro image of COI. Results of this multiple
group analysis are summarized in Table 3.
Based on Table 3, the result of 2 difference
comparison provided evidence that there was a
significant difference between the low and the
high micro images of COI groups, particularly
in the relationship between destination brand
awareness and destination service quality
(2(df) ¼ 5.41 (1), p ¼ 0.020). In more detail,
the impact of destination brand awareness on
destination service quality was found to be more
determinative for tourists with a higher percep-
tion of the micro image of COI than for others
with a lower perception of the micro image of
COI. However, the micro image of COI was
found to have no moderating effect on the rela-
tionship between destination brand awareness
and destination natural quality (2(df) ¼ 3.38
(1), p ¼ 0.066). Therefore, hypotheses 5, 7, and 8
13
RMSEA CFI Dw2(df) Result
0.036 0.92 Dw2(36)41.15; p ¼ 0.255 Supported
0.036 0.92 Supported
0.038 0.91 Dw2(36)41.73; p ¼ 0.236 Supported
0.038 0.91 Supported
were accepted, whereas hypothesis 6 was
rejected. On the other hand, the macro image
of COI has a moderating effect on the relation-
ship between destination brand awareness and
destination service quality as well as between
destination brand awareness and destination
natural quality. In other words, the impact of
destination brand awareness on both destina-
tion service quality and destination natural
quality was found to be more determinative
for those with higher perceptions of the macro
image of COI.
Discussion and implications
The aim of this study has been twofold: to
examine the relationship among social media
sharings, destination brand awareness, and des-
tination natural and service quality and to exam-
ine the moderating role of COI image (macro
and micro) on the relationship between destina-
tion brand awareness and destination quality
dimensions. The results of the research provide
important findings regarding the development
of destination brand awareness through various
contents in social media. In addition, findings
were identified that could illuminate destination
management and marketing organizations about
the role of the macro and the micro images of
COI in developing tourist perceptions of desti-
nation quality.
Theoretical implications
The findings from this study revealed the impor-
tance attached to participant sharing, as it clearly
influences tourism destination brand awareness
in a positive and significant way. However, it
was also observed that the INPS did not signifi-
cantly affect tourism destination brand aware-
ness. With respect to other studies carried out
on CGC in tourism (Bruhn et al., 2012; Gretzel
and Yoo, 2008), the present study provides a
more in-depth analysis of CGC, by showing the
relevance of participant sharing on tourism
14 Journal of Vacation Marketing XX(X)

destination brand awareness. Destination brand

Supported
awareness is therefore influenced by the content

Yes

Yes

Yes
No
generated by other consumers on social media
platforms where organizations are included.
Within the consumer behavior literature, cus-

MIC: micro image of country of origin; MAC: macro image of country of origin; DBA: destination brand awareness; DSQ: destination service quality; DNQ: destination natural quality.
tomer participation is defined as an activity that

Dw2(1)5.41; p ¼ 0.020

Dw2(1)3.38; p ¼ 0.066

Dw2(1)4.75; p ¼ 0.029

Dw2(1)5.30; p ¼ 0.021
contributes to the improvement of products and
services through the production of feedback
Dw2(df)

(Ngo and O’Cass, 2013). Therefore, the reality

that the primary objective of social media shar-
ing is to improve products and services by pro-
viding consumer assessments and feedback
should not be neglected. It can be assumed that
the primary intention of individuals paying atten-
tion to such sharing is to obtain information.
2802.351 (1569)

2800.327 (1569)

2980.041 (1569)

2980.592 (1569)

Since participant sharing, by its nature, is

Nested

observed on social media networks where the

respective organization is included, consumers
that pay attention to content generated by other
consumers (i.e., participant sharing) can increase
their tourism destination brand awareness via
obtaining information through assessments and
2796.946 (1568)

2796.946 (1568)

2975.295 (1568)

2975.295 (1568)

comments made on these sites.

Baseline

On the other hand, the INPS does not have a

Table 3. Results of moderating effect for macro image and micro image of country of origin groups.

significant effect on destination brand aware-

ness. However, the importance that tourists
attach to nonparticipant sharing can be influen-
tial in other ways. As noted earlier, nonpartici-
pant sharing may lead to similar hedonic needs
7.038
2.396
4.909
1.602
7.277
2.009
4.617
0.502
t

for individuals who view content, as it can be

assumed that these actions are predominantly
carried out with the intention of eliminating the
0.16***
0.13NS

0.04NS
0.18**

hedonic requirements of the individual. Indeed,

SFL

0.41*

0.29*

0.41*

0.29*

CGC positively influenced the hedonic destina-

tion brand image in the study of Bruhn et al.
(2012). More clearly, as emphasized in social
Group

influence theories, individuals may attach impor-

High

High

High

High
Low

Low

Low

Low

tance to nonparticipant sharing with the purpose

of satisfying their hedonic needs through dis-
playing the same behaviors they see in the con-
DBA ! DNQ

DBA ! DNQ
DBA ! DSQ

DBA ! DSQ

*p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.05; NS: not significant.

