. 7::

A...

Wig-4% .
I. a.
.3m? .

W4.
.2 a.

3.
. .

3“
$.35

I... Inf
IS:

.i..
.3. «v.55

13.“.

ﬁle

{Ix-n. Invuxuuﬂf
\r s}. ’1 4
1).

«Zip.
371,1).
4.1?! I»!

1.1. n... 13.1.. ‘

i . .o A m4.» ‘
. m. 34? gr? aﬁﬁﬁiﬁﬂﬁub?3
.u. .G ........4.» r. f ‘

I.

 

03!.

ﬁgwm
5.95.». .

39.951”

.1
. ‘9’. . 3
Sift!!-

THE-8'6

ma;

 

 

LIBRARY
chigan §tate
mversl

O
‘

U

I
,___l

to

\—

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

FACTORS INFLUENCING RESIDENTS’ ATTITUDES
TOWARD TOURISM MARKETING AS A DEVELOPMENT
STRATEGY

Presented by

Jeamok Kwon

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in Community, Agriculture,
Recreation, and Resource
Studies

 

 

lﬁ‘

 

Major Professor’s 8 nature
5 , ‘i , O8 .

Date

MSU is an aﬁinnative-action, equal-opportunity employer

 

c—o--—.—.

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

 

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE
FEPI g 2M". “81'?" 10 20“,]
090 5 1 (I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 KilProyAchrelelRC/DaIeDuemdd

 

5.. a..- :2 5.3.3.1....

 

. ,.
in 0.....—

, i . . . . . . .
. . . .. . . i . . . . . , ,2 . , a . . i . .L ,A .. _ . I .
. . . I l i, . «e a, ,. lit-.5... . _ . . ... ,. . r 15,... 9! ,1 ,..p.. c , jasuaﬁ..,r ” «.u 5.! i , l 1.“. . .. . .1-
. a .4 o: _ n .9 . . ~ .. v . a . ., . . o .. s Jr... . 3 .n...L. : t.” .0. v. Jami“; a .- . Ia); J. wir— aHkﬂaugé ,1! .rR-w.

 
 

FACTORS INFLUENCING RESIDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD TOURISM
MARKETING AS A DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

By

Jeamok Kwon

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies

2008

ABSTRACT

FACTORS INFLUENCING RESIDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD TOURISM
MARKETING AS A DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

By

J eamok Kwon

The marketing and promotion of tourism have been both praised and criticized as
a development strategy for their potential advantages (e.g., diversify an economy, create
employment) and disadvantages (e. g., erode local natural and cultural amenities, destroy
residents’ sense of place) for a community (Reeder & Brown, 2005). Disadvantages may
affect community residents by fostering negative attitudes toward the further marketing
and promotion of tourism in their community. To mitigate negative attitudes associated
with these problems (disadvantages), this study examined residents’ attitudes toward and
support for tourism promotion and marketing campaigns (TPMC) for several
destinations. To address the study’s objectives, a conceptual research model based on
Eagly and Chaiken’s attitude model (1993) was developed. The model was extended
utilizing a place marketing approach, a social marketing framework, social exchange
theory, Eagly and Chaiken’s attitude theory, and reasoned action theory. The proposed
model was tested with twelve hypotheses. Independent variables included: belief,
emotional experience, involvement, tourism knowledge, personal beneﬁt, and community
attachment. The main dependent variable was attitudes toward TPMC.

Data were collected using a mail questionnaire across several destination areas
(i.e., Emmet, Saginaw and Tuscola counties in Michigan, USA) at different levels of

tourism development. The questionnaire was developed from a literature review of

existing studies addressing residents’ attitudes toward tourism development and
marketing and later modiﬁed based on input obtained from university researchers and
ofﬁcials in two of the three counties. A total of 3,008 households constituted the
population and twenty—eight percent (28%) of the surveys were returned. A non—
response survey was sent out following the main data collection period to assess any
biases in the dataset. Eighteen percent (18%) of this sample (n=300) returned the non—
response survey, and the results from non—respondents were found to be relatively
indistinct from the main study results. The study model was tested utilizing a series of
multiple regression analyses, the major analysis of this study.

The results revealed residents, who have a high level of belief, emotional
experience, and involvement in decision—making of tourism development and promotion,
are more likely to hold positive attitudes toward tourism marketing and promotion than
those with lower levels. From the three different geographic areas, this study consistently
found homeowners’ beliefs in TPMC are stronger or more inﬂuential than the emotional
experience and involvement in attitudes toward TPMC. Implications for planners and
developers include a need for tourism marketing and promotion strategies to meet
residents’ demands that directly inﬂuence a level of “beliefs, emotional experiences, and
involvement” opportunities for local residents or homeowners. Further study should
expand to the measurement of residents’ behavior in TPMC by considering new
behavioral facets in the model, with which the study would be able to test and expand the
study ﬁndings, particularly on understanding how residents’ intentions impact behavior at
tourism marketing and promotion, and also ﬁnd empirical and theoretical evidences to
support the TRA model (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) in a tourism marketing and promotion

context.

I dedicate this dissertation to my mother, Chomjun Ahn. Not only did she provide
support and encouragement throughout, but she has also supported my endeavors with
her love and generosity. Without her ceaseless sacriﬁce and devotion for me, I would not
be able to complete this challenging journey of my life. I love you, Mom!

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are a number of people those who have given me sincere support and
guidance in completing this dissertation successfully. First and foremost, I would like to
show my deepest respect and heartfelt thankfulness to my advisor, Dr. Christine Vogt for
her enduring support for and interest in my personal and intellectual growth. Without her
support, I would not have completed my Ph.D. program. Without her guidance and
direction, I would not have acquired academic development and expertise in my Ph.D.
study. I was really luck to have her as my advisor, to see her in action and to receive
constructive feedback on my work. I was really lucky to have her as my advisor because
above all she was a compassionate and supportive human being. I hope I can become as
great as her one day.

I would also like to thank to my committee members, Dr. Thomas Page who
provided the solid knowledge background for attitude theories of marketing domain and
Dr. John Kerr and Dr. Sarah Nicholls for their insightful comments on this dissertation
and guidance through out the whole process to complete this research. Without them, my
dissertation would not have materialized.

Special thanks are extended to Dr. Sangdong Ko for his ongoing support and
encouragement from the moment I decided to come to United States for my Ph.D. study.
Without his suggestion to continue my education, I would not be where I am today. I am
also grateful to Dr. J aemyung Chung for his reliable encouragement and advice that lead
me to inspire my resolve.

I would like to thanks for all of my brilliant colleagues and friends I acquired

during my Ph.D. studies. Thank you for sharing with me all these feelings I thought I

only had as a PhD student. Thank you for their companionship and kindness extended to
me during my coursework and the process of writing this dissertation.

Finally, to my parents, Youngho Kwon and Chomjun Ahn who always support
my endeavors with their love and generosity, I am most grateful for their ceaseless
sacriﬁce and devotion for my personal growth. Many thanks to my three sisters, two
brothers, and nine niece/nephews who supported me psychologically through this process
and urged me to keep going on this challenging journey of my life and for this I thank all

my families for the bottom of my heart.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ ix
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
Background .................................................................................... , ............................. 1
Statement of Research Problem .................................................................................. 3
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................... 4
Justiﬁcation of the Study ............................................................................................ 4
Study Hypotheses ........................................................................................................ 6
Delimitations ............................................................................................................... 8
Limitations .................................................................................................................. 8
Deﬁnitions ................................................................................................................... 9
Organization of Study ............................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 13
Marketing and Promotion in Tourism ....................................................................... l3
Importance of Residents in Tourism Destination Marketing .................................... 15
Place Marketing Framework .......................................................................... 16

Social Marketing Approach ........................................................................... 17

Social Exchange Theory ................................................................................ 20

Eagly and Chaiken’s Attitude Theory ....................................................................... 23
Knowledge, Belief, and Attitude Pathway ..................................................... 25

The Prediction of Attitude from Emotional Experience ................................ 27

The Prediction of Attitude from Involvment ................................................. 28

Theory of Reasoned Action ...................................................................................... 30
Belief, Attitude, and Intention Pathway ......................................................... 30

Personal Beneﬁt Facet ................................................................................... 33
Community Attachment ................................................................................. 35
Cause—Reated Marketing ............................................................................... 36

Synthesis of the Literature and Hypotheses .............................................................. 40
CHAPTER 3. METHOD .................................................................................................. 45
Methodological Speciﬁcation of the Study ............................................................... 45
Study Site ..................................................................................................... 45

Population and Sample ................................................................................ 47

Data Collection and Procedures .................................................................... 48

Survey Instrument ......................................................................................... 50

Response Rate .............................................................................................. 54
Non-Respondent Study ................................................................................. 54

Reliability Test .............................................................................................. 58

vii

Statistical Procedures of Data Analysis .................................................................... 61

Overall Analysis Steps .................................................................................. 61
Ajzen and Fishbein’s Measurement Protocol (1975; 1980) ......................... 64
Regression Analysis ...................................................................................... 66
Multiple Regression Analysis with Interactions ........................................... 67
Independent Sample T—Test .......................................................................... 68
One—Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with a Post Hoc Test ............... 69
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS .................................................................................................. 70
General Description of the Sample ........................................................................... 7O
Socio—Demographic Proﬁle ............................................................................ 7O
Beliefs in Tourism Promotion and Marketing Campaigns Proﬁle .................. 73
Emotional Experience in Tourism Promotion and

Marketing Campaigns Proﬁle ......................................................................... 76

Involvement in Decision—Making of Tourism Development and Promotion
Proﬁle .............................................................................................................. 76
Tourism Knowledge Proﬁle ............................................................................ 77
Personal Beneﬁt from Tourism Proﬁle ........................................................... 80
Community Attachment Proﬁle ...................................................................... 80
Attitude toward Tourism Promotion and Marketing Campaigns Proﬁle ........ 82
Support Proﬁle ................................................................................................ 83
Analysis of the Study Hypotheses ........................................................................... 86
Step I of the Study Model: Hypothesis 1 and 2 ............................................... 89
Step II (1) of the Study Model: Hypothesis 3 and 4 ........................................ 91
Step II (2) of the Study Model: Hypothesis 5 and 6 ........................................ 97
Step II (3) of the Study Model: Hypothesis 7 and 8 ...................................... 100
Step III (1) of the Study Model: Hypothesis 9 and 10 .................................. 104
Step III (2) of the Study Model: Hypothesis 11 and 12 ................................ 107
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................... 112
Summary of the Study ........................................................................................... 112
Discussion of Key Findings ................................................................................... 113
Implications ............................................................................................................ 121
Limitation of Findings ........................................................................................... 131
Further Research .................................................................................................... 132
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. l 35
APPENDIX A ...................................................................................................... 136
APPENDIX B ....................................................................................................... 149
APPENDIX C ....................................................................................................... 152
APPENDIX D ....................................................................................................... 155
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 166

viii

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

Table 9.

Table 10.

Table 1 1.

Table 12.

Table 13.

Table 14.

Table 15.

Table 16.

LIST OF TABLES

Factors Concerned in Tourism Marketing Process ....................................... 20

Theoretical Frameworks Used in Studies Emphasizing the Importance of
Residents’ Involvement in Tourism Marketing Processes ........................... 22

Studies Applying Attitude Theory and Reasoned Action Theory to
Predicting Individuals’ Attidues toward Marketing and Promotion

(Advertising) .................................................................................................. 33
Characteristics of Geographic Areas under Study ......................................... 46
Variables and Sources for Scale Items Used for Measurement .................... 52
Response Rates for Three Michigan Counties .............................................. 54

The Results of the Non—Respondent Study Compared to the Main Study.... 57

Summary of the Reliability Scale (Sum Score) for Variables

Used in This Study by County ....................................................................... 60
Regression Analysis to Test the Relationship between Variables ................. 62
Socio—Demographic Proﬁle of Homeowners by County .............................. 71

Beliefs in Tourism Promotion and Marketing Campaigns Proﬁle
of Homeowners by County ............................................................................ 74

Beliefs in Tourism Promotion and Marketing Campaigns Proﬁle
of Homeowners by County Using Ajzen and Fishbein’s

Measurement Protocol ................................................................................... 75

Emotional Experience in Tourism Promotion and

Marketing Campaigns Proﬁle of Homeowners by County ........................... 76
Involvement in Decision—Making of Tourism Development and

Promotion Proﬁle of Homeowners by County .............................................. 77
Tourism Knowledge Proﬁle of Homeowners by County .............................. 78

The Original Data for Contribution of Tourism and Recreation to
Each County’s Economy Used as the Variable of Objective
Tourism Knowledge ...................................................................................... 78

ix

Table 17.

Table 18.

Table 19.

Table 20.

Table 21.

Table 22.

Table 23.

Table 24.

Table 25.

Table 26.

Table 27.

Table 28.

Table 29.

Personal Beneﬁt from Tourism Proﬁle of Homeowners by County ............. 80

Community Attachment Proﬁle of Homeowners by County ........................ 82
Attitudes toward Tourism Promotion and Marketing Campaigns Proﬁle

of Homeowners by County ............................................................................ 83
Support Proﬁle of Homeowners for County ................................................. 85

Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations for the Model
Variables by County ...................................................................................... 87

Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Attitudes toward TPMC
from Beliefs, Emotional Experience, and Involvement in Decision—
Making of Tourism Development and Promotion ....................................... 90

Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Beliefs in TPMC from
Subjective Tourism Knowledge .................................................................... 92

Independent Sample T—Test for Relationship between Objective
Tourism Knowledge and Beliefs in Tourism Promotion and
Marketing Campaigns .................................................................................... 93

Multiple Regression with Interactions Using Attitudes toward Tourism
Promotion and Marketing Campaigns (TPMC) as the Dependent Variable
and Subjective Tourism Knowledge and Beliefs in TPMC

as the Independent Variable .......................................................................... 95

Multiple Regression with Interactions Using Attitudes toward Tourism
Promotion and Marketing Campaigns (TPMC) as the Dependent Variable
and Objective Tourism Knowledge and Beliefs in TPMC

as the Independent Variable .......................................................................... 96

Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Emotional Experience in
Tourism Promotion and Marketing Campaigns from
Personal Beneﬁt from Tourism ..................................................................... 98

Multiple Regression with Interactions Using Attitudes toward Tourism
Promotion and Marketing Campaigns as Dependent Variable and

Personal Beneﬁt from Tourism and Emotional Experience in TPMC

as Independent Variable ................................................................................ 99

Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Involvement in Decision—
Making of Tourism Development and Promotion (TDP) from
Community Attachment .............................................................................. 101

Table 30.

Table 31.

Table 32.

Table 33.

Table 34.

Table 35.

Multiple Regression with Interactions Using Attitudes toward Tourism
Promotion and Marketing Campaigns as Dependent Variable and
Community Attachment and Involvement in Decision—Making of TDP

as Independent Variable .............................................................................. 103

One—Way Analysis of Variance with a Post Hoc Test for Examining
Differences in Support for Cause—Related Marketing Activities
among the Three Attitude Groups ............................................................... 106

Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Support for Cause—Related
Marketing Activities from Attitudes toward Tourism Promotion and
Marketing Campaigns (TPMC) ................................................................... 106

One—Way Analysis of Variance with a Post Hoc Test for Examining
Differences in Support for Tourism Products among the Three Attitude
Groups ......................................................................................................... 109
Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Support for Tourism Products

from Attitudes toward Tourism Promotion and Marketing Campaigns
(TPMC) ........................................................................................................ 109

Summary of Hypotheses Test Results ......................................................... 1 10

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. A Model of Attitude Formation (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993) .......................... 24
Figure 2. A Modiﬁed Model of Attitude Formation
(adapted by Eagly & Chaiken, 1993) ............................................................. 25

Figure 3. Proposed Model of Residents’ Attitudes toward Tourism Promotion

and Marketing Campaigns (TPMC) ............................................................. 39
Figure 4. Map of the Three Study Sites (i.e., Emmet, Saginaw, Tuscola Counties)

in Michigan State ......................................................................................... 47
Figure 5. Percentage of Homeowners’ Subjective Tourism Knowledge by

Objective Tourism Knowledge ..................................................................... 79
Figure 6. Summary of Study Model and Results ....................................................... 111

xii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Background

Since its advent, the tourism industry has rapidly grown worldwide, resulting in
economic and social beneﬁts. This has led to more and more places becoming tourism
destinations. Tourism development and growth is often welcome, but unmanaged
tourism can cause intense pressures and problems (Dore & Crouch, 2003). Sustainable
tourism does not often happen casually. Successful and sustainable tourism development
is based on effective marketing and promotion strategies (Pritchard, 1982). Early
researchers (Butler, 1980; Doxey, 1975; Murphy, 1985) showed the role that residents
played in tourism growth. Current researchers (Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Buhalis, 1999;
Jurowski & Gursoy, 2004; Liu & Wall, 2006) conﬁrmed that when planners and
developers create marketing strategies, it becomes even more crucial for them to consider
the perceptions, attitudes, and opinions of local residents.

The marketing and promotion of tourism have been both praised and criticized as
a development strategy for their potential advantages and disadvantages for a community
(Reeder & Brown, 2005). The marketing and promotion of tourism are associated with
“growth,” which can help diversify an economy and give under—employed manufacturing
workers and farmers an opportunity to supplement their incomes and remain in the
community. The marketing and promotion of tourism also can help to govern tax
revenues and growth—induced economies of scale and gain access for residents to a

broader array of private or public sector goods and services (e.g., medical care, shopping,

entertainment) (Reeder & Brown, 2005). In contrast to these advantages, the marketing
and promotion of tourism are also associated with “growth” which can erode local natural
amenities (e.g., despoiling scenic views) and result in pollution and related health
problems, higher housing costs, road congestion and more crowded schools and towns.
Cultural amenities (e. g., historic sites) can be threatened and small businesses can also be
threatened by growth-induced “bi g—box” commercial development. Moreover, residents’
sense of place can be destroyed and may reduce support for local institutions, schools,
and public services (Reeder & Brown, 2005).

There have been numerous examples of negative impacts of tourism development
and marketing activities on indigenous peoples throughout history, and these problems
continue to exist. For instance, native Hawaiian culture has serious problems due to
tourism development with globalized promotion and marketing activities (GPMA)
(Darowski et al., 2006; Martin, 2002). Although the GPMA inﬂuenced and beneﬁted
local residents and the community in modernizing the islands and building resorts in
pursuit of well—being for residents, many natives have found it difﬁcult to maintain the
livelihoods of their ancestors which are a signiﬁcant part of their identities and well—
being (Darowski et al. , 2006). These negative impacts create conﬂicts and resentment
among local peoples and government (McLaren, 1999). In this context, community
residents may hold negative attitudes toward the marketing and promotion of tourism in
their community. To mitigate negative attitudes of residents for tourism marketing and
promotion, numerous researchers have emphasized residents’ perceptions of and
involvement in tourism marketing and promotion processes (Ap, 1992; Bramwell, 1998;

King, McVey, & Simmons, 2000). Buhalis (1999) suggested that the marketing and

promotion of destinations should create tourism impact optimization and the
maximization of beneﬁts based on a community and residents’ wants and wishes. If
tourism promotion and marketing campaigns (TPMC) are to be a positive force in the
lives of local residents, the TPMC is contingent upon local responses, involvement, and
support (Liu & Wall, 2006). There has been little research that directly examines
residents’ attitudes toward and involvement in tourism promotion and marketing
processes. Most available research has focused on residents’ attitudes toward tourism
development, not toward tourism promotion and marketing campaigns. To address the
gap in the literature, this study examined residents’ attitudes toward and support for
TPMC for several destinations. This study offers a platform for better understanding of
residents’ perceptions for and attitudes toward place promotion and marketing campaigns

and will also provides background knowledge for a future study of community and place

marketing.
Statement of Research Problem WWW“
The aim of this study was tE examine besidents’ attitudes toward and support for. a ‘8”
I 3"le . '- _.

 

 

promotion and marketing campaigns of tourisrjt, as well as tojeiplore factors yielding

 

positive or negative effects of residents’ attitudes toward tourism promotion and

.g-u'l"

J

‘ . .. ., . . (‘ .»,. H, ”.1" ,,. - . ,..,_,,‘,z,u_,..,‘.‘_..,--.-4M '
j marketing campaigns (TPMC) for several destinations. To achieve the study objectives, Hot) “to
we" Wm iii 3

this study enhances theory tested in knowledge and understanding of residents’ attitudes

W ___.

 

toward and support for tourism marketing and promotion, as well as provides developers

and planners in the tourism industry with a detailed report of residents’ values and a "g”...

    
 

preferred direction for future tourism promotion and marketing strategie .

‘ l

-2) v

I 's.
I

This also ( . V

contributes to the understanding of alleviating residents’ concerns and issues about

TPMC and mitigating negative attitudes associated with the problems (e. g., destroying

natural and cultural amenities).

Purpose of the Study

The problem addressed in this research is that the perceptions, attitudes, and
opinions of locai/residents, regarding tourism marketing and promotion, are not fully
understood. Resident stakeholders are one of the major target users in tourism or
destination marketing, in which the needs and demands of identiﬁed target users
(residents) should be considered to produce an effective advertising campaign,
inﬂuencing successful marketing of a tourism product. Thus, there is a need of
understanding residents’ attitudes toward or support for tourism marketing and promotion

that is a critical development strategy for a successful future plan.

_n-

ﬂﬁm m-) *"‘

r

.l Justification of LhLSEBQX-W--

‘ :

_._-

 

 

_____._--—-—-""“

k

‘7

fuccessful marketingIof a tourism product is closely linked to an effective

advertising campaign, which needs to consider the characteristics of its target audiences
(users) including natural or cultural values (Ashworth & Goodall, 1990; Mohsin, 2005).
Who are the major target users in tourism or destination mark ing?) Bramwell (1998)

/
stated that the users of place products in cities and elsewhere include “residents” and

A“

leisure and business tourists who experience varying levels of product satisfaction and

.____/

dissatisfactionfriﬂeals‘o suggested that the development and marketing of place products
‘A

should focus on meeting the needs and demands of identiﬁed target users including

T.“
' _ - ~_.——‘. __ _, ~.
—..—w~—’ ' u "

“residents.” Buhalis (1999) and Sautter and Leisen (1999) suggested that marketing ( ‘
Of \ ("'1ij ' .
strategies and actions should take into account the wishes of all stakeholders or of both ' ) \ !

professional and personal interests of all the people who live and work in the area. It is

\
wasteful when places invest their limited resources in developing and promoting a place
\Jﬂ

product if the intended users (residents) are not fully satisﬁed with the resulting products w 6

(Philo & Keams, 1993) j i
In addition to these researchers and scholars, many studies have suggested that

resident stakeholders’ involvement and community—based planning and marketing should

be a part of the early stages of tourism developmenmndeigck 8c Vogt,2000; Buhalis, __ .. ..

I999: Butler,l980,Doxey, 1975 ; Jamal & Getz, 1995: Jurowski &Gursoy, 2004; Liu &
Wall,l2006; Murphy. 1985). Howeverﬂt’udigiat directly examined residents” I M’s/(f
attitudes toward and involvement in tourism planning and marketing processes have bean
found. us, this study proposed not only to understand the perceptions, attitudes, and
opinions of local residents regarding TPMC, but also to identify factors yielding
residents’ positive or negative attitudes toward the TPMC for the future plan. ./
To accomplish these objectives, this study utilized the place marketing approach
(Bramwell, 1998; Gold & Ward, 1994; Kotler, Haider, & Rein, 1993), social marketing
frarnework (Buhalis, 1999; King, McVey, & Simmons, 2000), and social exchange ..
theory (Ap, 1992; Skidmore, 1975) as theoretical approaches to tourism marketing and
Promotion processes. To further identify factors yielding residents’ positive or negative
attitudes toward tourism marketing and promotion, this study focused primarily on the
actors (e.g., residents’ involvement, satisfaction, personal beneﬁt and cost, social science

InputS~social or environmental issues) extracted from the three theoretical approaches.

Applying these factors in the conceptual model presented by Eagly and
Chaiken (1993), two additional theories were studied to build a comprehensive model for
this study. Eagly and Chaiken’s attitude theory (1993) and reasoned action theory (Ajzen
& Fishbein, 1975; 1980) have shown to be suitable theoretical frameworks for analyzing

”\ind‘iyiduals’ attitudes toward or support for an object or entity.l\Thus, these theoretical

“H’
w.-‘_....-.”_......,._. m-” “.1"
‘4,»

frameworks were extended to build a comprehensive research model to guide this study.

-—q..__... _...
— - “u .—-~.. _

 

 

K I...”

This study will provide greater understanding of residents’ perception of and attitude \
.\

\ Kr,

toward tourism marketing and promotion. It will also serve to enhance our understanding \‘-\ L r(
k ’14,,

and ability to predict residents’ attitudes toward tourism marketing and promotion. The
l

direct beneﬁciaries of this study will include both tourism developers and planners who /

need to understand residents’ values and preferred future directions for tourism
/

/

development and promotion. 4

_/,./’—H V M ‘7 \

. I Study Hypotheses
//
To achieve its objectives, this study developed a conceptual research model based

on Eagly and Chaiken’s attitude model (1993). The model was extended utilizing the

place marketing approach, social marketing framework, social exchange theory, reasoned
action theory, and additional theories related to, such as personal beneﬁt, community
attachment, and cause—related marketing. The proposed model was tested with the

following hypotheses.

H1: There is a positive relationship between beliefs, emotional experience,
and involvement and attitudes toward tourism promotion and marketing

campaigns (TPMC).

H2: Beliefs in TPMC will be stronger or more inﬂuential than
emotional experience in TPMC or involvement in decision—making of
tourism development and promotion in predicting attitudes toward TPMC.

6

H3:

H4:

H5:

H6:

H7:

H8:

H9:

H10:

H11:

H12:

There is a positive relationship between both objective and subjective
tourism knowledge and beliefs in TPMC.

The higher the level of residents’ objective and subjective tourism
knowledge, the stronger of a relationship between residents’ beliefs in and
attitudes toward TPMC.

The higher the personal beneﬁt from tourism, the more positive is
residents’ emotional experience (e.g., interest, satisfaction) in TPMC.

The higher the personal beneﬁt from tourism, the stronger the relationship
between residents’ emotional experience in TPMC and attitudes toward
TPMC.

A positive relationship exists between community attachment and
involvement in decision-making of tourism development and promotion.

Level of community attachment moderates the strength of the relationship
between involvement in decision—making of tourism development and
promotion and attitudes toward TPMC.

There will be a signiﬁcant difference among residents by those with
positive, neutral, or negative attitudes toward TPMC, regarding support
for types of cause—related marketing activities for future TPMC.

The relationship between residents’ attitudes toward TPMC and support
for types of cause—related marketing activities is signiﬁcant. The strength
of the relationship will vary by county with a high stage tourism
destination holding the strongest relationship compared to a middle stage
or lower stage tourism destination.

There will be a signiﬁcant difference between residents by those with
positive, neutral, or negative attitudes toward TPMC, regarding support
for tourism products for the future plan of marketing and promotion.

The relationship between residents’ attitudes toward TPMC and support
for tourism products is signiﬁcant. The strength of the relationship will
vary by county with a high stage tourism destination holding the strongest
relationship compared to a middle stage or lower stage tourism
destination.

Delimitations
This study was delimited to a random sample of three tourism areas in the state of
Michigan (i.e., Emmet, Saginaw, Tuscola) counties’ residents who are homeowners,
including ﬁrll—time and seasonal residents, at the household level of these counties, but
attempted to exclude businesses, renters, trusts, lawyers, bankers, real estate, owners of
property only, and multiple household properties. Only subjects who were listed in the
2006 winter property tax bill for each study area were eligible to be included in the

sample.

Limitations
The study was limited by the following factors: (1) a survey instrument that may

have been too long (8 pages) and complicated. The long survey may have caused
respondents to not complete and return the original survey resulting in a low survey
response; (2) the samples in this study were comprised of the general population (not
tourism business owners or civic leaders), who may know or not know enough about
tourism development and promotion issues. This may have reﬂected to adequately
answer the survey or to not answer some of survey questions. Missing values were
excluded from the analysis and this makes the total number of cases used for the main

Part of the analysis smaller than the original number of returned surveys; and (3) no

Speciﬁc tourism marketing and promotion campaigns were tested (i.e., a paid ad,

billboard, or slogan).

Definitions

The following terms are deﬁned for the purpose of this study. For many of the
terms, a more operational explanation is detailed in Chapter 2.

Attitude: An attitude is “a learned disposition to respond in a consistently
favorable or unfavorable manner with respect to a given object” (Fishbein and Ajzen,
1975, p. 6). “Attitudes are intellectual, emotional, and behavioral responses to events,
things, and personas which people can learn over time” (Fridgen, 1991, p. 43).

Beliefs: Beliefs underlie a person’s attitude toward the behavior. Attitudes are
made up of the beliefs that a person accumulates over his or her lifetime that a person
forms from direct experience, outside information, and others which are inferred or self

generated. Only a few of these beliefs actually work to inﬂuence attitude. These beliefs
are said to be the “immediate determinants of a person’s attitude” (Ajzen & Fishbein,
] 980, p. 63).

Community Attachment: “The social bond and local sentiment residents express
toward their community” (Jurowski, Uysal, & Williams, 1997, p. 3).

Cause—Related Marketing Activity: “The process of formulating and
implementing marketing activities that are characterized by an offer from the ﬁrm to
contribute a speciﬁed amount to designated cause when customers engage in revenue—
providing exchanges that satisfy organization and individual objectives” (V aradarajan &
Mellon, 1988, p. 60).

Emotional Experience: Emotional experience refers to the affective process to

make an attitude toward an object. For example, “people who evaluate an attitude object

favorably are likely to experience positive affective reactions in conjunction with it and
are unlikely to experience negative affective reactions” (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993, p. 11).
Involvement in Decision Making: Involvement in decision making can refer to the
extent or degree of local participation in tourism development processes (Kasarda &
J anowitz, 1974) and is considered as one actor to inﬂuence decision outcomes that affect
others (Madrigal, 1993). Local residents’ involvement can control the pace of
development and produce more individualistic tourism products in a community (Taylor,
1995)
Place Marketing: “Place marketing can be deﬁned as a process whereby local
activities are related as closely as possible to the demand of targeted customers. The
intention is to maximize the efﬁcient social and economic functioning of the area
concerned, in accordance with whatever wider goals have been established” (Ashworth &

Voogd, 1994, p. 41).

Organization of Study

The presentation of this research is organized into ﬁve chapters. Chapter 1
consists of a general background and introduction to the basic theories, which are
underpinnings to develop the conceptual research model of this study. Subsequent to this
introductory chapter is a review of the literature germane to the research.

Chapter 2 includes the literature review where the theoretical frameworks and
empiri cal examples (i.e., place marketing approach, social marketing framework, social
exchaIIlge) are discussed. Those theories conﬁrm and support the importance of

resrdents’ involvement in tourism marketing and promotion processes, as well as provide

10

several factors which should be considered in a better understanding of residents’
attitudes toward tourism marketing and promotion. Attitude theory and the reasoned
action theory, which were conﬁrmed as suitable theoretical frameworks for analyzing
individuals’ attitudes toward or support for an object or entity, were also reviewed. A
review of existing literature in these areas was intended to disclose the research gap on
the topic of residents’ attitudes toward tourism marketing and promotion processes, and
also to facilitate a selection of the variables and speciﬁcation of the relationship among
those variables utilized in the proposed model for this research. At the end of the
literature review, a synthesis of literature is presented, followed by the proposed
hypotheses of the study.
In Chapter 3, the methodological speciﬁcation of the study is presented. This
chapter describes characteristics of the study sites, sample, data collection and procedure,
survey instrument, response rate, non—response study, reliability test, followed by
statistical procedures of data analysis. The data were analyzed in three steps: 1) the ﬁrst
step employed descriptive statistics for proﬁling the sample and their attitudinal and
behavioral characteristics in tourism marketing; 2) the second step used Ajzen and
Fishbein’s measurement protocol (1975; 1980) to measure residents’ attitudes from
beliefs in tourism promotion and marketing campaigns (TPMC); and 3) the third step
Performed a series of multiple regression analyses (i.e., multiple linear regression,
multivariate regression with interaction) to test the relationships among the variables and
teSt for moderating inﬂuences. Multiple linear regression analysis tested the study
hypotheses for the causal relationship among the variables used in the study model.

Multipl e regression with interaction terms examined the hypotheses for moderating

11

inﬂuences. Two test statistics were additionally employed as follows: independent
sample t—tests to examine differences between a categorical independent variable
regarding a continuous dependent variable; and one-way ANOVAs with post hoc
bonferroni tests to determine the existence of differences in a continuous dependent
variable among categorical independent variables.
Chapter 4 discusses the results of data analysis and testing of hypotheses.
Initially, the socio—demographic proﬁles of the sample, along with their attitudinal and
behavioral characteristics in tourism marketing, are depicted. Then, the results of the
hypotheses tests, using a series of multiple regression analyses, independent sample t—
tests, and one—way ANOVAs with post hoc bonferroni tests, are presented with summary
preSentations of the relevant test statistics, coefﬁcients, and test results. Chapter 5
contains conclusions and a discussion of the study, along with a summary of the study,
discussion of key ﬁndings, implications and limitations of the study ﬁndings, as well as

future research directions.

12

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

In this chapter, the literature is reviewed in terms of theoretical frameworks and
empirical examples, which conﬁrm and support the importance of residents’ involvement
in tourism marketing and promotion processes, as well as provide several factors which
should be considered for a better understanding of residents’ attitudes toward tourism
marketing and promotion. For organizational purposes, the literature is presented under
the following topics: 1) marketing and promotion in tourism; 2) the importance of
residents in tourism destination marketing; 3) Eagly and Chaiken’s attitude theory; 4) the
theory of reasoned action; 4) social exchange theory; 5) personal beneﬁt facet; 6)

community attachment; and 7) cause—related marketing.

Marketing and Promotion in Tourism

Marketing is deﬁned as a social and managerial process by which customers
obtain what they need and want through creating and exchanging products and values
with others (Kotler, Bowen, & Makens, 2006). Effective and sustained communications
with customers are now seen as critical to successful marketing for any organizations
(e. g., global airlines, tourism destinations, museums) (Morgan & Pritchard, 2001). To
develop relationships with customers, the mix of communication activities (e. g.,
advertising, sales promotion, public relations) is considered an important factor (Rossiter

& Bellman, 2005). Through communication activities, organizations can address and

13

interact with a variety of audiences (customers), principally “to inform prospective
customers about their products; persuade them to prefer certain brands, products or
venues, or perform a variety of behaviors; and induce customer action so buying behavior
is directed toward their offering and purchase occurs sooner rather than later” (Morgan &
Pritchard, 2001 , p.7).

