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

Abstract

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

Destination images, holistic images and personal normative beliefs: Predictors of intention to revisit a destination

“…The conative component of destination image represents tourists' active consideration of a place as a potential travel destination (Gartner, 1993). Although conative destination image has been considered by many scholars as synonymous to intention (King et al, 2015;Pike & Ryan, 2004;Prayag, 2009;Woodside & Dubelaar, 2002), representing how and why knowledge and feelings of new or repeat visitors contribute to the selection of a specific destination for vacations (Pike & Ryan, 2004;, there is evidence that conative destination images and intentions are distinct constructs (Perugini & Bagozzi, 2004;Prestwich et al, 2008;White, 2014). Hence, destination image theory suggests that cognitive and affective images represent individuals' subjective associations or perceptions related to a destination's characteristics (Chen & Uysal, 2002;Gartner, 1993;Kim & Richardson, 2003) and conative image outlines the idealized and desired future situation the individual wants to develop for himself/herself (Dann, 1996).…”

“…DI is a set of impressions, ideas, expectations and emotional thoughts an individual has of a specific place. Gartner (1989;1994); Echtner & Ritchie (1993);Dann, (1996); Pike & Ryan, (2004); Tasci, Gartner, & Cavusgil (2007); ; Konecnik & Gartner, (2007); Stepchenkova & Mills, (2010) DI is a multi-attribute concept; DI consists of cognitive, affective and conative components. DI is a complex combination of various products and associated attributes.…”

“…Tourism destinations are central to the tourism industry (Kozak & Rimmington, 1999), with destination image critical to destination positioning (Kotler, Haider & Rein, 1993;Pike & Ryan, 2004;Sönmez & Sirakaya, 2002) and destination selection process (Chon, 1990;Hunt, 1975;Pike, 2008). However, according to Tasci, Gartner, & Cavusgil (2007), there is no systematic structure that defines and operationalizes the relationship between destination image and behavioral intentions.…”

“…Tourism research has almost completely neglected the conative aspects of destination image when predicting consumer attitude and behavioral intentions (Gallarza, Saura, & Garcıá, 2002;Tasci, 2009;White, 2014), despite the fact that many researchers agree that destination image is crucial to tourists' perceived images (Chen, Ji, & Funk, 2014;Dann, 1996;Gartner, 1993;King, Chen, & Funk, 2015;Li, Pan, Zhang, & Smith, 2009;Nadeau, Heslop, O'Reilly, & Luk, 2008;Pike & Ryan, 2004;Stepchenkova & Morrison, 2008). In addition, the relationship between cognitive, affective, and conative images also remains vague as Gartner (1993Gartner ( , 1994 has proposed a hierarchical relationship (cognitive-affectiveconative) but several other researchers have proposed that conative image is predicted by both cognitive and affective images (Agapito, Valle, & Mendes, 2013;Roth & Diamantopoulos, 2009).…”

“…From a practical viewpoint, we shed light to factors that affect tourists' tendency to select a tourism destination, which can serve as a basis for the effective positioning of tourism destinations (Ahmed, 1991;Pike & Ryan, 2004). …”