tent. The fact that the effect of INPS on brand

awareness was found insignificant in the present
Relation

study put forwards the necessity for examining

different elements that may play a mediator role
between INPS and brand awareness. As a matter
of fact, attaching importance to an object can
Moderator

increase involvement level toward the object

(Greenwald and Leavitt, 1984). Increase in
MAC

involvement level starts the process of looking

MIC

for information about the object (Zaichkowsky,

1986). During the information-seeking process,
an individual can increase his or her knowledge
Hypothesis

level regarding the object, and as a result, aware-

ness level regarding the object can increase as
H5

H6

H7

H8

well (Gursoy and Gavcar, 2003). Despite the fact

Dedeoğlu et al.
that INPS does not have the power to directly
influence destination brand awareness, it can
gain the power in question with the help of a
mediator variable (e.g., involvement). Therefore,
for future studies, it is recommended to focus on
potential variables that may have a mediator role
between INPS and destination brand awareness.
Therefore, the importance that tourists place on
nonparticipant sharing can affect other elements,
in addition to destination brand awareness levels.
With reference to the moderating effect of
COI image in the relationship between destina-
tion brand awareness and destination brand qual-
ity components, the findings show that the
impact of destination brand awareness on desti-
nation service quality is more determinative for
tourists with higher perceptions of the micro
image of COI. On the contrary, high or low per-
ceptions of the micro image of COI have no
determinative impact on the relationship
between destination brand awareness and desti-
nation natural quality. Despite the fact that var-
ious studies have indicated that destination brand
awareness positively influences quality percep-
tions (Boo et al., 2009; Buil et al., 2013), the
findings of this study yield different results. It
has been observed in this study that this influence
generally decreases or disappears, on the condi-
tion that COI image perceptions are low. There-
fore, it can be claimed that the current research
findings have contributed to a gap that exists in
the literature. When potential tourists want to
experience the desirable activities they have seen
in their surroundings, they may first need to have
an interest in and understand the relevance of the
experiment (Dedeoğlu, 2016). For this reason, it
should be first determined which factors may
influence the INPS.
The influence of destination brand awareness
on destination service quality is more determina-
tive for those with high perceptions of the micro
image of COI. This result can be based on the
fact that the micro image of COI is considered a
product- and service-oriented dimension. For its
part, destination service quality covers more
product- and service-oriented items than destina-
tion natural quality. In other words, on the con-
dition that tourists perceive prestige, innovation,
and design as part of a country’s products and
services in a positive way, they will be more
inclined to perceive the micro image of COI
positively, as they assess the quality of products
and services related to the holiday trip they con-
sider purchasing.
15
On the other hand, the impact of destination
brand awareness on both destination service
quality and destination natural quality was found
to be more determinative for those with higher
macro image of COI perceptions. The reason this
is determinative is that consumers hold positive
perceptions of economic and political conditions
or technological advancements in a country, thus
creating a positive stereotype of the country
overall. This stereotype causes the products and
services offered by this country to be perceived
positively by the consumers. In other words, con-
sumers can have positive image perceptions due
to the fact that they perceive general features of
the country (e.g., economic, technological, and
political) in a positive way (Laroche et al., 2005).
These positive image perceptions can create a
positive country-related stereotype for individu-
als (Verlegh and Steenkamp, 1999), and thus,
consumers can perceive the country’s products
and services to be of good quality.
Practical implications
If tourism destinations wish to further increase
the influence of destination brand awareness on
destination service quality and destination natu-
ral quality perceptions, they must influence tour-
ists’ perceptions of the micro image of the COI in
a positive way. For instance, DMOs can present
several demonstrations of innovations in the
country through informal communication chan-
nels. These could be physical products or intan-
gible ideas, communicated by spokespeople such
as famous artists and scientists from the country.
In the event that the DMO wants destination
awareness to play a more determinative role in
shaping the quality perceptions of tourists, it has
to focus more attention on introducing the coun-
try along with its internal promotion activities.
Under no circumstances should it be neglected
that positive perceptions of COI image enhance
the impact of destination brand awareness. Thus,
both local and national authorities should
develop joint projects for the purposes of contri-
buting to a country’s economy and improving the
COI image. Besides traditional media such as TV
and magazines, more focus should be paid to
social media sites, which allow for interactive
communication, feature lower marketing costs,
and have larger potential influencing power,
since they are often perceived by consumers as
sincere and reliable. As another way to incorpo-
rate technology and raise awareness, various
mobile games that take place in the destination
16
and reflect the history of the country or its cur-
rent status and evoke positive feelings could also
be developed. As found in the present study,
destination awareness can be increased through
the promotion of participant social media shar-
ing. Therefore, tourism destinations can increase
the destination brand awareness of tourists by
providing opportunities to consumers for evalu-
ating and commenting on their own websites or
other websites where holiday packages are sold,
or people discuss their holiday travel experi-
ences. Those who make this kind of comments
could randomly be offered discounts or extra
accommodation packages. DMOs should also
develop joint projects with local and national
public authorities, which allow consumers to
generate content on social media platforms. For
instance, the actions covering the overall image
of the COI should be focused on first. Foreign
individuals living abroad or in the country should
be motivated to share the macro and micro com-
ponents of the country. In this regard, although
tourists generate the content with different