In tourism sectors, communication activities are even more vital than in other
industries. According to Morgan and Pritchard (2001), the tourism product is mostly
intangible, inseparable, variable and perishable. That is, “there is nothing tangible for the
customer to examine beforehand or to take away afterwards; the service is inseparable
from its production; the experience is variable and often subject to factors beyond the
marketers’ control; and ﬁnally, the product is perishable and cannot be stored for future
sale” (p. 10). Thus, the mix of communication activities such as promotions becomes
critical, having a greater role in establishing the nature of the product than in most other
markets (Morgan & Pritchard, 2001). The customer buys a theatre ticket, or visits
tourism destinations on the basis of symbolic expectations (i.e., perceptions, image)
established promotionally through words, pictures, sounds, and so forth (Rossiter &
Bellman, 2005). Tourism experiences are literally constructed in the customer’s
imagination thorough advertising and the media (Gammack, 2005).

Accordingly, when planning marketing and promotion campaigns, tourism
advertisers and planners should focus on issues such as consumers’ attention factors (e. g.,
social issues, interests, demands), which modify attitudes, and the purchasing behavior of
consumers (Gold & Ward, 1994; Morgan & Pritchard, 2001; Rossiter & Bellman, 2005).

Particularly, for a place product, tourism promotion should meet the needs or wants of

14

identiﬁed customers or users, as well as maximize the efﬁcient social and economic
functioning of an area concerned in accordance with whatever goals that have been
established for the subject (Bramwell & Rawding, 1996). In this context, the main
targets (i.e., customers, tourists, residents) must be identiﬁed at the beginning of planning

and marketing for the place product (Harrill, 2004; Liu & Wall, 2006; Murphy, 1985).

Importance of Residents in Tourism Destination Marketing

For successful tourism marketing, it is imperative that governments pay attention
to resident stakeholders, who are identiﬁed as an important target market, in particular for
a place product (Bramwell, 1998; Buhalis, 1999; Gold & Ward, 1994; Jamal & Getz,
1992; Kotler, Haider, & Rein, 1993; Liu & Wall, 2006; Murphy, 1985). Local residents
are frequently represented as the main target (customer) of place marketers (Kotler,
Haider, & Rein, 1993; Liu & Wall, 2006). The involvement of local residents is often
regarded as the key to sustainable development and marketing since residents are a part
of the tourism product and they also share in beneﬁts and costs (Taylor, 1995). F ridgen
(1991) suggested that planning and marketing for tourism require the creativity of the
entire community, thus, local residents have the right and the obligation to become
involved in the processes that will shape their future.

There are many theoretical approaches that suggest the importance of residents’
roles in tourism marketing. Place marketing approaches (Bramwell, 1998; Gold & Ward,

1994; Kotler, Haider, & Rein, 1993), social marketing frameworks (Buhalis, 1999; King,

15

McVey, & Simmons, 2000), and social exchange theory (Ap, 1992; Skidmore, 1975) are

representative of these social place theories.

Place Marketing Framework

The place marketing framework (Bramwell, 1998; Gold & Ward, 1994; Kotler,
Haider, & Rein, 1993) is one of the theoretical approaches that has gained attention in
tourism and destination development. The framework is identiﬁed as a model that
involves residents’ input in any tourism marketing process. The place marketing
framework suggests that the development and marketing of place products should focus
on meeting the needs and demands of identiﬁed target users including residents and
leisure and business tourists (Brarnwell, 1998). The key principle of the marketing
approach is that products in a place should be connected to the demands of targeted
customers, including residents, as closely as possible. The priority goal of this approach
was to maximize the efﬁcient social and economic functioning of areas involved
(Brarnwell, 1998; Gold & Ward, 1994).

Bramwell’s interpretation of the place marketing approach is linked with Kotler,
Haider, and Rein’s framework (1993) of marketing places. Like Brarnwell (1998),
Kotler, Haider, and Rein (1993) indicated that one of the main targets of marketing places
is residents and workers. The authors implied that “place marketing must generate
support from its citizens (residents). . .for making the place hospitable and enthusiastic
about attracting new companies, investments, and visitors to its community” (p. 20). The

place marketing approach involves places as a collection of products with planning and

16

marketing being guided by satisfying the needs and demands of identiﬁed target users
(Kotler, Haider, & Rein, 1993).

In general, product users evaluate products according to whether the products
meet needs, demands, and expectations. There is generally a gap between the users’
expectations of the product and their perception of its actual performance, which can lead
to user satisfaction or dissatisfaction. In this context, prominence should be given to
understanding residents’ perceptions of and their involvement in any tourism marketing
processes (including tourism promotion and development) to minimize residents’
dissatisfaction as well as gaining their positive support for tourism product marketing

(Brarnwell, 1998; Gold & Ward, 1994; Kotler, Haider, & Rein, 1993).

Societal Marketing Approach

Another theoretical approach explaining the importance of residents’ reactions to
tourism planning and marketing is the societal marketing approach (Buhalis, 1999; King,
McVey, & Simmons, 2000; Ryan, 1991b). Generally, the societal marketing concept
holds that an organization’s task is “to determine the needs, wants, and interests of target
markets and to deliver the desired satisfactions more effectively and efﬁciently than
competitors in a way that preserves or enhances the consumers’ and the society’s well—
being” (Kotler, Haider, & Rein, 1993, p. 25).

According to the societal marketing concept, marketing decisions are made by
considering the wants and long run requirements of consumers, companies, and society’s
long run interests (Kotler & Armstrong, 1984). In practice, Buhalis (1999) adopted the

societal marketing framework and then proposed that the planning and marketing of

17

tourism destinations should balance the strategic objectives of all stakeholders, as well as
the sustainability of local resources. Traditionally, tourism marketing concentrates on
increasing visitation and treats tourism like any other commodity. This approach often
fails to recognize residents’ needs or wants and the limitations of each destination, as
well as its particular geographical, environmental, and socio—cultural characteristics
(Buhalis, 1999). By contrast, tourism planning literature focuses more on the impacts of
tourism and limitations of tourism development, often ignoring market dynamics and the
requirements of entrepreneurs and residents at a destination and the place of origin
(Buhalis, 1999; Burns, 1999; Ryan, 1991b).

Societal marketing strategies must be adopted by the tourism marketing and
planning processes (Ryan, 1991b) since successful tourism aims to generate satisfaction
from all stakeholders (e. g., tourists, hosts, entrepreneurs). Tourism has been viewed as
one of the most difﬁcult entities to manage and market due to the complexity in local
stakeholders’ relationships (Sautter & Leisen, 1999). Managing and marketing tourism is
challenging because a variety of stakeholders are involved in the development and
production of tourism products (Buhalis, 1999). The demands or wants of local
(community) stakeholders about tourism development (marketing) are mostly different
and diverse from community attachment (e.g., the length of residency, place of birth)
(Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974), which is identiﬁed as an important factor in forming
residents’ involvement in decision making and perceptions of tourism development
(Taylor, 1995), social structure, and function of community (McCool & Martin, 1994).

Hence, marketing strategies and actions should take into account the wishes of all

18

stakeholders or professional and personal interests of all the people who live and work in
the area (Buhalis, 1999; Sautter & Leisen, 1999).

Moreover, King, McVey, and Simmons (2000) interpreted this societal marketing
approach as necessary for a close dialogue between marketing and socio—cultural inputs
and commitment to community consultation as a key component of the process of market
development. They also acknowledged that the marketing inputs should embrace
stakeholders (including residents) as well as consumers (e.g., tourists). Social science
inputs (e.g., socio—cultural/economical/environmental assessment, social impact
assessment, or gender analysis) have grown rapidly in recent years (Ryan, 1991b). They
are now seen as major components to be incorporated into more broadly-based tourism.
For this growth, King, McVey, and Simmons (2000) suggested that a key task of a
marketing consultant is to develop visions for destinations based on community and
ecological values. The authors also introduced safeguards to ensure that tourism
planning and marketing reﬂects domestic, social, cultural concerns, and the aspirations of
stakeholders (e. g., local residents). Their study reﬂects that the entire range of impacts
such as social and enviromnental issues, safety and security of visitors and hosts
(residents), and sensitivity to local culture, should be considered for tourism plans (i.e.,
developing, planning, marketing) (Evans, Fox, & Johnson, 1995).

The concepts of place marketing and social marketing theory are consistent with
the idea that resident stakeholders should be involved in tourism development processes
(e.g., developing, planning, marketing, service delivery) and their attitudes toward
tourism and perceptions of its impact on their community should be assessed (Allen,

Long, Perdue, & Kieselbach, 1988). Both frameworks consistently suggested several

19

factors (e.g., residents’ involvement, needs, demands, and interests of target users,

residents’ satisfaction) which should be considered in tourism marketing processes (see

Table 1).

Table 1: Factors Concerned in Tourism Marketing Process

 

Factors

Place Marketing
Framework

Social Marketing
roach

Social Exchange
Th

60! 2

 

 

 

Residents’ involvement

Bramwell (1998)
Gold & Ward (1994)
Kotler, Haider, & Rein
(1993)

Buhalis (1999)

Evans, F ox, & Johnson
(1995)

King, McVey, &
Simmons (2000)

R an (1991b)

Ap (I992)
Skidmore (1975)

 

 

Needs, demands, and
interests of target users

Brarnwell (1998)

Sautter & Leisen (1999)
Buhalis (1999)

Madrigal (1993)
Martin 1996

 

Beneﬁts and costs for a
community

Brarnwell (1998)

Gold & Ward (1994)
Kotler, Haider, & Rein
(1993)

Kotler, Haider, & Rein
(1993)

Allen et at. (1988)
Jurowski, Uysal, &
Williams (1997)
McGehee & Andereck

(2004)
Ritchie (1988)
Taylor (1995)

 

Residents’ satisfaction

Brarnwell (1998)
Gold & Ward (1994)
Kotler, Haider, & Rein
(1993;

Kotler, Haider, & Rein
( 1993)

 

Residents’ or society’s

Kotler & Armstrong

 

 

 

 

long run interests (1984)
Social science inputs Evans, Fox, & Johnson Madrigal (1993)
(e.g., social, (1995) Martin (1996)
environmental, or King, McVey, &
culture issues) Simmons (2000)

Ryﬂi (1991b)

 

Social Exchange Theory

 

Place marketing frameworks (Bramwell, 1998; Kotler, Haider, & Rein, 1993) and

social marketing approaches (Kotler, Haider, & Rein, 1993) emphasize the beneﬁts and

costs for a community which links to the theory of social exchange (Ap, 1992; Skidmore,

1975). With place and societal marketing approaches, concepts of social exchange theory

have gradually been encompassed in the practice of tourism planning and marketing

processes. Although social exchange theory has focused on addressing residents’

attitudes toward tourism development, the implication of the social exchange theory

20

could be extended to address residents’ attitudes toward tourism marketing and

. I
promotion.

Social exchange theory is concerned with “understanding the exchange of
resources between individuals and groups in an interaction of situation where actors
supply one another with valued resources” (Ap, 1992, p. 668). The concept of social
exchange theory supports that people (residents) evaluate an exchange based on “the
costs and beneﬁts incurred” as a result of this exchange. For instance, residents who
perceived beneﬁts from an exchange were likely to evaluate that exchange to be positive,
whereas residents who recognized costs from an exchange were likely to evaluate that
exchange to be negative (Jurowski, Uysal, & Williams, 1997; McGehee & Andereck,
2004; Taylor, 1995).

The main elements of the exchange process can be identiﬁed as economic,
environmental, and socio—cultural. From an economic point of view, social exchange
theory can be associated with growth machine theory, which suggests that residents who
can proﬁt economically from tourism are more favorable toward tourism and further
tourism growth (Madrigal, 1993; Martin, 1996). Several researchers (e. g., Allen, Long,
Perdue, & Kieselbach, 1988; Lankford & Howard, 1994; Ritchie, 1988) have suggested
the balance between residents’ perceptions of the costs and beneﬁts of tourism
development is a major factor of visitor satisfaction and thus is vital for the success of
tourism. This reﬂects that awareness of residents’ perceptions of tourism development
and its impacts can help planners and developers identify real concerns and issues for

appropriate plans and policies for successful development, marketing, and operations of

existing and future tourism programs (Andereck & Vogt, 2000; Ap, 1992).

21

Many factors required in tourism promotion and marketing process have been
identiﬁed by numerous researchers (see Table 1). To further identify factors yielding
residents’ positive or negative attitudes toward tourism marketing and promotion, this
study focused primarily on those factors extracted from the place marketing framework
(Bramwell, 1998; Gold & Ward, 1994; Kotler, Haider, & Rein, 1993), social marketing
approach (Buhalis, 1999; King, McVey, & Simmons, 2000), and social exchange theory
(Ap, 1992; Skidmore, 1975) (see Tables 1 & 2). Table 1 summarizes the factors that
previous studies have addressed in the tourism marketing process and Table 2 outlines
theoretical frameworks used in studies that emphasize the importance of residents’

involvement in tourism marketing processes.

Table 2: Theoretical Frameworks Used in Studies Emphasizing the Importance of
Residents’ Involvement in Tourism Marketing Processes

 

Study

Theory

 

Ap (1992)

Social exchange theory

 

Ashworth & Voogd (1994)

Place marketing framework

 

Baidal (2004)

The community oriented approach (bottom—top schemes)

 

Brarnwell (1998)

Place marketing framework

 

Brarnwell & Rawding ( 1996)

Place marketing approach

 

Buhalis (1999)

Social marketing approach

 

Burns (1999)

Social marketing approach

 

Dore & Crouch (2003)

Destination marketing (promotion) approach

 

Harrill (2004)

A bottom—top planning scheme

 

Jamal & Getz (1995)

Collaboration theory

 

Jurowski, Uysal, & Williams (1997)

Social exchange theory

 

King, McVey, & Simmons (2000)

Social marketing approach

 

Liu & Wall (2006)

A bottom up approach

 

l4adrigal (1993)

Social exchange theory

 

McGehee & Andereck (2004)

Social exchange theory

 

Social marketing approach

:Ryan (199 r b)

 

_Sautter & Leisen (1999) Participatory approach

 

Participatory development approach

 

 

Tosun (2006)

 

 

22

For place marketing, social marketing, and social exchange theories, the
importance of residents’ beneﬁts and costs and involvement in tourism promotion and
marketing process has been illustrated by researchers (refer to Table 1). Applying these
factors in the conceptual model presented by Eagly and Chaiken (1993), two additional
theories (i.e., Eagly and Chaiken’s attitude formation theory and the theory of reasoned

action) have been studied to build a comprehensive model for this research.

Eagly and Chaiken’s Attitude Theory

Research on attitudes has been popular throughout the social sciences. Attitudes
are one of the most heavily cited areas of research and often studied in a cross-
disciplinary manner (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Attitudes are internal biases that are
relatively short in terms of time and become a pre—disposition in response (positive or
negative) toward an object (Azjen & Fishbein, 1975; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Lutz, 1991;
MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989). Characteristics of attitudes include the notion that they are
not directly observable and can only be inferred (from a research and consumer behavior
standpoint) from an overt response or until they are truthfully expressed. Attitudes do not
really exist until a person responds as an evaluation of objects or entity; until then, a
person does not really have an attitude (Azjen & Fishbein, 1975; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993;
Lutz, 1991). The idea that attitudes are formed on the basis of cognitive, affective, and
behavioral (conative) components has been proposed in numerous discussions of
attitudes, particularly in the area of marketing (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Ford & Smith,

1987; Lutz, 1991) (Figure l).

23

 

 

Cognitive
Component

 

 

 

Affective Attitude toward
Component Objects or Entities

 

 

 

 

 

 

Behavioral
Component

 

 

 

 

Figure l: A Model of Attitude Formation (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993)

Figure 1 illustrates that a cognitive learning process is assumed to occur when
individuals gain information about the attitude object and thereby form beliefs (Eagly &
Chaiken, 1993). Information (knowledge) is gained by direct experience (participation,
involvement) and indirect experience with objects (Simmons & Lynch, 1991). The
affective process is based on emotional experiences or preferences. In general, “people
who evaluate an attitude object favorably are likely to experience positive affective
reactions in conjunction with it and are unlikely to experience negative affective
reactions” (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993, p. 11).

Also, the behavioral process is based on overt actions that people exhibit in
relation to the attitude object. For instance, people who evaluate an attitude object
favorably tend to engage in behaviors that foster or support the object, and people who
evaluate an attitude object unfavorably tend to engage in behaviors that hinder or oppose
the object (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989). In sum, the cognitive

component contains thought, knowledge, or beliefs about the attitude object. The

24

affective component consists of emotional experience or feeling that individuals have in
relation to the attitude object. The behavioral component encompasses individuals’
action with respect to the attitude object (Azjen & Fishbein, 1975; Eagly & Chaiken,
1993; 1980; MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989). In this context, Eagly and Chaiken’s attitude
formation model (1993) has been modiﬁed as follows (Figure 2). This model was

initially used to develop the conceptual research model of this study.

 

 
  

 

   

Knowledge

(information) Beliefs

 
 

Cognitive
Component

 

 

 

 

Affective Emotional ,
Component Experience Atti’Ude toward.
(preference) Objects or Entities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Component (participation)

 

 

Behavioral
Involvement

 

 

Figure 2: A Modiﬁed Model of Attitude Formation (adapted by Eagly & Chaiken, 1993)

Knowledge, Belief, and Attitude Pathway

As mentioned earlier, a cognitive factor (beliefs) occurs when individuals process
information about the attitude object which then forms beliefs (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993).
The individuals’ information (knowledge) is gained by direct and indirect experiences
with objects (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Ford & Smith, 1987; Huber & McCann, 1982;
MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989). This cognitive aspect of attitude is related to “functional

knowledge theory.” The knowledge function of attitude can be seen as a general affective

25

dimension that, in part, governs selective perception by the individual (Lutz, 1991). If an
attitude object is generally positively evaluated, the knowledge function would cause the
individual to discount negative information encountered about the object; the opposite
would be the case for a generally disliked object, in other words, positive information
would be ignored; if objects are poorly understood by individuals, a negative attitude
toward the object may develop.

According to Graeff’s (1997) study in the area of marketing, consumers evaluate
products based on available information or knowledge. Higher-knowledge consumers
should be more likely to evaluate (form evaluative thought about) product attributes
because they can infer consequences of those attributes (Graeff, 1997; Maheswaran &
Stemthal, 1990). Lower—knowledge consumers should be less likely to evaluate product
attributes (they cannot infer consequences of the product attributes) because of their
limited knowledge (Maheswaran & Stemthal, 1990). These empirical studies imply the
existence of a relationship between individuals’ knowledge and evaluation (beliefs) about
an object or entity.

Furthermore, the level of factual knowledge has been identiﬁed as an external
variable that links to the evaluation of objects or entities (Tarrant, Bright, & Cordell,
1997). Even if the effect of knowledge on evaluation about entities is not conclusive,
there have been numerous studies that suggest a link between the two variables exists.
For instance, Bright and Manfredo (1997) suggested that individuals with a high level of
knowledge about objects have more positive evaluation of the objects than those with a
lower knowledge level. Researchers (Ford & Smith, 1987; Huber & McCann, 1982;

MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989; Ross & Creyer, 1992) have also claimed consumers can

26

change their beliefs or behaviours by making them more knowledgeable about attitudinal
objects (products). If an individual has more knowledge about an object, the level of
beliefs should be higher, thus, producing a more favourable attitude or behaviour. In this
context, as depicted in Figure 2, this study hypothesized there is a relationship between
individuals’ knowledge and evaluation (beliefs) about an object or entity, as well as a
relationship between “beliefs and attitudes.” Additional theoretical evidence for this

hypothesis is described in the following section titled “theory of reasoned action.”

The Prediction of Attitude from Emotional Experience

As Eagly and Chaiken (1993) suggested, an affective factor is based on emotional
experiences or preferences. Both positive (e. g., delight) and negative affect (e.g., anger)
inﬂuence on products can arise from positive and negative experiences with the product
or service attributes (Derbaix & Pham, 1991). Positive and negative affects have been
found to make independent contributions to satisfaction or dissatisfaction judgment in
products or services (Bradburn, 1969; Horley & Little, 1985). For instance, people who
have positive affect reactions to experience with a product or service attributes are more
likely to evaluate an attitude object favorably (satisfactorily), and people are unlikely to
evaluate the attitude object favorably from negative affect reactions (Eagly & Chaiken,
1993; Oliver, 1980; 1993; Westbrook, 1987).

According to Czepiel and Rosenberg (1977, p. 93), “consumer satisfaction is an
attitude in the sense that it is an evaluation orientation that can be measured.” Czepiel
and Rosenberg (1977) argued that the attitude cannot exist prior to actual consumption or

experience, that is, attitude is comprised with affective components (e. g., delight, anger,

27

favor, satisfaction) and is usually reﬂected in behavior. Another central ingredient of
satisfaction is the evaluative process; individuals’ satisfaction is the outcome of its
speculation between anticipated performance and perceived level of actual performance
(Miller, 1977). In other words, satisfaction is a subjective judgment resulting from a
perceived discrepancy between expectation and actual performance evaluation (Noe,
1987). In this context, value and preference are a key element that directly inﬂuences the
formation of satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

In general, marketing researchers agree that consumer satisfaction is created by
exceeding expectations, delivering quality, and targeting consumer preferences (Barsky,
1995; Kozak & Rimmington, 2000; Westbrook & Newman, 1978). Satisfaction from a
past experience with preferences or perceived values in product or services attributes is
positively related to current satisfaction that impacts on attitude connected to the ﬁxture
intention and behavior (Beaman, Kozak, & Huan, 2001). As the literature illustrated
above suggests, satisfaction (emotional experience) can be one of the important elements
in forming or predicting individuals’ attitudes and future behaviors. Based on these
concepts above, this study expected that emotional experience operationalized by
satisfaction facets will predict attitudes toward tourism marketing and promotion, as

depicted in Figure 2.

The Prediction of Attitude from Involvement
The behavioral factor is based on the overt actions that people exhibit in relation
to the attitude object (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989). According to

researchers (Dimanche, Havitz, & Howard, 1993; Havitz & Dimanche, 1999; Kim, Scott,

28

& Crompton, 1997; McIntyre, 1989; 1992; Park, 1996), involvement is viewed as a core
concept in explaining individuals’ participation in activities and their action with respect
to the attitude object. Involvement has been conceptualized both in relevance of products
and actions by many researchers. For instance, Driver, Krumpe, and Paradice (1990)
conceptualized involvement as behavioral commitment which differentiated individuals
in term of their activity. Hupfer and Gartner (1971) depicted that involvement is related
to “a general level of interest in or concern about an issue” without reference to a speciﬁc
position. Similar to this deﬁnition, Slarna and Tashchian (1985) deﬁned consumer
involvement as “a general measure of self—relevance of purchasing activities to the
individual.” Suggesting a close link between consumer involvement and psychological
motivation, involvement is deﬁned as “person’s perceived relevance of the object based
on inherent needs, values, and interests” (Houston & Rothschild, 1978; Zaichkowsky,
1985). In this context, this study deemed that the variable involvement can be
represented as an indicator of a behavior factor.

Moreover, Ajzen and Driver (1992) stated that high involvement in an activity is
associated with strong attitudes and behaviors. In other words, involvement plays a
signiﬁcant role in forming psychological variables and behaviors. Personal relevance, as
a central aspect of consumer involvement, is conceived as a motivational force that
evokes the formation of attitudes toward or behavior in objects (Ajzen, 1996; Park &
Mittal, 1985). Applying those concepts, this study proposed that involvement in
activities (e.g., decision-making process of tourism development and marketing) will

predict attitudes toward tourism marketing (as shown in Figure 2).

29

Theory of Reasoned Action

Belief, Attitude, and Intention Pathway

F rom the ﬁeld of social psychology, the roots of reasoned action theory explain
how and why attitudes impact behaviors. That is, how and why individuals’ beliefs do
change action. Ajzen and F ishbein (1980) theorized that attitudes and behaviors were
positively correlated. The theory of reasoned action (TRA) suggested that an individual’s
behavior is determined by their attitude towards the outcome of that behavior and by the
opinions of the individual’s social environment. “An individual's behavior is determined
by his/her intention to perform the behavior and that this intention is, in turn, a function
of his attitude toward the behavior and his/her subjective norm” (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980,
p. 62). In sum, the TRA model depicts the beliefs -) attitudes -) intentions pathway and
demonstrates that an individuals’ intention (support) is linked to attitudes. Intentions are
also assumed to accurately capture the motives that predict actual behavior (Vogt, Winter,
& Fried, 2005).

Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) showed that attitudes are comprised of the beliefs that
an individual accumulates over his/her lifetime. Some beliefs are formed from direct
experience or outside information and others are inferred or self generated. However,
only a few of these beliefs actually work to inﬂuence attitude. These beliefs are called
salient beliefs and they are said to be the “immediate determinants of a person’s attitude”
(Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980, p. 63). An attitude, then, is an individual's salient belief about
whether the outcome of his or her action will be positive or negative. If individuals have

positive salient beliefs about the outcome of their behavior then they are said to have a

30

positive attitude about the behavior and vice—versa. Also, an individual's positive or
negative feeling is associated with performing a speciﬁc behavior. In general, an
individual will hold a favorable attitude toward a given behavior if he/she believes that
the performance of the behavior will lead to mostly positive outcomes (Ajzen & Fishbein,
1975). On the other hand, if an individual believes that mostly negative outcomes will
result from the behavior, he/she will hold a negative attitude toward the behavior. To
predict attitudes from beliefs, Ajzen and Fishbein (1975; 1980) suggested four steps. The
ﬁrst step is the elicitation of a subject's salient belief. The second step is to measure how
a subject evaluates the outcome of each salient belief by using a seven—point good—bad
scale. The next step is to measure belief strength by asking a subject to indicate the
likelihood that performing a behavior will result in a given outcome. Lastly, the product
of each outcome evaluation multiplied by the corresponding belief strength will be
summed. The outcome will be used to predict an individual’s attitude, and the attitude
can then generate an individual’s intention to act.

Using the TRA model, many researchers in the area of buying behavior (e. g.,
Arrnitage & Conner, 2000; Fazio & Williams, 1986; Fazio & Zanna, 1982; Petty,
Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983; Petty & Krosnick, 1995) have presented correlation
values between attitude and intention (support) and between attitude and behavior.
Researchers found that behavior is well predicted by intention, attitudes and normative
beliefs. Researchers have also shown reasonable support for the TRA framework within
the context of buying behavior in predicting and explaining the attitude—intention—
behavior relationship. Researchers also found a signiﬁcant affect of individuals’

attitudinal ambivalence in the attitude—intention—behavior relationship, demonstrating

31

that less ambivalent attitudes toward objects (products) are more predictive of behavioral
intentions and behavior itself than more ambivalent attitudes.

As discussed above, reasoned action theory (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1975; 1980) with
empirical examples has shown to be a suitable theoretical framework for analyzing
individuals’ attitudes toward and support for an object or entity. Numerous studies have
used these theories to predict individuals’ attitudes toward or perception of an object or
entity related to marketing and promotion (advertising) (see Table 3). Therefore, this
study applied these concepts to examine how residents’ attitudes toward tourism
marketing and promotion are related to intentions to support cause-related marketing
activities and tourism products in a future plan.

To extend Eagly and Chaiken’s attitude formation model (1993) (refer to Figure
2), this study added three characteristic variables including the personal beneﬁt,
community attachment, and cause—related marketing. The selection of these variables
was based on suggestions by a number of researchers (e.g., Ap, 1992; Lankford &
Howard, 1994; Lawrence, 1993; Long, 1991; Madrigal, 1993; McCool & Martin, 1994;
Mohr, Webb, & Harris, 2001; Perdue, Long, & Allen, 1990; Shell, 1989; Siehl, 1990;
Skidmore, 1975; Toennies, 1887; Varadarajan & Menon, 1988) as described in the

following sections.

32

Table 3: Studies Applying Attitude Theory ’ and Reasoned Action Theory b to
Predicting Individuals’ Attitudes toward Marketing and Promotion (Advertising)

 

 

Study Theory Main focus
Gupta & Pirsch (2006) Reasoned action theory Studied the affect of attitudes

(used three components) c

toward cause—related marketing on
purchase intent.

 

Lwin, Williams, & Lan
(2002)

Reasoned action theory
(used cognitive component)

Predicted attitudes toward social
marketing in organ donation.

 

 

 

 

Mackenzie (1986) Attitude theory Investigated the impact of
(used cognitive components) advertisement on individuals’
perception of and attitudes toward
advertisements.
Pike & Ryan (2004) Feasdoi’hid action theorty) Identiﬁed factors in effective
use 63 componen S destination positioning.
Smith (1993) Reasoned action theory E - - -
. . xplored the ability of attitudes
(used cogmtrve component) toward advertisements to integrate
brand information.
Smith & Swinyard Attitude theory . . .
(1983) (used three components) Identiﬁed attrtude—behavror

 

 

consistency in advertising.

 

a: Attitude theory indicated the concept presented by Eagly and Chaiken (1993) (p. 23)
b: Reasoned action theory developed by Ajzen and Fishbein (1975; 1980) (p. 30).
c: The three components include: cognitive, affective, and behavioral (conative) components (p. 24).

Personal Beneﬁt Facet

Many studies (e. g., Ap, 1992; Lankford & Howard, 1994; Perdue, Long, & Allen,

1990; Skidmore, 1975) provided theoretical evidence to consider “personal beneﬁt” in

predicting and explaining the formation of a level of emotional experiences (e. g.,

satisfaction, favor, interest) and attitudes toward tourism promotion and marketing (as

depicted in Figure 3). As mentioned in an earlier section, social exchange theory can

evaluate the exchange process which is complex and dynamic. It can also be utilized to

explain both positive and negative attitudes. The main premise of social exchange theory

is that individuals evaluate an exchange based on the costs and beneﬁts associated with

33

that exchange. That is, people who perceive beneﬁts from an exchange are likely to
evaluate that exchange to be positive, conversely, people who recognize costs from an
exchange are likely to evaluate that exchange to be negative (Jurowski, Uysal, &
Williams, 1997; McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Taylor, 1995).

In terms of tourism, residents who can proﬁt economically from tourism are more
favorable (e. g., interested, satisﬁed) toward tourism and further tourism growth
(Madrigal, 1993; Martin, 1996). The way that residents perceive the economic factor (or
environmental and socio—cultural factors) of the exchange process determines how they
respond to tourism development or planning and marketing (Andriotis & Vaugham,
2003; Madrigal, 1993; Martin, 1996). In the past decade, many researchers (e. g., Ap,
1992; Getz, 1994; Gursoy, Jurowski & Uysal, 2002; Jurowski, Uysal, & Williams, 1997;
Gursoy & Rutherford, 2004; Perdue, Long, & Allen, 1990) developed models analyzing
residents’ perceptions and attitudes toward tourism by using social exchange theory as a
theoretical base.

Based on the concepts of social exchange theory and empirical studies, this study
added the personal beneﬁt 9 emotional experience (e. g., interest, satisfaction, favor) 9
attitudes pathway into the conceptual study model (refer to Figure 3) to test residents’
attitudes toward tourism promotion and marketing in a future destination plan. This
study hypothesized that if residents perceive beneﬁts from tourism, they will more likely
be satisﬁed with tourism (development or promotion), as well as they will hold more

positive attitudes toward further tourism development and marketing.

34

Community Attachment

Research (e.g., Long, 1991; Siehl, 1990; Toennies, 1887) on communities
addressing urbanization and community attachment has provided theoretical evidence
that the sense of belonging felt by the residents of a community is an important
component of residents’ quality of life. These researchers suggested that understanding
this sense of attachment to community must be an important consideration in planning
and developing community—based tourism. However, the concept of community
attachment has not received much attention in the tourism research literature even though
it is seemingly an important issue in the assessment of the social impacts of tourism
(McCool & Martin, 1994).

In the area of sociology, community attachment has been deﬁned as the extent
and pattern of social participation and integration into the community and sentiment or
affect toward the community (McCool & Martin, 1994). Community attachment is
viewed as a social construction with its own life cycle, possessing ecological, institutional,
and normative dimensions (Goudy, 1982; Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974). Past researchers
(e.g., Goudy, 1982; Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974; Sampson, 1988) used several items such
as length of residency, place of birth, level of social aspects (e.g., family ties, friends
close by, local culture and traditions) as measures of community attachment, and they
found that these items are highly correlated. Also, several studies attempted to develop
an association between attitudes toward tourism, and community attachment, and found a
positive association between the two variables (Davis, Allen, & Cosenza, 1988; Liu &

Var, 1986; Sheldon & Var, 1984; Um & Crompton, 1987).

35

Unlike sociology studies, few tourism studies have examined the associations
between community attachment found in the sociology literature and attitudes (McCool
& Martin, 1994). Thus, this study attempted to explore an association between
community attachment and attitudes toward an attitudinal object. Based on suggestions
from the cited empirical examples, this study added a community attachment 9
involvement (participation) 9 attitudes pathway into the study model (refer to Figure 3)
to test residents’ attitudes toward tourism promotion and marketing. This study
hypothesized that if residents have a high level of community attachment, they will be
more likely to be involved (participate) or integrated into community—based tourism
planning and marketing, thus resulting in more positive attitudes toward tourism activities

(e.g., development, marketing and promotion).

Cause—Related Marketing

With respect to individuals’ intentions (support), “the cause—related marketing
approach” has been introduced by numerous researchers in the area of marketing
(Lawrence, 1993; Mohr, Webb, & Harris, 2001; Shell, 1989; Varadarajan & Menon,
1988). Varadarajan and Menon (1988) offered the most comprehensive cause—related
marketing conceptualization and deﬁned it as “. . .the process of formulating and
implementing marketing activities that are characterized by an offer from the ﬁrm to
contribute a speciﬁed amount to a designated cause when customers engage in revenue—
providing exchanges that satisfy organization and individual objectives” (p.60). Cause—-

related marketing programs can generate favorable intent, behavior, or product choice

36

among the sponsoring ﬁrm’s customers and favorable customer attitudes toward the
sponsoring ﬁrm (Lawrence, 1993; Mohr, Webb, & Harris, 2000; Shell, 1989).

In addition to place marketing approaches (Bramwell, 1998; Gold & Ward, 1994;
Kotler, Haider, & Rein, 1993), mentioned in an earlier section, cause—related marketing
activities are increasingly becoming a meaningful part of corporate marketing plans
(Gupta & Pirsch, 2006). Cause—related marketing initiatives aim to inﬂuence
individuals’ attitudes toward a company or organization and the causes they support.
This should correspond to a positive evaluation of the sponsored product, leading
eventually to an individual’s increased intent to support or positive behavior toward an
object or entity (Lawrence, 1993). Researchers in the area of marketing (Lawrence,
1993; Mohr, Webb, & Harris, 2001; Shell, 1989; Varadarajan & Menon, 1988) suggested
a cause—related marketing approach as a (product) development strategy. Support by
local stakeholders in marketing activities (e.g., positioning, image, promotion, choices) or
tourism products (e. g., hotels, restaurants, parks) can differ within a community or across
communities (Andereck & Vogt, 2000; McCool & Martin, 1994).

