



































Events and Tourism Review


  

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 1 No. 1 (December 2018), 13-27, DOI: 10.18060/22726 

Copyright © 2018 Jeeyeon Hahm. 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribuion 4.0 International License. 

 

Events and Tourism Review 
 

Volume 1 

 

No. 1 

 

 

Important Secondary Information Sources to Form Destination 

Image 
 

Jeeyeon (Jeannie) Hahm                     

University of Central Florida                                                                

 
  

 

For Authors 

Interested in submitting to this journal? We recommend that you review the About the Journal 

page for the journal's section policies, as well as the Author Guidelines. Authors need to 

register with the journal prior to submitting or, if already registered, can simply log in and 

begin the five-step process. 

  

For Reviewers 

If you are interested in serving as a peer reviewer, please register with the journal. Make sure 

to select that you would like to be contacted to review submissions for this journal. Also, be 

sure to include your reviewing interests, separated by a comma. 

  

About Events and Tourism Review (ETR) 

ETR aims to advance the delivery of events, tourism and hospitality products and services by 

stimulating the submission of papers from both industry and academic practitioners and 

researchers. For more information about ETR visit the Events and Tourism Review. 

 

 

 

Recommended Citation 

Hahm, J. (2018). Important Secondary Information Sources to Form Destination Image. Events 

and Tourism Review, 1(1), 13-27. 

 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/jet/about
http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/jet/about/submissions#authorGuidelines
http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/jet/user/register
http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/index/login
https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/ETR/user/register
http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/ETR


Hahm, J. (2018) / Events and Tourism Review, 1(1), 13-27.        14 

 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 1 No. 1 (December 2018), 13-27, DOI: 10.18060/22726 

Copyright © 2018 Jeeyeon Hahm 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

 

Abstract 

 

This study examined what secondary information sources were important in forming 

individuals’ image of a destination. In addition, this study looked into the differences in 

important information sources based on sociodemographic variables. The results of the 

comparative analyses showed some significant differences in information sources for 

destination image among four country context groups. Of the sociodemographic variables, 

differences were found between certain information sources and education level. Also, 

significant relationships were found between information sources and age. This study has 

implications for destination marketing organizations. 

 

Keywords: Information Sources, Destination Image, Sociodemographic Variables, 

Comparative analysis  

 

Introduction 

 

There are numerous destinations in existence, which translates to intense competition 

among them. People may not be aware of destinations due to the lack of information or 

perceived negative image that can lead to an adverse chance of being selected as a potential site 

for visit. There are an abundance of research findings that point to the fact that image has a major 

influence on the decision-making process and post-decision behaviors, especially for destinations 

(e.g., Balouglu & McCleary, 1999; Beerli & Martín, 2004; Castro, Amario, & Ruiz, 2007; Chen 

& Kerstetter, 1999; Chen & Tsai, 2007; Kaplanidou & Gibson, 2012). Therefore, it is important 

for destination marketing organizations (DMOs) to understand how people form an image in an 

effort to sway them at the right time using the right communication channel.  

Image is formed by an individual’s rational and emotional interpretation based on 

cognitive evaluations (i.e., perceptions, knowledge, and beliefs) of the product and affective 

assessment (i.e., feelings) of the product (Baloglu & Brinberg, 1997; Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; 

Beerli & Martín, 2004; Gartner, 1993; Gwinner, 1997). There are many factors that influence 

image formation. These factors include physical stimulus factors, such as various information 

sources, previous experience, and distribution and personal factors, such as characteristics of the 

person (Baloglu, 1997; Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Crompton, 1979; Fakeye & Crompton, 1991; 

Gunn, 1972; Stern & Krakover, 1993; Um & Crompton, 1990).  

Without first-hand experience, people tend to search for information and form a 

perception about a destination or an event through a multitude of sources, such as friends and 

family, books, TV, advertisements, movies, Internet, and social media. What people see and hear 

from these various information sources become a perception in their minds and develop into an 

image of the destination. Moreover, where individuals get their information from and how it is 

perceived might differ based on personal characteristics. There is a general understanding that 

people are different and how they acquire information and process it varies. Therefore, 

destination marketers might need to tailor their marketing accordingly. With the increasingly 

diversified global market, a standard one-size-fits-all marketing campaign might not be the most 

effective.  