motives (Chen, 2011; Quan-Haase and Young,
2010; Raacke and Bonds-Raacke, 2008), tourism
destinations under the control of private and pub-
lic institutions must be able to generate the con-
tent. In this way, tourists will evaluate and
comment on the content which is generated by
tourism destinations and will be able to satisfy
their own motives.
Tourism destinations should take the first step
by generating content that individuals can assess
and provide comments and suggestions on, and
tourism-related sharing should be encouraged
through specific promotions. Accordingly, “the
most” (e.g., the most well-travelled tourist, the
most prestigious tourist, and the most informa-
tive tourist) can be determined according to the
number of sharing being liked, commented on, or
shared by tourists who took a holiday in the des-
tination. Since people desire to be at the forefront
of society, they tend to reflect this desire across
social media sites (Osumi et al., 2016). This
means that these types of activities can motivate
tourists to share social media content.
Limitations and future directions
Despite yielding useful findings for researchers
and practitioners alike, there are a few limitations
to the present study. First, the present research
contributes theoretically by showcasing how
CGC affects consumers. Furthermore, the cur-
rent study presents findings that indicate CGC
Journal of Vacation Marketing XX(X)
constructions should be examined in more detail
and lays the foundation for the proposal of dif-
ferent constructs for future CGC studies. In this
regard, future research should investigate the
contribution of nonparticipant sharing on hedo-
nic destination brand image and awareness. Sec-
ond, the structure of COI image was examined
from a cognitive perspective, under both micro
and macro dimensions (Pappu et al., 2007). Nev-
ertheless, affective COI image is also of critical
importance in terms of product and service qual-
ity assessments and still deserves attention from
academia (Wang, Li, et al., 2012). Future
researchers should, therefore, develop a more
complex model containing affective COI image
constructs as well. Also, for an extended concep-
tual model, affective image can be examined in
future studies (Hahm and Severt, 2018). In the
present study, respondents’ levels of attributing
importance to content generated on social media
platforms were examined. Therefore, no stimu-
lant was used, which could be considered a lim-
itation in the scope of the study. In addition, each
social media platform possesses unique charac-
teristics (Kietzmann et al., 2011); future studies
can focus on a specific social media medium. A
specific stimulant could be used in those media,
and an experimental design method could be pre-
ferred as it may yield more clear findings and
recommendations for practitioners.
The present study focuses only on the antece-
dent variables with the power of shaping percep-
tions of destination quality elements.
Nevertheless, perceptions of destination quality
elements are likely to influence successors such
as satisfaction (Hallak et al., 2018; Žabkar et al.,
2010), value (Chen and Tsai, 2007), and beha-
vioral intentions (Tosun et al., 2015). Therefore,
it is recommended for future studies to include
these concepts in the research model and exam-
ine their roles. Finally, although Stepchenkova
and Morrison (2008) state that destination image
should be distinguished from COI image in the
brand management of a country, positive COI
image perceptions of tourists, as evidenced in the
research findings, increase the influential power
of destination awareness on destination quality
perception. Therefore, a tourism destination can
transfer the power of COI image to destination
image, rather than distinguishing these two fac-
tors. Future research should determine whether
destination image perceptions of individuals who
experience a destination have an impact on COI
image. Campo and Alvarez (2014) stated that
COI image-related perceptions can be enhanced
Dedeoğlu et al.
by transferring a positive destination image to
COI image, and Tosun et al. (2015) stated that
perception of a destination may have different
results, depending on whether the visitors are
first-timers or repeat visitors. Perception-based
differences of first-time and repeat tourists can
also be surveyed, and its moderating effects will
be examined in future studies.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of
interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
References
Aaker DA (1991) Managing Brand Equity. New York:
The Free Press.
Ahmed SA and d’Astous A (2008) Antecedents, mod-
erators and dimensions of country-of-origin eva-
luations. International Marketing Review 25(1):
75–106.
Alanya Economic Report (2017) ALTSO Alanya Eco-
nomic Report 2016.
Aluri A, Slevitch L, and Larzelere R (2015) The effec-
tiveness of embedded social media on hotel web-
sites and the importance of social interactions and
return on engagement. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management 27(4):
670–689.
Ampountolas A. (2018) Peer-to-peer marketplaces: a
study on consumer purchase behavior. Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Insights. Epub ahead of
print 7 October 2018.
Anderson JC and Gerbing DW (1988) Structural equa-
tion modeling in practice: a review and recom-
mended two-step approach. Psychological
Bulletin 103(3): 411–423.
Aydın B (2016) Restaurant image in social media: the
case of TripAdvisor. Journal of Multidisciplinary
Academic Tourism 1(1): 13–30.
Baldauf A, Cravens KS, and Binder G (2003) Perfor-
mance consequences of brand equity management:
evidence from organizations in the value chain.
Journal of Product & Brand Management 12(4):
220–236.
Baloglu S and McCleary KW (1999) A model of des-
tination image formation. Annals of Tourism
Research 26(4): 868–897.
17
Bandura A (1977) Social Learning Theory. New Jer-
sey: Prentice-Hall.
Beerli A and Martı́n JD (2004) Tourists’ characteris-
tics and the perceived image of tourist destinations:
a quantitative analysis—a case study of Lanzarote,
Spain. Tourism Management 25(5): 623–636.
Bilkey WJ and Nes E (1982) Country-of-origin effects
on product evaluations. Journal of International
Business Studies 13(1): 89–100.
Boo S, Busser J, and Baloglu S (2009) A model of
customer-based brand equity and its application
to multiple destinations. Tourism Management
30(2): 219–231.
Brislin RW (1976) Comparative research methodol-
ogy: cross-cultural studies. International Journal
of Psychology 11(3): 215–229.
Brown D and Hayes N (2008). Influencer Marketing:
Who Really Influences your Customers? New
York: Routledge.
Bruhn M, Schoenmueller V, and Schäfer DB (2012)
Are social media replacing traditional media in
terms of brand equity creation? Management
Research Review 35(9): 770–790.