Additionally, Butler (1980) and Doxey (1975) suggested residents’ attitudes
toward tourism (development or marketing) may be directly related to the stage of
tourism development of a host community. These stages differ in terms of destinations’
attributes, residents’ attributes or their capacity to absorb tourists, and the level of
economic lifecycle. Hence, understanding residents’ perceptions of or support for
tourism marketing activities or tourism products within a community or across
communities is necessary for future planning or implementation of marketing activities

and tourism product development. Based on the theoretical evidence, this study

37

attempted to examine a relationship between attitudes toward tourism promotion and
marketing and support for cause—related marketing activities and tourism products for a
future development plan. Residents’ perceptions of and support for the marketing
activities and tourism products were then examined across several destinations to test for
destination lifecycle stage effects.

In sum, these theoretical frameworks, mentioned in all sections above, were used
to build a comprehensive research model to guide this study (Figure 3). To accomplish
the study objectives, the dependent variables are residents’ attitudes toward tourism
promotion and marketing campaigns (TPMC), support for cause—related marketing
activities, and support for products in future TPMC. The independent variables are:
beliefs in TPMC, emotional experience in TPMC, and involvement in decision making.
Additional variables such as level of knowledge about tourism, personal beneﬁts from
tourism, and community attachment—which are expected to moderate the independent
variables—were considered in the study model. The selection of these independent
variables was based on suggestions and empirical testing by a number of researchers
(Ajzen & Fishbein, 1975; 1980; Ap,1992; Bramwell, 1998; Buhalis, 1999; Dore &
Crouch, 2003; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; King, McVey, & Simmons, 2000; Lankford &
Howard,l994; Madrigal, 1993; Lwin, Williams, & Lan, 2002; McCool & Martin (1994);
Perdue, Long, & Allen, 1990; Pritchard,]982; Ryan,1991b; Varadarajan & Menon,

1988).

38

629$ mnwﬁmﬁwo @3852 one 8onon SWEEP e558 395:2 .ﬁqoemmom .«o 682 wowomoi "m 2:»:—

 

E @on macaw . I . I 75%

 

 

  

a«noanoat-neeOQOUOnonecneoooc .anoce'aoeeceaoeuonaue

mm:

      

        
         

 

  

, mo mic—£2 l Evacuate. EocomEoU
383$ l=o_m_ooD E 955500 EoSanom
Emtzoh . .

com toaazm E08332:

 

 

.—u—.—.—.—-—.
.

 

       

 

 

02.3. 2958 A 02.: 83:8.
0953?. E cocotomxm Eob Hmonom “5:09:00
~NGO~HOEW —Mﬂ0m.—Om 0>c00m<

 

     
     

moE>uo<

mauve—3.2
UBEoMIomsmo
Lou tommzw

     

osE
e aoﬁm

 

   

  

EocanoO
e>anoO

“cw—8:35—
8&th

cocoon0"I‘ve.aevccconcaveeococecencvoovon

 

Incas-nococI-eonoo III as. IOIOOIIOO'IOOIOOO

o

 

esoconcoeeuo-noeoo-oe-e'n-I...

 

 

39

 

Synthesis of the Literature and Hypotheses

Building on the conceptual research model based on Eagly and Chaiken’s attitude
model (1993), and utilizing the place marketing approach (Bramwell, 1998; Gold &
Ward, 1994; Kotler, Haider, & Rein, 1993), social marketing framework (Buhalis, 1999;
King, McVey, & Simmons, 2000), social exchange theory (Ap, 1992; Skidmore, 1975),
and reasoned action theory (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1975; 1980), this study proposed twelve
hypotheses.

Eagly and Chaiken (1993) asserted attitudes can be formed primarily or
exclusively on the basis of any one of the three types of components (cognitive, affective,
and behavioral components) (see ﬁgure 1 and 2), whereas the older three—component
deﬁnitions of attitude have implied that these aspects must be consistently in place for a
true evaluative tendency to emerge. Smith and Swinyard (1983) studied attitude—
behavior (conative component) consistency in advertising and showed that the attitude
and behavior consistency effects are formed on the basis of consistency of the cognitive
and affective components contributed. Mackenzie (1986) proposed that cognitive
responses—such as individuals’ cognition and knowledge about objects—have primarily
inﬂuenced (mediated) their perception of and attitudes toward advertisements compared
to affective and conative responses. Most studies of destination marketing reported that
cognitive dimensions, such as maximizing an offer of information about the destination’s
strengths and services, are evaluated as a major component to foster visitation to a

destination (Pike & Ryan, 2004). Thus, this study hypothesizes:

4O

H1: There is a positive relationship between beliefs, emotional experience,
and involvement and attitudes toward tourism promotion and marketing
campaigns (TPMC).

H2: Beliefs in TPMC will be stronger or more inﬂuential than
emotional experience in TPMC or involvement in decision—making of

tourism development and promotion in predicting attitudes toward
TPMC.

In Eagly and Chaiken’s attitude theory (1993), a cognitive learning process is
assumed to occur when people gain information about the attitude object and thereby
form beliefs (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Ajzen and F ishbein (1980) stated attitudes are
comprised of the beliefs that a person accumulates over their lifetime. Some beliefs are
formed from direct experience or outside information and others are inferred or self
generated. Thus, this study hypothesizes:

H3: There is a positive relationship between both objective and subjective

tourism knowledge and beliefs in tourism promotion and marketing
campaigns (TPMC).

H4: The higher the level of residents’ objective and subjective tourism
knowledge, the stronger of a relationship between residents’ beliefs in
and attitudes toward TPMC.

According to social exchange theory (Ap, 1992; Skidmore, 1975), people who
perceived beneﬁts from an exchange are likely to evaluate that exchange positively,
whereas people who recognized costs from an exchange are likely to evaluate that
exchange negatively (Jurowski, Uysal, & Williams, 1997; McGehee & Andereck, 2004;
Taylor, 1995). Social exchange theory can be associated with grth machine theory,
which suggests that residents who proﬁt economically from tourism are more favorable
(interest and satisfaction) toward tourism and further tourism growth (Madrigal, 1993;

Martin, 1996). Based on the theories, this study hypothesizes:

41

H5:

H6:

The higher the personal beneﬁt from tourism, the more positive is
residents’ emotional experience (e.g., interest, satisfaction) in tourism
promotion and marketing campaigns (TPMC).

The higher the personal beneﬁt from tourism, the stronger the
relationship between residents’ emotional experience in TPMC and
attitudes toward TPMC.

Buhalis (1999) stated that managing and marketing tourism is challenging

because a variety of stakeholders are involved in the development and production of

tourism products. The demands or wants of local (community) stakeholders about

tourism development (marketing) are different and diverse from community attachment

(e.g., the length of residency, place of birth) (Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974; McCool &

Martin, 1994), which is identiﬁed as an important factor in forming residents’

involvement in decision making and perception of tourism development (Taylor, 1995),

social structure, and ﬁmction of community (McCool & Martin, 1994). Hence,

marketing strategies and actions should take into account the wishes of all stakeholders or

of both professional and personal interests of all residents who live in or own a house

(Buhalis, 1999; Sautter & Leisen, 1999). In this respect, this study hypothesizes:

H7:

H8:

A positive relationship exists between community attachment and
involvement in decision—making of tourism development and
promotion.

Level of community attachment moderates the strength of the
relationship between involvement in decision—making of tourism
development and promotion and attitudes toward tourism promotion
and marketing campaigns.

According to reasoned action theory (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), “an individual's

behavior is determined by their intention to perform the behavior and that this intention

is, in turn, a function of his attitude toward the behavior and any subjective norms” (p.

42

62) (e.g., attitude 9 intention 9 behavior). In this context, without an individual’s
attitude an individuals’ intention to act may not be generated. Based on these
relationships, this study explores residents’ intent to support types of marketing
activities-based on cause—related marketing and tourism products for the future TPMC.
The hypotheses are:

H9: There will be a signiﬁcant difference among residents by those with
positive, neutral, or negative attitudes toward tourism promotion and
marketing campaigns (TPMC), regarding support for types of cause—
related marketing activities for future TPMC.

H11: There will be a signiﬁcant difference between residents by those with
positive, neutral, or negative attitudes toward TPMC, regarding support
for tourism products for the future plan of marketing and promotion.

The demands or wants of local stakeholders about tourism products (e.g., hotels,
restaurants, parks) and marketing activities (e.g., cause—related marketing activities) can
be different within a community or across communities (McCool & Martin, 1994). The
social and economic function of tourism may also be different depending on the
community. Butler (1980) and Doxey (1975) suggested that residents’ attitudes toward
tourism may be related directly to the stage of tourism development within the host
community. These stages vary in terms of the destinations’ attributes, residents’
attributes or their capacity to absorb tourists, and the level of economic lifecycle. For
instance, as the tourism industry increases, residents’ attitudes change and become more
negative, moving from euphoria to apathy, annoyance, and then a ﬁnal stage of

antagonism where residents openly express their irritation toward tourists (Doxey, 1975).

Hence, an understanding of residents’ perception of or support for tourism products and

43

the types of marketing and promotion within a community or across communities is

necessary for the future planning of TPMC. Thus, this study hypothesizes:

H10:

H12:

The relationship between residents’ attitudes toward tourism promotion
and marketing campaigns (TPMC) and support for types of cause-
related marketing activities is signiﬁcant. The strength of the
relationship will vary by county with a high stage tourism destination
holding the strongest relationship compared to a middle stage or lower
stage tourism destination.

The relationship between residents’ attitudes toward TPMC and support
for tourism products is signiﬁcant. The strength of the relationship will
vary by county with a high stage tourism destination holding the
strongest relationship compared to a middle stage or lower stage tourism
destination.

44

CHAPTER 3

METHOD

This study investigated perceptions, attitudes, and opinions of local residents

regarding tourism promotion and marketing campaigns (TPMC) and explored factors

 

 

 

yielding positive or negative effects of residents’ attitudes toward marketing a

 

,lﬂ-Omd 1‘“

community. This chapter discusses thﬂthodologr _alspec1ﬁcaﬁono£the.stud5g ,7“

including characteristics ofithestud dy sides ,dam pk, data collection and proceduiie, urvey

instrument, reslponse rate, Message s'iﬁdﬂ and reliability test, followed by statistical

 

 

 

 

procedures of data analysis.
Methodological Specification of the Study

Study Sites

Residents’ perceptions and attitudes toward the existing tourism promotion and

-~.
M_—_~_._

marketing campaigns (TPMC) and future TMPC were evaluated across three destination
M M

areas at different levels of tourism development. Speciﬁcally, the geographical regions

under study included three counties (i.e.,Emmet, Saginaw, Tuscola in Michigan, USA).

M1

Among WWW represents a high level of economic

 

 

 

 

diversiﬁcation, tourism development, and tourist visitation. The county; has urban and
\_/‘~—————-" “W ____.._

rural areas. Emmet County representsgrn—ddlelexelgfiono ic diver

t/la
tourism development, an tourist visitation. The county has urban and rural areas. K.-. _/
a...“ / r/a-WN-w—W- Mum.

Tuscola County is the least developed area amongt\he/three counties. The county is rural
v- WM” ”Wt/ﬂ...»
J

 

 

 

 

45

and the tourism industry in the county is almost non—existent. Table 4 describes the

characteristics of the geographical regions in detail. Figure 4 shows a speciﬁc location of

the three study counties in Michigan State.

Table 4: Characteristics of Geographic Areas Under Study "

 

Emmet County

Saginaw County

Tuscola County

 

Mix of urban & rural

Mix of urban & rural

Primarily rural

 

Population: 3 1,437

Population: 2 10,039

Population: 58,266

 

Total area: 486 mil2

Total area: 816 mil2

Total area: 914 mil2

 

Water area: 414 milT

Water area: 7 mil2

Water area: 101 milT

 

Housing units: 18,554

Housing units: 85,505

Housing units: 23,378

 

Renter—occupied housing units:
3,075

Renter—occupied housing units:
2 1 ,040

Renter—occupied housing units:
3 ,4 l 7

 

Owner—occupied housing units:
9,502

Owner—occupied housing units:
59,390

Owner—occupied housing units:
18,037

 

Seasonal use housing unit :
5,039

Seasonal use housing unit:
30 1

Seasonal use housing unit:
724

 

Median household income:
8 40,222

Median household income:
$ 38,637

Median household income:
$ 40,174

 

Median house value: $ 131,500

Median house value: $ 85,200

Median house value: $ 87,100

 

A middle level of economic &
tourism development

A high level of economic &
tourism development

A lower level of economic &
tourism development

 

Tourism spending (TP) in 2000:
121.9 millions

Tourism spending (TP) in 2000:
191.2 millions

Tourism spending (TP) in 2000:
23.0 millions

 

TP by segment: motel (59.7);
day trips (25.2); SEAS home "
(25.4); visit F&R ° (8.0) millions

TP by segment: motel (100.2);
day trips (34.1); SEAS home
(1.3); visit F&R (53.34) millions

TP by segment: motel (1.7);
day trips (2.7); SEAS home
(3.1); visit F&R (14.8) millions

 

Retail sale receipts in 2002:
$ 1,529,549,000

Retail sale receipts in 2002:
$ 11,140, 523,000

Retail sale receipts in 2002:
$ 984,159,000

 

Total economic activity per
capita in 2002: $ 47,057

 

Total economic activity per
capita in 2002: 3 53,088

 

Total economic activity per
capita in 2002: $ 16,889

 

a: Source of this data from US Census Bureau, 2000 and a study of Michigan tourism spending by county
in 2000 from tourism research center in MSU.

b: “SEAS home” indicates parties staying overnight in seasonal homes.

c: “Visit F&R” indicates parties staying overnight with friends and relatives.

46

 

  

, 3&3
ﬂ; hag no» ”6°”
”2%.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ARENAC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MASON CURE ""T‘ Tuscola
/ HURON Countv
4'
OCEAN 4' Q23]. “312,4 w ~
Q‘s; 4 111500111 5mm
‘41:.
“a": sumo WM“ gaginaw
ountv
8mm ”5'" 10m wNTONﬁs 5"" gm ST own)

 

 

 

 

 

 

)1 mu'm‘wou men ”“0" “mm; X
/aﬁa'éu “$33, camouu‘ncxsou Wm mef

/
/f w né‘mwgﬂkﬁ WW”?

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4: Map of the Three Study Sites (i.e., Emmet, Saginaw, Tuscola Counties) in
Michigan State

Population and Sample

The population for this stud was homeowners, including full—time and seasonal

residents at the household level. The study subjects were(a_ random samle of house
, W

\\

holds drawn from e 2006 winter prope tax 3%]. A total of 3,008 house—holds from
\_>.--

the three counties; Emmet (N = 1,008); Saginaw (N = 1,000); and_Tuscola__(N = 1,000)

__» , 3:7. Thus—M: .. . . .
,1 were randomly selected. The samples included year—round hOmeowners, seasonal
1 ,>~.-, M”,

W.
homes, condos, farms with a homestead, rental properties, and properties with an SEV of

3‘\‘-“¥7 .7 ...__

47

$25,000 and more; however, they excluded properties held by businesses, renters, trusts,

lawyers, bankers, real estate, owners of property only, and multiple household properties.

""1

 

 

in addition, when determinin 1 sample size, the following factors were considered:
w

W .
‘ h“l‘—W’”W‘.~-“[.‘

 

 

l
sampling error, population size, desired precision, heterogeneity of population (Dillman,

2000; Singleton & Straits, 2005), resources available, and expected response rate?
instance, the size of population mix (e.g., permanent and seasonal homeowners) was
consistently selected in all three study sites, a proportion approximately matching the

2000 Census. The sample was ﬁltered to include one person per household. The

population was based on three different geographic areas and levels of economic
diversiﬁcation. This reﬂected substantial heterogeneity of populations and allowed

meaningful comparisons between different data sets.

Data Collection and Procedures

.__J 4......----- -‘ - “ mum‘s—4 .-
.——-—.—

To collect dag, alselﬂ f—administered questlonnaire was developed based on

 

 

 

2-“- w -..'( a.-

previous studies and theories and then reviewed by ofﬁcials of tourism lanning in tw

JPN—“T __

the three counties. A Dillman mail survey procedure (2000) was used with three

 

 

 

 

 
 

@ng. The questionnai e was mailed out with a cover letter and a pre—stamped reply V/ﬁﬂw

envelope on May 4, 2007. The cover letter included a statement guaranteeing (3) D

 

:/'"\\

. . . . . . , t. L—
respondents’ data conﬁ e t1al1ty and protection of then pr1va_c_yy_. A postcard remmder \ 2/ u 11,,

I
,n*- -
_......- .. Y

 

was sent on May 12,2007 A second letter and a replacement questionnaire were sent 06 \ 1 K 3., l .7; ,3

..,.«-- f. 1 - ;

-wa h, v‘" _ .r “damn-ft." -

 

-w _ _.--—....«1

May 28, 2007, to reduce the non—response rate To 1ncrease response rates, incentives to
~—+

1..

respond were provided by the counties and varied from county and county (e. g.,

\
restaurant or outlet mall gift certiﬁcates, passes for county fair).\ Once the data collection

I

l

48

IAM‘_‘_,,._.-_M...4~.Wm- “4%.,” in, ..,

penod ended, a non—response study was conducted to assess any biases in the dataset, as 1'
well as a comparison of the respondent sample to Census data. ’

" ‘ .-;<~«—~v «a ~~ J

-_ N

WNW employed a quantitative approach using survey research methods,
/_ M ”W s

/

/, ff #- "*‘K‘
/ speciﬁcally a self—administered questionnaire, The majority of previous studies of

NI

 

 

residents perceptions and attitudes toward tourism marketing and 1’1”an ey_"" ,.

J,.¢.....~—-—v ~ -_ ~w ..- ”M— ‘ ~~~~~~

 

   
  

based methods for collectmg data? Surveys can b; designed to ask a large number of

V,‘ _...___._..,,_“___

 

WM

Wage questions about their behaviors, attitudes, jmaggdW
i‘lifestyle, afﬁliations, and demographics (Alreck & Settle, 2004; Ferber, 1995).
1“ f/ﬁ“ " "‘ ”T'm‘” " H _ _,. .V . , _. , ,

'7 Survey research is also a popular social research method used for descriptive, /

exploratory and explanatory purposes. Tie: use of probability sampling allows the - Ag V

M - = \\
ﬁber to collect data from a group of respondents whose characteristics reﬂect those
i

a: of a population which may be too large to observe directly. The main strengths of

)W are economic feasibilit mum of data __collected, chance to sample alarge ‘ ' i‘ "\

population, collection of standardized and reliable data, and the provision of anonymity

and privacy to encourage responses to sensitive issues (Alreck & Settle, 2004, Babbie,

~hw_~V_V_V____ \. \

2001). In addition, the advantages of a. self— administered questionnaire (in comparison to ‘1'
‘/«——~ i

l.

an interview survey) are lower cost, speed, lack of 1nterviewer bias, and less intense

l
‘ contact with a respondent (Alreck & Settle, 2004). , i

..‘ 5\‘

.M~_ a..- .7
XML.“—

(g: To develop the survey instrument, aﬁhstep approach Was used as follows:

I I I l ’- ”—4—“,
1rst, a rev1ew of Waddressing residents’ attitudes toward tourism

development and marketing was conducted to develop a questionnaire. Second, the

\N‘

/ questionnaire was modiﬁed based on input obtained om MSU researchers 4nd officials
l / / / /\ _/’*

in Saginaw’s tourism department and the Emmet County planning department. This

49

collaboration was to ensure content validity of the questionnaire, determine whether
residents had difﬁculty§erstanding the questions and instructions, and anticipate

expected response rate. Third, the questionnaire was modiﬁed as a result of feedback

from Lastly, theﬁnalizedmsion of the questionnaire was

T
aﬁiinistered using strategies adopted from Dillman’s (2000) total design method for mail

 

surveys. The survey instrument for this study and letters (i.e., letters for the three

mailing) are provided in Appendix A and B.

 

\— MM

 

Survey Instrument ,\

The survey instrument was com liﬁﬁgﬂf attitude items based on previous work

. ‘ r-q—nm—V‘M.‘

m

I?
conducted by Ajzen and Fishbein (1975; 1980), Ap (1992), Brarnwell (1998), Eagly and 1f

Chaiken (1993), King, McVey, and Simmons (2000), Madrigal (1993), McCool and '\

Martin (1994), and Skidmore (1975). The research questions, variables and sources for l

\

scale items used for measurement are summarized in Table 5. 1

. I
MM , “HT- .rvwr-wv l

 

 

The dependent variables were drawn from the following literature and resources:
“an attitude toward tourism promotion and marketing campaigns (TPMC)” from Dore
and Crouch (2003) and Pritchard (1982), “support for tourism products for future TPMC”
determined by researchers at MSU with ofﬁcials in Saginaw tourism development and
Emmet County planning, and “support for cause—related marketing activities for future
TPMC” modiﬁed from Buhalis (1999), King, McVey, and Simmons (2000), Lwin,
Williams, and Lan (2002), Ryan (1991b), and Varadarajan and Menon (1988).

The independent variables were drawn from the following literature and

resources: “Beliefs in TPMC” modiﬁed from Bramwell (1998), “emotional experience in

50

TPMC” determined by researchers at MSU in collaboration with ofﬁcials in Saginaw
County’s tourism department and Emmet County planning, and “involvement in
decision—making of tourism development and promotion (TDP)” adopted from Madrigal
(1993). Then, additional controlling variables were included as follows: “level of
subjective and objective knowledge about tourism” developed by researchers at MSU
with ofﬁcials from Saginaw County’s tourism department and Emmet County planning,
“personal beneﬁt from tourism” derived from Lankford and Howard (1994) and Perdue,
Long, and Allen (1990), and “community attachment” derived from Madrigal (1993) and
McCool and Martin (1994).

As recommended by Ajzen and F ishbein (1980) for attitude studies and Maddox
(1995) for tourism impact research, a Likert type scale where 1 equals strongly disagree
and 5 equals strongly agree was used for each attitudinal item (Table 6) to achieve a high
degree of validity and reliability in the measurements. These variables were drawn from
previous studies that had been tested for internal consistency reliabilityI and convergent
validityz. Additionally, according to Michigan State University and federal regulations,
the survey instrument was submitted to the University Committee on Research Involving
Human Subjects (UCRIHS) for their review (to satisfy IRGP requirements) before data
collection began. After modiﬁcation of the instrument was completed, the ﬁnalized

instrument was resubmitted for UCRIHS ﬁnal approval.

 

' lntemal consistency examines reliability within a similar set of items on a test. Cronbach’s internal
consistency reliability (expressed as a correlation coefﬁcient ranging from O to 1), has been the most widely
used reliability method in studies developing scales for measurement residents’ attitudes towards tourism.
A score of 0.7 or higher is an acceptable reliability coeﬁicient (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).

2 Convergent validity “examines the extent to which the measure correlates with other measures designed
to measure the same thing” (Ap & Crompton, 1998, p. 128); thus conﬁrms that measures that should be
related are in fact related.

51

Table 5: Variables and Sources for Scale Items Used for Measurement

 

Variable

Measurement

Source

 

Beliefs in
TPMC (Q 17

&Ql 1'

Promotion and marketing campaigns that :

 

Improve tourists’ attitudes toward the County
Stimulate travel demand in the County

Attract tourists to the County

Create a strong identity for the County

Improve the image of the County

Make residents proud of the County

Make a good ﬁnancial investment in the County
(Ver good—good—neither bad or good—bad—very

bad)—used to evaluate outcome of TPMC—Q1 7
(Very certain—moderately—somewhat—slightly—not
at all certain)—used to evaluate outcome of TPMC——

Q18

Modiﬁed from Brarnwell
(1998)

 

Emotional
Experience
with TPMC

(92 )8

How satisﬁed are you with the agencies/entities in
tourism development and promotion in a county?
(not satisﬁed at all—slightly satisﬁed—somewhat
satisﬁed—moderately satisﬁed—very satisﬁed)

Determined by
researchers at MSU in
collaboration with
ofﬁcials in Saginaw
County’s tourism
department & Emmet

 

 

County planning
Involvement in o What level of personal inﬂuence have you had on Adopted from Madrigal
Decision— decisions related to tourism development and (1993)
Making (916— promotion in a County? (non—very little—some—quite
a, b)‘ a bit—a lot)
0 What level of involvement have you had in tourism
development and promotion in a County?
Subjective o How would you describe your level of knowledge Developed by researchers
Knowledge about the tourism and recreation industry in the at MSU with ofﬁcials in

about Tourism

(92)."

County? (not at all knowledgeable—somewhat—
slightly—moderately—very knowledgeable)

Saginaw tourism
department & Emmet
County planning

 

Objective
Knowledge
about Tourism

(SLY

Which response best represents the % of tourism
and recreation bring to your county’s economy?

Developed by researchers
at MSU with ofﬁcials in
Saginaw tourism
department & Emmet

 

County planning
Personal 0 How much do you personally beneﬁt from tourism Adopted ﬁ'om:
Beneﬁts from development in your community? (not at all—very Perdue, Long, & Allen
Tourism little—some—quite a bit—a lot) (1990); Lankford &
(Q1 1‘ , Howard (1994); McGehee

 

 

& Andereck (2004);
McGehee & Andereck
(2004)

 

a: The question number on the survey of this study.

52

Table 5: (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variable Survey Questions Study
Community Social I" ' of C ' 1‘ “ L ‘ Adopted from: Goudy
Attachment 0 If I had to move away from my community, I would (1982); Gursoy,
(912 & 913— be very sorry to leave. Jurowski, & Uysal
LL). 0 I would rather live in my County than anywhere else. (2002); Kasarda &
(strongly agree—agree—neutraI—disagree—strongly Janowitz (I974);
disagree) MCCOOI & Martin
0 In terms of your county, please indicate the level of (1994); Sampson (1983)
importance for the following aspects: (Family
ties/Friends close by/Local culture and Adopted from: Brehm,
traditions/Opportunities to be involved in community Manfredo, & Krannich
projects) (not important at all—very important) (2004)
Natural " ‘ I" of (‘
Attachment:
0 In terms of your county, please indicate the level of
importance for the following aspects: (Natural
landscapes/views/Presence of wild life/
Opportunities for outdoor recreation) (not important
at all—very important)
Attitudes 0 A successful tourism economy in Emmet County is Adopted ﬁ'om Dore &
toward dependent on promotion and marketing campaigns. Crouch (2003); Pritchard
Tourism (strongly agree—agree—neutral—disagree—strongly (1982)
Promotion & disagree)
Marketing
(92 ) I
Support for 0 The following (e.g., Beaches (public), Bed and Developed by
Tourism breakfast/inns) are types of tourism experiences or researchers at MSU with
Products services in Emmet County. Which of these tourism ofﬁcials in Saginaw
(Ql_)_' experiences or services do you support for tourism County’s tourism
promotion and marketing campaigns? (Very department & Emmet
, ‘ L ' mode, "rel, ’ ‘ slightly not County planning
acceptable‘
Support for o I would support promotion and marketing campaigns Modiﬁed from:
Cause—Related that address key “social issues” (e.g., climate change, Varadarajan & Menon
Marketing reduction of pollution) in a County. (1938);
Activities 0 I would support cause—related promotion and Ryan (1991b);
W‘ marketing about tourism products in a County (e.g., Buhalis (1999);
a donation, volunteer clean up) King, MCVC)’, &
o I would support tourism promotion and marketing Simmons (2000);

 

campaigns that emphasize sustainability of natural
amenities (e.g., scenic views, forests) in a County.

I would support tourism promotion and marketing
campaigns that emphasize sustainability of cultural
amenities (e.g., historic sites, museums) in a County.

(strongly agree—agree—neutral—disagree—strongly
disagree)

 

Lwin, Williams, & Lan
(2002)

 

a: The question number on the survey of this study.

53

Response Rate

As mentioned earlier, the total sample size was 3,008 households from three
Michigan counties: Emmet (1,008); Saginaw (1,000); and Tuscola (1,000). From the
3,008 homeowner population, 90 surveys were undeliverable, and 809 were returned and
completed for an overall response rate of 28%. The demographic proﬁle of the
respondents varied by county. Overall, a majority of respondents in the three study sites
were between the age of 50 and 69. The three counties’ homeowners were most likely to
be permanent residents, whereas a smaller portion was seasonal residents. In all study
sites, few respondents were employed either directly or indirectly in the tourism industry.
Homeowners lived or had owned a home in the county for 23 years (Emmet), 34 years
(Saginaw), and 37 years (Tuscola) on average. More speciﬁc information about
characteristics of the samples is described in Chapter 4. Table 6 illustrates the response

rate for each county.

Table 6: Response Rates for Three Michigan Counties

 

 

 

County Sample Size Undeliverable Returned Response Rate
Emmet 1,008 37 343 35.2%
Saginaw 1 ,000 14 224 22.7%
Tuscola 1,000 39 242 25.2%
Total 3,008 90 809 27.7%

 

 

 

 

 

Non—Respondent Study

To assess biases in the dataset, a non—response survey was sent out on June 18,
2007 following the mail data collection period. The survey was two pages long and

consisted of the questions related to key variables used in the study model (refer to

54

Appendix C). Eighteen percent (18%) of this sample (n = 300) returned the non—response
survey.

In the non—respondent study, independent sample t—tests were performed between
the main study and non—respondent study to test for differences in the key variables (e.g.,
belief, involvement, knowledge about tourism). Those variables were chosen because
they are the basis of components to form individual’s attitudes toward objectives (Eagly
& Chaiken, 1993; Ford & Smith, 1987; Havitz & Dimanche, 1999; Huber & McCann,
1982; Kim, Scott & Crompton, I997; MacKenzie & Lutz, I989; McIntyre, 1989; 1992;
Park, 1996).

As shown in Table 7, there were no differences in residential status among the
main study and non—respondent study in all three counties, except “None (neither
permanent nor seasonal residents)” from Tuscola County (value = 16.88, p < .01). No
differences were also found with regard to the key variables (i.e., beliefs, involvement in
tourism development and promotion (TDP), personal beneﬁt from tourism, community
attachment, attitudes toward tourism promotion and marketing campaigns (TPMC) in all
three counties. However, the t—test for “subjective knowledge about tourism” between
the main study and non—respondent study showed signiﬁcant differences for Emmet (t =
5.23, p < .001) and Saginaw counties (t = 4.22, p < .001), but not Tuscola County (t =
2.09, p > .05). Overall, the results from non—respondents were found to be indistinct
from the main study results, thus, this study deems no major non—response biases.

In addition, members of the sample were asked why they did not complete and
return the original survey. The most common reasons were the individual was “too busy”

(27.5%) or the survey was “too long” (11.8%). Some people indicated that they felt their

55

opinions are not important (7.8%) or they were out of town during the survey period
(3.9%). Not knowing enough about tourism development and promotion issues to
adequately answer the survey was one of the reasons given for refusal (2.0%). The
remainder of the people did not respond to the survey for “various other reasons” they

mentioned such as no interest, traveling, or losing the survey.

56

:62? bwaobm H m: 8 28%me 39.95. H r. Eow woman” 28m 3 Q .— :uo_ a n m: 8 :=m “a Ho: n 7. 59¢ vowaﬁ 2.8m "w
263832.505 bo> n n: 8 LE 6 visage—305— 8: u 7. 80¢ vowqﬁ 28m a .22 a u m: 8 :03: u 7. Bob vowqﬁ 38w 3 .5550 .53 «8868. 29A: 6
zine—co bo> u n: 8 :53 =m we. 8: u 7. 59¢ Emcee 28m U Seam “covaonmohleo: 05 832?: 2:62.. 5 395. ES: 05 83065 :EmE: "a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S.v 3.2 8mm exam mm mm. a\oo RR m: o $0 $0 252
m: 2. 3w °\°_ _ 8 mo. $0 $0 2 mo. $3 {own 3368 Enemaom
m: :6 Q ac Q mm w: No. a\ X. o\ 3 m: 8| fawn o\ no “593.. EocﬂEom mﬁﬁm
“ii a o iNNIi o o NX a o . :wmwgmvmmom
a. 8; 2 em 2 0:1 3. 2 2 m2] 3 5 case wwqﬂmw
. . . . . . . . . 20:38.0 55
m: vo m m m m 2 mm a m a N m: om _ m m w m $58 on“ 5 3: 558 2:9:
. . . . . . . . . o>a2 2 E8 bo> on Ego? _ Eugene/w
8 mm m m o m 2 mm _ m m m a. 3 n o a m a. 558 .2: 88 965 2 E; C. 55858
E :3 Be
m: m7 3 3 2 m3 2 a._ a 8.7 em 3 “may shoe...”
mi
2 8N 2 Wm 59v mmd 9N ON Sov 36 Wm «M $31.55. 358.35 a o ehwﬁwmw
m: No.7 h; w; m: no; m._ m; m: we. n; \1; mph 5 E25202:
.I . . . . . . . . . “Eh
e. E e _ m n m: E. m _ v _ 2 2 s _ n _ me 5 853:: Ease 5 “aoeozgs
. . . r . . a .1 . . a 5 Ease»;
3 mm a N o m m: co m m _ m mm m m m m 36:95 poem e um
m: 841 mm mm 2 mm.1 Wm _.m m: no.7 ed NM 9m do 955 352%: 3%;
m: on. ”N _.m m: emf NM _.m 2 mar Wm Wm QCo owns: 05 3895
u .5th
ma 2 ._ vd ”N m: P. EN QN m: wm... Wm 0m u 9a 5 cadence BEE 82:53 Eob 60:5
5? baaeoo
:02 :32 :02 £32 aoZ . ﬁx
a a a H a H a .2
502 522 So: was: 3.3:5 5.8%.: .5533:
28.2; 3.33am eon—Em

 

 

 

 

 

 

beam in} 2% 3 wBamEoQ Join wcwwcoamodluoz uﬁmo $33M 2: K wig

57

Reliability Test

The purpose of the reliability test is to examine the consistency of a set of
measurements or the measuring instrument. To verify internal consistency, reliability
was computed through an item—to—total correlation (recommended correlations is .30 and
above) (Parasuranam et al., 1988) and a Cronbach alpha coefﬁcient (0.7 or above)
(Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). To render a more reliable scale, this study considered
deletion of items in the following cases: I) if reliability of the scale is low (if sum score <
0.7), as well as when SPSS suggested dispensing an item would render a more reliable
scale; and 2) the computed item—to—total correlation is under 0.30 even though the alpha
coefﬁcient is 0.7 or above.