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Hahm, J. (2018) / Events and Tourism Review, 1(1), 13-27.        15 

 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 1 No. 1 (December 2018), 13-27, DOI: 10.18060/22726 

Copyright © 2018 Jeeyeon Hahm 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

The purpose of this study is to understand what secondary information sources were 

important in forming individuals’ image of a destination. In addition, this study attempted to 

identify differences in the importance of information sources based on sociodemographic 

characteristics. This study will suggest information sources and personal factors that marketers 

should pay attention to when sending out information regarding the destination. Lastly, this study 

will add to the limited and dated literature regarding information sources and sociodemographic 

characteristics.  

 

Literature Review 

 

Image Formation 

For the past couple of decades, research related to destination image has evolved to 

include different aspects in an effort to gain a better understanding of it. Of those studies, both 

how people form an image of a destination and what influences the formation have been an 

interest of many researchers (e.g., Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Beerli & Martín, 2004; MacKay 

& Fesenmaier, 1997; Tasci & Gartner, 2007). First-hand experience and various information 

sources have an imperative role in forming an image of a destination. Individuals learn about a 

destination through actual visitation or search of information including the amount of time spent 

on processing the information (Gursoy, 2011; Prentice & Andersen, 2003).  

According to Gartner (1993), the image forming process can be described as a continuum 

of different information sources that operate separately to form one single image in people’s 

minds. Gartner (1993) identified five agents or information sources: (1) overt induced – 

traditional advertising in mass media; (2) covert induced – using celebrities in promotion 

activities, reports, or articles; (3) autonomous – mass media broadcasting news, documentaries, 

films, television programs about the destination; (4) organic – information received from friends 

and relatives based on their knowledge or experience; and (5) a visit to the destination – the final 

point of the continuum in the image formation process. Based on this continuum, Gartner (1993) 

suggested that an actual visit is a secondary image that is formed after the other agents. On the 

contrary, Phelps (1986) considered the first-hand experience the primary image. Phelps (1986) 

also implied that image formed by organic, induced, and autonomous information sources are 

secondary images. Govers, Go, and Kumar (2007) proved that secondary information sources 

were important in influencing image prior to visitation. However, in the existence of previous 

experience, an actual visit may be more influential than information gained from other 

information sources when making a decision (Mazursky, 1989). When there is a first-hand 

experience, the individual might not feel the need to search for additional information (Beerli & 

Martín, 2004). Based on the above discussion, this study will categorize information sources by 

primary and secondary where primary information source is related to first-hand experience and 

secondary information sources are related to other induced, autonomous, and organic sources 

that are not based on the actual visit.  

 

Primary Information Sources 

Information sources are called stimulus factors (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999) or image 

forming agents (Gartner, 1993) that affect the formation of perceptions and evaluations. They are 

related to the amount and variety of information sources people are exposed to (Beerli & Martín, 

2004). This includes information gathered about a destination after visiting, which is first-hand 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Hahm, J. (2018) / Events and Tourism Review, 1(1), 13-27.        16 

 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 1 No. 1 (December 2018), 13-27, DOI: 10.18060/22726 

Copyright © 2018 Jeeyeon Hahm 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

experience. Several researchers have found that a first-hand experience with a destination 

influences its image. These researchers advised that images formed during an actual visit tend to 

be more realistic, complex, and different from images formed through secondary sources 

(Gartner & Hunt, 1987; Pearce, 1982; Phelps, 1986). In addition, the more frequent the actual 

experience, a more positive image will be generated (Beerli & Martín, 2004; Kerstetter & Cho, 

2004; Milman & Pizam, 1995; Sharifpour et al., 2014). However, Beerli and Marín (2004) found 

that the number of past visits to a destination influenced the cognitive image, which could be 

rather negative. Milman and Pizam (1995) and Sharifpour et al. (2014) suggested that experience 

and familiarity with a destination increased the interest in visiting and lessens risk perceptions of 

the destination. Echtner and Ritchie (1993) suggested that people that are more familiar with a 

destination hold more holistic, psychological, and unique images. On the other hand, people that 

are less familiar have images based on attributes, functional aspects, and common features 

(Echtner & Ritchie, 1993). On the contrary, Sparks and Pan (2009) did not find prior visit as a 

significant factor in influencing destination image.  