Buhalis D (2000) Marketing the competitive destina-
tion of the future. Tourism Management 21(1):
97–116.
Buil I, Martı́nez E, and de Chernatony L (2013) The
influence of brand equity on consumer responses.
Journal of Consumer Marketing 30(1): 62–74.
Cakici NM and Shukla P (2017) Country-of-origin
misclassification awareness and consumers’ beha-
vioral intentions: moderating roles of consumer
affinity, animosity, and product knowledge. Inter-
national Marketing Review 34(3): 354–376.
Campo S and Alvarez MD (2014) Can tourism promo-
tions influence a country’s negative image? An
experimental study on Israel’s image. Current
Issues in Tourism 17(3): 201–219.
Chen GM (2011) Tweet this: a uses and gratifications
perspective on how active Twitter use gratifies a
need to connect with others. Computers in Human
Behavior 27(2): 755–762.
Chen CF and Tsai D (2007) How destination image
and evaluative factors affect behavioral intentions?
Tourism Management 28(4): 1115–1122.
Chen CY, Chen TH, Chen YH, et al. (2013) The
spatio-temporal distribution of different types of
messages and personality traits affecting the
eWOM of Facebook. Natural Hazards 65(3):
2077–2103.
Cilingir Z and Basfirinci C (2014) The impact of con-
sumer ethnocentrism, product involvement, and
product knowledge on country of origin effects:
an empirical analysis on Turkish consumers’
18
product evaluation. Journal of International Con-
sumer Marketing 26(4): 284–310.
Cox DF and Bauer RA (1964) Self-confidence and
persuasibility in women. Public Opinion Quarterly
28 (Fall): 453–466.
Dawson S, Knapp D, and Farmer J (2012) Camp war
buddies: exploring the therapeutic benefits of
social comparison in a pediatric oncology camp.
Therapeutic Recreation Journal 46(4): 313–325.
Dean H (2004) Evaluating potential brand associations
through conjoint analysis and market simulation. Jour-
nal of Product & Brand Management 13(7): 506–513.
Deaux K (2000) Models, meaning and motivations. In:
Capozza D and Brown R (eds) Social Identity Pro-
cesses: Trends in Theory and Research. London:
Sage, pp. 1–14.
Dedeoğlu BB (2016) The Relationship Between Social
Media, Involvement and Destination Brand Equity,
PhD Thesis, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey.
Dedeoglu BB (2019) Are information quality and
source credibility really important for shared con-
tent on social media? The moderating role of gen-
der. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management 31(1): 513–534.
Di Matteo D and Cavuta G (2016) Enogastronomic
tourism: can it mitigate the intangibility of the
destination? Streetfood as a new business model
for the management of tourist regions. Procedia
Economics and Finance 39: 347–356.
Egede EA (2013) Strategic evaluation of how adver-
tising works on product promotions. Developing
Country Studies 3(10): 139–148.
Ferns BH and Walls A (2012) Enduring travel involve-
ment, destination brand equity, and travelers’ visit
intentions: a structural model analysis. Journal of
Destination Marketing & Management 1(1): 27–35.
Festinger L (1964) Conflict, Decision, and Disso-
nance. Oxford: Stanford University Press.
Fornell C and Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research
18(1): 39–50.
Gerlitz C and Helmond A (2013) The like economy:
social buttons and the data-intensive web. New
Media and Society 15(8): 1348–1365.
Goldsmith H, Sedo S, Darity W Jr, et al. (2004) The labor
supply consequences of perceptions of employer dis-
crimination during search and on-the-job: integrating
neoclassical theory and cognitive dissonance. Jour-
nal of Economic Psychology 25(1): 15–39.
Greenwald AG and Leavitt C (1984) Audience invol-
vement in advertising: four levels. Journal of Con-
sumer Research 11(1): 581–592.
Gretzel U and Yoo KH (2008) Use and impact
of online travel reviews. In: O’Connor P,
Journal of Vacation Marketing XX(X)
Höpken W, and Gretzel U (eds) Information and
Communication Technologies in Tourism 2008.
Austria: Springer-Verlag, pp. 35–46.
Gursoy D and Gavcar E (2003) International leisure
tourists’ involvement profile. Annals of Tourism
Research 30(4): 906–926.
Hahm JJ and Severt K (2018) Importance of destina-
tion marketing on image and familiarity. Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Insights 1(1): 37–53.
Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, et al. (2009) Multivari-
ate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, 7th edn.
Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, et al. (2013) Multivari-
ate Data Analysis: Pearson New International Edi-
tion, 7th edn. Harlow: Pearson Higher Ed.
Hallak R, Assaker G, and El-Haddad R (2018) Re-
examining the relationships among perceived qual-
ity, value, satisfaction, and destination loyalty: a
higher-order structural model. Journal of Vacation
Marketing 24(2): 118–135.
Han CM (1989) Country image: halo or summary con-
struct? Journal of Marketing Research 26(2): 222.
Han H, Kim W and Hyun SS (2011) Switching inten-
tion model development: role of service perfor-
mances, customer satisfaction, and switching
barriers in the hotel industry. International Journal
of Hospitality Management 30(3): 619–629.
Harmon-Jones E and Harmon-Jones C (2007) Cogni-
tive dissonance theory after 50 years of develop-
ment. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie 38(1): 7–16.
Heinonen K (2011) Consumer activity in social media:
managerial approaches to consumers’ social media
behavior. Journal of Consumer Behavior 10(6):
356–364.
Herz MF and Diamantopoulos A (2013) Activation of
country stereotypes: automaticity, consonance, and
impact. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sci-
ence 41(4): 400–417.
Heslop LA, Papadopoulos N, Dowdles M, et al. (2004)
Who controls the purse strings: a study of consu-
mers’ and retail buyers’ reactions in an America’s
FTA environment. Journal of Business Research
57(10): 1177–1188.
Hipperson T (2010) The changing face of data insight
and its relationship to brand marketing. Journal of
Database Marketing and Customer Strategy Man-
agement 17(34): 262–266.
Hotel Association of Turkey (2018) 2018 Statistics.
Available at: http://www.turob.com/tr/istatistikler
(accessed 30 January 2019).
Hoyer WD and Brown SP (1990) Effects of brand
awareness on choice for a common, repeat-
purchase product. Journal of Consumer Research
17(2): 141–148.
Dedeoğlu et al.
Hsiao Y, Hsu Y, Chu S, et al. (2014) Is brand aware-
ness a marketing placebo? International Journal of
Business and Information 9(1): 29–60.
Huang CY, Shen YZ, Lin HX, et al. (2007) Bloggers’
motivations and behaviors: a model. Journal of
Advertising Research 47(4): 472–484.
Jellison JM and Gentry KW (1978) A self-presentation
interpretation of the seeking of social approval.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 4(2):
227–230.
Kang J (2018) Effective marketing outcomes of hotel
Facebook pages: the role of active participation
and satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality and Tour-
ism Insights 1(2): 106–120.
Kapferer J (2012) The New Strategic Brand Manage-
ment: Advanced Insights and Strategic Thinking,
5th edn. London: Kogan Page.
Kayat K and Abdul Hai M (2014) Perceived service
quality and tourists’ cognitive image of a destina-
tion. Anatolia 25(1): 1–12.
Keller KL (1993) Conceptualizing, measuring, and
managing customer-based brand equity. The Jour-
nal of Marketing 57(1): 1–22.
Keng CJ and Liao TH (2013) Self-confidence, anxiety,
and post-purchase dissonance: a panel study. Jour-
nal of Applied Social Psychology 43(8): 1636–1647.
Kietzmann JH, Hermkens K, McCarthy IP, et al.
(2011) Social media? Get serious! Understanding
the functional building blocks of social media.
Business Horizons 54(3): 241–251.
Kim S, Schuckert M, Im HH, et al. (2017) An inter-
regional extension of destination brand equity:
from Hong Kong to Europe. Journal of Vacation
Marketing 23(4): 277–294.
Kim WG and Park SA (2017) Social media review
rating versus traditional customer satisfaction:
Which one has more incremental predictive power
in explaining hotel performance? International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
29(2): 784–802.
Kim WH and Chae B (2018) Understanding the rela-
tionship among resources, social media use and
hotel performance: the case of Twitter use by
hotels. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management 30(9): 2888–2907.
Kimmel AJ and Kitchen PJ (2014) WOM and social
media: presaging future directions for research and
practice. Journal of Marketing Communications
20(1–2): 5–20.
Kladou S and Kehagias J (2014a) Developing a struc-
tural brand equity model for cultural destinations.
Journal of Place Management and Development
7(2): 112–125.
Kladou S and Kehagias J (2014b) Assessing destina-
tion brand equity: an integrated approach. Journal
19
of Destination Marketing and Management 3(1):
2–10.
Kline RB (2011) Principles and Practice of Structural
Equation Modeling, 3rd edn. New York: Guilford
Press.
Kotler P, Bowen J, and Makens J (2006) Marketing for
Hospitality and Tourism, 4th edn. New Jersey: Pre-
ntice Hall.
Kozak M (2001) Comparative assessment of tourist
satisfaction with destinations across two national-
ities. Tourism Management 22(4): 391–401.
Küçükergin KG and Dedeoğlu BB (2014) The impor-
tance of employee hospitability and perceived
price in the hotel industry. Anatolia 25(2):
254–267.
Laroche M, Papadopoulos N, Heslop LA, et al. (2005).
The influence of country image structure on con-
sumer evaluations of foreign products. Interna-
tional Marketing Review 22(1): 96–115.
Lee CS and Ma L (2012) News sharing in social
media: the effect of gratifications and prior expe-
rience. Computers in Human Behavior 28(2):
331–339.
Lee JE and Watkins B (2016) YouTube vloggers’
influence on consumer luxury brand perceptions
and intentions. Journal of Business Research
69(12): 5753–5760.
Leenders RTA (2002) Modeling social influence
through network autocorrelation: constructing the
weight matrix. Social networks 24(1): 21–47.
Leung L (2009) User-generated content on the inter-
net: an examination of gratifications, civic engage-
ment and psychological empowerment. New Media
& Society 11(8): 1327–1347.
Leuthesser L, Kohli CS, and Harich KR (1995) Brand
equity: the halo effect measure. European Journal
of Marketing 29(4): 57–66.
Lovelock C and Wright L (2001) Principles of Service
Marketing and Management, 2nd edn. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Magnusson P, Westjohn SA and Sirianni NJ (2019)
Beyond country image favorability: How brand
positioning via country personality stereotypes
enhances brand evaluations. Journal of Interna-
tional Business Studies 50(3): 318–338.
Malhotra NK (2015) Essentials of Marketing
Research: A Hands-on Orientation. New Jersey:
Pearson Education.
Mangold WG and Faulds DJ (2009) Social media: the
new hybrid element of the promotion mix. Busi-
ness Horizons 52(4): 357–365.
Martin IM and Eroglu S (1993) Measuring a multi-
dimensional construct: country image. Journal of
Business Research 28(3): 191–210.
20
Megehee CM and Spake DF (2008) The impact of
perceived peer behavior, probable detection and
punishment severity on student cheating behavior.
Marketing Education Review 18(2): 5–19.
Mitchell AA (1979) Involvement: a potentially impor-
tant mediator of consumer behavior. Advances in
Consumer Research 6(1): 191–196.
Moro S and Rita P (2018) Brand strategies in social
media in hospitality and tourism. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
30(1): 343–364.
Morosan C and Bowen JT (2018) Analytic perspec-
tives on online purchasing in hotels: a review of
literature and research directions. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
30(1): 557–580.
Mulaik SA, James LR, Van Alstine J, et al. (1989)
Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural
equation models. Psychological Bulletin 105(3):
430–445.
Munar AM and Jacobsen JKS (2014) Motivations for
sharing tourism experiences through social media.
Tourism Management 43: 46–54.
Nagashima A (1970) A comparison of Japanese and
US attitudes toward foreign products. The Journal
of Marketing 34(1): 68–74.
Nagashima A (1977) A comparative “made in” prod-
uct image survey among Japanese businessmen.
The Journal of Marketing 41(2): 95–100.
Narayan B, Rajendran C, and Sai LP (2008) Scales to
measure and benchmark service quality in tourism
industry: a second-order factor approach. Bench-
marking: An International Journal 15(4): 469–493.
Ngo LV and O’Cass A (2013) Innovation and business
success: the mediating role of customer participa-
tion. Journal of Business Research 66(8):
1134–1142.
Nikabadi MS, Safui MA, and Agheshlouei H (2015)
Role of advertising and promotion in brand equity
creation. Journal of Promotion Management 21(1):
13–32.
Nisbett RE and Wilson TD (1977) The halo effect:
evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
35(4): 250–256.
Nunnally JC and Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric
Theory, 3rd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.
O’Connor P (2008) User-generated content and travel:
a case study on TripAdvisor.com. In: O’Connor P,
Höpken W, and Gretzel U (eds) Information and
Communication Technologies in Tourism 2008.
Austria: Springer-Verlag, pp. 47–58.
Oh H and Hsu CH (2014) Assessing equivalence of
hotel brand equity measures in cross-cultural
Journal of Vacation Marketing XX(X)
contexts. International Journal of Hospitality Man-
agement 36: 156–166.
Oh S and Syn SY (2015) Motivations for sharing
information and social support in social media: a
comparative analysis of Facebook, Twitter, Deli-
cious, You Tube, and Flickr. Journal of the Asso-
ciation for Information Science and Technology
66(10): 2045–2060.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Devel-