Overall, the multi—item scales (i.e., beliefs, emotional experience, involvement in
decision—making, community attachment, support for cause—related marketing activities,
support for tourism products) met the Cronbach’s reliability alpha test of 0.70 or more
from all three counties, except “natural environment in community attachment” in Emmet
County (Cronbach alpha coefﬁcient = 0.67). As for the multi—item scales of emotional
experience and involvement facets, the items of “interest in tourism development and
promotion (TDP)” and “inﬂuence of tourism—related business in TDP,” were suggested
to be deleted from the SPSS output, respectively. Also, their computed item—to—total
correlations were under 0.30, thus, two items were deleted to render a more reliable scale
of this study.

Before deleting the items (i.e., interest in TDP, inﬂuence of tourism—related
business in TDP), the reliability scores for “emotional experience scales” and
“involvement scales” ranged from a low of 0.57 to a high 0.62 and from a low of 0.57 to

a high of 0.70 in all three counties, respectively. After the deletion of those items, the
58

reliability scores for “emotional experience scales” (Cronbach alpha coefﬁcient ranged
from a low of 0.95 to a high of 0.96) and “involvement scales” (Cronbach alpha
coefﬁcient ranged from a low of 0.88 to a high of 0.92) were highly rated in all three
counties. Their correlations were also highly rated from a low of 0.90 to a high of 0.93
(correlation coefﬁcient of emotional experience scales) and from a low of 0.78 to a high
of 0.85 (correlation coefﬁcient of involvement scales) in all three counties.
Additionally, the deletion of two tourism products, “bars” and “casinos,” was
performed to render a more reliable scale. Even though the Cronbach alpha coefﬁcient
was rated at over 0.90 in each county, correlations of the variables (i.e., bars, casinos)
with other items were particularly lower (0.30 below). The low correlations expected to
be a cause of a weak performance or measurement in the study model. Table 8 reports a

reliability summary (sum score) for the multi—items (variables) used in this study.

59

Table 8: Summary of the Reliability Scale (Sum Score) for Variables Used in This Study

by County

 

Measurements

Indicator Variables (items)

Cronbach Alpha Coefﬁcient

 

Emmet

Saginaw Tuscola

 

Beliefs in TPMC

Evaluation of the outcomes in TPMC '
Improve tourists’ attitudes toward yc b
Stimulate travel demand in yo
Attract tourists to ye
Create a strong identity for yc
Improve the image of yc

Make residents proud of yc
Make a good ﬁnancial investment in yc

 

Certainty with beneﬁt from TPMC
Items were the same as above

.92

.96

.96

.96

.96

.97

 

Emotional Experience
in TPMC

Satisfaction with tourism development (TD)
Satisfaction with tourism promotion (TP)

.95

.96

.96

 

Involvement in
Decision—Making

Personal inﬂuence in TDP
Involvement in TDP

.88

.87

.92

 

Community
Attachment

Social dimension

IfI had to move from the county,

I would be very sorry to leave.

I would rather live in the county than
elsewhere.

Family ties

Friends close by

Local culture and traditions
Opportunities to be involved in
community or organizations

.73

.74

.75

 

Natural Environment
Natural landscapes/views
Presence of wildlife
Opportunities for outdoor recreation

.67

.82

.70

 

Support for Marketing
Activities

TPMC that address key “social issues” in yc.

Cause-related promotion and marketing
about tourism products in yc.

TPMC that emphasize sustainability of
natural amenities in yc.

TPMC emphasize sustainability of cultural
amenities in yc.

.8]

.84

.87

 

Support for Tourism
Products

 

21 types of tourism products were used in this
study.

 

.94

.96

.96

 

a: TPMC indicates tourism promotion and marketing campaigns.
b: “yc” indicates your county.
c: TDP indicates tourism development and promotion.

60

Statistical Procedures of Data Analysis

Overall Analysis Steps

Data were analyzed using the statistical package SPSS 15.0 (2007). There were
three statistical analysis steps involved in this study, and each step was performed at a
county—level to test for external validity (generalization of the results), as well as to
examine differences between counties based on destination life cycle (as deﬁned Doxey’s
Irridex model, 1975). The statistical analysis began with descriptive statistics to describe
respondents in terms of socio—demographic and attitudinal and behavioral characteristics
in tourism marketing. The variable of beliefs in tourism promotion and marketing
campaigns (TPMC) was then calculated according to Ajzen and Fishbein’s measurement
protocol (1975; 1980). Lastly, building on the conceptual model developed by Eagly and
Chaiken (1993), a series of multiple regression analyses (i.e., multiple linear regression,
multivariate regression with interaction) were conducted to test the relationships among
the variables and test for moderating inﬂuences (Table 9).

Multiple linear regression analysis tested the study hypotheses for the relationship
among the variables of beliefs in TPMC, emotional experience in TPMC, involvement in
decision—making of tourism development and promotion (TDP), (subjective) knowledge
about tourism, personal beneﬁt from tourism, community attachment, attitude toward
TPMC, and support for cause—related marketing activities and tourism products (H1; H2;
H3; H5; H10; H12). Multiple regression with interaction terms tested the hypotheses for
moderating inﬂuences of knowledge about tourism, personal beneﬁt from tourism, and
community attachment (H4; H6; H8). An independent sample t—test was conducted to

compare differences between a categorical independent variable (objective knowledge

61

groups) regarding a continuous dependent variable (beliefs in TPMC) (H3). An one—way

ANOVA with a post hoc bonferroni test was used to determine the existence of

differences in support for cause—related marketing activities and for tourism products

among the three attitude groups (i.e., negative, neutral, positive attitude group) (H9; H11).

Table 9: Regression Analysis to Test the Relationship between Variables

 

 

 

 

 

 

Independent Variables Dependent Variables
Step I "
(H1412) 0 Beliefs in TPMC Attitude toward TPMC
0 Emotional experience (preference)
in TPMC
o Involvement in Decision—Making of TDP
Step 11 (1) ' b
(H3) 0 Level of subjective & objective tourism Beliefs in TPMC
knowledge
(H4) 0 Level of subjective & objective tourism Attitude toward TPMC
knowledge
0 Beliefs in TPMC
Step II (2) ' b
(H5) 0 Personal beneﬁt from tourism Emotional experience
in TPMC
(H6) 0 Personal beneﬁt from tourism Attitude toward TPMC

0 Emotional experience in TPMC

 

Step It (3) ' "
(H7)

0 Community attachment

Involvement in decision—

 

 

 

 

 

making of TDP

(H3) 0 Community attachment Attitude toward TPMC

o Involvement in decision—making of TDP

Step III (1) ' °

(H9, H10) 0 Attitude toward TPMC Support for types of cause—
related marketing activities

Step III (2) ' °

(H11, H 12) 0 Attitude toward TPMC Support for tourism products

 

a: This step was used in the proposed conceptual model of this study as depicted in Figure 3 of Chapter 2.
b: Step two includes three sub—steps, depicted such as, step II (I), step II (2), and step 11 (3).
c: Step three includes two sub—steps, depicted such as, step 111 (l) and step 111 (2).

Step I tested the relationship between three independent variables: beliefs,

emotional experience, and involvement in decision—making of tourism development and

62

promotion (TDP) and residents’ attitudes toward tourism promotion and marketing
campaigns (TPMC) (H1)". Multiple linear regression coefﬁcients (standardized B
coefﬁcients) were used to determine the strength of each variable (i.e., belief, emotional
experience, involvement in decision—making of TDP) correlated to attitudes toward
TPMC (H2).

Step II (1) tested the relationship between the level of subjective tourism
knowledge and beliefs in TPMC by using linear regression analysis. An independent
sample t—test was also employed to compare differences in beliefs in TPMC between
objective tourism knowledge groups (categorized variable) (H3). Then, the relationship
between beliefs in TPMC and attitudes toward TPMC was tested after controlling for
subjective and objective tourism knowledge in using the test statistic of multiple
regression with two—way interaction (H4).

Step II (2) tested the relationship between personal beneﬁt from tourism and
emotion experience in TPMC (H5) using linear regression analysis. Multiple regression
with two—way interaction was then performed to test the moderating effects of personal
beneﬁt from tourism on the relationship between emotional experience and attitude
toward TPMC (H6).

Step II (3) tested the relationship between community attachment and
involvement in decision—making of TDP (H7). Multiple regression with three—way
interaction was also performed to test the moderating effects of community attachment on

the relationship between the involvement facet and attitudes toward TPMC (H8).

 

" H” indicates “hypothesis.”

63

In the step 111 (1) and (2), an one—way ANOVA with a post hoc bonferroni test
was conducted to determine the existence of differences in support for cause-related
marketing activities (H9) and tourism products (H 1 1) among the three attitude groups,
categorized as a negative, neutral, or positive attitude group. The county which has the
strongest relationship between residents’ attitudes toward TPMC and support for cause—
related marketing activities (H10) and tourism products (H12) was also tested using

linear regression coefﬁcients (standardized B coefﬁcients).

Ajzen and Fishbein’s Measurement Protocol (1975; 1980)

This study used Ajzen and Fishbein’s measurement protocol from the theory of
reasoned action to identify residents’ beliefs in tourism promotion and marketing
campaigns (TPMC) since the theory has been considered the "reference point" for most
persuasion related hmnan behavior research, in particular, testing an individual’s attitude
from beliefs (F unkhouser & Parker, 1993). To predict an attitude toward an object from
a belief, Ajzen and F ishbein (1975; 1980) suggested four steps. The ﬁrst step is the
elicitation of a subject's salient belief. The second step is to measure how a subject
evaluates the outcome of each salient belief by using a seven—point, good—bad scale as

shown below.

 

_good +3 +2 +1 0 —1 —2 -—3 bad
extremely quite slightly neither/nor slightly quite extremely

 

 

 

 

The next step is to measure belief strength by asking a subject to indicate the

likelihood that performing a behavior will result in a given outcome. Lastly, the product

64

of each outcome evaluation multiplied by the corresponding belief strength is summed.
The outcome is used to predict a subject's attitude.

In this study, residents’ belief in TPMC was operationalized by two questions: 1)
“please evaluate the outcome of each of the following statements about promotion and
marketing campaigns” (circle one response for each item); and 2) “how certain are you
that promotion and marketing campaigns for tourism products can bring beneﬁts to a
county? Please indicate the level of certainty with each of the following statements”
(circle one response for each item). Each question used seven identical items as follows:
“improve tourists’ attitudes towards the county, stimulate travel demand in the county,
attract tourists to the county, create a strong identity for the county, improve the image of
the county, make residents proud of the county, and make a good ﬁnancial investment in
the county.” The scale was anchored with 1 = very bad; 3 = neither bad or good; 5 =
very good in Question 17 (Q17) and 1 = not at all certain; 3 = somewhat certain; 5 =
very certain in Question 18 (Q18).

According to Ajzen and Fishbein’s measurement protocol, the ﬁve-point, good—
bad scale was revised as follows: —2 (1)4, —1 (2), 0 (3), +1 (4), and +2 (5). Then, the
seven items of each outcome evaluation (Q17) were multiplied by the corresponding
belief strength (Q18), and the multiplied values of each item were summed. This
research, then, measured the relationship between residents’ beliefs in and attitudes

toward TPMC.

 

“ The number in the parenthesis indicates the original scales used in the study.

65

Regression Analysis

The purpose of regression analysis (the term was ﬁrst used by Pearson, 1908) is
to learn more about the relationship between independent or predictor variables (IV) and
a dependent or criterion variable (DV) (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003; Draper &
Smith, 1998). More speciﬁcally, the statistical method is used: 1) to identify the
underlying predictors that inﬂuence a dependent variable; 2) to build a useful model for
predicting the dependent variable (Wooldridge, 2003); and 3) to estimate the variation in
the dependent variable explained by predictors (Cramer, 1994).

In this study, a series of multiple regression analyses (i.e., multiple linear
regression, multiple regression with interaction) were conducted to test the relationships
among variables. Multiple linear regression analysis was utilized to explain the
prediction of attitude from “belief in tourism promotion and marketing campaigns
(TPMC), emotional experience, and involvement facet” (H1). The test statistic was also
used to describe the variability in “belief in TPMC from subjective knowledge about
tourism” (H3), “emotional experience in TPMC from personal beneﬁt from tourism”
(H5), “involvement in decision—making of TDP from community attachment” (H7), and
“support for cause—related marketing activities (H10) and tourism products (H11) from
attitude toward TPMC.”

Individual coefﬁcients indicated the effect of an independent variable on a
dependent variable, thus, a signiﬁcant (at a = .05) coefﬁcient indicated causality among
variables. To determine the correlation strength of each variable to the dependent
variable, analysis of variance and linear regression coefﬁcients (B coefﬁcients) were
reported. If the F— distribution in the ANOVA is signiﬁcant, then the model as a whole

(that is, all independent or predictor variables (IVs) combined) predicts signiﬁcantly
66

more variability in the dependent or criterion variable (DV) compared to a null model
that only has an intercept parameter (DeCoster & Claypool, 2004; Draper & Smith, 1998).

To assess the goodness-of—ﬁt of a model, adjusted R—squares were also reported.

Multiple Regression Analyses with Interactions

This statistical method measures the extent to which the relationship between an
independent variable and a dependent variable depends on the level of other independent
variables in the model (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003; Hair, Anderson, Tatham, &
Black, 1998). According to Cohen et al. (2003), interactions are symmetric, so if the
effect of an Independent Variable 1 (IVI) on a Dependent Variable (DV) depends on the
level of an Independent Variable 2 (1V2), then it is also true that the effect of 1V2 on the
DV depends on the level of 1V1.

This research used a test statistic to measure interactions between variables—in
other words, the effect of “tourism knowledge” on the relationship between belief and
attitude toward TPMC (H4), the effect of “personal beneﬁt from tourism” on the
relationship between emotional experience in TDP and attitude toward TPMC (H6), and
the effect of “community attachment” on the relationship between involvement in TDP
and attitude toward TPMC (H8)——to identify moderating inﬂuences. In this test, analysis
of variance (ANOVA) along with F—values and signiﬁcant coefﬁcients at the 0.05 level
was used. If there is a signiﬁcant interaction, this means that the slope coefﬁcient for the
ﬁrst independent variable (1V1) depends on the level of the other predictor variable (1V2)

in the model (DeCoster & Claypool, 2004).

67

Independent Sample T—Test

An independent sample t—test measures differences between categorical
independent variables (groups) regarding a continuous dependent variable. Speciﬁcally,
the independent samples t—test compares the mean scores of two groups on a given
variable. SPSS reports the results of a test assuming that the two variances are equal and
the results of a test that does not assume the two variances are equal. The Levene’s Test
for Equality of Variance reports an F—test comparing the variances of the two groups. If
the F-test is signiﬁcant, the inequality of variance test should be used; if it is not
signiﬁcant, the equal variance should be used (DeCoster & Claypool, 2004). A
signiﬁcant t—test (at the 0.05 level) indicates that the two groups have different means.

In this study, an independent sample t—test was performed to examine differences
between the groups (i.e., objectively knowledgeable or unknowledgeable group)
regarding “beliefs in tourism promotion and marketing campaigns (TPMC)” (H3). The
objective knowledge about tourism was operationalized with the question, “which
response best represents the percentage tourism and recreation bring to your county?” by
using such ﬁve categories as 0—20%, 21—40%, 41—60%, 61-80%, and 81—100%. Then,
each objective knowledge category was developed into two categories. For instance, if a
respondent provided either of a correct or an incorrect answer about the actual percentage
contribution tourism in their own county (the answer was informed by ofﬁcial in each
county), the person was categorized into either correct (assuming to have the objective

knowledge about tourism) or incorrect.

68

One—Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with a Post Hoe Test

One—way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests allow determination of whether
one given factor, such as support for marketing activities, has a signiﬁcant effect on
individual’s attitude toward TPCM across any of the attitude groups under study. A
signiﬁcant p—value resulting from one-way AN OVA testing indicates that support for
marketing activities is differentially expressed in at least one of the attitude groups (i.e.,
negative, neutral, positive attitude group) analyzed (DeCoster & Claypool, 2004). If
there are more than two groups being analyzed, however, the one-way ANOVA does not
speciﬁcally indicate which pair of groups exhibits statistical differences. In this case,
Post Hoc tests can be applied in this speciﬁc situation to determine which speciﬁc
pair/pairs are differentially expressed. In the seventh and ninth hypothesis, one—way
AN OVA tested differences in support for cause—related marketing activities and tourism
products among residents, who have a positive, neutral, or negative attitude toward
TPMC, respectively. To answer those research questions, the results of mean, F—values,
and signiﬁcant coefﬁcients at the 0.05 level were referred.

The following chapter presents the results of the data in terms of the socio-
demographic proﬁles of the sample, along with their attitudinal and behavioral

characteristics in tourism marketing, as well as testing of the study hypotheses.

69

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to examine residents’ attitudes toward and support
for tourism promotion and marketing campaigns (TPMC). The research was also
designed to explore factors yielding positive or negative effects of residents’ attitudes
toward TPMC across several destinations. The analysis of data is presented according to
the following topics: (1) general description of the sample, key descriptive statistics from
socio—demographics and the variables used in the research model (i.e., belief, emotional
experience, involvement, knowledge, personal beneﬁt, community attachment, attitude,
support facet); and (2) analysis of the study hypotheses using multiple linear regression
analysis to examine the relationships among variables; multiple regression with two or
three—way interaction to test for moderating roles of variables; independent sample t—tests
to examine relationships between a categorical independent variable and a continuous
dependent variable; and one-way ANOVA with a post hoc bonferroni test to determine
the existence of differences in a continuous dependent variable among categorical

independent variables.

General Description of the Sample

Socio—Demographic Proﬁle
The socio—demographic proﬁle of the respondents for each county is presented in
Table 10. The purpose of proﬁling respondents was to address the representativeness of

the sample to each county (i.e., Emmet, Saginaw, Tuscola).

70

Table 10: Socio—Demographic Proﬁle of Homeowners by County

 

 

 

 

 

. . . Emmet Saginaw Tuscola
Soc10—Demograph1c Variables ([1:32]) . (“=2 1 3) . ( “=232) ,
Age
Under 18 0% 0% 0%
19—29 1.1 4.5 0.5
30—39 5.3 9.5 9.9
40—49 15.4 29.4 15.8
50—59 26.6 26.4 29.7
60—69 25.3 18.9 23.0
Over 69 26.3 11.4 21.2
Education
Less than high school 0.0 1.0 4.8
High school graduate 7.0 26.7 31.6
Technical school degree 3.1 8.6 7.5
Some college 13.7 20.5 26.3
College degree 37.9 28.1 20.2
Advanced degree 38.4 15.2 9.6
Income
Less than $ 49,999 15.2 43.5 47.2
S 50,000—$ 99,999 34.3 41.5 39.7
3 10,000 or more 50.5 15.0 13.]
Residential Status
Permanent resident 65, 3 " 92.8 87.8
Seasonal resident 34.7 c 5.8 10.9
None 0.0 2.4 2.2
Employed in Tourism Industry
Employed 15.8 10.2 3.1
Not employed 84.2 89.8 96.9
Length of Residency
1—10 years 31.5 14.1 12.7
Over 10 years 68.5 85.9 87.3

 

a: “11” indicates the total number of cases used for the main part of the analysis.
b: 57% of samples responded, but weighted to be 65% of sample.
c: 43% of samples responded, but weighted to be 35% of sample.

As shown in Table 10, Emmet County samples revealed a distinctive
demographic proﬁle compared to Saginaw and Tuscola counties. About ﬁfty—two
percent (51.9 %) of Emmet respondents were between the age of 50 and 69 (mean = 60.2
years of age). A majority (76.3%) of Emmet respondents held college or advanced
degrees, and few (7.0%) completed only high school. About ﬁfty percent (49.5%) of

Emmet respondents earned $100,000 or more for an annual household income. In

71

Emmet County, seasonal homeowners responded at a higher rate than permanent
homeowners, and the data were weighted to avoid bias in the estimate obtained from the
sample data. After weighting the data, the population mix consisted of sixty-ﬁve percent
permanent homeowners (65.3%) and thirty—ﬁve percent seasonal homeowners (34.7%), a
proportion approximately matching the 2000 Census. About sixteen percent (15.8%) of
the respondents were employed directly or indirectly in the tourism industry in Emmet
County. Homeowners lived or had owned a home in the county for 23 years on average.

In Saginaw County, about forty—ﬁve percent (45.3 %) of respondents were
between the age of 50 and 69 (mean = 52.8 years of age). Approximately forty-three
percent (43.3%) of Saginaw respondents held college or advanced degrees, and about
twenty—seven percent (26.7%) completed a high school degree. A smaller proportion
(15.0%) of Saginaw respondents earned an annual household income of $100,000 or
more. Saginaw homeowners were most likely to be permanent residents (92.8%),
whereas a smaller portion (5.8%) was seasonal residents. About ten percent (10. 2%) of
the respondents were employed either directly or indirectly in the tourism industry in
Saginaw County. Homeowners lived or had owned a home in Saginaw County for 34
years on average.

As for Tuscola County, about ﬁfty—three percent (52.7%) of Tuscola respondents
were between the age of 50 and 69 (mean = 57.8 years of age). Approximately thirty
percent (29.8%) of Tuscola respondents held college or advanced degrees, and about
thirty—two percent (31.6%) of the respondents in the county had completed a high school
degree. A smaller portion (13.1%) of Tuscola respondents earned an annual household
income of $100,000 or more. Tuscola homeowners were most likely to be permanent

residents (87.8%), where a smaller proportion (10.9%) was seasonal residents. About

72

three (3.1%) percent of the respondents were employed either directly or indirectly in the
tourism industry in Tuscola County. Homeowners lived or had owned a home in Tuscola

County for 37 years on average.

Beliefs in Tourism Promotion and Marketing Campaigns Profile

Table 11 presents the proﬁle of homeowners’ beliefs in tourism promotion and
marketing campaigns (TPMC) by each county according to two dimensions, evaluation
of the outcomes in TPMC and certainty with beneﬁts from TPMC. These two
dimensions were formed by the following indicator variables: “improve tourists’ attitudes
towards the county, stimulate travel demand in the county, attract tourists to the county,
create a strong identity for the county, improve the image of the county, make residents
proud of the county, and make a good ﬁnancial investment in the county.” These
indicator variables were related to the respondents’ evaluation of TPMC outcomes and
level of certainty in beneﬁts from TPMC in the county.

As shown in Table l 1, evaluation of the outcomes and level of certainty in the
beneﬁts from TPMC varied by county. Emmet respondents’ evaluation of the outcomes
in TPMC” ranged from a low of 3.65 to a high of 4.09, on average. Among the outcome
evaluation variables, “TPMC that make residents proud of the county” (mean = 4.09) and
“TPMC that make a good ﬁnancial investment in the county” (mean = 4.02), were highly
evaluated by Emmet homeowners. Saginaw and Tuscola respondents’ evaluation of the
outcomes of TPMC ranged from a low of 3.62 to a high of 3.99, and from a low of 3.53
to a high of 3.84 on average, respectively. Overall, respondents from all three counties

pOSitively evaluated the outcomes of TPMC.

73

Table 11: Beliefs in Tourism Promotion and Marketing Campaigns Proﬁle of
Homeowners by County

 

 

 

Beliefs Indicator Variables Emmet Saginaw Tuscola
Evaluation of TPMC’ Outcomes; Mean Std. Mean Std. Mean Std.
TPMC that: ' (n=321) Dev. (n=213) Dev. (n=232) Dev.

Improve tourists’ attitudes toward yc b 3.93 .85 3.77 .93 3.53 .87
Stimulate travel demand in yc 3,65 .90 3,62 .93 3,42 .89
Attract tourists to yo 3.82 .88 3.81 .91 3.58 .93
Create a strong identity for yc 3,94 .86 3.76 .97 3.70 .94
Improve the image of yo 3.94 .82 3.94 1.05 3.76 .90
Make residents proud of ye 4.09 .81 3.99 1.03 3.84 .88
Make a good ﬁnancial investment in yc 4,02 .37 391 1_09 3.76 .97

 

 

 

 

Certainty with Beneﬁts from TPMC;

 

 

 

 

TPMC can: °
Improve tourists’ attitudes toward yc 3.32 1.19 2.96 1.17 2.86 1.12
Stimulate travel demand in yo 3.32 1.15 2.92 1.17 2.81 1.12
Attract tourists to ye 3.49 1.16 3.02 1.17 2.93 1.16
Create a strong identity for ye 3.31 1.19 3.01 1.22 2.99 1.18
Improve the image of ye 3.26 1.23 3.10 1.28 3.11 1.16
Make residents proud of yc 3.24 1.28 3.14 1.25 3.12 1.15
Be a good ﬁnancial investment in yo 3,29 1,30 3,11 1.21 3.01 1.22

 

a: The scale was anchored with 1 = very bad; 3 = neither bad nor good; 5 = very good.
b: “yc” indicates “your county.”
c: The scale was anchored with l = not at all certain; 3 = somewhat certain; 5 = very certain.

As for the certainty of beneﬁts realized from TPMC, Emmet respondents reached
a high level of certainty with all indicator variables, among which the indicator variable
“TPMC can attract tourists to their county” achieved the highest level of certainty (mean
= 3.49). Saginaw respondents mostly reported they were “somewhat certain” in the
overall indicator variables (mean raged from a low of 3.01 to a high of 3.14), except the
variables: “TPMC can improve tourists’ attitudes toward their county” (mean = 2.96) and
“TPMC can stimulate travel demand in their county” (mean = 2.92). Tuscola

respondents showed a low level of certainty ranging from 2.86 through 2.99, on average,

74

regarding more than half of the indicator variables, but appeared “somewhat certain” of
the variables: “TPMC can improve the image of” (mean = 3.11); “TPMC can make
residents proud of” (mean = 3.12); and “TPMC can be a good ﬁnancial investment in
your county” (mean = 3.01).

Table 12 indicates the proﬁle of residents’ beliefs in TPMC for each county,
applying Ajzen and Fishbein’s measurement protocol (1975; 1980). As mentioned in
Chapter 3, this study applied Ajzen and Fishbein’s measurement protocol from the theory
of reasoned action in identifying residents’ beliefs in TPMC, as the theory has been
considered “a reference point” for most human behavior research, in particular, testing an
individual’s attitude from beliefs (Funkhouser & Parker, 1993). Based on the
measurement protocol, the ﬁve points of the bad—good scale were revised as follows: —2
(1)5, —1 (2), 0 (3), +1 (4), and + 2 (5). Then, the seven items of each outcome evaluation
were multiplied by the corresponding belief strength, and the multiplied values of each
item were summed. The descriptive statistics are reported in Table 12. The average of
the respondents’ beliefs in TPMC was: mean = 24.02 (Emmet); mean = 21.53 (Saginaw);
and mean = 16.82 (Tuscola). A positive belief in TPMC was found in respondents from
all three counties.

Table 12: Beliefs in Tourism Promotion and Marketing Campaigns Proﬁle of
Homeowners by County Using Ajzen and Fishbein’s Measurement Protocol '

 

 

 

 

 

 

Emmet Saginaw Tuscola
Mean Std. Mean Std. Mean Std.
(n=321) Dev. (n=213) Dev. (n=232) Dev.
Beliefs in TPMC 24.02 21.03 21.53 22.25 16.82 20.34

 

a: Sum of the multiplied seven items in two dimensions revealed a possible range of —70 through 70.

 

5 The number in the parenthesis indicates the original scales used in the study.

75

Emotional Experience in Tourism Promotion and Marketing Campaigns Proﬁle

Emotional experience of tourism promotion and marketing campaigns (TPMC)
was measured by two indicator variables: “satisfaction with tourism development (TD)
and satisfaction with tourism promotion (TP).” As shown Table 13, Emmet homeowners
were somewhat satisﬁed with tourism development in (mean = 3.22) and promotion of
(mean = 3.23) the county, whereas Saginaw and Tuscola respondents showed less

satisfaction with tourism development in and promotion of their county.

Table 13: Emotional Experience in Tourism Promotion and Marketing Campaigns
Proﬁle of Homeowners by County

 

Emmet Saginaw Tuscola

 

Emotional Experience

Indicator Variables Mean S‘d- Mean Std. Mean Std.

(n=321) Dev. (n=213) Dev. (n=232) Dev.

 

Satisfaction with TD ' 3.22 1.00 2.41 1.05 2.26 1.02
Satisfaction with TP " 3.23 1.03 2.40 1.07 2.20 .98

 

 

 

 

a: The scale was anchored with 1 = not satisﬁed at all; 3 = somewhat satisﬁed; 5 = very satisﬁed.

Involvement in Decision—Making of Tourism Development and Promotion Proﬁle
Two variables measured residents’ involvement in decision—making of tom'ism
development and promotion (TDP) on a ﬁve—point scale, with 1 representing “none” and
5 representing “a lot.” The two indicator variables were “personal inﬂuence” and
“involvement in TDP.” A low level of personal inﬂuence and involvement in TDP was
found in the three counties. Respondents from all three counties answered that they had
little personal inﬂuence on decisions related to tourism development and promotion, as
well as not being very involved in the tourism development in and promotion of their

county (Table 14).

76

Table 14: Involvement in Decision—Making of Tourism Development and Promotion
Proﬁle of Homeowners by County

 

 

 

Involvement Facet and Emmet Saginaw Tuscola

In dicator Variables Mean Std. Mean Std. Mean Std.
(n=321) Dev. (n=2133 Dev. (n=232) Dev.

Personal Inﬂuence in TDP ' 1.76 .87 1.38 .67 1.46 .78

Involvement in TDP ' 1.74 .90 1.46 .78 1.46 .76

 

 

 

 

a: The scale was anchored with 1 = none; 3 = some; 5 = a lot.

Tourism Knowledge Proﬁle

Residents’ knowledge about the tourism industry in their county was measured by
two indicator variables: subjective and objective knowledge facets. The subjective
knowledge facet was operationalized with the question, “how do you describe your level
of knowledge about the tourism and recreation industry in your county?” using a ﬁve—
;point scale. Objective knowledge about tourism was operationalized with the question,
“which response best represents the percentage tourism and recreation bring to your
county?” using ﬁve categories of percent brackets and comparing responses to an
independent evaluation of the economy.

As shown in Table 15, Emmet respondents mostly reported they are “somewhat”
unknowledgeable about the tourism and recreation industry in their county (mean = 3.25),
whereas Saginaw (mean = 2.62) and Tuscola (mean = 2.29) respondents showed they
hold “a slight level” of subjective knowledge. A majority (62.5%) of Tuscola
respondents appeared objectively knowledgeable about the tourism and recreation
industry as they correctly identiﬁed the “true” statistic (Table 16), whereas approximately

fourteen percent (14.2%) and thirty—ﬁve percent (34.5%) of Emmet and Saginaw

77

respondent were objectively knowledgeable about the tourism and recreation industry in

their county, respectively.

Table 15: Tourism Knowledge Proﬁle of Homeowners by County

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Knowledge Facet Emmet Saginaw Tuscola
and .Indicator Mean Std. Mean Std. Mean Std.
Vamb'es (n=321) Dev. (n=213) Dev. (n=232) Dev.
Subjective Knowledge ': Level of knowledge about the tourism and recreation industry
3.25 1.08 2.62 1.04 2.29 1.11
Objective Knowledge: Contribution of tourism and recreation to county’s economy
Correct 14.2% 34.5% 62.5%
Incorrect 85.8% 65.5% 37.5%

 

 

 

 

a: The scale was anchored with 1 = not at all knowledgeable; 3 = somewhat knowledgeable; 5 = very

knowledgeable.

Table 16: The Original Data for Contribution of Tourism and Recreation to County’s

Economy ' Used as the Variable of Objective Tourism Knowledge

 

 

County 040% 2140% 41—60% 61—80% 81—100%
% % % % %
Emmet (n=321) 0.9 14.2 " 27.0 45.9 12.0
Saginaw (n=213) 34.5 ° 44.7 15.0 5.3 0.5
Tuscola (n=232) 62.5 d 27.8 6.9 2.8 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

a: The estimated tourism’s contribution to the economy in each county [25% (Emmet); 7% (Saginaw);
under 20% (Tuscola)] was informed by Dr. Daniel Stynes, in MSU, who has studied Michigan tourism

economic impact in 2001.

b, c, 8: d: Respondents responded the correct answer about an actual % of tourism economy contribution

for the county.

Many of Emmet and Tuscola residents—but Saginaw residents-who did not have

objective knowledge about tourism, answered that they are subjectively knowledgeable

about tourism and recreation industry compared to residents who had objective tourism

knowledge [12 =15.74 (df= 4, n = 298), p < .05 (Emmet): x2 =18.95 (df= 4, n = 213), p <

.01 (Tuscola)]. As shown in Figure 5, in Emmet County about forty—eight percent

78

(48.1%) of objectively “unknowledgeable group” felt they are “moderately or very”
subjectively knowledgeable about tourism, whereas approximately thirty percent (30.2%)
of the objectively “knowledgeable group” felt “moderately or very” subjectively
knowledgeable. In Tuscola County, about twenty—one percent (20.5%) of the objectively
“unknowledgeable group” felt they are “moderately or very” subjectively knowledgeable
about tourism, compared to the objectively “knowledgeable group” (13.3%).
Approximately eighteen percent (17.7%) of the objectively “unknowledgeable group”
reported they are “moderately or very” subjectively knowledgeable about tourism, while
about twenty—four (23.9%) of the objectively “knowledgeable group” felt “moderately or

very” subjectively knowledgeable in Saginaw County.

 

 
   
 
 

Incorrect

 
 
 

Correct

Incorrect

 
 
 

Objective
Knowlerge

 
 
 

Correct

 
 
 

Incorrect

Emmet

Correct

 
 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Subjective Knowledge

 

 

 

= not at all knowledgeable; 3 = somewhat knowledgeable; 5 = very knowledgeable

 

Figure 5: Percentage of Homeowners’ Subjective Tourism Knowledge by Objective
Tourism Knowledge

79

Personal Beneﬁt from Tourism Proﬁle

Residents’ personal beneﬁt from tourism was measured by the question, “how
much do you personally beneﬁt from tourism in your county?” on a ﬁve—point scale, with
1 representing “not at all” and 5 representing “a lot.” Twenty—six percent (26.0%) of
Emmet respondents indicated they beneﬁted either “quite a bit” or “a lot” from tourism in
their community (mean = 2.64), while Saginaw and Tuscola respondents felt they rarely
beneﬁted from tourism in their county. Approximately ﬁve percent (5.2%) and three
percent (2.6%) of Saginaw and Tuscola respondents reported they beneﬁted either “quite
a bit” or “a lot” from tourism in their community, respectively [mean = 1.91 (Saginaw);

mean = 1.60 (Tuscola)] (Table 17).