 

Secondary Information Sources 

Without the existence of first-hand experiences, people seek information from a mixture 

of sources to acquire knowledge regarding the destination. Fodness and Murray (1998, 1999) 

found that tourists ranked the use of brochures, friends/relatives, social clubs, and personal 

experience highly. However, the authors noted that the sources used depended on the phase of 

travel. According to Beerli and Martín (2004), word-of-mouth from friends or family is 

considered to be the most influential communication channel. Based on their findings, the 

authors suggested that it is important to match the reality of the destination when transmitting 

information out to the market. Govers et al. (2007) found that overall covert induced and 

autonomous agents – television, literature, the Internet, pictures, and movies – were important 

information sources for destinations. Of those sources, television was ranked as the number one 

information source, closely followed by direct experience (first-hand experience). Word-of-

mouth, magazines, and the Internet were also ranked in the top five. The authors also found that 

different information sources influenced perceptions based on the destination. For example, their 

study of seven destinations showed that information related to Florida was collected via 

television, movies, and magazines, compared to Dubai, where information was gathered through 

word-of-mouth. Similar to Govers et al. (2007), Sparks and Pan (2009) found that television 

programs were the top source for Chinese tourists when collecting information about Australia as 

a destination. The second most important source was friends followed by fashion magazines and 

travel books, then newspapers and tourist brochures. About half of their respondents gathered 

information on Chinese websites. Based on the literature, the following hypothesis was 

developed: 

 

H1: Important information sources for destination image are different among destinations. 

 

 The advancement of technology and global media in modern society influence the types 

of information sources, and the way information is searched, received, and processed (Frías et 

al., 2012). The Internet has become a major source of information for tourists (Buhalis & Law, 

2008; Buhalis & Licata, 2002; Pan & Fesenmaier, 2006; Wu, Wei, & Chen, 2008). With the 

massive amount of information available, searching on the Internet has increasingly become the 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Hahm, J. (2018) / Events and Tourism Review, 1(1), 13-27.        17 

 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 1 No. 1 (December 2018), 13-27, DOI: 10.18060/22726 

Copyright © 2018 Jeeyeon Hahm 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

leading source of travel information (Xiang & Gretzel, 2010). The Internet and social media are 

interactive in nature (Govers et al., 2007) and are platforms where people are able to not only 

retrieve comprehensive and up-to-date information (Vich-I-Martorell, 2004) but also freely 

publish information about a destination (Llodrà-Riera et al., 2015). People are no longer passive 

consumers. They generate content, collaborate, and comment through social networks (Llodrà-

Riera et al., 2015). It has become a challenge for destination marketers because people tend to 

believe and rely on user-generated content (UGC) than what is disseminated by marketers 

(Munar, 2011).  

Llodrà-Riera et al. (2015) focused on web platforms as an information source construct 

that influences destination image formation. The authors incorporated Web 1.0, which offers 

first-hand information about a destination and suppliers and Web 2.0, which offers UGC as 

sources of information about a destination. Unlike previous studies that suggest the Internet, as a 

whole, as an induced source that influences the perceived image of a destination (e.g., Beerli & 

Martín, 2004), the authors suggested that there are various web platforms of the Internet that can 

be classified as either organic, induced, or autonomous. For web platforms, the authors used web 

pages, blogs, social networks, portals, photo or video sharing applications, forums, and even 

maps. Of the different web platforms, search engines (e.g., Google) were the most important, 

followed by online maps. Of the web pages that offered UGC, user appraisals (e.g., Tripadvisor) 

and social networks were the most important. Overall, web pages by intermediaries and suppliers 

were not as useful as the abovementioned (Llodrà-Riera et al., 2015). 