opment (2007) Web, Participative: User-Created
Content. Directorate for Science, Technology and
Industry, Committee for Information, Computer
and Communications Policy, Working Party on the
Information Economy.
Osumi T, Osawa H, and Imai M (2016) Simulation of
bullying and conforming in a class based on socion
theory. Electronics and Communications in Japan
99(7): 12–24.
Ozment J and Morash E (1998) Assessment of the
relationship between productivity and performance
quality in the US domestic airline industry. Trans-
portation Research Record: Journal of the Trans-
portation Research Board 16(22): 22–31.
Papadopoulos N, Heslop LA, and Bamossy G (1990)
A comparative image analysis of domestic versus
imported products. International Journal of
Research in Marketing 16(7): 283–294.
Pappu R, Quester PG, and Cooksey RW (2007) Coun-
try image and consumer-based brand equity: rela-
tionships and implications for international
marketing. Journal of International Business Stud-
ies 38(5): 726–745.
Park N, Kee KF, and Valenzuela S (2009) Being
immersed in social networking environment: Face-
book groups, uses and gratifications, and social
outcomes. CyberPsychology & Behavior 12(6):
729–733.
Pike S (2007) Consumer-based brand equity for desti-
nations: practical DMO performance measures.
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 22(1):
51–61.
Prendergast GP, Tsang AS, and Chan CN (2010) The
interactive influence of country of origin of brand
and product involvement on purchase intention.
Journal of Consumer Marketing 27(2): 180–188.
Qu H, Kim LH, and Im HH (2011) A model of desti-
nation branding: integrating the concepts of the
branding and destination image. Tourism Manage-
ment 32(3): 465–476.
Quan-Haase A and Young AL (2010) Uses and grat-
ifications of social media: a comparison of Face-
book and instant messaging. Bulletin of Science,
Technology & Society 30(5): 350–361.
Raacke J and Bonds-Raacke J (2008) MySpace and
Facebook: applying the uses and gratifications
Dedeoğlu et al.
theory to exploring friend-networking sites.
CyberPsychology & Behavior 11(2): 169–174.
Roth KP and Diamantopoulos A (2009) Advancing the
country image construct. Journal of Business
Research 62(7): 726–740.
Scherer CW and Cho H (2003) A social network con-
tagion theory of risk perception. Risk Analysis: An
International Journal 23(2): 261–267.
Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, and Müller H
(2003) Evaluating the fit of structural equation
models: tests of significance and descriptive
goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychologi-
cal Research Online 8(2): 23–74.
Sigala M (2018) Implementing social customer rela-
tionship management: a process framework and
implications in tourism and hospitality. Interna-
tional Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Man-
agement 30(7): 2698–2726.
Smock AD, Ellison NB, Lampe C, et al. (2011). Face-
book as a toolkit: a uses and gratification approach
to unbundling feature use. Computers in Human
Behavior 27(6): 2322–2329.
Sotiriadis MD (2017) Sharing tourism experiences in
social media: a literature review and a set of sug-
gested business strategies. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management 29(1):
179–225.
Stepchenkova S and Morrison AM (2008) Russia’s
destination image among American pleasure trave-
lers: revisiting Echtner and Ritchie. Tourism
Management 29(3): 548–560.
Stoeckl R, Rohrmeier P and Hess T (2007) Motiva-
tions to produce user generated content: Differ-
ences between webloggers and videobloggers. In:
20th BLED Econference on Emergence: Merging
and Emerging Technologies, Processess, and Insti-
tutions, Bled, Slovenia, 4–6 June 2007, pp.
398–413. Slovenia: AIS Electronic Library.
Tapiero C (1996) The Management of Quality and Its
Control. London: Chapman and Hall.
Teng CC and Chang JH (2013) Mechanism of cus-
tomer value in restaurant consumption: employee
hospitality and entertainment cues as boundary
conditions. International Journal of Hospitality
Management 32: 169–178.
The Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and
Tourism (2016) Tourism statistics. Available at:
http://yigm.kulturturizm.gov.tr/TR,9854/sinir-
giris-cikis-istatistikleri.html (accessed 24 March
2017).
Tosun C, Dedeoğlu BB, and Fyall A (2015) Destina-
tion service quality, affective image and revisit
intention: the moderating role of past experience.
Journal of Destination Marketing and Manage-
ment 4(4): 222–234.
21
Tuten TL (2008) Advertising 2.0: Social Media
Marketing in a Web 2.0 World. Connecticut:
Greenwood.
Urista MA, Dong Q, and Day KD (2009) Explaining
why young adults use MySpace and Facebook
through uses and gratifications theory. Human
Communication 12(2): 215–229.
Usakli A and Kucukergin KG (2018) Using partial
least squares structural equation modeling in
hospitality and tourism: Do researchers follow
practical guidelines? International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management 30(11):
3462–3512.
Uşaklı A, Koç B, and Sönmez S (2017) How “social”
are destinations? Examining European DMO social
media usage. Journal of Destination Marketing
and Management 6(2): 136–149.
Valkenburg PM, Peter J, and Schouten AP (2006)
Friend networking sites and their relationship to
adolescents’ well-being and social self-esteem.
CyberPsychology & Behavior 9(5): 584–590.
Van Ittersum K, Candel MJ, and Meulenberg MT
(2003) The influence of the image of a product’s
region of origin on product evaluation. Journal of
Business Research 56(3): 215–226.
Verlegh PW (2001) Country-of-Origin Effects on Con-
sumer Product Evaluations. Unpublished PhD
Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The
Netherlands.
Verlegh PW and Steenkamp JBE (1999) A review and
meta-analysis of country-of-origin research. Jour-
nal of Economic Psychology 20(5): 521–546.
Wang CH, Chen KY, and Chen SC (2012) Total qual-
ity management, market orientation and hotel per-
formance: the moderating effects of external
environmental factors. International Journal of
Hospitality Management 31(1): 119–129.
Wang CK and Lamb CW (1980) Foreign environmen-
tal factors influencing American consumers’ pre-
dispositions toward European products. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science 8(4): 345–356.
Wang CK and Lamb CW (1983) The impact of
selected environmental forces upon consumers’
willingness to buy foreign products. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 11(1–2): 71–84.
Wang CL, Li D, Barnes BR, et al. (2012) Country
image, product image and consumer purchase
intention: evidence from an emerging economy.
International Business Review 21(6): 1041–1051.
Webb HJ and Zimmer-Gembeck MJ (2014) The role
of friends and peers in adolescent body dissatisfac-
tion: a review and critique of 15 years of research.
Journal of Research on Adolescence 24(4):
564–590.
22 Journal of Vacation Marketing XX(X)