Table 17: Personal Beneﬁt from Tourism Proﬁle of Homeowners by County

 

Emmet Sﬁaginaw Tuscola

 

Mean Std. Mean Std. Mean Std.
(n=321) Dev. (n=213) Dev. (n=232) Dev.

Personal Beneﬁt from Tourism ' 2.64 1.28 1.91 .95 1.60 .81

 

 

 

 

 

a: The scale was anchored with 1 = not at all; 3 = some; 5 = a lot.

Community Attachment Proﬁle

Two dimensions, social and natural environment, were used to measure
community attachment. The social dimension included six indicator variables, and the
natural environment dimension was based on three indicator variables. As shown in
Table 18, the average scores on community attachment varied widely by county. Emmet
respondents had a relatively high level of agreement with the social dimension (the

average ranged from 3.55 through 4.31) and the natural environmental dimension (the

80

average ranged from 4.28 through 4.61). Respondents held the highest level of
agreement with the item “if I had to move away from my community, I would be very
sorry to leave” (mean = 4.31) in the social dimension and “natural landscapes/views”
(mean = 4.61) in the natural environment.

Saginaw respondents reported a high level of importance of the indicator
variables in the social dimension: “family ties” (mean = 4.28) and “friends close by”
(mean = 4.14), while they showed a lower level of agreement with the variable, “I would
rather live in my county than anywhere else” (mean = 2.88). As for the natural
environmental dimension, Saginaw respondents also showed a high level of agreement
with the three indicator items, among which the variable, “opportunities for outdoor
recreation” revealed the highest level of agreement (mean = 3.79). The overall level of
importance of and agreement with community attachment was positively rated by
Tuscola respondents. On the social dimension, Tuscola respondents indicated a high
level of importance of “family ties” (mean = 4.34) and “local culture and traditions”
(mean = 4.00). Respondents rated a high level of importance of “presence of wildlife”

(mean = 4.13) in the natural environmental dimension.

81

Table 18: Community Attachment Proﬁle of Homeowners by County

 

Community Attachment Emmet Saginaw Tuscola

 

Mean Std. Mean Std. Mean Std.

Ind'ca’" vanab'e (n=321) Dev. (n=213) Dev. (n=232) Dev.

 

Social dimension
If I had to move a way from
my community. IW_ou|d be 4.31 .86 3.16 1.25 3.63 1.11
very sorry to leave

I would rather live in m

county than anywhere e se- 3.87 1.08 2.88 1.23 3.32 1.23
Family ties 3.91 1.48 4.28 1.14 4.34 1.14
Friends close by 3.88 1.18 4.14 1.03 4.00 1.12
Local culture and traditions 3,83 1,04 3,28 1.16 3,38 1.16

Opportunities to be involved
in community or organizations 3.55 1.17 3.39 1.20 3.15 1.16

Natural environment

dimension
Presence of wildlife 4.28 .93 3.68 1.18 4.13 .96
Opportunities for outdoor
recreation 4.43 .85 3 .79 1.16 3.97 1.04
Natural landscapes/views 4.61 .71 3.57 1.23 3.73 1.20

 

 

 

 

a: The scale was anchored with 1 = strongly disagree; 3 = neutral; 5 = strongly agree to test the ﬁrst and
second variable in social facet. The remaining items were anchored with 1 = not important at all; 3 =
somewhat important; 5 = very important to test the rest of the variables.

Attitude toward Tourism Promotion and Marketing Campaigns Proﬁle

Residents’ attitudes toward tourism promotion and marketing campaigns (TPMC)
were measured by the question, “a successful tourism economy in your county is
dependent on TPMC.” On average, respondents from all three counties highly agreed
that a successful tourism economy in the county depends on tourism promotion and
marketing campaigns with mean scores of 3.71 (Emmet); 3.74 (Saginaw); and 3.57

(Tuscola) (Table 19).

82

Table 19: Attitudes Toward Tourism Promotion and Marketing Campaigns Proﬁle of
Homeowners by County

 

. , , Emmet Saginaw Tuscola
Indicator Vanable of Attitude

 

toward TPMC' Mean Std. Mean Std. Mean Std.
QI=321L Dev. (n=213) Dev. (n=232) Dev.

 

A successful tourism economy in

yo b is dependent on TPMC 3.71 .95 3.74 .96 3.57 1.02

 

 

 

 

a: The scale was anchored with l = strongly disagree; 3 = neutral; 5 = strongly agree.
b: “ye” indicates your county.

Support Proﬁle

Support for cause—related marketing activities: Four indicator variables were
used to evaluate residents’ support for marketing activities. The variables were: 1)
tourism marketing that addresses key social issues in the county; 2) cause—related
promotion and marketing campaign about tourism products in the county; 3) tourism
marketing that emphasizes sustainability of natural amenities in the county; and 4)
tourism marketing that emphasizes sustainability of cultural amenities in the county.
These indicator variables and scales were modiﬁed from previous studies by Buhalis
(1999), King, McVey, and Simmons (2000), vain, Williams, and Lan (2002), Ryan
(1991b), and Varadarajan and Menon (1988).

Respondents from all three counties reported, on average, a high level of support
for all types of marketing. Overall, respondents held a higher level of acceptance of
tourism marketing that emphasizes “sustainability of natural amenities in a county”
[mean = 4.28 (Emmet); mean = 3.96 (Saginaw); mean = 3.86 (Tuscola)] and “the
sustainability of cultural amenities in a county” [mean = 4.14 (Emmet); mean = 3.90

(Saginaw); mean = 3.76 (Tuscola)] (Table 20).

83

Support for Tourism Products: To test the relationship between residents’
attitude toward TPMC and support for tourism products in a future plan, 21 of 23 types of
tourism products were studied. The deletion of two tourism products, “bar” and
“casinos,” was performed to render a more reliable scale. Even though the Cronbach
alpha coefﬁcient was 0.946, their correlations with other items were particularly low
(0.30 below). These low correlations were expected to be a cause of weak performance
or measurement in the study model.

The types of tourism products were extracted by researchers and then veriﬁed by
managers in Saginaw tourism development and Emmet County planning department.
With regard to support for tourism products, respondents from all three counties held an
average of “somewhat” acceptable for all tourism products for the future TPMC, except
“trail—motorized in Emmet county (mean = 2.51).” The highest level of acceptability
among tourism products was indicated for “historic/cultural attractions” (mean = 4.35) in
Emmet County, "festival/fairs/events” (mean = 4.14) in Saginaw County, and “trails—

motorized” (mean = 4.14) in Tuscola County (Table 20).

84

Table 20: Support Proﬁle of Homeowners for County

 

 

 

 

 

 

Emmet l Saginaw Tuscola
Support Indexes Mean Std. Mean Std. Mean Std.
(2:21) Dev. 9:213) Dev. Q=232) Dev.
MW '
SW9“. ”MW“ address key 3.71 1 . 15 3.59 1.03 3.42 1.1 1
“socral issues" in yc
sup?“ cause—related PMC ab” 3.77 .92 3.63 .90 3.45 .92
tounsm products In yc
Support TPMC that emphasize
sustainability of natural amenities in 4.28 .80 3.96 .85 3.86 .97
c
Support TPMC that emphasize
sustainability of cultural amenities in 4.14 .84 3.90 .90 3.76 .97
yo
Tourism Products ‘

Beaches (public) 4.33 .93 3.86 1.22 3.85 1.21
Bed and breakfast/inns 4.07 .94 3.87 1.1 1 3.92 1.05
Boating 4.22 .97 4.15 1.02 3.98 1.08
Campgrounds/RV parks/clubs 3.85 1.17 4.01 1.10 4.09 1.01
Festivals/fairs/events 4.13 1 .01 4.14 1.00 4.12 .97
Galleries/museums 4.24 .91 4.10 .99 3.84 1.07
Historic/cultural attractions 4.35 .90 4.09 l .0 I 3 .96 1.05
Hotels/motels 3.59 1 . 12 3.78 1.09 3.69 106
Land for hunting 3.19 1.29 3.44 1.30 3.91 1.15
Marinas/docks/slips 3 .96 1.03 3.97 1.13 3.87 1.14
Open space and greenways 4.24 1.01 3.86 1.14 3.84 1.15
Parks with developed areas 4.1 1 .98 4.11 1.01 4.00 1.05
Piers (for ﬁshing) 3.86 1.09 4.01 1.1 1 4.00 1.11
Resorts 3.64 1.15 3.79 1.16 3.64 1.25
Restaurants 4.12 .93 4.10 .97 4.03 .98
Retail stores/shopping district 3,98 ,98 4.03 1.06 3.85 1.04
Roads and highways 3.75 1.15 3.89 1.09 3.79 1.05
Second homes/condos 3.49 1.13 3.25 1.23 3.18 1.26
Trails—motorized 2.51 1.38 3.28 1.34 4.14 1.36
Trails—non—motorized 4.01 1.10 3.95 1.20 3.88 1.13
Transportation (public) 3.53 1.20 3.56 1.32 3.46 1.16

 

 

 

 

a: The scale was anchored with 1 = strongly disagree; 3 = neutral; 5 = strongly agree.
b: “ye” indicates your county.
c: The scale was anchored with 1 = not acceptable; 3 = somewhat acceptable; 5 = very acceptable.

85

Analysis of the Study Hypotheses

Before analyzing the study hypotheses, the Pearson correlation test was conducted
for each county to provide information about the nature and the strength of the
relationship among variables (i.e., beliefs, emotional experience, involvement, attitude,
support for marketing activities and tourism products, knowledge, personal beneﬁt,
community attachment) used in the study model.

Table 21 presents the correlations among the model variables, along with their
means and standard deviations. The results varied by county. Emmet respondents
revealed more signiﬁcant correlation test results compared to Saginaw or Tuscola
respondents. In all three counties, the correlations between variables were mostly
signiﬁcant at the 0.01 or 0.05 level. However, “emotional experience facet” was
insigniﬁcantly correlated with the variables of marketing activities, tourism knowledge
(subjective), and community attachment (natural environment) in all three counties. The
involvement facet was also insigniﬁcantly correlated with the variables [i.e., community
attachment (natural environment), tourism products] in all three counties. An
insigniﬁcant correlation between the variables (i.e., marketing activities, tourism
products) and the variable of tourism knowledge (subjective) was found in all three
counties. Even though the results of the Pearson correlation showed insigniﬁcant
correlations between some variables (as mentioned above), most values of the

correlations provided the strengths of the relationship among the model variables.

86

._o>o_ Ed 05 “a Haﬁz—3m mm cots—BSD .1.
._o>o_ mod 05 an “:85st ﬂ 8:20:80 ..
.3: 2 1 o a... .8 cm 1 o .3 a: 1 o :3 on 1 o .3 m 1 o .3 S 1 o .3 on $82. 2.. 58: Ewes 25: 236 saw A:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

85 em... 3. a: 3.: Sm em. em: 22 8.8 .5: .3m
1.: R: .6: .3 $9 1.2 .2 .3 .3. .BN 5:82
:3... 2:. woo. in. :62. mm: :5. 891 .42. ceeegisaﬁe=E6§6§< $5588.:
_ .NE. .8. tam. .18. $2. NS. 2.5.... 2:3. A_e_eoa.=eaeo§<b_ﬁeeoo.a
_ :42. 2:. LE. :MR. :3. .32. tam. 665228.69”
_ 68.1 2 _. .et. .32. «a. as. 32.83% 632365. .e
_ ram... :8... «8.1 team. :9... 3.3.2.: 5.569 .e
_ .2. _ 2.. 3.91 «.8. t _ we. 3:38... 3.83.2 .m
_ E _. .48. 1.5.. 2.3%... e
_ 25. 8:. 2.656295 .m
_ mm _. oocotomxm Ecouoﬁm .N
_ eczem:
2 a m N. e m e n n _ beau £53m
3.: 2... mm: 8.: 3.: 8.... 3 8.: 8a 8.: 5.5.3
.02 1.3m .EN .3.“ .2” gen .2 .3 .3 .98 6:32
:mem. 2.2:. :NS. ram. :86 .32. o8. a8. tea. causaoﬁaﬂgeesaeeﬁee... b35882
_ :E. .38. :2... £8. :E. ram. 33. 2.3:. ce_eoe.=e§§<b_§asoo.o
_ 3.8m. e:. Li. .3. 3.5.... ms. :SN. £88386?”
: 2:. 2o. 2.. :2. :2... 2:. :EN. 83.8.33: 63236:: s
_ 2.9%. :2 m. g. :3: :3... 3.3.8.: 5.58 .e
_ t _ mm. OS. 23. :SN. 3:38... means: .m
_ m3. :8: 1%... 2.39... .e
_ m8. ”8. 2656295 .m
_ :12. oocotoaxm 35:25 .N
_ £23:
2 a a b e m .. n N _ beaeueaam

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.9500 .3 moBmtw> $on 2: 5m 328309 Potsdam 28 .8on .mcouﬂobou "—N «Sea.

87

._o>o_ 3.0 on... .m .Suw_:w_m ﬂ scam—2.80 .1.
40>»: mod 05 E EmuEew_m m. 8:22.80 ..
.va 21 o E... .8 cm 1 o x3 3.1 o x3 om I o x8 m I o ”S. o. I o X... on $.55 out Soc vows: 3.8. 2.50 Sam A:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.3. mm... .w. .2 .3. 4mm 8.. w... 8.. 3.8 5.5.3
.w... 3.: .e. .3 .3... .n... .3. .3 .m... .3. 3:82
. :8... 2... no.1 :emm. ......~. .3: 68. ET .3: ..=e§o..>=e.e§e5.5§.o§< b.5858...
. 5.... .8. :3... :08. :...~. 8.. .8: .2... 2268:5555... b.5858:
. :8: 3... .m: .2... :8: .8: :3: 5.55286...”
. 30.1 mm... 8.7 :EN. 2.... 68. 33.8.33. 636.365. .5
. :...m. :3. 8.. $91 :..~m. 32:6... 525.; .e
. :Se. .8: 291 :2... 83.2.6... 3.8.3... .m
. :2: no.1 :2... 2.3.3.. ..
. :8: .8: .5522... .m
_ w ~ O. oocotomxm Ecomuoem .N
. £2.69.
2 a a e e m .. n N . 5:5 «.82...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

95.88 "a 035,—.

 

00

8

Step I of the Study Model: Hypothesis 1 and 2

 

H1; There is a positive relationship between beliefs, emotional experience,
and involvement and attitudes toward tourism promotion and marketing
campaigns (TPMC).

H2; Beliefs in TPMC will be stronger or more inﬂuential than
emotional experience in TPMC or involvement in decision-making of
tourism development and promotion in predicting attitudes toward
TPMC.

 

 

 

Multiple regression analysis was conducted to test the impact of beliefs,
emotional experience, and involvement on attitudes toward tourism promotion and
marketing campaigns (TPMC). The multiple regressions were overall signiﬁcant [F =
24.1, p < .001 (Emmet); F = 16.8, p < .001 (Saginaw); F = 18.6, p < .001 (Tuscola)]. The
results indicated “beliefs in TPMC ” were positively related to attitude toward TPMC in
respondents from all three counties when controlling across emotional experience and
involvement levels. The relationship between Emmet respondents’ beliefs and attitudes
toward TPMC (B = .44, t = 8.0, p < .001) was stronger than in Saginaw (B = .40, t = 6.0, p
< .001) and Tuscola (B = .42, t = 6.5, p < .001) respondents (Table 22).

With regard to the relationship between “emotional experience ” and attitudes
toward TPMC when controlling for beliefs and involvement levels, the results showed a
signiﬁcant positive relationship between emotional experience and attitudes toward
TPMC in respondents from Emmet (B = .12, t = 2.1, p < .05) and Saginaw ([3 = .19, t =
2.9, p < .01) counties, whereas there was an insigniﬁcant relationship between the two

variables in Tuscola respondents (B = .08, t = —1.2, p > .05).

89

Table 22: Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Attitudes toward TPMC from
Beliefs, Emotional Experience, and Involvement in Decision—Making of Tourism
Development and Promotion

Emmet (n=321) ' Saginaw (n=213) ‘ Tuscola (n=232) '

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B t p 13 t p B t p
Beliefs .44 8.0 < .001 .40 6.0 < .001 .42 6.5 < .001
Emotional Experience .12 2.1 < .05 .19 2.9 < .01 —.08 —l .2 ns
Involvement —.02 —.32 ns .03 .51 ns .17 2.5 < .05
F=24.1,p<.001, F=16.8,p<.001, F=18.6,p<.001,
Adjusted R2= .22 Adjusted R2= .21 Adjusted R2 = .21

 

a: “n” indicates the total number of cases used for the main part of the analysis.

As for the relationship between “involvement ” in decision—making of tourism
development and promotion (TDP)” and attitudes toward TPMC when controlling for
beliefs and emotional experience levels, the involvement facet signiﬁcantly predicted
“attitudes toward TPMC” in respondents from Tuscola county (B = .17, t = 2.5, p < .05),
whereas an insigniﬁcant prediction of attitudes toward TPMC from involvement facet
was found in respondents from Emmet and Saginaw counties. In addition, a small
proportion of variance in beliefs, emotional experience, and involvement facet that can be
accounted for by an attitude toward TPMC was identiﬁed by respondents from all three
counties [adjusted R2 = 22% (Emmet); adjusted R2 = 21% (Saginaw); adjusted R2 = 21%
(Tuscola)].

Wypothesis, this study tested whether belief in TPMC is a ___,.

or more inﬂtgice than emotional experience and involvement on attitudes toward TPMC.

 

 

 

The ﬁndings from all three counties supported this second hypothesis by showing a
W V

stronger effect of belief on attitude toward TPMC [standardized beta (B) = .44 (Emmet);

B = .40 (Saginaw); B = .42 (Tuscola)] compared to the effects of emotional experience in

90

TPMC and involvement in decision—making of tourism development and promotion

(Table 22).

Step II (1) of the Study Model: Hypothesis 3 and 4

 

H3: There is a positive relationship between both objective and subjective
tourism knowledge and beliefs in tourism promotion and marketing
campaigns (TPMC).

H4: The higher the level of residents’ objective and subjective tourism
knowledge, the stronger of a relationship between residents’ beliefs in
and attitudes toward TPMC.

 

 

 

Testing fer/Baationship between Tourism Knowledge and Beliefs

In the th' d hypothesis, a “ICEIEESjQILEQQIXSiSXaS ﬁrst conducted with beliefs in

._..__ ‘Mu

 

'f'

/
tourism ro otion and marketing campaigns (TPM ) as the dependent variable and

  

”5+!“

examigg'the prediction of
beliefs in TPMC from subjective tourism knowledge. As shown in Table 23, a

M...- ah-u‘h‘d

signiﬁcantlypositiye relationship between subjective tourism knowledggagd beliefs. in

nam-..-_..___

“subjective tourism knowledge” as the independent variable
\

—4— ﬂ."“

 

 

TPMC was found in Emmet respondents (B = .21, t = 3.4, p < .001), whereas an
insigniﬁcant relationship between the variables was found in Saginaw (B = .09, t = 1.2, p

> .05) and Tuscola (B = .04, t = 0.6, p > .05) respondents. e result om Emmet

/,/’“_.H. ‘L

(2 . '
.I e supports? of the hypothes1s that e hlgher the level a

 

respondents was e s
/ \\\ \ i /
subjective tourism know

 

.—

 

 

M”-“-ﬂ-l

lie more positive beliefs in TPMC the residents have.

91

Table 23: Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Beliefs in Tourism Promotion and
Marketing Campaigns from Subjective Tourism Knowledge

 

Emmet (n=321) " Saginaw (n=213) " Tuscola (n=232) '

 

 

 

 

 

 

B t p B t p B t p
Subjective Knowledge .21 3.4 < .001 .09 1.2 ns .04 0.6 ns
F= 13.2,p<.001, F=1.4,p>.05, F=.32,p>.05,
Adjusted R2 = .042 Adjusted R2 = .002 Adjusted R2 = —.003

 

a: “n” indicates the total number of cases used for the main part of the analysis.

An independent sample t—test was also conducted in the third hypothesis to
determine if there is a difference between “objective tourism knowledge” (a categorical
independent variable) regarding beliefs in TPMC (a continuous dependent variable). As
shown in Table 24, the results from Emmet and Tuscola respondents showed signiﬁcant
differences between the two groups (i.e., objectively knowledgeable or unknowledgeable
about tourism) regarding the level of beliefs in TPMC, as well as a signiﬁcantly negative
relationship between objective tourism knowledge and beliefs in TPMC [t = —2.0 p < .05
(Emmet); t = —3.1, p < .01 (Tuscola)]. Conversely, Saginaw respondents revealed an
insigniﬁcant relationship between the two variables and no differences in beliefs in
TPMC between the two objective knowledge groups (t = — 0.6, p > .05).

The ﬁndings indicated that the unknowledgeable group from all three counties
had a higher level of beliefs in TPMC (mean ranged from a low of 22.2 to a high of 25.0)
than the knowledgeable group (mean ranged from a low of 13.3 to a high of 20.2). The
results did not support the hypothesis that there is a positive relationship between

objective tourism knowledge and beliefs in TPMC.

92

Table 24: Independent Sample T—Test for Relationship between Objective Tourism
Knowledge and Beliefs in Tourism Promotion and Marketing Campaigns

 

 

 

Emmet (n=321) ' Saginaw (n=213) " Tuscola (n=232) '
Std. Std. Std.
Mean Dev. t (p) Mean Dev. t (p) Mean Dev. t (p)
Objective
Knowledge

Correct 18.0" 18.9 —2.0 20.2 22.9 -O.6 13.3 19.3 —3.1
Incorrect 25.0” 21.1 (<05) 22.5 22.4 (ns) 22.2 20.4. (<01)

 

 

 

 

a: “n” indicates the total number of cases used for the main part of the analysis.
b: Sum of the multiplied seven items in beliefs revealed a possible range of —70 through 70.

Examining the Moderation Role of Tourism Knowledge

To measure the moderating effects of “subjective tourism knowledge” on the
relationship between belief and attitude toward tourism promotion and marketing
campaigns (TPMC), multiple regression with two—way interactions was used in the fourth
hypothesis. As shown in Table 25, neither main effects (i.e., subjective tourism
knowledge and beliefs in TPMC) reached signiﬁcance in any of the three counties. The
two-way interaction between subjective tourism knowledge and beliefs in TPMC did not
reach signiﬁcance in Saginaw (F = 0.6, p > .05) or Tuscola (F = 0.7, p > .05) respondents.
Only Emmet respondents showed a signiﬁcant interaction between subjective knowledge
and beliefs in TPMC (F = 16.4, p < .001). The result from Emmet respondents was the
sole supporter of the hypothesis regarding the moderating role of subjective tourism
knowledge on the relationship between belief and attitude toward TPMC.

As for the moderating role of “objective tourism knowledge” on the relationship
between beliefs and attitudes toward TPMC, the results indicated beliefs in TPMC main
effect reached signiﬁcance [F = 20.4, p < .001 (Emmet); F = 47.9, p < .001 (Saginaw); F
= 37.5, p < .001 (Tuscola)], whereas objective tourism knowledge main effect was not

93

signiﬁcant in any of the three counties. As seen in Table 26, the two—way interaction
between objective knowledge and beliefs in TPMC did not reach signiﬁcance with
Emmet (F = 0.6, p > .05) or Tuscola (F = 1.4, p > .05) respondents, but did for Saginaw
respondents (F = 5.1, p < .05).

In addition, after controlling for objective tourism knowledge (i.e., objectively
knowledgeable or unknowledgeable group), regression analysis was conducted to test the
relationship between beliefs and attitudes toward TPMC. For the objectively
“knowledgeable group, ” beliefs in TPMC signiﬁcantly predicted “attitudes toward
TPMC” in all three counties [B = .45, t = 7.7, p < .001 (Emmet); B = .35, t = 4.1, p < .001
(Saginaw); B = .44, t = 4.2, p < .001 (Tuscola)]. For the objectively “unknowledgeable
group, ” beliefs in TPMC signiﬁcantly predicted “attitudes toward TPMC” in all three
counties [B = .37, t = 2.4, p < .001 (Emmet); B = .58, t = 5.6, p < .001 (Saginaw); B = .43,
t = 5.2, p < .001 (Tuscola)]. Accordingly, the overall ﬁndings imply that objective
tourism knowledge is somewhat relevant in moderating the relationship between beliefs

and attitudes toward TPMC, but seemed to not strongly inﬂuence the relationship.

94

.mﬁbaﬁw 05 mo wan Esq. 05 .8 new: $93 mo 598.... .88 on. 3.8%.: s...

3 ”N

 

 

 

 

SN 3ch .33
3. SN 3...... at...
8. we 2. 8.. . 8.. .E . 0.5 ”New...”
.8. m: 3 3.. . 3.. 9m. USE a. 2.23m
8. m: 8. e... . 3. 0.5. cwecEcev. 5.55 3.593%
8. 3:3 .sch
:2 cm. Sewn 8E.
8. m: e... e... . e... E . Em “WW.“
.o. 2 I 3... . Q8 Ed USE 5. eczem. .
o... a. a... Z. . E. 0.5. c.6235. 5....ch 268.3%
.5 38m .88
3. SN 3.? Sum.
co. .8. v we. :2 . ES 5 . v.5 .29."...
.o. a. 3 3m . mam CE 035 c. deem .25....
8. 2 m... S . S. 0.5. c.6255. 835$ 3:835
5:0835 b.3103...
voﬁsvm moumsvm
Sm Eran m “— oumzcm :32 to mo Esm E on»... 850m .5550

 

 

03mg; Eoccomowﬁ on. ma 02E. E. £23m wad omwmrxoﬁg Ewtzﬂ 953.33% 98 033.8.» E02839
of mm £93.50 $58.82 98 8.6805 .5569 3:38 8:833. $53 328885 .33 nommmouwom 03232 "mm ~33.

95

0.030.... 0... .0 E... 0.0... 0... .0. 000: 000.00 .0 .025... .80. 0... 8.00.0... 2:: "a

 

 

 

 

 

mm. 3.0. .80...
w... 00. Wow. .0..m.
.o. m: I N. . N. E * 0:0 .mmme
0.. .8. v m...m N.¢m . Ndm pm. 0.2... 0. 0.0..0m
co. m: ..o ..o . ..o CFO. 0w00.3o:v. 50.50.. 03.00.30
mm. N... .809
m... 3.. m.mm. .0..m. FAN"...
No. mo. v ..m Wm . w.m Hm. * MHO .305wam
.N. .8. v 0.5. m.mm . m.mm Elm. 0.2.3 0. $020». .
co. 00 md Nd . No 0....Ov 0w00.30..v. E3509 02.00.30
mom .0.me .80..
v». com 0. .0. .0..m.
8. E 0... S. . S. E * 0.5 .28"...
no. .00. v Wow ..m. . ..m. Ch. 02.... 0. 0.0..0m SEEM
co. m: 0.0 v... . To CFO. 0m00.30=v. 0.0.50... 03.00.30
00:080.... .3303...
00.01% 00.03%
Sm. 1.6.0.”. 0 n. 0.01% .803. m0 .0 85m 5 0 n. .C. 00.:0m 3:000

 

0.00.8.» 0.0000000... 0... 00 02.: a. 0.0..0m 0:0 0%00302M $0.30,. 03.00.36 0.... 0.00..0> .00000m0m.
0.... mm 05.00800 gags: 0.... 00.880... 80.50... 0.030. 0003...< 9.63 000.880.... 5.3 00.30.90. 0......3). .3 030,—.

96

Step II (2) of the Study Model: Hypothesis 5 and 6

 

H5: The higher the personal beneﬁt from tourism, the more positive is
residents’ emotional experience (e.g., interest, satisfaction) in TPMC.

H6: The higher the personal beneﬁt from tourism, the stronger the
relationship between residents’ emotional experience in TPMC and
attitudes toward TPMC.

 

 

 

Testing for Midship between Personal Beneﬁt and Emotional Experience

In e f hypothesis, a regression analysis was conducted with emotional
experience in/TPMC as the dependent variable and personal beneﬁt from tourism as the
independent variable. The regression model was signiﬁcant in Saginaw and Tuscola
County [F = 7.8, p < .01 (Saginaw); F = 5.6, p < .05 (Tuscola)], but not for Emmet
County (F =.05, p > .05). As shown in Table 27, the results from Saginaw and Tuscola
respondents indicated the prediction of emotional experience in TPMC by the personal
beneﬁt facet [B = .20, t = 2.8, p < .01 (Saginaw); B = .16, t = 2.3, p < .05 (Tuscola)],
whereas an insigniﬁcant relationship between the two variables was found for Emmet
respondents ([3 = .01, t = .22, p > .05).

In addition, a small proportion of variance in the emotional experience facet that
can be accounted for by personal beneﬁt from tourism was found in residents from all of
the three counties [adjusted R2 = —O.3% (Emmet); adjusted R2 = 3.4 % (Saginaw);
adjusted R2 = 2.1% (Tuscola)]. The ﬁt of the models was not strong, however, the results
supported the hypothesis that the higher the personal beneﬁt from tourism, the more

positive is a residents’ emotional experience in TPMC.

97

Table 27: Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Emotional Experience in Tourism
Promotion and Marketing Campaigns from Personal Beneﬁt from Tourism

 

Emmemi=321) " Sagnaw (n=213) ' Tuscola (n=232) '

 

B t p B t p B t p

 

Personal Beneﬁt

. .01 .22 ns .20 2.8 < .01 .16 2.4 < .05
from Tourism

 

 

 

 

F=.05,p>.05, F=7.8,p<.01, F=5.6, p<.05
Adjusted R2 = —.003 Adjusted R’ = .034 Adjusted R2 = .021

 

a: “n” indicates the total number of cases used for the main part of the analysis.

Examining the Moderation Role of Personal Beneﬁt

Multiple regression with two-way interactions was used to test the moderating
effect of “personal beneﬁt from tourism” on the relationship between emotional
experience and attitudes toward tourism promotion and marketing campaigns (TPMC).
As can be seen in Table 28, neither main effects (i.e., personal beneﬁt from tourism and
emotion experience in TPMC) reached signiﬁcance.

Two—way interaction between personal beneﬁt from tourism and emotional
experience in TPMC reached signiﬁcance in Saginaw (F = 4.9, p < .05) and Tuscola (F =
6.1, p < .05) respondents, but not for Emmet respondents (F = 0.0, p > .05). These results
imply that the personal beneﬁt from tourism was relevant for moderating the relationship

between emotional experience and attitudes toward TPMC in two of three counties.

98

dire—a 05 we tun ES: 05 Lou. vow: momma Co 538:: :38 2: 38065 :F. “a

 

 

 

 

 

8m 93% Eek
of 8N new: Sum Swans
8. 8. v E. ”S 2 as mm s m: .seeesh
8. 2 9o 3 _ 3 mm: 02.; 5 uueucaxm .2285
8. 2 ed 2 _ no 8.: 8389 see scueum .2an
Ms: 3am BB
3: a: odmﬁ Sum swans
8. 8. v 3 99 2 9? mm * mm {swam
8. m: 3 mo _ 3 EB oznﬁ E eunucaxm 3:285 .
S. we 2 S: _ 5: an: .5:on see Eueum =2.er
NR 983 . EB
<2 den 32:. arm
8. we o.o v. _ to mm .. ma .cnmus
8. we 3 mm _ 3 mm: 02,; E Beucaxm 3:285 .255
8. we be 2: H 2: 3.: 525$ see 58$ 5an
258885 @3195 H
353m 883m
Sm Hang a n ohmsvm :82 to ho Ezm E 093. 350m @550

 

05mg; E03039: me. DEE. E ounotemxm ﬁnowoﬁm 93 83:8. Sod £0:me Rsoﬁom Ea oEmE> 3095qu
mm 36950 warming 23 8:08on Ewing. BESS Bunyan—«s wEmD $830835 £39 commmouwom 032:2 "mu 03:.

99

Step II (3) of the Study Model: Hypothesis 7 and 8

 

H7 : A positive relationship exists between community attachment and
involvement in decision—making of tourism development and promotion.

H8: Level of community attachment moderates the strength of the
relationship between involvement in decision making of tourism
development and promotion and attitudes toward tourism promotion and
marketing campaigns.

 

 

 

Testing for Relationship between Community Attachment and Involvement

A regression analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between
community attachment and involvement in decision—making of tourism development and
promotion (TDP) in the seventh hypothesis. Overall, the regressions were insigniﬁcant
(Table 29). The results from Emmet respondents indicated a signiﬁcant positive
relationship between the “social dimension ” of community attachment and “involvement
in decision—making of TDP” (B = .26, t = 4.1, p < .001), whereas an insigniﬁcant
relationship existed between the two variables with Saginaw (B = .05), t = .55, p > .05)
and Tuscola respondents (B = .12, t = 1.6, p > .05). None of the three counties revealed
the prediction of involvement in decision—making of TDP from the “natural environment

dimension” of community attachment.

100

Table 29: Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Involvement in Decision—Making of
Tourism Development and Promotion (TDP) from Community Attachment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Emmet (n=321) ' Saginaw (n=213) " Tuscola (n=232) '
B t p B t p B t 9
Social .26 4.1 < .001 .05 .55 ns . 12 1.6 ns
Natural Environment —.05 -.77 ns -.03 -.33 ns —-.03 —.34 ns
F=8.7, p<.OOI, F=.15,p>.05, F=l.4, p>.05,
Adﬂsted R2 = .052 Adjusted R2: —.009 Adjusted R2 = .004

 

a: “n” indicates the total number of cases used for the main part of the analysis.

Examining the Moderation Role of Community Attachment

In the eighth hypothesis, multiple regression with three—way interaction tested the
moderating effect of “community attachment” on the relationship between involvement
in tourism development and promotion (TDP) and attitudes toward tourism promotion
and marketing campaigns (TPMC). The overall main effect of the three variables (i.e.,
social dimension of community attachment, natural environment dimension of
community attachment, involvement in decision—making in TDP) did not reach
signiﬁcance. Only “the involvement in decision—making of TDP” (F = 4.8, p < .05) and
“social dimension of community attachment” main effects (F = 6.3, p < .05) reached
signiﬁcance in Saginaw and Tuscola counties, respectively.