 

Personal Factors 

Besides past experience, sociodemographic characteristics and information sources are 

important factors that form images of destinations. People develop images of a destination via 

the exposure to various stimulus factors – information sources – but how the attributes and 

aspects that make up that image is perceived vary based on individual characteristics (Um & 

Crompton, 1990). In other words, how people receive information that is funneled through a 

variety of sources will be different depending on personal factors. These personal factors are 

composed of psychographic characteristics (e.g., motivations, values, personality, lifestyle, etc.) 

and sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., age, gender, education level, income level, family 

lifecycle, place of residence, etc.) (Ashworth & Voogd, 1990; Bramwell & Rawding, 1996; 

Gartner, 1993).  

Individuals’ information search behavior is influenced by personal factors, such as 

learning, perception, motivation, personality, and attitude (Luo, Feng, & Cai, 2004). It has been 

found that demographic characteristics can be used to represent individual factors that affect 

information search behavior (Luo et al., 2004). Woodside and Ronkainen (1980) reported that 

people with a higher socioeconomic class preferred the use of travel agents as an information 

source. Gitelson and Crompton (1983) found that older people tend to use travel agents and 

people with higher education levels (college-educated) were more likely to use destination 

specific literature. On the other hand, Schul and Crompton (1983) did not find any statistical 

significance between sociodemographic variables and travelers’ information search behavior. 

The authors suggested that psychographic variables are more effective than sociodemographic 

variables in explaining external search behavior of international leisure travelers. Pitkow and 

Kehoe (1996) stated that people that use the Internet as an information source tend to be white 

males who represent a higher socioeconomic status. Another study on the usage of the Internet 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Hahm, J. (2018) / Events and Tourism Review, 1(1), 13-27.        18 

 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 1 No. 1 (December 2018), 13-27, DOI: 10.18060/22726 

Copyright © 2018 Jeeyeon Hahm 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

by Bonn, Furr, and Susskind (1998) noted that gender, education, income, race, and occupation 

have an influence. Luo et al. (2004) found that gender and household income influenced 

information search preference. More specifically, they found that males with higher household 

incomes were more likely to use the Internet. The same study did not find any difference in 

information source preference based on age, education, and occupation. In their study of gender 

differences in online travel information search, Kim, Lehto, and Morrison (2007) showed that 

females value general websites and official destination websites more than males. In addition, 

females rated printed materials (e.g., brochures, travel guidebooks) higher than males. On the 

other hand, TV, newspaper, and travel agents did not show any significant gender differences.  

Based on the literature on personal factors, the following hypothesis was developed to 

test the relationships between information sources and gender, age, marital status, educational 

level, income, and ethnicity: 

 

H2: Important information sources for destination image are different based on 

sociodemographic variables. 

 

Methodology 

 

A structured survey was designed with items adopted from past literature. The 

importance of information sources for destination image (6 items) and the importance of 

information sources for the Olympics Games image (6 items) were measured on a 7-point 

importance scale (1=Extremely unimportant, 7=Extremely important). The importance of 

information sources items were based on several studies (e.g., Beerli & Martín, 2004; Fodness & 

Murray, 1998, 1999; Govers et al., 2007; Llodrà-Riera et al., 2015). The current study will only 

focus on the information sources for destination image. The main part of the survey included 

country image (9 items based on Kim, Kang, & Kim, 2014; Lai, 2015), destination image (12 

items based on Tasci, 2009; Tasci and Gartner, 2007; Tasci, Gartner, & Cavusgil, 2007), and 

Olympic Games image (10 items based on Deng and Li, 2013; Florek and Insch, 2011; 

Hallmann, Kaplanidou, and Breuer, 2010; Kaplanidou, 2009). However, these items were not the 

focus of the current study. Items related to past experience with the country and the Olympics as 

well as familiarity with the Olympics and interest in the Olympics were included in the 

questionnaire. Lastly, sociodemographic information was collected at the end of the survey (i.e., 

gender, age, education level, marital status, residence state, annual income, and ethnicity).  