Xiang Z and Gretzel U (2010) Role of social media in
online travel information search. Tourism Manage-
ment 31(2): 179–188.
Yang HL and Lai CY (2010) Motivations of Wikipe-
dia content contributors. Computers in Human
Behavior 26(6): 1377–1383.
Ye Q, Law R, Gu B, et al. (2011) The influence of
user-generated content on traveler behavior: an
empirical investigation on the effects of e-word-
of-mouth to hotel online bookings. Computers in
Human Behavior 27(2): 634–639.
Žabkar V, Brenčič MM, and Dmitrović T (2010) Mod-
elling perceived quality, visitor satisfaction and
behavioural intentions at the destination level.
Tourism Management 31(4): 537–546.
Zaichkowsky JL (1986). Conceptualizing involve-
ment. Journal of Advertising 15(2): 4–34.
Zeithaml VA (1988) Consumer perceptions of price,
quality, and value: a means-end model and synth-
esis of evidence. The Journal of Marketing 52(3):
2–22.
Zheng K, Padman R, Krackhardt D, et al. (2010)
Social networks and physician adoption of elec-
tronic health records: insights from an empirical
study. Journal of the American Medical Infor-
matics Association 17(3): 328–336.

Appendix 1. Measurement items.

Scales/Dimensions Measurement items References

IPS IPS1* When choosing the destination, recommendations Dedeoğlu (2016)

of others on a destination website and/or on social
media websites (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) about the
destination are important to me.
IPS2* When choosing the destination, sharings of others on
a destination website and/or on social media websites
(Facebook, Instagram, etc.) about the destination are
important to me.
IPS3 When choosing the destination, comments of others
on a destination website and/or on social media
websites (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) about the
destination are important to me.
IPS4 When choosing the destination, ratings of others on a
destination website and/or on social media websites
(Facebook, Instagram, etc.) about the destination are
significant to me.
IPS5 When choosing the destination, ratings of other users
on websites (e.g., TripAdvisor, booking.com) where
travel evaluations are included and holiday packages
are sold are important to me.
IPS6 When choosing the destination, comments of other
users on websites (e.g., TripAdvisor, booking.com)
where travel evaluations are included and holiday
packages are sold are important to me.
IPS7* When choosing the destination, recommendations
of other users on websites (e.g., TripAdvisor,
booking.com) where travel evaluations are included
and holiday packages are sold are important to me.
INPS INPS1 Holiday-related comments of other users on their
own social media accounts (profiles; Facebook,
Twitter, blogs, etc.) are important to me.
INPS2 Holiday-related sharings of other users on their own
social media accounts (profiles; Facebook, Twitter,
blogs, etc.) are important to me.
INPS3 Holiday recommendations of other users on their
own social media accounts (profiles; Facebook,
Twitter, blogs, etc.) are important to me.
INPS4 Holiday-related sharings (photo, video) of other users
on social media accounts of others (profiles;
Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc.) are important to me.
(continued)
Dedeoğlu et al. 23

Appendix 1. (continued)