As shown in Table 30, two-way interaction between the “social dimension” of
community attachment and “involvement in decision—making of TDP” did not reach
signiﬁcance in any of the three counties. Only the data from Emmet respondents resulted
in a signiﬁcant two—way interaction between the two variables (F = 4.4, p < .05). The
two—way interaction between “natural environmental dimension and involvement” in

decision—making of TDP did not reach signiﬁcance in any of the three counties [F = 3.6,

101

p > .05 (Emmet); F = 2.3, p > .05 (Saginaw); F = 0.6, p > .05 (Tuscola)]. An
insigniﬁcant three—way interaction between social dimension, natural environment, and
involvement in decision—making of TDP was found in the three counties [F = 1.2, p > .05
(Emmet); F = 1.4, p > .05 (Saginaw); F = 0.5, p > .05 (Tuscola)].

Overall, the Emmet County data provided sole support for the moderation role of
the “social dimension” of community attachment on the relationship between
“involvement in decision—making of TDP” and “attitudes toward TPMC.” The ﬁndings
from all three counties imply that the “natural environment” dimension of community
attachment was not found to moderate the relationship between involvement in decision—

making of TDP and attitude toward TPMC.

102

Ema—«.5 2.: .«o van ES: 05 he vow: momwomo 59:5: :38 2.: wBSEE :F. "a

 

 

 

 

ocm QSN :30...

o.— amﬁ Qwﬁ “ohm

co. m: he he _ md En: u m2 u Om
co. m: nd 06 E 9o 29 u m2 ANMNHE
8. m: ON Wm E m.N 2n: * Om aﬂcumaﬁ

No. we Ym m.m E m.m £290 mar—Lo mEwaéEEooQ E E25295

co. m: m.o Nd E No 570 <0 E EoﬁcoEEm 3582

2”. mo. v m6 wd _ ed 59 <0 E cease—E0 38m

.2: 3% H .88.

v; o2 mdi “ohm

co. w: v; 2 _ : Eaumzekam
S. m: 9N a; _ a._ Em: 4 m2 .Am—Nnnv
oc. m: o.o ad _ ad Em: ... Om Baiwaw

8. 3. v we QM _ QM can: mar—Lo wEmeéEEooQ E «580302:

8. 2 ed md _ We £20 <0 E EoﬁcoE>=m .5532

S. m: ON 0; E c; Ava <0 E :EmcoEE Eoom

EN 0.9% _So,_t

N; Sim mémm 8cm

co. m: m; o; _ o; En: * m2 * Qm

S. m: 9m QM E 9m 29 * m2
8. mo. v :0 5m _ 5m 29 * Qm .2305
8. we 3 9o _ od 95: “ECO waxezteeeeuo a 22.26%. Beam

8. 3 Wm _.M _ mm Amzv <0 E EoESEEm .8232

8. me 3 M3 _ no 8% <0 5 83555 Edem

228885 @30th

03% 3:25
«Wm. .Etwm a r,— Ewscm :82 to Co Esm E wasp 850m 5550

 

 

QEEE> “awesome?“ mm ABE we wagztcommwooo E 3080335 can E08532 b§§o0 can 05mg; “cotangen—
mw mawﬁmﬁm0 @3852 98 830805 Humidor—t c338 movﬁzﬁw wEmD 338885 .23 nommmohwom 03232 "cm use.

103

Step III (1) of the Study Model: Hypothesis 9 and 10

 

H9: There will be a signiﬁcant difference among residents by those with
positive, neutral, or negative attitudes toward TPMC, regarding support
for types of cause-related marketing activities for future TPMC.

H10: The relationship between residents’ attitudes toward TPMC and support
for types of cause—related marketing activities is signiﬁcant. The strength
of the relationship will vary by county with a high stage tourism
destination holding the strongest relationship compared to a middle stage
or lower stage tourism destination.

 

 

 

In step 111 (1), the ninth hypothesis tested if there is a signiﬁcant difference
between residents by those with positive, neutral, or negative attitudes toward TPMC,
regarding support for types of cause—related marketing activities. The tenth hypothesis
examined if the county at the highest stage of tourism development holds the strongest
relationship between residents’ attitudes toward TPMC and support for cause—related
marketing activities compared to counties at a middle or lower stage of tourism
development.

One—way ANOVA with a post hoc test was conducted to determine the existence
of differences in support for cause—related marketing activities among the three attitude
groups (i.e., negative, neutral, positive attitude group) in the ninth hypothesis. As shown
in Table 31, the results conﬁrmed a signiﬁcant difference between residents who have
positive, neutral, or negative attitudes toward place marketing, regarding support for
cause—related marketing activities from all three counties [F = 21 .2, p < .001 (Emmet: the
moderate developed county); F = 22.8, p < .001 (Saginaw: the most developed county;

F = 52.5, p < .001 (Tuscola: the least developed county)]. In group comparisons, the

104

positive attitude group revealed a higher mean difference in the level of support for
marketing activities compared to negative and neutral groups in all three counties.

On average, residents of the moderately developed county (mean = 15.93) were
more likely to support all marketing activities compared to those of the most developed
(mean = 15.08) or the least developed counties (mean = 14.50). The positive attitude
group from each county held a higher level of support for the marketing activities [mean
= 16.6 (Emmet); mean = 16.1 (Saginaw); mean = 15.9 (Tuscola)] in comparison to the
negative or neutral attitude groups. These ﬁndings supported the ninth hypothesis of this
study.

With respect to the tenth hypothesis, a signiﬁcant (at 0: =05) coefﬁcient and the
standardized beta value were utilized from the regression analysis. Respondents from
“the least developed county” (B = .65, t = 12.5, p < .001) held the strongest relationship
between attitudes toward tourism promotion and marketing campaigns and support for
cause—related marketing compared to the moderate developed county ([3 = .35, t = 6.5, p
< .001) and the most developed county ([3 = .45, t = 7.1, p < .001) (Table 32). The results

did not support the tenth hypothesis of this study.

105

Embﬂa 05 mo :8 E2: 2: Sm vow: 830 we Soﬁa: :39 2t mSSEE 2:: "a

 

me. u "a Sea?

8. u R 333.

S. ”R was?

 

 

 

_oo.vd.N.m2uu_ .So.ve.m.omum .So.vd.m.$u.._
:5. v m5 8. :5. v E 2. :5. v we 2. 035 “.339 83:5
a H a a u a a a n
. Sans 282E . Sana Esuum .. anus 355m

 

 

 

 

62.5 233.50 messes: Be 8865
EEth @838 mou39< Sow moE>uo< wEExEE coHEoMIomsn0 .80 tommsm mo GEUGBL 05 no.“ Embed/w commmouwom "NM 933.

.om @525 c we owcﬂ 033.3 m @282: 82308 wEHBENE E WEE 500 2: mo Esm E
Emerge 05 .8 tan EE: 2: 80 wow: 8an 00 .6955: E38 05 monEvE :F. "a

 

:5. v d .03 n m

goo. V a .wdm H n

:5. Va .Nénm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So. V Nvd and So. v med mmd Sc. V and mm; N 90 02:8;
So v wmd amh So. v Que mmm 39V mmd mod _ . .
So. V Nvﬂo mv..ml So. v mvﬂo mm..mt So. V mmb mm..~| M £0 abaoz
So v S o 3 m m: E. o co o 3 v am 9 OmE _
So V wmd omwl So. V mud 26: So. V mwd wo.m| m A: 02832
So. V mwd Sal m: Rd cod! mo. v and om. T N .

.m_m “ohm GIG 8:20.05 .wﬁ Sum Qt: 3:20.005 .wﬁ “ohm Gr: 3:20.05 @380 9.80

. .3m :82 . .Ew :82 . .Em e 522 ESE/VAC 2553.5
. anus 282:. . 5W5 tandem . cunt: seam

 

8:80 oEEu< BEE 0E wsoﬁm moE>co<
mauve—82 u8m_umtom:m0 .80 teamsm E moonobta wEEwam Sm “mom. com mom m E? ooqmtd> .8 Eggs: @3125 En «Zap.

106

Step III (2) of the Study Model: Hypothesis 11 and 12

 

H11: There will be a signiﬁcant difference between residents by those with
positive, neutral, or negative attitudes toward tourism promotion and
marketing campaigns (TPMC), regarding support for tourism products for
the future plan of marketing and promotion.

H12: The relationship between residents’ attitudes toward TPMC and support
for tourism products is signiﬁcant. The strength of the relationship will
vary by county with a high stage tourism destination holding the strongest
relationship compared to a middle stage or lower stage tourism
destination.

 

 

 

In step 111 (2), this study tested if there is a signiﬁcant difference between
residents by those with positive, neutral, or negative attitudes toward TPMC, regarding
support for tourism products for future TPMC (H11). The research also identiﬁed
whether the county at a high stage of tourism development holds the strongest
relationship between residents’ attitude toward TPMC and support for tourism products
compared to counties at middle or a lower stages of tourism development (H12).

One—way ANOVA with a post hoc test determined the existence of differences
in support for tourism products among the three attitude groups (i.e., negative, neutral,
positive attitude group). In Table 33, the results conﬁrmed that the attitude groups from
all three counties hold a signiﬁcant difference in support for tourism products from each
county [F = 41.5, p < .001 (Emmet: the moderate developed county); F = 14.1, p < .001
(Saginaw: the most developed county; F= 34.5, p < .001 (Tuscola: the least developed
county)]. In group comparisons, the positive attitude group revealed a higher mean
difference in the level of support for tourism products compared to the negative and

neutral groups in all three counties.

107

On average, residents of the most developed county (mean = 82.07) were more
likely to support all tourism products in comparison with those of the moderately
developed (mean = 81.42) and least developed counties (mean = 80.28). The positive
attitude groups from all three counties held a higher level of support for the tourism
products compared to the negative or neutral attitude groups.

As for determining which county holds the strongest relationship between attitude
toward tourism promotion and marketing campaigns and tourism products, signiﬁcant (at
(1 =05) coefﬁcient and the beta value were utilized from the regression analysis. As
shown in Table 34, respondents from “the least developed county” ([3 = .55, t = 9.3, p
< .001) had the strongest relationship between attitude toward tourism promotion and
marketing campaigns and support for tourism products compared to the moderate
developed county ([3 = .52, t = 10.0, p < .001) and the most developed county ([3 = .40, t =

5.8, p < .001). These results did not support the twelfth hypothesis of this study.

108

Ewing 05 mo tam ENE 06 80 wow: momma .«o 59:5: :39 of 835E as: "a

 

8. "R Baa?

2. u R Baa?

8. u R 32?.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sovdaewum .So.vd.e.mmum .Soudwanm
:5. v 3 mm. :5. v we ow. :5. v 2: mm. 02.; ease menses.
a H n a a n a u n
. sans «385 .AﬂNus tandem . can-5 355m
635: $350 3332

EH :ouoEoE BEEP—- @338 mouBE< EOE 388$ EEEoH 80 tommsm mo EEEBE 2: 50 Ewing commmouwom Gm Esau.

.2: swab: o no omcﬁ EEmmom a 3332 $2605 EEEB E was: 0:01.055 05 00 Sam 5
Ema—Ea “ECO tam E8. 05 do“ vow: momma mo BEE:— ES 2: moﬁEwE :F. "a

 

:5. v a .03 u a

so.vd._.: nm

:5. Va .27»

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:5. v and t .E a. v we.” 5: :5. v a: 2.2 N 6 2:53
Sou mg 8.8 59v NS. 38 Eu 2.” 8: H . .
:5. v o2 :i- a. v mom 5.2- :5. v a: S .S- m E 3:82
8. v mom e; 2 R: 8.2 S. V EN 32 _
Sou 3m 8.3- Sou NS. mnom- Sou a.” 8.5- m 3 3.332
8. v mom e;- 2. as 267 a. v :2 a 8.2- N .

9m “ohm QIQ 8:20th mi 5:0 :1: vocab-«05 wﬁ notm or: 3:20.05 9390 9.90

. .3 e32 . .3 as: . .Bm .. =82 836$: 83:28
. 23.-.5 «385 . sans Ewing . cans :55
3:20 owBE< REE. 2t

wcoEw $0255 SEES- uom tongsm E 80:80.05 chEmem How “wok oom «mom a HEB 028E; mo Embﬂa keg-25 "mm 035,—.

109

.0282»in o: m080€E :8: 3
.32 8. 2: a 85208: 3.20% “3862 :05: a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. 5.83089 SEES 8m toga. $0955 05 «.an
628.586 BESS 038 80:3: 0 .3550 05 850:3 380k Nam
.w_m _ .w_m _ .wwm $05003 SEES 8m tommzm Au USE... 2038 0UEE< :3
2 8033300 wE8¥aE 05 .8 8933 8095.3 0% £03:
“cosmEHmov EMF—=9 0308 8sz a .5580 05 850:3 0083- a!
.m. .w. .m. 322.80 9:80:08
.m .m .m 022070280 .8 toqum AI USE.“- 0838 008:2 a:
mm m: m: 023- 0.839 0EEt< AI Aa._-.3 2Q E 3080202: * <0 E E0EcoE>s0 8582
m: m: .wmm DEE. 3038 003:3. ¢ mm:- wo 2Q E 0:050:02: _., <0 E 88:06? Eoom mm
m: m: m: mm: mo 2Q E 3050203: Al A2 E06888 ESE—Eco E 0:085:28 12302
0: m: .w_m an? mo 20 E E08029:— ¢ amv E08888 €==EE0U E 85586 880m 5:
.w_m .w_m m: DEE. €038 0vBE< ¢ USE-.- E 0200:0308 EcosoEm * 50:09 8:88; o:
.w_m .w_m m: 02%. E 032898 _0=o:oEm m- E08; .3833 m:
m: .wmm m: 02%. 2039 003:2 Al £0=0m _.. 0300355— Emtsoa 0380.30
2 m: .w_m 02%. 9038 02Et< AI ﬂ0:0m * 0300:505— EESB 0>_803:m vi
3 m: 0: USE..- E mm0=0m AI 0300.305. SEES 0>_80.30
w: m: .w_m 02%. E mm0=0m AI 032322 Emtzoa 0>_80.3=m mm
mm .w_m Em 00858 05 E 805023.: 23 00:0:088 8:2880 :05 8955 0 E £2.09 “050:3 380,—. a
.w_m m: m: DEE- 0838 003:3. AI an; we can: mac—«8158800 E 0:069:02:
a m: .w_m .wmm USE..- 2038 003E< AI 02%. E 08200308 .maosoEm
.06 0% .05 02$ 332 233 An 02%. a 00:00 5
£000.; BaEwam BEBE
31.8”. 2.5 25852.?

 

 

 

3300M 80H mom050§3 mo 355m "mm 030,—.

110

   

$2605
Emtzoh
you tongsm

moE>uo<
wataxhwz
nus—odiomamu
.8 teamsm

$338 98 3.02 35$ («0 banana 5 95E..—

._o>o_ mo. 05 an ouﬁocmawﬁ o: 3:865 :2: 6
._o>o_ mo. 05 a 02—85%? Burma—am 3:865 2.3%. "a
.38 05 E aucmuﬁawﬁs 8 oocmocEME some Ev €23 aﬂooma. u H Wigwam u m 325.5 N m: 5550 05 98865 :PEQm—v: "a

u s \S a: u 333ka 33 Mghiex?
I “V oMMMJHNSU°V4\°NN§K MSBKNE§=O ............................................

..
.¢
.-
..

        
 

           

.995 .2 n

   

       
   
                        

. he cow—BEE Ban Z.
.3 win: “5:20.32
.... I=o_mmooQ E DE:EEOU
. . «snag—9,5

 

 

siege 38m.

          

.................. . may .Mmm. n 32 =§E~§E.

..............
.....
.
o

         
   

 

I S 8:0Wo MW.
.Ammb .wmm j . Hague—um

. Ea .mmm

Ear—=8.
Eot Ecuom

 

  

02$ Ease

 

 

 

 

—dﬁ0m.—0nm
ovary.
4....
. Emma .5

a Atm\mv .Wum ....'... Ar—(V .w—m H

..... 13...... DEER. o>30030o
E mug—om m— . .m | ORE—gag
...... . a . I amid-OH.

3503:?

n a.» $54 n 95.3.30 Kg 33 «Sunnwuaz.
a «my $.54 n wéuuuxoahﬁv £2 u5§su§e$ ......................

 

111

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary of the Study

This study examined residents’ attitudes toward and support for promotion and
marketing campaigns of tourism, as well as explored factors yielding positive or negative
affects of residents’ attitudes toward tourism promotion and marketing campaigns
(TPMC) across several destinations.

Data were collected using a mail questionnaire across several counties or
destination areas at different levels of tourism development (i.e., Saginaw = most
developed; Emmet = moderately developed; Tuscola = least developed). The
questionnaire was developed from a review of existing literature addressing residents’
attitudes toward tourism development and marketing and later modiﬁed based on input
obtained from university researchers and managers in two of the three counties. The
population for this study was homeowners, including full—time and seasonal residents, at
the household level. The study samples were randomly selected from the database for the
2006 winter property tax bill for each county. The mail questionnaire was administered
from May 4 through May 28, 2007 following Dillman’s (2000) methodology. A total of
3,008 households constituted the population. After the mailing 90 surveys were
undeliverable, and 809 were returned and completed for an overall response rate of 28%.
A non—response survey was sent on June 18, 2007, following the mail data collection
period to assess any biases in the dataset. Eighteen percent (18%) of this sample (n=300)

returned the non—response survey, and the results from non—respondents were found to be

112

relatively indistinguishable from the main study results. The data were analyzed using
four statistical techniques as follows: 1) multiple linear regression analyses were used to
test the study hypotheses for the relationship beliefs, emotional experience, involvement,
subjective tourism knowledge, personal beneﬁt, community attachment, attitude, and
support facets; 2) multiple regression analyses with interaction terms were conducted to
test the hypotheses for moderating inﬂuences of tourism knowledge, personal beneﬁt
from tourism, and community attachment; 3) independent sample t—tests were conducted
to compare differences between a categorical independent variable (objective tourism
knowledge) regarding a continuous dependent variable (beliefs in TPMC); and 4) one—
way AN OVA with a post hoc test was used to determine the existence of differences in
support for cause—related marketing activities and tourism products among three attitude

groups (i.e., negative, neutral, positive).

Discussion of Key Findings

To answer the research hypotheses and achieve the study’s objectives, this study
developed a conceptual research model based on Eagly and Chaiken’s attitude theory
(1993). As stated in Chapter 2, Eagly and Chaiken’s theory suggested attitudes are
formed on the basis of cognitive (e.g., beliefs, knowledge, thought), affective (e.g.,
emotional experience, personal beneﬁt, interest), and behavioral (e. g., involvement,
community attachment, participation, action) components. This study found that the
independent variable of “beliefs ” in tourism promotion and marketing campaigns
(TPMC) predicted a signiﬁcant amount of variance in attitude toward. TPMC in three

different geographical areas (i.e., Emmet, Saginaw, Tuscola). A signiﬁcant prediction of

113

attitude toward TPMC from “emotional experience” in TPMC was found in two different
areas (i.e., Emmet, Saginaw). The independent variable of “involvement” in decision—
making of tourism development and promotion (TDP) also predicted a signiﬁcant
variance in attitude toward TPMC in only one area (i.e., Tuscola). Since little tourism
planning is done in Tuscola, being in the beginning of development stage, the residents
may not be satisﬁed with their county’s tourism promotion and development. This aspect
seems to inﬂuence insigniﬁcant variances in Tuscola residents’ emotional experience in
TPMC that can be accounted by for their attitudes toward TPMC. Also, impacts of
involvement in decision—making of TDP on attitudes toward TPMC did not reach
signiﬁcance in Emmet and Saginaw counties. As both counties are in the moderately or
most developed stage of tourism, based on Dexey’s model (1975), residents may be more
passive or generating negative attitudes toward tourism or tourists (F ridgen, 2001). This
aspect may affect insigniﬁcant variances in residents’ involvement in TPD of their county
that can be accounted by for their attitude toward TPMC. Although insigniﬁcant results
were partially reported, the study ﬁndings clearly demonstrated Eagly and Chaiken’s
attitude formation theory (1993), as well as supported the ﬁrst hypothesis of this study.
That is, residents, who have a high level of beliefs, emotional experience, and
involvement in tourism making and promotion processes, are more likely to have positive
attitudes toward tourism marketing and promotion for a future plan.

This study also utilized Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1975; 1980) theory of reasoned
action (TRA) to build the conceptual study model. For the three different geographic
areas, this study consistently found homeowners’ beliefs in TPMC to be stronger or more

inﬂuential than emotional experience and the involvement facet in attitudes toward

114

TPMC. The ﬁndings are consistent with the initial expectation of this study regarding the
inﬂuence of belief strength (as deﬁned by TRA) on attitudes toward TPMC (as stated in
hypothesis 2). All study sites clearly showed that residents’ beliefs were an especially
effective predictor of attitudes toward future tourism marketing and promotion plans.

As for individuals’ beliefs toward attitude objects or entities, Eagly and Chaiken’s
attitude theory (1993) posited that a cognitive learning process is assumed to occur when
individuals gain information about the attitude object and thereby form beliefs. The
beliefs are also formed from direct experience or outside information (knowledge) and
others are inferred or self generated (Ajzen & F ishbein, 1975; 1980). Based on these
concepts, this study proposed a positive relationship exists between (subjective and
objective) tourism knowledge and beliefs in tourism promotion and marketing campaigns
(TPMC) (as stated in hypothesis 3). Inconsistent results, however, were found in the
three study areas. One study site (Emmet) showed a signiﬁcantly positive relationship
between “subjective tourism knowledge” and beliefs in TPMC. Potentially, this result
may be explained by residents of the moderately developed tourism area (Emmet County)
may have expressed their level of tourism knowledge in an active manner compared to
residents of the more and less developed tourism areas (Saginaw and Tuscola counties).
Overall, residents may have never thought about what they know about tourism in their
community, but still held beliefs about what makes a desirable tourism and recreation
area for themselves and visitors.

For “objective tourism knowledge” and beliefs in TPMC a negative relationship
was found in two of the three study areas (i.e., Emmet, Tuscola). That is, residents, who

are “objectively knowledgeable” about tourism, were found to be more likely to have a

115

low level of beliefs in TPMC. The ﬁnding did not support for the initial expectation of
this study. This result may be due to two reasons. One reason for this ﬁnding may be to
a weak measurement item as objective tourism knowledge was operationalized with one
item (indicator variable) rather than multiple items. A second reason is also related to
measurement and codiﬁcation of the responses. Objective knowledge was coded as
“correct response” or “incorrect response.” A majority of respondents from the three
study areas gave an incorrect answer as they tended to over estimate tourism’s
contribution to the economy (stated as a percent of the local economy). The negative
relationship found between knowledge and beliefs represents overestimating tourism
contribution to the local economy and holding strong beliefs about tourism.

According to Ap (1992) and Skidmore (1975), individuals who perceive beneﬁts
from an exchange are likely to evaluate that exchange to be positive, whereas people who
recognized costs from an exchange are likely to evaluate that exchange to be negative
(Jurowski, Uysal, & Williams, 1997; McGehee & Andereck, 2004; Taylor, 1995). In this
respect, this study hypothesized the higher the personal beneﬁt from tourism, the more
positive is a residents’ emotional experience in tourism promotion and marketing
campaigns (TPMC) (as stated in hypothesis 5). The overall ﬁndings were consistent with
Ap’s (1992) and Skidmore’s (1975) suggestion that residents, who have personal beneﬁts
from tourism, are more likely to hold positive emotions and experiences in TPMC. The
results provide theoretical evidence on “personal beneﬁts ” from tourism playing a
critical role in forming residents’ positive attitudes toward further community or tourism

marketing and promotion.

116

This study proposed that a positive relationship exists between community
attachment (i.e., social and natural environmental dimensions) and involvement in the
decision—making of tourism development and promotion (TDP) (as stated in hypothesis
7). This hypothesis, based on Taylor’s (1995) and McCool and Martin’s (1994) studies,
suggests the demands or wants of local stakeholders for tourism development (marketing)
are different and diverse from community attachment (i.e., importance of social or natural
environment, length of residency, place of birth), which is identiﬁed as an important
factor in forming residents’ involvement in decision making and perception of tourism
development social structure and function of community (Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974).
From the three study areas, the overall ﬁndings were inconsistent with the initial
expectation of this study, that residents who have a high level of community attachment
will be more likely to be involved in decision—making of tourism development and
promotion (TDP). Among the three different geographic areas, only data from one area
supported the initial expectation of this study (as stated in hypothesis 7) that there is a
signiﬁcant positive association between the “social dimension” of community attachment
and the “involvement facet.” No signiﬁcant associations existed between “natural
environment dimension” of community attachment in all three study areas.

According to McCool and Martin’s (1994) study, newcomers to tourism
communities may develop a relatively strong sense of attachment to the community.
These highly attached individuals living in tourism—developed settings, who viewed the
beneﬁts of tourism and were highly involved in tourism activities, compared to old—
timers, who live in a community in a longer period. In this context, in the three study

sites residents, living in a county for 23 to 37 years, on average, may be deﬁned as old—

117

timers. These residents (old—timers) may be attached to community or involved in
tourism activities in a passive manner rather than newcomers. This aspect may inﬂuence
insigniﬁcant variances in residents’ community attachment that can be accounted by for
their involvement in tourism development and promotion. The insigniﬁcance may also
be caused by weak measurement items as one of the three study sites revealed a bit low
reliable score regarding its measurement [alpha = 0.67 (Emmet)] (Refer to Table 8),
where a recommended Cronbach alpha coefﬁcient reliability scale should be 0.7 or
above. Therefore, the variable of community attachment may be somewhat associated
with involvement in decision—making of TDP, but it seems to be weak in driving
residents’ involvement.

Furthermore, this study examined the moderating effects of variables (i.e.,
subjective and objective tourism knowledge, personal beneﬁt from tourism, social and
natural dimension in community attachment), and the results were varied as follows: First,
for the moderating effects of “tourism knowledge” on the relationship between beliefs
and attitude toward tourism promotion and marketing campaigns (TPCM), the ﬁnding
was partially consistent with the initial expectation of this study that the impact of
homeowners’ beliefs on attitudes toward TPMC is moderated by the level of “subjective
and objective tourism knowledge” (as stated in hypothesis 4). However, since only one
of the three study areas showed a signiﬁcant interaction between “subjective and
objective tourism knowledge” and beliefs in TPMC, this study deems that the moderating
effects of level of tourism knowledge were less relevant in inﬂuencing the relationship

between beliefs and attitudes toward TPMC.

118

Second, as for the moderating effects of “personal beneﬁt from tourism ” on the
relationship between emotional experience and attitude toward TPCM, the results from
two of the three study areas were consistent with the initial expectation of this study that
personal beneﬁt from tourism is relevant for moderating the relationship between
emotional experience and attitudes toward TPMC (as stated in hypothesis 6). The
ﬁndings supported Madrigal’s (1993) and Martin’s (1996) studies that residents who can
proﬁt economically from tourism are more favorable toward tourism and further tourism
growth. Moreover, the ﬁndings are similar to several researchers’ suggestions (e.g.,
Allen, Long, Perdue, & Kieselbach, 1988; Lankford & Howard, 1994; Ritchie, 1988) that
the balance between residents’ perceptions of the costs and beneﬁts of tourism
development is a major factor of their satisfaction with further tourism planning.

Third, with respect to the moderating effects of “community attachment ” (i.e.,
social and natural environment dimension) on the relationship between involvement in
decision—making of TDP and attitudes toward TPCM, the overall results were not
consistent with the initial expectations of this study, that the level of community
attachment moderates the strength of the relationship between involvement in decision
making of TDP and attitude toward TPCM (as stated in hypothesis 8). Among the three
different geographic areas, only one area supported the moderating effect of “social
dimension of community attachment” on the relationship between involvement in
decision making of TDP and attitudes toward TPCM. No signiﬁcant moderating effects
of “natural environmental dimension of community attachment” on the relationship

between the two variables were found in any of the sites. Thus, this study deems that the

119

moderating effects of community attachment,” are somewhat relevant in inﬂuencing the
relationship between beliefs and attitudes toward TPMC, but at a weak level.

Lastly, this study found that attitudes toward tourism promotion and marketing
campaigns (TPMC) were related to the intention to support cause—related marketing
activities and tourism products in a future TPMC plan. As described in Chapter 2, this
study applied the belief -) attitude -) intention (support) pathway of the theory of
reasoned action (TRA) model (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1975; 1980) to demonstrate the
relationship between belief and attitude as well as between attitude and intention
(support) for the marketing of tourism. This study conﬁrmed that beliefs and attitudes
are positively related to intentions (support) from all three study areas. Residents, who
believed “a successful tourism economy in the county is dependent on marketing efforts,”
tended to have more positive support for cause—related marketing activities and for
tourism products in future TPMC. A signiﬁcant difference among residents who have a
positive, neutral, or negative attitude toward TPMC regarding support for “cause—
related marketing activities and tourism products” was found in all study sites. The
ﬁndings are consistent with the initial expectation of this study (as stated in hypothesis 9
and 11). In addition, the level of support for types of marketing activities and additional
tourism product development differed across three study areas tourism products also
differed in all three study sites. The results clearly demonstrated McCool and Martin’s
(1994) suggestion that the demands or wants of local stakeholders about marketing
activities and tourism products often differs between communities, thus tourism plans are

not “one size ﬁts all.”

120

Moreover, Butler (1980) and Doxey (1975) suggested the relationship between
attitude toward place marketing and support for cause—related marketing activities and
tourism products may differ by the stage of tourism development of a host community, a
claim the results supported. Doxey’s Irridex model (1975) suggested a unidirectional,
predictable sequence of changes in residents’ attitudes. According to Doxey, as the
tourism industry increases, residents’ attitudes change and become more negative,
moving from euphoria to apathy, annoyance, and then a ﬁnal stage of antagonism where
residents openly express their irritation toward tourists. These stages are linked to
Butler’s (1980) tourism destination evolution model, which suggests that a resort cycle
moves through ﬁve stages of exploration, involvement, development, consolidation and
stabilization, decline, or rejuvenation, depending on efforts to improve the adverse
effects. Although the ﬁndings did not support the initial expectation of this study (as
stated in hypothesis 10 and 12), this study found that the least developed county held the
strongest relationship among the variables (i.e., between attitudes toward TPMC and
support for marketing activities, between the attitudes and support for tourism products)
compared to high or middle staged tourism destinations. This result clearly veriﬁed
Doxey’s (1975) Irridex model. That is, Tuscola residents seem to be more excited about
the potential inﬂux of visitors, glad to see them, and pleased that they are spending

money as the county is in the beginning stage of tourism development and contact.

Implications
Tourism and marketing studies (Bramwell, 1998; Buhalis, 1999; Gold & Ward,

1994; Gupta & Pirsch, 2006; Jamal & Getz, 1992; Kotler, Haider, & Rein, 1993; Liu &

121

Wall, 2006; Morgan & Pritchard, 2001; Murphy, 1985; Rossiter & Bellman, 2005)
have suggested that effective and sustained strategies of marketing activities (e.g.,
advertising, sales promotion, public relations) are critical to successfully market any
products (e.g., global airlines, tourism destinations, museums). Developing relationships
with major customers (target markets) are also important for successful marketing.
Particularly, for a place product (e.g., communities, cities) it is imperative that
governments pay attention to resident stakeholders, who are identiﬁed as an important
target market, as well as understand the perceptions, attitudes, and opinions of local
residents regarding tourism marketing and promotions (Bramwell, 1998; Buhalis, 1999;
Gold & Ward, 1994; Jamal & Getz, 1992; Kotler, Haider, & Rein, 1993; Liu & Wall,
2006; Murphy, 1985).

With useful suggestions for future place marketing and promotion, this study
provided both theoretical and practical implications for greater understanding of
residents’ perception of and attitude toward tourism marketing and promotion. The
implications serve to extend background knowledge for a future study of community and
place marketing, as well as to enhance our understanding and ability to predict residents’

attitudes toward tourism marketing and promotion.

Theoretical Implications

This study utilized Eagly and Chaiken’s theory (1993) as a theoretical background
to predict residents’ attitudes toward tourism promotion and marketing campaigns
(TPMC) from their beliefs, emotional experience, and involvement in TPMC. Although

some of the three counties partially revealed insigniﬁcant relationships between these

122

variables, the overall model explained 22% (Emmet); 21% (Saginaw); 21% (Tuscola) of
the variance in beliefs, emotional experience, and involvement in TPMC that can be
accounted by for attitudes toward TPMC. This result shows Eagly and Chaiken’s attitude
formation model is adequate to explain the impacts of beliefs, emotional experience, and
involvement in TPMC on attitudes toward TPMC. However, the results raise some
questions with regards to the predictive power of involvement variables on attitudes as
only one county reached signiﬁcance.

Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1975; 1980) theory of reasoned action (TRA) was also
utilized in the study model to explain the relationship between beliefs and attitudes
toward TPMC. The inﬂuence of belief strength on attitude was replicated across three
different study areas. This result contributes to theoretical evidence on an adequate role
of belief factors on positive attitude formation toward TPMC.

The tourism knowledge variables (i.e., subjective and objective tourism
knowledge) were added in the model to examine their role in the overall predictive
validity of the theory in the context of beliefs toward TPMC. The study results have not
fully supported the initial expectation of this study, that there is a positive relationship
between knowledge about tourism and beliefs in TPMC. Potentially, the insigniﬁcant
results may be caused by weak measurement items as each item (subjective and objective
tourism knowledge) was tested by a single question, in which true level of residents’
tourism knowledge may not be identiﬁed. According to Reid and Crompton (1993), a
single measurement does not render enough information about the construct of the

concept being measured. Thus, a future study could examine the role of tourism

123

knowledge on beliefs in TPMC with multiple measures and/or multiple facets regarding
the tourism knowledge variables and continue to search in the literature for such scales.

The personal beneﬁt variable, based on social exchange theory (Ap, 1992;
Skidmore, 1975), was added in the study model to test its impact on residents’ level of
emotional experience on TPMC. The important role of personal beneﬁt from tourism on
attitudes toward TPMC was veriﬁed in this study. Personal beneﬁt from tourism
positively inﬂuenced attitudes toward TPMC. This result provides theoretical evidence
for personal beneﬁt from tourism playing a critical role in forming positive attitudes
toward further community or tourism marketing and promotion.

The community attachment variable (i.e., social dimension, natural environment
dimension) was also added in the model to examine its role in predictive validity of the
theory in the context of involvement of decision—making in TPMC. Overall, this study
did not provide strong evidence regarding the roles of “community attachment” on
driving residents’ involvement in tourism development and promotion processes. This
study deems that the impact of these two items (social and natural environment
dimensions) on involvement in decision-making in TPMC did not reach signiﬁcance due
to weak measurement items or the construct of community attachment. Several studies
(Goudy, 1982; Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974; Sampson, 1988) have used length of residency
or place of birth as a measure of community attachment and found that two are highly
correlated. In the tourism ﬁeld, the concept of community attachment is a major research
topic for community development, particularly in environmentally attractive and cultural

settings. Thus, additional research may be needed to conﬁrm and clarify the role of

124

community attachment with other items (e.g., length of residency, place of birth) or
through more reliable and valid measurement scales to establish clearer roles.