Data were collected for four host destinations of past Olympic Games: England – the host 

of 2012 Summer Olympics (n=97), Greece – the motherland of the Olympics (n=97), Brazil – 

the host of 2016 Summer Olympics (n=94), and Russia – the host of 2014 Winter Olympics 

(n=95). Although it is the city that technically hosts the Olympics, there are lasting impacts not 

only on the city but also on the host region and host country, such as host country’s image and 

economy (e.g., Kang & Perdue, 1994; Kasimati & Dawson, 2009; Min Han, 1990). In addition, 

since the whole nation is involved in the bidding process, planning, organizing, and participating 

in the mega event, the spotlight is on the entire country. For this reason, the images at the 

country level rather than city level were measured. MTurk participants were randomly assigned 

to one of the four country contexts once they signed the online consent. Except for one 

comparative analysis of the four destination groups, the present study used the combined data 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Hahm, J. (2018) / Events and Tourism Review, 1(1), 13-27.        19 

 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 1 No. 1 (December 2018), 13-27, DOI: 10.18060/22726 

Copyright © 2018 Jeeyeon Hahm 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

set. Descriptive statistics, frequencies, correlations, independent samples t-test, and one-way 

ANOVA tools of SPSS 23 were used to analyze the data set.  

A random sample of 422 was obtained from an Internet survey marketplace of voluntary 

survey takers – Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Data were checked for any missing values 

and outliers. There were only 25 responses from outside of the United States. Since the study 

focused on U.S. residents’ perceptions, these cases were excluded from the study. After deleting 

those cases, a sample of 383 was used for comparison analyses. In preparation for comparative 

analyses, the normality of the distribution of values was assessed by inspecting the skewness and 

kurtosis values as well as the shape of the distribution. In addition, data is independent of one 

another. The data showed no violations of assumptions. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for the 

importance of information sources scale was 0.71, slightly above the 0.70 threshold (Nunnally, 

1978). 

 

Results and Discussion 

  

The demographic profiles of respondents are provided in Tables 2, 3, and 4. The age of 

respondents ranged from 18 to 74 with the majority in their 30s (37.9%) or 20s (32.9%). The 

sample was almost an even split between males (54.3%) and females (45.7%). Slightly more 

than half have graduated from college/university (52.8%), and less than half are single (48.8%). 

The majority is white/Caucasian (73.8%). Income levels were almost evenly distributed. In 

addition to the demographic information, some travel information related to the Olympic Games 

were collected. Most of the respondents (93.9%) have never attended the Olympic Games. There 

were a total of 18 respondents that have been to the Olympics and of those, 45.5% were the 

Olympics held in the United States – the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games or the 1996 Atlanta 

Olympic Games. A small percentage of respondents (25.2%) expressed their interest in attending 

the Olympic Games in the future. The majority of respondents (91.9%) have never been to the 

destination they were assigned to.  

 

Table 1. Importance of information sources for different groups in different country contexts 

(ANOVA) 

Information Sources 

England 

(n=97) 

Greece 

(n=97) 

Brazil 

(n=94) 

Russia 

(n=95) 

One-way 

ANOVA 

Test 

significance 

Prior visit 3.91 (1.963) 3.78 (1.804) 3.51 (1.849) 3.73 (1.910) .637 

General knowledge from school 4.83 (1.083) 4.89 (1.030) 4.29 (1.569) 4.81 (1.104) .001** 

TV programs 4.98 (1.196) 4.73 (1.254) 4.80 (1.295) 4.67 (1.125) .186 

Word-of mouth 5.22 (1.283) 5.43 (1.172) 5.02 (1.336) 4.94 (1.428) .030* 

Printed or online news media 5.18 (1.170) 5.09 (1.242) 5.45 (1.322) 5.34 (1.017) .172 

Social media 4.43 (1.547) 4.70 (1.260) 4.97 (1.763) 4.69 (1.445) .093 
Note: 7-point Likert scales (1 = Extremely Unimportant to 7 = Extremely Important), * p<.5, **p<.01 