Scales/Dimensions Measurement items References

DBA DBA1I can imagine what Alanya looks like. Ferns and Walls
DBA2I am aware of Alanya as a travel destination. (2012)
DBA3I can recognize Alanya among other similar destinations.
DBA4Some characteristics of Alanya come to my mind
quickly.
DBA5 I can quickly recall the marketing activities about Alanya.
DNQ DNQ1 Cultural attractions in Alanya are interesting. Baloglu and McCleary
(1999)
DNQ2* Historical attractions in Alanya are interesting. Baloglu and McCleary
(1999)
DNQ3 Climate in Alanya is good. Baloglu and McCleary
(1999)
DNQ4* Richness and beauty of landscapes in Alanya are good. Beerli and Martin
(2004)
DNQ5 Alanya has outstanding scenery. Ferns and Walls
(2012)
DNQ6 Cultural exchange with local people in Alanya is Narayan et al. (2008)
possible.
DNQ7* Alanya is located in a good place in terms of my holiday Dedeoğlu (2016)
purpose (e.g., sea, sand, sun).
DNQ8 Unusual ways of life and customs are available in Alanya. Beerli and Martin
(2004)
DSQ-Accommodation Acc1 Quality of food at the accommodation in Alanya is good. Kozak (2001)
Acc2 Attitude of staff at the accommodation in Alanya is Kozak (2001)
good.
Acc3 Level of services at the accommodation in Alanya is Kozak (2001)
good.
DSQ-Transportation Tra1* Local transport services in Alanya are good. Kozak (2001)
Tra2 Tourist spots in Alanya are easily accessible. Narayan et al. (2008)
Tra3 Frequency of local transport services in Alanya is Kozak (2001)
sufficient.
DSQ-Cleanliness Cle1 Cleanliness of tourist areas in Alanya is good. Narayan et al. (2008)
Cle2 Cleanliness at the place of stay in Alanya is good. Narayan et al. (2008)
Cle3 Cleanliness of beaches and sea in Alanya is good. Narayan et al. (2008)
DSQ-Hospitality Hos1 Staff outside the place of stay in Alanya is sincere. Küçükergin and
Dedeoğlu (2014)
Hos2 Local people in Alanya are sincere. Kozak (2001)
Hos3* Staff in Alanya is attentive in a general sense. Teng and Chen (2013)
Hos4 Staff in Alanya is helpful in a general sense. Teng and Chen (2013)
Hos5* Staff in Alanya is humorous in a general sense. Teng and Chen (2013)
DSQ-Activities Act1 Shopping facilities in Alanya are good. Kozak (2001)
Act2 Entertainment opportunities in Alanya are good. Kozak (2001)
Act3 Nightlife in Alanya is good. Kozak (2001)
Act4 Alanya offers a number of cultural and festival events. Ferns and Walls
(2012)
Act5* Daily tour services to other destinations and attractions Kozak (2001)
in Alanya are good.
DSQ-Amenities Ame1* The number of exchange offices outside my place of stay Narayan et al. (2008)
in Alanya is sufficient.
Ame2 Children-oriented facilities in Alanya are good. Kozak (2001)
Ame3 Internet connection at tourist spots in Alanya is good. Narayan et al. (2008)
DSQ-Language Lang1 English level of staff in Alanya is quite good in a general Kozak (2001)
sense.
Lang2 Adequacy of written information in English on Kozak (2001)
signboards is good.
DSQ-Security Sec1 Security in place of stay in Alanya is good. Narayan et al. (2008)
Sec2 Security at tourist areas in Alanya is good. Narayan et al. (2008)
(continued)
24 Journal of Vacation Marketing XX(X)

Appendix 1. (continued)

Scales/Dimensions Measurement items References

Sec3 Security of local transport in Alanya is good. Narayan et al. (2008)

Sec4 Regardless of time, I feel safe while wandering in Alanya. Dedeoğlu (2016)
MIC MIC1 There is excellent quality workmanship in Turkey. Pappu et al. (2007)
MIC2 Turkey is innovative.
MIC3 Turkey has recognizable brand names.
MIC4 Turkey is reliable.
MIC5 Turkey is dependable.
MIC6* Turkey is upmarket.
MAC MAC1 Turkey is a producer of high-quality products.
MAC2 Turkey has a high standard of living.
MAC3 There are high labor costs in Turkey.
MAC4* The welfare system is good in Turkey.
MAC5 Turkey has a highly developed economy.
MAC6* Turkey is literate.
MAC7* There is free-market system in Turkey.
MAC8* Turkey is democratic.
IPS: importance attached to participant sharing; INPS: importance attached to nonparticipant sharing; DBA: destination brand
awareness; DSQ: destination service quality; DNQ: destination natural quality; MIC: micro image of country of origin; MAC:
macro image of country of origin.
*This item was deleted after confirmatory factor analysis.

Appendix 2. Measurement invariance analysis.

Metric invariance

Groups Unconstrained Constrained Support

TR-ENG** w2: 3082; df: 1524 w2: 3132; df: 1560 Dw2: 50.00; Ddf: 36; p: 0.060
TR-GR* w2: 2763; df: 1524 w2: 2805; df: 1554 Dw2: 41.10; Ddf: 30; p: 0.085
TR-RS* w2: 2731.7; df: 1524 w2: 2776; df: 1556 Dw2: 44.30; Ddf: 32; p: 0.073
ENG-GR* w2: 3022.2; df: 1524 w2: 3063; df: 1558 Dw2: 41.00; Ddf: 34; p: 0.190
ENG-RS* w2: 2720.2; df: 1524 w2: 2763.9; df: 1557 Dw2: 43.70; Ddf: 33; p: 0.101
GR-RS** w2: 2669; df: 1524 w2: 2713.3; df: 1560 Dw2: 44.30; Ddf: 36; p: 0.161
TR: Turkish; ENG: English; GR: German; RS: Russian.
*Supported partial metric invariance.
**Supported full metric invariance.