This study examined the moderating effects of variables (i.e., tomism knowledge,
personals beneﬁt from tourism, community attachment) in the relationship between the
variables (i.e., belief and attitude; emotional experience and attitude; involvement and
attitude), respectively. The study veriﬁed that personal beneﬁt from tourism is one of the
key factors that moderate the relationship between emotional experience and attitude
toward TPMC. That is, residents who have a high level of personal beneﬁt from tourism
hold more positive emotional experiences and attitudes toward TPMC. Conversely,
tourism knowledge and community attachment were not upheld as a key factor
moderating the link between beliefs and attitudes toward TPMC and between
involvement in decision—making of TDP and attitudes. The insigniﬁcant result may be
caused by a theoretical unclear area in determining the moderating effects of attachment
or knowledge. This may reﬂect weak measurement items regarding tourism knowledge
and community attachment as mentioned earlier. Consequently, a future study should
continue to deﬁne the scope and theoretical nature of the variables and search or develop
more valid scales to establish moderating roles more clearly.

Consistent with Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1975; 1980) theory of reasoned action
model, this study conﬁrmed residents’ attitudes are strongly related to the formation of
intention (support) for objects. This result shows that attitudes can be one of the key
factors in understanding residents’ intention (support) for tourism marketing activities
and tourism products. This study also clearly demonstrated that residents’ level of

support is dependent on the types of marketing activities and tourism products in future

125

TPMC across the three study areas (McCool & Martin, 1994). The study veriﬁed that
residents’ attitudes toward tourism are related directly to the stage of tourism
development within the host community. These stages vary in terms of the destinations’
attributes, residents’ attributes or their capacity to absorb tourists, and the level of
economic lifecycle (Butler, 1980; Doxey, 1975). In this study, residents in the least
developed county (i.e., Tuscola) showed stronger or more positive attitudes toward
tourism marketing and development. This result implies that the least developed
county’s residents are more optimistic to increase local economic grth from tourism as
they are in the beginning stage of tourism development (as Doxey’s Irridex model
deﬁned) compared to the most (Saginaw) and moderately developed (Emmet) counties,
in which a strong dislike may be felt and expressed toward tourists (Doxey, 1975) and
may be irritated with more people in their community (e.g., tourists). Accordingly,
understanding of residents’ perception of or support for tourism products and type of
marketing and promotion within a community or across communities could be one of the

most important tasks for any future plan of TPMC.

Practical Implications

The practical implications serve to understand residents’ values and preferred
directions regarding tourism development and promotion in the future as follows.
First, to induce residents’ positive attitudes toward tourism marketing and promotion for
the further development plans, planners and developers should develop tourism
marketing and promotion strategies that meet residents’ needs, wishes, and demands that

directly inﬂuence “levels of belief opportunities ” for the local residents or homeowners.

126

Based on this study ﬁndings from the three study sites, tourism promotion and marketing
campaigns (TPMC) which create a strong identity for a county; improve the image of a
county; make residents proud of a county; or make a good ﬁnancial investment in a
county could be used to make higher outcome evaluation in and certainty with beneﬁt
from TPMC that lead to a higher level of residents’ beliefs in TPMC.

In practice, to improve a county’s image or brand, the three counties (i.e. Emmet,
Saginaw, Tuscola) could use their history, culture, or beautiful scenery in their TPMC.
However, as all destinations have these attributes, it is critical to build an image or a
brand that other destinations (competitors) cannot surpass or usurp. For example, other
cities can claim to be romantic or spiritual, but only Rome is “The eternal city”— it has
that epithet, it had it ﬁrst and no other place can now claim it (Morgan & Pritchard, 2001).
Whatever unique selling proposition is used, it should also have the potential to last, to
grow old, and to evolve in long—time marketing and promotion campaigns for the
improvement of a destination’s imaging or branding. From those efforts, residents’
beliefs in TPMC should strengthen and become more positive attitudes toward tourism
promotion and marketing in any future plan.

Second, designing and marketing for residents’ personal beneﬁts are likely to
boost their emotional experience in TPMC. Planners and developers can consider
tourism development that can be economically beneﬁcial to residents, including:
provides desirable jobs for local residents; contributes to income and standard of living;
encourages more private (e.g., housing, retail) or public development (roads, public

facilities); and increases tax revenues; all in an effort to residents to be more positive or

127

favorable (interested, satisﬁed) toward future tourism marketing and promotion
(Madrigal, 1993; Martin, 1996).

Third, as King, Mcvey, and Simmons (2000) suggested, marketing planners and
developers should consider developing visions for destinations based on community or
ecological values and social science inputs (e.g., socio—cultural/economical/
environmental assessment, social impact assessment) as a key task of place marketing
and promotion. Based on the study ﬁndings, homeowners from all three counties
indicated strong agreement with the promotion of natural amenities as a tourism
marketing and development strategy of their county. A sizable share of participants
favored the marketing of cultural and social amenities and cause—related promotions.
Practically, Emmet ofﬁcials could consider developing the county’s natural amenities and
the promotion of them, based on enthusiasm by local homeowners, which has
consistently showed across previous community studies conducted by Emmet County.
No other studies have explored residents’ perceptions and support for marketing
activities, more speciﬁcally how different types of place marketing and promotion hold
social or environmental messages and more social psychology approaches. Hence,
tourism developers and planners can use this model to understanding residents’ values
and preferred directions regarding tourism development and promotion in the future.

Fourth, the needs, demands or wants of residents for the marketing and promotion
of tourism products should be considered in future planning as they have show to be
different between communities (McCool & Martin, 1994). As the study ﬁndings showed,
residents’ demands and wants for tourism product options in future tourism marketing

and promotion were different between the three study sites. For instance, Emmet

128

homeowners tended to rate the promotion of tourism products (i.e., public beaches, bed
and breakfast, boating, festivals/fairs/events, galleries/museums, historical/cultural
attractions, greenway and open space, park with developed area, restaurant, non—
motorized trails) as very acceptable. They rated campaigns to promote casinos,
motorized trails and bars/tavern as less acceptable. Saginaw homeowners tended to be in
strong agreement with the marketing and promotion of selected tourism products (i.e.,
boating, campgrounds/RV parks, festivals/fairs/events, park with developed area, piers,
retail stores/shopping direct). They rated campaigns to promote casinos and bars/tavern
as less acceptable. Tuscola homeowners rated the marketing and promotion of tourism
products (i.e., campgrounds/RV parks, festivals/fairs/events, piers, park with developed
area, restaurants, motorized trails—which was rated as less acceptable from Emmet
homeowner) as very acceptable. Like Emmet and Saginaw counties, they also rated
campaigns to promote casinos and bars/tavern as less acceptable.

In reality, since the tourism market for Saginaw County (e. g., Frankenmuth, Birch
Run) has reached matured levels and neighboring Tuscola County is still a largely
agricultural area, these two counties likely face more challenges in diversifying their
tourism economies. Consequently, planners and developers in the counties could use the
ﬁndings of this study to pursue economic development by promoting tourism products
that can meet residents’ wants and demands, as well as products that create greater
personal beneﬁts to the residents. From those efforts, residents’ attitudes toward tourism
marketing and promotion would become more positive and strong and residents are more
likely to be involved in the tourism marketing and development processes of their county.

This could then alleviate negative aspects of tourism marketing and development, such as

129

low—paying nature of many service jobs in the ﬁeld, expansion of private development
(e.g., residential and retail), cost—of—living increase, trafﬁc problems and litter in the area.

Lastly, marketing plarmers and developers should keep in mind that residents’
attitudes toward tourism are related directly to the stage of tourism development within
the host community. According to Doxey’s Irridex model (1975), Emmet (moderately
developed) and Saginaw (most developed) counties seem to be in the stage called
“annoyance” and “antagonism,” respectively. In this model context, Emmet residents
may become concerned residents and irritated by the tourists. In the case of Saginaw
county, local residents may begin to generate negative stereotypes about tourists and
tourism activities (e. g., marketing and promotion, development). Unlike those counties,
Tuscola residents would be excited about tourism and visitors as the county is in the
beginning stage of development called “euphoria.”

As mentioned earlier chapter, residents are identiﬁed as an important target
market since residents host friends and relatives and have a stake in retail, recreation and
neighborhood development. That is why many studies (Bramwell, 1998; Buhalis, 1999;
Gold & Ward, 1994; Jamal & Getz, 1992; Kotler, Haider, & Rein, 1993; Liu & Wall,
2006; Murphy, 1985) suggested that marketing of place products should focus on
meeting the needs and demands of “residents,” those who live or own a house. If
residents’ wants and wishes are not considered in tourism marketing and development, a
community is likely to ﬁnd that a majority of the community residents develop negative
attitudes toward tourism over the life of the destination. These cognitive outcomes may
begin to show with open conﬂicts and debates that can damage the hospitality

atmosphere and prevent future economic development (Fridgen, 1991). Thus, residents’

130

attitudes toward tourism helps a community better understand their history of a
destination, as well as where they may be headed with the stage of development could be

understood for a successful future plan.

Limitation of the Findings

There were some limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the space
constraints in the questionnaire layout due to various reasons—for example, the data
collection of this study was shared with another Ph.D. student, and limited funds were
available—limited the inclusion of more questions (items) for the measurement of each
factor that could have potentially accounted for some of the poor reliability or validity
measures.

Second, this study was limited to use enough empirical studies and theories in the
areas of tourism promotion and marketing to develop study questionnaires since there has
been little research that directly examined residents’ attitudes toward and involvement in
tourism promotion and marketing processes. Most available research has focused on
residents’ attitudes toward tourism development, not toward tourism promotion and
marketing campaigns. The theories and studies in other disciplinary areas (e.g., product
marketing, sales promotion, consumer behavior or attitude) might be further referenced to
develop more measurements on related topics.

Third, some models identiﬁed in this study had low R—squares, which are not
uncommon in individual behavior or attitudinal studies as offered by Berk (2004) and
Wooldridge (2003). Thus, this study was partially limited to produce robust results of the

study model. Although the lack of explanatory power may be in part, an extensive effort

131

(e. g., adding more predictors, reliable scales) would make better ﬁtting models for testing
this study’s hypotheses to produce more robust study results.

Lastly, the reliability scales for “natural environmental dimension of community
attachment” were somewhat low (as mentioned in Chapter 3, one of the three study areas
showed a low reliability score) compared to the reliability scales for other variables used
in this study. The variability of the variable, “objective tourism knowledge” was
minimized by the limited measurements that might have caused insigniﬁcant results.
Hence, the scales should be improved to better construct the variables, “natural
environment of community attachment and (objective) knowledge about tourism” by

introducing more items and by referring to previous studies and theories.

Further Research

The following recommendations are made for further research in the area of place
marketing and promotions. First, the proposed attitude formation model presented in this
study can be improved by including new variables or more reliable scales in future
research in an effort to explain more variation in the dependent variables.

Second, understanding residents’ perceptions of and involvement in any tourism
marketing processes (including tourism promotion and development) is important to
minimize residents’ dissatisfaction with a marketing campaign or the image/message of a
campaign, as well as to gain their positive support for tourism product marketing
(Bramwell, 1998; Gold & Ward, 1994; Kotler, Haider, & Rein, 1993). Further study
should test the attitude formation model of this study, particularly in communities where

negative impacts of tourism development and marketing activities exist, to offer a better

132

understanding of local residents’ perceptions, attitudes, and opinions regarding tourism
marketing and promotion (TMP) for future development plans.

Third, further study could also compare residents’ attitude toward tourism
promotion and marketing campaigns (TPMC) across communities in different counties
(e.g., Asia vs. West) using the proposed study model. Research with participants of
different countries potentially can yield different results, particularly with regards to
subjective norms (e.g., subjective knowledge about tourism, community attachment).

Fourth, further study should expand the measurement of residents’ behavior in
TPMC (or the relationship between intention and behavior) by testing new variables of
behavioral facets (e.g., residents’ visits to tourism destinations of the community,
residents’ volunteering for tourism businesses or events of their community) in the study
model. The new model can be based on the belief 9 attitude -) intention -) behavior
pathway of TRA model (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1975; 1980), with which the further study
would be able to test and expand the study ﬁndings, particularly on understanding how
residents’ intention impacts on behavior at tourism marketing and promotion. The study
would also ﬁnd empirical and theoretical evidence—for instance, a positive relationship
between individuals’ intention and behavior or the stronger the level of intention the
more positive behavior in TPMC (as TRA deﬁned)—to support the TRA model in a
tourism marketing and promotion context.

Finally, further study could use a different statistical method (e.g., a structural
equation modeling) for testing the study model. Structural equation modeling (SEM)
grows out of and serves purposes similar to multiple regressions, but the structural

equations are an appropriate method to measure the overall “ﬁt” of a model (J oreskog &

133

Sorbom, 1988). As mentioned earlier, the study results revealed that some models
unsatisfactorily ﬁt the data. Thus, further study can focus on measuring the ﬁt of the data

to a theoretical model by applying Structure Equation Modeling (SEM).

134

APPENDICES

135

33% co .9on .8 a BS .8. E? vs 88 ._ baa:
88am mo anew me * ooom gm ~380qu can ED 8an
83:» mo 35on mo u ooom Sam Eons can baa E8802

imaﬁzr a E NmewwumNQV
Ebom =5< van 88 32 5353 ﬁnes—308888 Eng 5 $5 56ch 980: 50% E moms... 535m .«o museum 858 .«o :5 .38: Bow ._

 

.3550 «on—EH E mucuuveEEcuuu Ban 5 :2: $52 :9» 51$ 3.9% 22: ESE.» :33 no :5 .8 moan—9e.— 2352.5
.3 ea». emu—h 05 .3550 «oEEm wit»? 3.52: no)...“ acacia .«c «23:: 35238 2: 65322::— 333 ch A Eﬁoom

.ANNNTVNwwv HE @338: “mam £8583“ 3.532 3: .wgo mo .EoQ .b_ﬁo>.ED

85m :meomE on> 0:596 .uQ ”8 2 due HOV 83>on 23325 Bani 05 E t E38 883 $3.5m 08 vac—goo “53 50> Sade. .25

mu 8 8.358 mg bougxoama 83 252% >255. BE. .8305“ HEM mo Ba 830nt .50» cm 353 m3» 5 tan 8?. 8 @0828 noon 96: of»
352%: 33:58 we .8855 :85 a we 28 8m 8% 5550 SEQ S deducted 98 SEE: Eons machine .59» Bog 8 83 02c. @303 03
5550 “cam S no» 5.5; ham :3“ $8th 958 we Bo Sons 808 :52 8 85 2:03 o? swam Suﬁsm £5 80358 9 wBuBMN .8.“ so» M55.

3:300 qurcm E

5.8 :23 3.. to 526 2:: «Eu: 5.8 2—
unoagmﬂ ugh—m

 

 
 

< 592me

136

gas Ea maﬁa a sauna
a . s. , N180 down—sou ﬂowvoﬁ 30:3 ,
.wﬁvvoBv $0535 ~§0§R=E£ wqbonunoo

 

 

 

 

 

.8» a 363 Edam. mace on. Ev 88m “an?

 

35m 38m 35m
n * 9.95 N % 9.20 n * 93.5 “38.. no :9. «58.. «85 95 ac 8...: 5?:— .. 9:53:

 

 

 

 

.88 4F? 3 was $34 wﬁhﬁ 88: 50> E tubby. 35 535m .3 35on .58.. «8:. 2: a: 8...: Sons nova—SE “638m 8on .N

137

 

 

 

 
 
 
 

~33m39< _ VoFSQuuud.‘ oEmEouo< uESmouu< 033323. 3588—966 a: “rib

if» b32032 223985 bEH—w SZ

moo—bvmwwﬂo 98 880% ‘
9583858,. Ewﬁ ,

9.888in men .

              

 

anﬁaogaﬁx‘o Nib «on» 353.8%? .28 mNEBV 5850 $88M no.“ mm 8088233 28288 mo

womb wan=£ 05 we gone 59A 3 038385 Boa 88.68 3.33 .8280 808m20>uc 08958 no 899 Ba $8.523.“ oak .m

 

.5850 $88M— 5 Ema—=8 8:“ 8989232. £82.80 «sons 8.58:”. 088 3a 88 Z .N 832% #

 

 

«Sing 88>. 5 Eb «:9» FEB magnum BE? 83> 38% 8o» v.6 8:0. .5 Amvaczoahca 302 058% 22:5 .v

 

«$3.33 3% 8 Sb gm? 8 88:» 59A 8 858888 so» on 35 .5 Amvnetuﬁtu FEB .5850 «088mm mo 802%.: a m<

 

$055.50“ 560
., . $3.88; @5035
mm»: 3288838830 @865 @8538 madam;

 

 

DDDDDDDDD
UQ'DQDDDDD

 

.m

 

138

000800 .00 88080 880008 a D 80800 .00 05 008— 0 D
80800 00 80080 00002 0 D 80800 0800 D :0 00 80800 00 D

A0=0\ 00.083 A0888800 80» 8803 38.80. 805 028 80896 00% 00 000800 8008 30m .2

“2 0 D 80 0 0080 D 0800 D 08: 80> D :0 00 00: D

A0=0\. 0885 “08808800 80% 8 88.88 80¢ 50000 3080800 00% 00 80:8 303 .9
0308000508. 3880008 U 050800—308— bﬁwzm D
0380.02305— b0> D 0308000508 0830800 U 0308000505. :0 00 00: U

A0=0\. 0.383 @3800 008m 8 >8808 00300000.. 000 88.80. 05 8000 80000508 00 .96. 80% 0800000 00% 0803 30m .0

$87; D gowlﬁo D 86?; D .xvowlgN D .xvomlo D

A0=0\ 0883 “$800000 010800 008m 00 w85 00500000.. 0:: 88.88 080800000 08 080000000 0000 0800000 808.3 .w

 

T0380 80% 5 8b 3:800 H088m 8 3888 an 00:03 0008 8 002.— 885 88800 80% 5 .n

28 88800 a D 80800 0800000 0080 00 880 200 0 D 200 0088 a D 0.00 0: D

A0=0\. 0885
03800 008m 8 028 0805 00300.50.— 000 88.88 0088 :0» 00 200 0 8.800088 30: 800000 0808000 0080 9 000.8800 .0

139

 

00:0»8 8 803 :83 00088900000 022: ha 0m

 

$1 .1. 31»

00083020 8.80 ban—moo 0088mm 8 03.— 0088 $003 H

     

 

005 000u< .8802 00.8005 000.9005
bwuohm bugbm

GEESEE £000 0&0803100 0:0 000.03 30080080 w830=ow 08 .00 £000 805 8080080 no _0>£ 80» 000808 00003 .2

 

   

 

  
  
 

830085 0830008— 830008”— . 0.050008u =< 3.
80> 23.20002 02.3088 388% 83.808— .0 Z

80080003. 0000 Ska—00%? 0:0 8008 0000000 M8388 08 08 00080098 00 ER: 08 000808 00003 58.00 008m .00 08000 8 .2

140

.38 an E on: .«0 huge 06 33805 “guano—gov EmtboH

    

.«o downtomnoo Ba :28 a... 8353 895.58

53 ... 4 .. .. y

 

_. £385 .91. x g
Emma: “:08 . 226v BESS.

 

 

Amouauﬂ 23mwﬂv~8 m 3
“snagged 235m 0.85 momma—85 Banach

amiss mo :39
£5,558“ .mﬁmuoam

 

co . . co... . 3.5.52 3 .25 we... 55 . u. 580 eon-EH £53.53 335 3255.59?
bun—ohm Ems—95m

 

C5586: ﬁg ko‘xmmxomnwx ES 223v iguana—am wagozom 05
we some 55 3083an .«o :52 So» 8865 38E .3550 SEEM— E 53.53 3.6.8on Banana 59A .33 805056 mo «om wit. .3

 

.5550 «on—EH E Eur—=8 .3 “can: 2: E. .333: :8» 25a.“ 3953—5 088 Ea as Z .m aoﬂoom

 

141

@Eaawmﬁam

   

03.5 3.0..< . V u_aw~.o.o.o< .‘ Vim“. 03¢. 2.1.3 33. «33: can?» _ .a: “5:. 296:»
Eo> .22—«have: Eaton—cm EBB—m .oZ

   

 

C=m§~£u>muko mmb «Us meEBRQx 23 2.053 .3550 658m How 2 “sumac—gov me 399 WEE—om
2% mo some Bum 20% 038308 Bo: 3863 3.33 #5963 25.5.98 2: .«o tam Ba Ea Egan—22,2. .«o non—b 8m warso=om 2C. .2

 

f .5580 «ca—EH 5 $526.: Eng—8 2: Eats 25? ES Eon—3.55 =8» 2.2..“ 2558.5 ~88 on.“ 382 .v groom

 

 

5580 Beam 3 83855
82.58 Hue—gov 9 vowgoouo on 352? 3523302

 

 

 

142

 

   

$in 5&5
m N H E :09”.an can “guano—gov BEES E was so» 26: Eon—3.02: mo .26— $55

:5 < gm 25% 2:: 2:2
< 3:6 b~>

C5589: an?» chwgomwmx v.8 33rd douoEon 98 Evan—205% Emma—2 E “559535 was 835% 3:85.“ $833 50>

9:68on mnoumusc wﬂkoaom 05 6265 3.85 .Amvaoazﬁ £36903 #3 PH £05385 £58322 “Essa .95??? .m3 none—:95 can
$83595 can mug—6am Boa marsh. dado—Emu? .muuiuam maummxo ho ”guano—~38 03885 Hot Seine—96v Eat—.3 ‘8 83:8 Emusoh .2

 

am

 

.7. 1‘

 

w ,mcouoﬁlaouim__ﬁh

Emma _

143

 

 

 

 

Ear—0U 93000 f. $04000 53000 58000 wraownuma 8.3 £000.00:— 25.233595"
30> 2030032 233058 bEw=m =< ~< 8 Z

 

“Ema «000 Ssxmgcmvsx 0:0 33.08 9.008880 magozow 05 mo :08 53> $55000 mo _0>0_ 05 8865 0305
T3580 SEEm 8 mucosa main :8 30365 $0.228 How Emma—=8 wﬁwuxaﬁ can muouoﬁoha 008 50% 03 53000 303 .M:

 

 

REG 3
“05> EEO can 00.30 Z can ~E0>

 

Em: £000 Lo\0m=o&00x 0:0 £00.03
/ 0:309:00 waging: cam 0:28an Sosa 3:08008m w§0=8 05 mo 3000 we 058:5 05 000203 00003 .2

 

Ewan—Ewe 9500—00:— was 0:050:09:— Emtas 3:50 :35“... use.» mum—000w? 28300.3 058 0.3 :02 .m .5305

 

mama .vwg~o>uv 59.». imam

sci: . am... A I. 611..

 

G . :75». ran up .
~33 . ouu< 055 . «34. 033 . 39¢ .3253. 805 no 5595:;
oEaEuoa< 30> £39582 .«ABwEow .2335 oEquoo< 32

 

C§E§~w>mwko 23 «cu» uoXqummE v.8 £25 «amigo wane—HE 23 388805 8358 Ho.“ teams»
5% cc 3228 .8 32.05%» 6353 085 no :03? .3550 388m E weary—um Ho 8832—5 Eat—.3 mo 890 Ed waged—om 2F .2

145

moan b5 x $353: a E F&mauﬁé $555 N“ “man 05 E :88?» En 88m mo So @2263 :0» 2:3 8:5 >58 Bow .3

8: D “Banana U 088 D 23: bo> B one: D EEC. 3635 $25 so» ow monotomxggmb n02: Bo: .NN

 

 

 

 

 

w v m N ﬂ 8:05on 83.53.
m . v . . m N , ﬂ . 38533;“. Ewing.
85:8 8326 BEEW mocmwam =< 2
39> >132»:ch «2.32:8 =._ =m 352$ 82

 

Amoﬁaumm _Eov£ can 88m JauEaaeQ magi 6058500 m0 338an 535m 39mm;
3% nouaguou rwdv 35.60 uoEEm E nouoﬁoa can Sumac—gov 8258 E mouucohomouomu 05 £15 :9» Eu vocmzam 30E gm

 

 

 
    

5360
688m B Agogﬁ £83..” 2.83mi $3 8.5:»:3 33:3 mo bﬂnaﬁﬂwsw
uﬁﬁngo mnmwunﬁmo mauoxuda v5 338an amino“ “gonna 2:95 H

 

 

.3550 Baum H a: awe—o 58:23 down—How a may 3260a
83.53 Sosa 35»qu ~23 :SBEEQﬁSSEImwsuu tommam 2:03 H

      

   

on... t. .3552 00.. «m5

8
$9.35 232%

 

€535.88“. 53 kckmmnomnmg 28 3.2.3 .35588m was/0:8 on“ 9.8 some 5:» EoEoona mo .26— 50» 38%”: $on .om

146

00800 0000800 B 08:00 0800 D 080008 30:8 :8: D
00800 08:00 E 00800 H0088 .8888 D H0080 :mE 080 80. D

H0=0\. 0833 00003800 08: 00> 0008000 .Ho :08: 38:8: 05 00868 0085 .9.

 

 

.8808: 005853.80 08 808000 H8: 0800 0.8 80 Z .0 008%

 

 

0:0 88> «00858 0 S 58083: >08 80> mH 08>? .mm

 

..>0©8000 083$ 0088 08800600 >8 000E080 08:0 05 .Ho 0002 D

 

“80.08800 0803» 020 w88080m D

000 00080380088 00: 0080300 08 08 H 0

002000 0858088 88.80 w880 00:00:80 0.00 8 00600 >80 000 0080“ 80 H D
ARES» 85 EC. 0835 080: >8 0850 0:3 800600 H8088 68:10.80 0 80 H D
080: >8 830 0:? 800600 0000708> 30088000 .080I:0..H 0 80 H D

H0=0\. 0803: «50000 888m 8 0008 08000800 80> 0200080 000: 808008 83>? .wm

38> «00:58 0 5 2:00.81» 38000 888m 8 080: a 00030 00 00>: 00> 05.0: 88> >008 303 RN

00003 80 00>: 8:00: D 0008» D 00>: D H0=0\. 0833 002:0 0 8 ©0000 888m 03> 00 0>: 00> 05H .3

0080 D 08> m 88.0 30: a D :808 a 88.0 30.: m D :00? a 88: 0.0000 0 D >m0>.~0>0 D

H0:0\. 0.48:5 H.800 80> 8 803.80 000888 000080 8 0880800 00> 00 8:0 30E .3.

8:8 «00:80: 0 E 53.83% 03800 888m (“0 :88 03.800: 0 80: 0>: 00> 00 8: 30: .vm

147

 

82408. :0 .0023 030
00080000 .8802 :2
$020 0o .80

>880>8D 000m 08.882
80> 00.0880 8H

 

 

 

030000 «0880 8
000800.080 0880000.. 000 08.88 080.88.. 022. 00> 088.05 8 80000000 >00 08:0. 3 00.: .00.: 008.0

80000 00 080.9. .>8000 :2 008000 8 80008 8888 08 8 008—080 80 H D
3800 0:85 8 :0 00 80008 88800 08 8 00>0H080 000 80 H D
000088000 8888
00 0008000800080 8 .«0 000 008: 00 000880 0030 :83 80>v >8000 888m 8 80008 8808 08 8 00>0H80 3000808 80 H D
>8000 888m 8 8808 88800 05 8 00>0H80 >00080 8.0 H D

A000\ 0883 030000 008m 8 80008 88.88 08 808 00800 08008 80> .00 0008 30H: .mm

0555 08.8; a 3080.08.03 a 08.03 55 $2 0

A000\ 0885 H.808 000.80: 000800. :0 800.0 08008 0:0:0m00: H8000 coou :08 80> 00800000 0000 m8>>0=00 08 H0 0083 .3

148

APPENDIX B

Cover Letters for the Survey Administration
Approved by UCHRIS: IRB # X07—312

 

1) The First Wave Survey Cover Letter

 

May 4, 2007

INSERT NAME
INSERT ADDRESS

Dear Name,

Michigan State University (MSU) is studying residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts and
attitudes toward future tourism development. We are interested in learning about your opinion
regarding current tourism impacts and future tourism development in Emmet County. The research
study will both ﬁJlﬁll a dissertation requirement and be shared with the county tourism industry and
planning ofﬁcials.

The survey will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. You indicate your voluntary agreement
to participate by completing and returning this survey. However, if you choose not to complete all
or part of the questions, you will not suffer any penalty. You are free to discontinue your
participation at any time. Your responses will be anonymous and your privacy will be protected to
the maximum extent allowable by law.

As a thank you for taking the time to complete the survey, your name will be entered in a drawing
for four two—nights of camping at Camp Pet—o—se—ga and one package of four passes to the 2007
Charlevoix/Emmet County Fair.

If you have any questions about this project at any time, please call Dr. Christine Vogt, Associate
Professor at MSU: (517) 432—0318 or contact her at vogtc@msu.edu. If you have any questions or
concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect
of this study, you may contact — anonymously, if you wish, Peter Vasilenko, Ph. D., Director of the
Human Research Protection Programs (HRPP) at Michigan State University: (517) 355—2180, fax:
(517) 432—4503, email: irb@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

I greatly appreciate your cooperation!

Sincerely,

Christine A. Vogt, PhD
Michigan State University

Enclosures: survey, postage paid envelope

 

149

 

2) Reminder Postcard Text

 

May 12, 2007
Hello,

Recently, we sent you a survey about attitudes toward tourism. If you have already returned the
survey, thank you for your timely response. We appreciate your time and effort.

If you have not yet sent the survey back in the prepaid envelope, please take some time now to
complete the survey. Your response is very important for the completion of this study, accurate
representation of vacation planning decision—making and will result in recommendations to
improve vacation planning information.

Once again, thank you for your help in completing this research. If you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to call me at 517—432—03 l 8 or e-mail me at vogtc@msu.edu.
Thanks again for your help!

Sincerely,

Christine Vogt, PhD

Michigan State University
Department of CARRS

131 Natural Resources Building
East Lansing, MI 48824—1222

   

 

150

 

3) The Second Wave Survey Cover Letter

 

May 29, 2007

INSERT NAME
INSERT ADDRESS

Dear Name,

In the last few weeks you should have received a letter and survey from Michigan State University.
I am doing research on home or property owners in several Michigan counties. We have heard
from many in the past few weeks, but haven’t received your input yet. You were randomly
selected to represent Emmet County home or property owners about their views on community
development, recreation and tourism.

If you have recently sent in your completed survey, 1 thank you. As a thank you for taking the time
to complete the survey, your name will be entered in a drawing for one of four two—nights of
camping at Camp Pet—o—se—ga or one 'package of four passes to the 2007 Charlevoix/Emmet County
Fair. Our drawing will be on June 15t . Please return your completed survey soon. If you are
unable to complete the survey or you don’t think it applies to you, please e—mail, call or send a note
in the prepaid envelope. If the survey is addressed to someone that no longer lives in the household,
please have another adult or head of household complete it. Otherwise I hope to receive your
completed survey.

The survey will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. You indicate your voluntary

agreement to participate by completing and returning this survey. If you choose not to complete all or
of the questions, you will not suffer any penalty. You are free to discontinue your participation at any
time. Your responses will be anonymous and your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent
allowable by law.

If you have any questions about this project at any time, call Dr. Christine Vogt, Associate

Professor at MSU: (517) 432—03 1 8 or contact her at vogtcLalmsuedu. If you have any questions or
concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect of
this study, you may anonymously contact Peter Vasilenko, Ph. D., Director of the Human Research
Protection Programs (HRPP) at Michigan State University: (517) 355—2180, fax: (517) 432—4503,
email: irb@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Thanks again for your time and effort!

Sincerely,

Christine A. Vogt, PhD
Michigan State University

Enclosures: surveyJostage paid envelope

 

151

 

 

w v m ~ ﬂ .8338? :2: 3550 HoEEm E 2,: 658 3:03 a

w v . m N _ .263 8 98 that, on 2:03 H .3560 888m Soc 035 8 was H .3
ooh? 02%.. 12:5 Z ovum—3.5 ovum—35
bunebm .rwaebm

 

 

CSSENXEM «was .BKmQQRpK SS wNEBV .mpcoEBSm wagozow 2: mo :08 ﬁts uuoﬁooumw .3 _o>2 Box 83.65 885 .m

amoswlgoulﬁo mo 598:: «$58 Bo: .8» D o: D
EEC. mucoNS @3605 .2 “man 06 E 32% 852 molﬂso 850: :0» 28m A

swedmﬁ®8wo> do w ~ molwmvun ﬂ m
“engaged 3&8?”

.95 on> .< oémﬁu
.bouooﬁm

dammed 8 zoom 3 2.2960 Bedlam 05 E

omaoamou So» F58 0305 one So» do.“ so» Mane. do» 55 88:8 3.2 05 on E? ma .gogaog on :5 833m 50>
$28328 232a 05 S Ste— mEu wEEBB 98 80526 Bum 035 @5955 .8288 omen—m sex 2:03 .mﬁwscﬁ

So» wanes—03 .39: 233a mo owaa :3 Eu muons tobo ma 55.60 888m B Havaaﬂgov Emu—#8 can nouaouoou no.“ tong—m
Ba 58an mo 32: 05 8858 38985 3 too: H a?» :3 Bob Ho: Ho: Ed o? 8:83 0:5 Eda a Sm no.» watt? Em _
:.b==oU 88:5 3 Emgoh c338 movBE<: 3:3 maﬁa a 3388 3930a so» 3:88 95 “man 05 ~30

boom .w_ 05:. .o=om

>._._wxm>_ZD

whim Z<O_IU_E

 

 

25:55.»...— o>.:_m 32:8 nominal

U van—Zak:

152

 

N3550 SEEM E .
8888a 28 “5853238 Swiss 5 can 50> 9:3 Eon—0235 .«o 3.6— :33
. .. 3&5?

 
 

 
 
 
 

.3 a. .5 2.3m 2:: 2:2
< 3:5 to.»

38:83:. {98 Lokmuéommt .35 39:3
4830an can Engage—gov 83.58 5 “882,33: can 885% :38th .8885 50% $588on 95526
933333 05 .8268 885 398959 £868? .8 >3. 85805 .8838 333 35898 rmdv note—=9:— Ea $88539.

was 83:08 Bo: mat—88 6525335 £3358.“ mﬁummxo .30 “888838 39:88 Sb Eoﬁnsgou Eur—:3 we 8338 Emtdoh .o

 

  

.mumwwaauo mﬁldxg. cam
doze—boa :o Engaged 2 3550 888m 3 3:958 8258 38883 <

       

    

  

.3550 858m B “nuanoﬁguv 53.58 806 Hot Gonna >=goﬁoa 2503 H

"3550 «9.5—5 5 Eur—=3 Eons 335%. 2:5

    

  

.335. 8... .25- of {5
39.9.5

 

banebm

 

95.833. 88 xeRmEomwwu 28 3.833 .mﬁuEBSm wEBo=£ 03 mo :08
55 “88029“ .«o :33 Box 88.65 883 .3550 «253— E Eat—.3 939.38 8258 Box 33 80526 me Hum 32. .m

“3 m D «E a 8:3 D 2:8 D 33: 30> D =n S “on D
As=o\ mQQNS «38858 59» E Eur—:3 80¢ Eugen 338qu so; ow 8:8 3o: .v

038300—3083 30> D oﬁuowvo—Boﬁ 33mm? D 03883308— :a an «on D
95¢. 3635 w3950 888m 5 3365 553.50.. 05" 53.53 2U Eons 038—383 .30 .96— Bg unwound :0» 3:03 333 .m

153

Nmmﬁémwwv :2 .9555 .m— .35 893083 3ng HQ 8 .8 vac—EEO 23on 3 539m

3% 1:2;

 

do; E8 03 $333 5:30 05 ESE 859.6 so» 33 3 SE» 83m 59A 258 .833 05 E mxogm co m: 30: oh .m

154

..«w£bmm§ @3me 35¢. .mwaoEmE bu montomuc 95% 05 .8 282 D
.«mﬁxuwwﬁ 363$ 020 wgoﬁom D
om: ccoxouBEouaog Sm 8:02.02 05 09: D
«ﬂow—om 0533038 £8.80 marge 852on $5 an 028“ baa wad BEE Ea H D

33% BS =u\. 8.83 080: AB 230 of» 302m“: 13°38 .oﬁultam a Em H D

qun in 936 on? HEEWE 9581.83 5058.89 .oEulzé a ﬁn H D

 

Am§\ mw~§5 Q3550 888m E 55% @9528“ So» montomuv amen “58033 3033 .m

 

 
 

 

 

 

w v m N 3 550 uoEEm E 52.5ng 305nm woo m cm
W. v m N ~ . .. base “gamma. uEﬁgﬁwa £52
w v m N a bgov H2:—hm mo owﬂﬁ 2t 26.—95
m . Ill.v . . .I.I.m IN ,. ML . .. ,. . ﬁasco ﬁgawﬁuﬁuwﬁﬁg 333.5.”
53.30 £3.50 53.30 55.50 3.50
.2?» 23.2352 anatoﬁow 2:.me =< u< «cl ":3 39.353 murmur—«E "Ea unctcEOhm

 

AS»: 53 3553me 25 83.3 .HnoEBSm wEBo=£ 05 95 :08 ﬁts 5:323 mo :52 0% 28.85 8qu
@3560 SEEM 8 Succun warn :8 32605 Emtdou Mom mawmnaﬁmo wEBﬁmE was 95:0an “m5 50> PE 5850 305 B

33m 35 mo A255. 0:... E H352" 8925 338 an mug—66E 3E. e

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:dEwoonEoﬁ 30> H m: 8 L? 3 03332305 8: n 7 God vowed“ 28m "a
Om Wm Q: ﬁvm 04m m.wm mg 283%
0:6. 56 0.2 Now. msm 53 N3 Buﬁmum
mam WE . mgm 5R Ovm w.m 2m Baum

o\e =\e .x. e\.. c\..
. r3» 28309.2 Esta—ow EBB—w o_aauwuo_3o:v_ 3 Z
2939: 8:888 tum Ewing 05 Soon auto—325— .? .96. ,Snovcommom .o

.3550 05 Ho.“ qousnwunou oncouo .558 Mo .x. 38%. 5 Sons 533m Soho”. 2: 398%»: on? ﬂuoucoamou .«o .x. "c Q .9 .n
.mEu 8 08% Ba ﬂ :=: wEBBBm uﬁ up“ .mumuoamou mo #58:: €an 05 2 n ”a

o wd a6 msm vmdc

We Om 0.2 53V umém

o.N._ , adv QR .: a N“: . ad
.3375 $313 _ 381:. Ravi:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$9558 @3550 9 aozuouuoh unu Entiz we 55:35:50 a .w

 

Esm £5 £ 189 3582532 2: 3.. 835—. 3.5

D NHQZHn—g

155

         

 

 

 

   

 

 

  

£839
Buiwww
855m

  
  

£8er
Bmﬁmam
SEEN

   

£83m... .
Buﬁmam
Suﬁsm

 

£085.
Bmﬁmmm
aoEEm

     

£085.
Baum
888m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. :82 Eat: a: 38 3“ 3.625
max—ﬂog: usakuﬁom buauzm Eaton—5 32
“bass 05 E 33%: $8928 he conatonan .2
42 a u m: 8 Eu 3 “on n 7. Bot comma“ 28m "a
a._ v.0 ~.~ Q: ﬁwm v.3 omm 389;.
a; v; ma NAN 04m odv EN Baﬁwum
0N vd 92 OK a._m fwm 2m 68:5
.x. .\o 3 3 i. o\_.
. :82 .2 < «E a 830 25% 23: 50> =« 3 $2 .—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

”amuse Eat 35:2. .3996.— .2

156

:68? 3985 u m: 8 :oEMSB 39.85 H 7. 89a 3ch 23m "a

 

m.m 5.: 5.5 o.mm QB ed 98 28de
ad 52 QB ogm QVN 0.: 2N Rawaw

 

Baum

.r

        
 

 

 

 

. :32 . 2:“ . 3.5.52 8.. 65 8.. .35 .—
banebm . bun—Pam
”ﬂuoﬁouﬂm 350:0.“ 05 .«o :28 5E anon—ooh?“ no 354 .2
2453:: b? u m: 8 Ea 3 33.895 you H r. 88w comma“ 28m "a
o.v “.mm mgm odm 0% Wm omm ﬂoowa
Wm w.mm mdm a._m ﬁm Nam SN Baum
iv m. 5 NR 9m Nm ho 2m 388m
:owwouue 30950 we moEEEomaO
NM. ma.“ New odm Wow vd v- £83k
Wm v.3 w.mm mew 03 ed 03 265me
9m ﬁmm wdm v.3. 02 N6 M 1m “cam

muoﬁgwuo 8 335888

332353 3 WDESEOEO .

157

       

23mg.
BuEmam
SEE
Eoowsh
Baum
«058m

   
   

 

   

 

 

:86 he
b?» can 3532

  

":5 25a mime ”nah—Mm:— EE Boson—mum:
“$5325 .mnumuaﬁau anus—.3:— E—a gate—:3: mo song—gm .2

.32 a .I. w: 9 :33 n? Sow 3mg 28m "a

 

    
          

  

289:.
Buimam

. «.93
59>

 

 

 

”:28an Ba “588.3% Emu—8“ E EoEoZgﬁ E.“ 3:25.: REE?— .3

158

 

 

any: 55.50 53.50 5550 53.50 53.50 .—

bo> £82252 .uakoEom bEﬂ—m =< .< «oz ":3 2.9.383 uEﬁxEE was £852:on

“2.92—Esq unuoxhaﬁ “Ea macro—=95 Eat—.3 5:» 683982“ «Eu—5a HEB 53.880 mo Eoﬁmmomm< .w~

:68» b9» u m: 8 :93 by u r. 89a Ewan. 23m 3

 

 
 

N‘NN «.839
now 33...me
358m

  
      

BM

    

28mg.
Bmﬁmuw
seam

   

£8er ,
Bnﬁmam
Sm umEEm

 

 

 

 

    

 

  

159

 

 

 

 
 

.. k. .. . w»... . ,........ . .
935 89¢ 2:3 ouo< 035 33.. 035 33. 035 8:.
i=5 b32252 awaken—om big—m “oz

    

 

      

"8935.5 82: .3 552:9;

 

 

 

“83:8 Ho moocutoaxu 8494.58 mo womb 2m 3.50:8 05 3%?on uann—Eau $59qu 23 2:52:95 Eat—.3 3.. 225.5 .2

:Eﬁuoo .02, H n: 9 :Ewtou sum as “on n 7. Bot comic 28w 3

 

 

 

o.m 0.: OWN m. u m 0.: N6“ VNN £0039

ﬁm 0.2 m.wN m.wN 5w" _.N~ we Baum

mxn _.ON de 5mm QN— W: vow Beam
. . . , . , ,. 958 23 E “ﬁgmgﬁ 325g voom m om

ﬁn q: NWN Nﬁm NE 0: ONN , .m—oomsh .

~.m N4: vdm QoN N6— N: ha“ Baum

N40. 0: 5mm TmN MM; 9: mOm SEW
. . , . . . 358 name 35a 352.3» 832

_.m WNM , QVN Now Na 0.: VNN £0095.

Tm v.2 New New 05— v.3 m©~ Baum

MM 92 N.mm QWN m.m~ WE wOm Seam
. . . . , Ego,» 06 Mo mung: ““598?

3 2: EN 3% a: mi v8 285;

 

 

 

 

 

160

 

28mg.

 

161

£23338 bu.» n m: 3 :038308 “on H 7. Bob vownﬁ 23m 2“

 

 

 

 

162

Roouwa ban—ohm H m: 8 soouwammu bmaobm n 7. Son.“ “5ch 28m "a

        

«moan—a.
agwwm
uoﬁam

SN
3 : .mom

      

 

buucbm

   

  

. .95—.52

 

 

 

bu—Sbw

 

"3.550..an

 

”85888..“ w=§o=8 05 mo :80 ~23 32:02? no _o>oa .8

163

 

 

 

       
     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

           

      

 

Ram $5.2 ﬁwﬂw 2034....
xi $3 958 anamam
$53. e\em.me ., .SEEm
ﬁzomsow 2.2—«Esau
”3550 25 E maﬁa .«Enuummom .wN
vm N Y: 9mm msm ngw 355 mg £083...
mm ~ v.2 9mm Ném $6.3 $1.1 com Bmamwnm
mm H 0.: 0.2 w.NN $93 $0; a; SEEM
553.»:—
E=Eiaz 55—552 .55 53592 532 PE?» 3 .530 :3» SL =
$5550 25 E 3555:: 25¢: a Mo .3533.— ..o 2.3% no 59552 RN
:605m5am 30> H n: 3 an.” 3 50533 no: u 7. 805 comma“ 28m 3
a6 a. _ m Wow 5: 0.0 o: 382:.
m.w 5.0m ﬁcm Wm 2: a2 Bmﬁmmm
w.» 5mm msm v.9 5w 3N 5058mm
. W; 0.2 ad Scomsh
Sm . 325%
3m. _ team
a :«02 505mg; 52.353 53.65% 5055.2
.Co> ESP—9532 gusto—new baauzm 5a taunt: 37H

 

 

  

 

 

 

.Gomunowa 553m 28 83m Juognoo Manama .oBuEEoU mo BASED .=$Sm £355
a. 5553500 :wdv DEED Baum E 85088.” was EoEQBoEu B558 5 855.5865? 25 .55» 559538 ._N

164

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m4 ado w; o VNN £839
We mg m.\. VN com Bmﬁwam
Yo Ném o. S w...» n 5 m SEEM
o\o ﬁx. .x. £0
a ﬁnal"?! ham—.55 Eur—=3 :
25 a: «ESE. rum—.55 E =« an 52:55 .5153 25 E mtg—US Eur—=3 % :
Eur—=3 25 E ﬁche—mam 25 5 5933:; 32 25 5 593—95 358.55.: 05 E 59 2 EH

 

5:58 25 E @5265 Eat—.3 25 .3 58.22;“ 2:85 we 595:3. .Nm

 

        
 

     

      

    

EN
ma—

 

38mg.
33.—mam
SEEM

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v.5:— ho cco.eoum aamﬂaméco6mm 95.6mm :2: m3
”mug Bowen 88:8 =~ :85 2:35 238:2. 53:5 ecew mzaowuommom Am
0.0 Now Nam m8 9:” wé wNN £0095.
NB ﬁwm WON 9w WCN o; oﬁm Baum
Twm 0.5m 5.2 _.m OR 0.0 NNM 5055mm
x. x x. .x. x x
9.....wa 8.. a: owe—=5 2..“me 82.59.“ .858 :
53.53% 93:90 25% 3.58 535395. .858 aui :ME :25 amou—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ec53=50 no 3.3. mmnowaommom .om

165

BIBLIOGRAPHY

166

Allen, L. R., Long, P. T., Perdue, R. R., & Kieselbach, S. (1988). The Impact of Tourism
Development on Residents’ Perceptions of Community Life. Journal of Travel
Research, 27(1): 16—21.

Alreck, P., & Settle, R. (2004). The Survey Research Handbook. The McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc. NJ.

Andereck, K. L., & Vogt, C. A. (2000). The Relationship between Residents’ Attitudes
toward Tourism and Tourism Development Options. Journal of Travel Research,
39(1): 27—36.

Andriotis, K., & Vaugham, R. D. (2003). Urban Residents’ Attitudes towards Tourism
Development: The Case of Crete. Journal of Travel Research, 42(2): 172—185.

Ap, J. (1992). Residents' Perceptions of Tourism Impact. Annals of Tourism Research,
19(4): 665—690.

Ap, J ., & Crompton, L. (1998). Developing and Testing a Tourism Impact Scale.
Journal of Travel Research. 37(2), 121—130.

Armitage, C. J ., & Conner, M. (2000). Attitudinal Ambivalence: A Test of Three Key
Hypotheses. Personalinj & Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(11): 1421—1433.

Ashworth, 6., & Voogd, H. (1994). Place Promotion: The Use of Publicity and
Marketing to Sell Towns and Regions, (pp. 20—114). John Wiley & Sons Ltd,
Chichester, England.

Ashworth, 0., & Goodall, B. (1990). MarkgtingTourism Places. Routledge, London &
New York.

Ajzen, I. (1996). The Directive Inﬂuence of Attitudes on Behaviour, in Gollwitzer, P.M.,
Bergh, J .A. (Eds). The Psychology of Action. Linking Cognition and Motivation
to Behavior, 385-403. The Guilford Press, New York, NY/London.

Ajzen, I., & Driver, B. L. (1992). Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior to
Leisure Choice. Journal of Leisure Research, 24(3): 207—224.

Ajzen, I., & F ishbein, M. (1975). Belief. Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An
Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison—Wesley, MA.

Ajzen, I., & F ishbein, M. (1980). UnderstandingAttitudes and Predicting Social
Behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Babbie, E. (2001). The Practice of Social Research (9th Ed). Wadsworth/Thomson
Learning, Belmont, CA.

167

Baidal, J. A. I. (2004). Tourism Planning in Spain Evolution and Perspectives.
Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2): 313—333.

Barsky, J. D. (1995). World—Class Customer Satisfaction. Irwin, NY.
Beaman, J ., Kozak, M., & Huan, T. C. (2001). An Empirical Investigation of
Tourists’ Future Behavior: A Study of Four Groups. Journal of Travel Research,

In press.

Berk, R. A. (2004). Regression Analysis: A Constructive Critigue. Sage Publication,
Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA.

Bradbum, N. M. (1969). The Structure of Psychological Well—Beig. Aldine,
Chicago, IL.

Bramwell, B. (1998). User Satisfaction and Product Development in Urban Tourism.
Tourism Management, 19(1): 35—47.

 

Bramwell, B., & Rawding, L. (1996). Tourism Marketing Images of Industrial Cities.
Annals of Tourism Research, 23(1): 201—221.

 

Brehm, J. M., Eisenhauer, B. W., & Krannich, R. S. (2004). Dimensions of
Community Attachment and Their Relationship to Well—Being in the Amenity—
Rich Rural West. Rural Sociology, 69(3): 405—429.

Bright, A. D., & Manfredo, M. J. (1997). The Inﬂuence of Balanced Information on
Attitude towards Natural Resource Issues. Society and Natural Resource,
10: 469—483.

Buhalis, D. (1999). Marketing the Competitive Destination of the Future. Tourism
Management, 21(1): 97—1 16.

 

Burns, P. (1999). Paradoxes in Planning: Tourism Elitism or Brutalism? Annals of
Tourism Research, 26(2): 329—348.

Butler, R. (1980). The Concept of a Tourist Area Cycle of Evolution: Implications for
Management of Resources. Canadian Geographer, 24(1): 5—12.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied Multiple
Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd Ed.).
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

Cramer, D. (1994). Introducing Statistics for Social Research: Step—bj—Step Calculations
and Computer Techniques Using SPSS. Routledge, London & New York.

168

Czepiel, J. A., & Rosenberg, L. J. (1977). The Study of Consumer Satisfaction:
Assessing the “So What” Question. In K. H. HugConceptualizations and
Measurement of Consumer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction (Report No. 77—103).
Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.

Darowski, L., Strilchuk, J ., Sorochuk, J ., & Provost, C. (2006). Negative Impact of
Tourism on Hawaii Natives & Environment. Lethbridge Undergraduate
Research Journal, 1(2): 1—17.

Davis, D., Allen, J ., & Cosenza, R. M. (1988). Segmenting Local Residents by Their
Attitudes, Interests, and Opinions toward Tourism. Journal of Travel Research,
27(2): 2—8.

DeCoster, J ., & Claypool, H. (2004). Data Analysis in SPSS. Retrieved from Course
Packet, CEP 934 of MSU.

 

Derbaix, C., & Pham, M. T. (1991). Affective Reactions to Consumption Situations:
A Pilot Investigation. Journal of Economic Psycholcgy, 12(2): 325—355.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet Survey: The TotalQesigLMe . John Wiley,
xNew Yorkﬂg/“fw Q 7
. 9A 3

Dimanche, F ., Havitz, M. E., & Howard, D. R. (1993). Consumer Involvement Proﬁles
as a Tourism Segmentation Tool. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing,
1(4): 33—51.

 

Dore, L., & Crouch, G. I. (2003). Promoting Destinations: An Exploratory Study of

Publicity Programmes Used by National Tourism Organizations.
Vacation Marketing, 9(2): 137—151.

Doxey, G. (1975). A Causation Theory of Visitor—Resident Irritants: Methodology and
Research Inferences. In Sixth Annual Conference Proceeding of the Travel
Research Association (pp.195—198). Travel Research Association,

San Diego, CA.

Draper, N. R., & Smith, H. (1998). Applied Regression Analysis. Wiley Series in
Probability and Statistics, New York, London, & Sydney.

Driver, B. L., Krumpe, E. E., & Paradice, W. W. J. (1990). An Evaluation of Models of
Human Decision—makirg and Their Imlications for PredictingLeisure Choice
Behavior. Research Report 45. Hunter Valley Research Foundation. Maryland,
N. S. W., Australia.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes. Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich College Publishers. Fort Worth, TX.

 

169

Evans, M. R., Fox, J. B., & Johnson, R. B. (1995). Identifying Competitive Strategies for
Successful Tourism Destination Development. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure
Marketing, 3(1): 37—45.

F azio, R. H., & Williams, C. J. (1986). Attitude Accessibility as a Moderator of the
Attitude—Perception and Attitude—Behavior Consistency, and the Strength of the

Object Evaluation Association. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
51(3): 505—514.

F azio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1982). Direct Experience and Attitude —Behavior
Consistency. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 14(1): 161—202, Academic Press, New York, NY.

Ferber, R. (1995). What Is a Survey? Section on Survey Research Methods
American Statistical Association, Alexandria, VA.

Ford, G. T., & Smith, R. A. (1987). Inferential Beliefs in Consumer Evaluations; An
Assessment of Alternative Processing Strategies. Journal of Consumer Research,
14(3): 363—371.

Fridgen, J. D. (1991). Dimensions of Tourism. Educational Institute of the American
Hotel & Motel Association, East Lansing, MI.

F unkhouser, G. R., & Parker, R. (1993). Consumer Cost Orientations: An Exploratory
Empirical Investigation. Marketing Theory & Applications (AMA Winter
Proceedings, 1993). In Varadarajan, A., & Jaworski, B. (Ed).

American Marketirpg Association, 4(1): 385—391, Chicago, IL.

Garnmack, J. (2005). Tourism and Media: Conference Report. Annals of Tourism
Research 32(4): 1148—1149.

 

Getz, D. (1992). Tourism Planning and Destination Life Cycle. Annals of Tourism
Research, 19(4): 752—770.

Gold, J. R., & Ward, S. V. (1994). Place Promotion: The Use of Publicity and Marketing
to Sell Towns and Regions. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, England.

Goudy, W. J. (1982). Further Considerations of Indicators of Community Attachment.
Social Indicators Research, 11(2): 181-192.

Graeff, T. R. (1997). Comprehending Product Attributes and Beneﬁts: The Role of
Product Knowledge and Means—End Chain Inferences.
Psychology and Marketing, 14(2): 163—183.

Gupta, S., & Pirsch, J. (2006). The Company—Cause—Customer Fit Decision in Cause—
Related Marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(6): 314—326.

170

Gursoy, D., Jurowski, C., & Uysal, M. (2002). Residents’ Attitudes: A Structural
Modeling Approach. Ann_als of Tourism Research, 29(1): 79—105.

Gursoy, D., & Rutherford, D. G. (2004). Host Attitudes toward Tourism: An Improved
Structural Model. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3): 495—516.

 

Hair, J ., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis.
Prentice—Hall International, Inc., NJ.

Harrill, R. (2004). Residents' Attitudes toward Tourism Development: A Literature
Review with Implications for Tourism Planning. Journal of Planning Literature,
18(3): 251—266.

Havitz, M. E., & Dimanche, F . (1999). Leisure Involvement Revisited: Drive Properties
and Paradoxes. Journ_al of Leisure Research, 31(2): 122—149.

Horley, J ., & Little, B. R. (1985). Affective and Cognitive Components of Global
Subjective Well—Being Measures. Social Indicators Research, 17(2): 189—197.

Houston, M. J ., & Rothschild, M. L. (1978). Conceptual and Methodologipal
Perspectives in Involvement, in Research Frontiers in Marketing: Dialggues and
Directions, ed. S. Jain. American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL.

Huber, J ., & McCann, J. (1982). The Impact of Inferential Beliefs on Product
Evaluations. Journal of MarketinggResearch, 19(3): 324—333.

Hupfer, N., & Gardner, D. (1971). Differential Involvement with Products and Issues:
An Exploratory Study, In Proceeding: Association for Consumer ResearchLEd.
David M. Gardner. Association for Consumer Research, College Park, MD.

Jamal, T. B., & Getz, D. (1995). Collaboration Theory and Community Tourism
Planning. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(1): 186—204.

Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom. D. (1988). LISRE VI: Analysis of Linear Structural
Relationships by Maximum Likelihood and Least Squares Method.
Scientiﬁc Software, Inc., Mooresville, NC.

J urowski, C., & Gursoy, D. (2004). Distance Effects on Residents’ Attitudes toward
Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2): 296—3 12.

Jurowski, C., Uysal, M., & Williams, R. (1997). A Theoretical Analysis of Host
Community Resident Reactions to Tourism. Journal of Travel Research,
36(2): 3—1 1.

Kasarda, J. D., & Janowitz, M. (1974). Community Attachment in Mass Society.
American Sociological Review, 13(3): 193—214.

171

Kim, S. 8., Scott, D., & Crompton, J. L. (1997). An Exploration of the Relationships
among Social Psychological Involvement, Behavioral Involvement, Commitment,

and Future Intentions in the Context of Bird-watching. Journal of Leisure
Research, 29(3): 332—341.

King, 8., McVey, M., & Simmons, D. (2000). A Social Marketing Approach to National
Tourism Planning: Evidence from the South Paciﬁc. Tourism Managpment,
21(4): 407—416.

 

Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (1984). Principles of Marketing (4‘h Ed). Prentice—Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

 

Kotler, P., Bowen, J. T., & Makens, J. C. (2006). Marketing for Hospitalig and Tourism.
Pearson Education International: Prentice, NJ.

Kotler, P., Haider, D., & Rein, I. (1993). Marketing Places: Attractinglnvestment,
Industry and Tourism to Cities, States, grid Nations. The Free Press,
New York, NY.

Kozak, M., & Rimmington, M. (2000). Tourist Satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an
Off—Season Holiday Destination. Journal of Travel Research, 39(3): 260—269.

Lankford, S. V., & Howard, D. R. (1994). Developing a Tourism Impact Attitude Scale.
Ann_als of Tourism Research, 21(1): 121—39.

Lawrence, E. L. (1993). Doing Well While Doing Good. Prentice—Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.

Liu, A., & Wall, G. (2006). Flaming Tourism Employment: A Developing Country
Perspective. Tourism Management, 27(1): 159—170.

Liu, J. C., & Var. T. (1986). Resident Attitudes toward Tourism Impacts in Hawaii.
Annals of Tourism Research, 13(2): 193—214.

Long, P. T. (1991). Tourism—On Our Terms: Rural Community Tourism Development
Impacts and Polices. A Report Prepared for the Western Governors’ Association,
Dawson City, Yukon, Canada.

Lutz, R. J. (1991). The Role of Attitude Theory” in Marketing in Perspectives in
Consumer Behavior. Kassarjian and Robertson, eds., pp. 317—339. Retrieved
from Class Reading, MSC 912 of MSU.

 

Lwin, M. 0, Williams, J. D., & Lan, L. L. (2002). Social Marketing Initiative: National
Kidney Foundations’ Organ Donation Programs in Singapore. Journal of Public
Policy & Marketing, 21(1); 66—77.

172

MacKenzie, S. B. (1986). The Role of Attention in Mediating the Effect of Advertising
on Attribute Importance. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2): 174—195.

MacKenzie, S. B., & Lutz, R. J. (1989). Information Processing from Advertisements:
Toward an Integrative Framework. J ourn_al of Marketing, 53(4): 1—23.

 

Maddox, R. N. (1995). Measuring Satisfaction with Tourism. Journal of Travel
Research, 23(3): 2—5.

Madrigal, R. (1993). A Tale of Tourism in Two Cities. Ann_als of Tourism Research,
22(2): 336—53.

Maheswaran, D., & Stemthal, B. (1990). The Effects of Knowledge, Motivation, and
Type of Message on Ad Processing and Product Judgment. Journal of Consumer
Research 17: 66—73.

 

Martin, B. S. (1996). The Efﬁcacy of Growth Machine Theory in Explaining Resident
Perceptions of Community Tourism Development. Ph.D. diss., Clemson
University, S. C.

Martin, L. R. (2002). The Virtue Matrix: Calculating the Return on Corporate
Responsibility. Harvard Business Review (March): 73—89.

McCool, S., & Martin, S. R. (1994). Community Attachment and Attitudes Toward
Tourism Development. Journal of Travel Research, 32(3): 29—34

McGehee, M. G., & Andereck, K. L. (2004). Factors Predicting Rural Residents’
Support of Tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 43(2): 131—139.

 

McIntyre, N. (1992). Involvement in Risk Recreation: A Comparison of Objective and
Subjective Measures of Engagement. Journal of Leisure Research, 24(1): 64—71.

McIntyre, N. (1989). The Personal Meaning of Participation: Enduring Involvement.
Journal of Leisure Research. 21(2): 167—179.

McLaren, D. R. (1999). The History of Indigenous Peoples and Tourism.
Cultural Survival Quarterly. Cambridge, 23(2): 27—37.

Miller, J. A. (1977). Studying Satisfaction, Modifying Models, Eliciting Expectations,
Posting Problems and Making Meaningful Measurement. In K. H. Hunt,
Conceptualization and Measurement of Consumer Satisfaction and
Dissatisfaction (Report No. 77—193). Cambridge, Mass: Marketing Science
Institute, MA.

 

173

Mohr, L.A., Webb, D. J ., & Harris, K. E. (2001). Do Consumers Expect Companies to
be Socially Responsible? The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on
Buying Behavior. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1): 47—72.

Mohsin, A. (2005). Tourist Attitudes and Destination Marketing: The Case of Australia's
Northern Territory and Malaysia. Tourism Management, 26(5): 723—732.

Morgan, N., & Pritchard, A. (2001). Advertising in Tourism and Leisure. Henry Stewart
Conferences and Publications Ltd., New York, NY.

 

Murphy, P. E. (1985). Tourism: A Community Approach. Methuen, New York, NY.

Noe, E. P. (1987). Measurement Speciﬁcation and Leisure Satisfaction. Leisure Science,
9(1): 163—172.

Nunnally, J. C., & Berstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd Ed). McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.

 

Oliver, R. L. (1980). A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of
Satisfaction Decision. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4): 460—469.

Oliver, R. L. (1993). Cognitive, Affective, and Attribute Bases of the Satisfaction
Response. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3): 418—430.

Parasuranam, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. L. (1988). Servqual: A multiple—Item Scale
for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Services Quality. Journal of Retailing,
64 (1): 12—40.

Park, S. H. (1996). Relationship between Involvement and Attitudinal Loyalty

Constructs in Adult Faintness Programs. Journal of Leisure Research, 28(4):
233-250.

Park, C. W., & Mittal, B. (1985). A Theory of Involvement in Consumer Behavior:
Problems and Issues, in J. N. Sheth Ed. Research in Consumer Behavior, 1, JAI
Press, Greenwich, CT, 201—232.

Perdue, R. R., Long, T. P., & Allen, L. (1990). Resident Support for Tourism
Development. Annals of Tourism Research, 17(4): 586—99.

Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, J. (1983). Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic
and Contemporm Approaches. Win. C. Brown Co., Dubuque, IA.

Petty, R. E., & Krosnick, J. A. (Eds) (1995). Attitude Strepgth: Antecedents and
Consequences. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

174

Philo, C., & Keams, G. (1993). Selling Place: the City as Cultural Capital. Pergamon,
London.

Pike, 8., & Ryan, C. (2004). Destination Positioning Analysis through a Comparison of

Cognitive, Affective, and Conative Perception. Journal of Travel Research,
42(May): 333—342.

Pritchard, G. (1982). Tourism Promotion: Big Business for the States. The Cornell Hotel
and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 23(2): 48—57.

Reeder, R. J ., & Brown, D. (2005). Recreation, Tourism, and Rural Well—Being.
Economic Research Service, USDA, (August): 1—26.

 

Ritchie, J. R. B. (1988). Consensus Policy Formulation in Tourism: Measuring Resident
Views via Survey Research. Tourism Management, 9(3): 199—212.

Ross, W. T., & Creyer, E. H. (1992). Making Inferences about Missing Information: The
Effects of Existing Information. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(1): 14—25.

Rossiter, J. R., & Bellman, S. (2005). Marketing Communication: Theory and
Applications. Pearson Prentice Hall, NJ.

 

Ryan, C. (1991 b). Tourism and Marketing—A Symbiotic Relationship. Tourism
Management, 12(2): 101—1 1 1.

Sampson, R. J. (1988). Local Friendship Ties and Community Attachment in Mass
Society: A Multilevel Systemic Model. American Sociological Review, 53(5):
766—779.

Sautter, E. T., & Leisen, B. (1999). Managing Stakeholders: A Tourism Planning Model.
Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2): 312—328.

Sheldon, P. J ., & Var, T. (1984). Resident Attitudes to Tourism in North Wales.
Tourism Management. 15(5): 40—47.

Shell, A. (1989). Cause Related Marketing: Big Risks, Big Potential. Public Relations
Journal, 45(7): 8—13.

Siehl, G. H. (1990). Amenity Resources and Rural Economic Growth: Report on a
National Policy Symposium. Congressional Research Service Report 90—3 80.
Washington, D. C.: Congressional Research Service, Environment and Natural
Resources Policy Division, Library of Congress.

Singleton R. A., & Straits, B. C. (2005). Approaches to Social Research (4th Ed).
Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

175

Simmons, C. J ., & Lynch, J. G. (1991). Inference Effects without Inference Making?
Effects of Missing Information on Discounting and Use of Presented Information.
Jourp_al of Consumer Research, 17(4): 477—491.

Skidmore, W. (1975). Theoretical Thinking in Sociology. University Press,
New York, NY.

Slama, M. E., & Tashchian, A. (1985). Selected Socioeconomic and Demographic
Characteristics Associated with Purchasing Involvement. Journal of Marketing,
49(winter): 72—82.

Smith, A. (2006). Assessing the Contribution of Flagship Projects to City Image Change:
A Quasi—Experimental Technique. International Journal of Tourism Research,
8(6): 391—404.

Smith, R. E. (1993). Integrating Information from Advertising and Trial: Processes and
Effects on Consumer Response to Product Information. Journal of Marketipg
Research 30(2): 204—219.

 

Smith, R. E., & Swinyard, W. R. (1983). Attitude—Behavior Consistency: The Impact of
Product Trial versus Advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 20(3):
257—267.

Tarrant, M. A., Bright, A. D., & Cordell, H. K. (1997). Attitudes towards Wildlife
Species Protection: Assessing Moderating and Mediating Effects in the Value
Attitude Relationship. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 2(2): 1—20.

Taylor, G. (1995). The Community Approach: Does It Really Work? Tourism
Management, 16(7): 487—489.

Toennies, F. (1887). Communipt/ and Society, Translated by C. P. Loomis. Harper
Trchbook, New York, NY.

Tosun, C. (2006). Expected Nature of Community Participation in Tourism
Development. Tourism Managemenyt, 27(3): 493—504.

Um, S., & Crompton, J. L. (1987). Measuring Residents’ Attachment Levels in a Host
Community. Journal of Travel Research, 26(1): 27—29.

Varadarajan, P. P., & Menon, A, (1988). Cause—Related Marketing: a Co-alignment of
Marketing Strategy and Corporate Philanthropy. Journal of Marketing, 52(3):
58—70.

Vogt, C., Winter, G., & Fried, J. (2005). Predicting Homeowner’s Approval of Fuel

Management at the Wildland—Urban Interface Using the Theory of Reasoned
Action. Society and Natural Resources, 18(4): 337—354.

176

Westbrook, R. A. (1987). Product/Consumption—Based Affective Responses and Post—
Purchase Processes. Journal of MarketingyResearch, 24(3): 25 8—270.

Westbrook, R. A., & Newman, J. W. (1978). An Analysis of Shopper Dissatisfaction for
Major Household Appliances. Journal of MarketingyResearch, 15(August):
456—466.

Williams, J ., & Lawson, R. (2001). Community Issues and Resident Opinions of
Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2): 269-290.

Wooldridge, J. M. (2003). Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. South—-
Western College Pub., Mason, OH.

Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1987). The Emotional Aspect of Product Involvement. Advances in
Consumer Research, 14(1): 32—35.

177

‘ u111Wllljljjlmjjlj