 

Table 1 presents the important information sources for destination image. Word-of-mouth 

and printed or online news media were the highest rated information sources, on average. Word-

of-mouth was rated the highest for the England group (5.22) and the Greece group (5.43). It was 

rated the second highest for the Brazil group (5.02) and the Russia group (4.94). Printed or 

online news media was rated the highest for Brazil (5.45) and Russia (5.34) and second highest 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Hahm, J. (2018) / Events and Tourism Review, 1(1), 13-27.        20 

 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 1 No. 1 (December 2018), 13-27, DOI: 10.18060/22726 

Copyright © 2018 Jeeyeon Hahm 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

for England (5.18) and Greece (5.09). Prior visits were the lowest rated information source for all 

groups. The information sources that showed a statistically significant difference among the 

groups were word-of-mouth (p<.05) and general knowledge from school (p<.01). Post-hoc 

Scheffe tests were run to find exactly where the differences were; however, the results showed 

that the groups are actually similar. Therefore, H1 was not supported.  

Table 2 shows the correlation between age and important information sources. The 

results show that age has a small to medium negative relationship with three information sources. 

To be more specific, the older the age, prior visit, general knowledge from school, or social 

media is considered a less important information source. Based on the results in Table 3, there 

were no significant differences found between males and females.  

 

Table 2. Correlations of information sources and age (n=381) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pearson Correlation 

Sig. (2-tailed) Age 

Prior 

visit 

General 

knowledge 

from 

school 

TV 

programs 

Word-

of-

mouth 

Printed 

or 

online 

news 

media 

Social 

media 

Information 

Sources for 

Destination 

Image  

Age 1       

Prior visit -.166** 1      

General knowledge from 

school 
-.145** .094 1     

TV programs .057 .087 .281** 1    

Word-of-mouth .014 .126* .146** .295** 1   

Printed or online news 

media 
.007 .012 .219** .354** 

.277*

* 
1  

Social media -.192** .220** .196** .239** 
.301*

* 
.282** 1 

*: Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). 

**: Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 

   

 

Table 3. Importance of information sources comparison between males and females (t-test)  

Information Sources 

Males 

(n=207) 

Females 

(n=174) t Sig. 

Prior visit 3.81 (1.882) 3.68 (1.914) .655 .513 

General knowledge from school 4.78 (1.136) 4.74 (1.042) .375 .708 

TV programs 4.77 (1.243) 4.70 (1.165) .624 .533 

Word-of mouth 5.07 (1.287) 5.25 (1.273) -1.363 .174 

Printed or online news media 5.23 (1.215) 5.15 (1.026) .666 .506 

Social media 4.68 (1.434) 4.49 (1.405) 1.286 .199 
Note: 7-point Likert scales (1 = Extremely Unimportant to 7 = Extremely Important) 

 

Tables 4 presents the differences in important information sources depending on 

education level, marital status, ethnicity, and annual income. When comparing the different 

groups based on the education level of the respondents, statistically significant differences were 

found in word-of-mouth. The post-hoc Scheffe test revealed that the actual difference lies 

between respondents with a high school degree and those that have a vocational school/associate 

degree (p<.5). For marital status and ethnicity, there were no statistically significant differences 

found between the groups.  

 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Hahm, J. (2018) / Events and Tourism Review, 1(1), 13-27.        21 

 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 1 No. 1 (December 2018), 13-27, DOI: 10.18060/22726 

Copyright © 2018 Jeeyeon Hahm 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

Table 4. Importance of information sources comparison based on sociodemographic variables 

(ANOVA) 

Information 

Sources Sociodemographic Variable 

One-

Way 

ANOVA 

Education Level 

High School 

(n=80) 

Vocational 

School/ 

Associate 

(n=44) 

College/ 

University 

(n=201) 

Master’s or 

PhD 

(n=56) 

  

 

Prior visit 3.65 (1.801) 3.66 (1.892) 3.68 (1.889) 4.25 (2.020)   .211 

General knowledge 

from school 
4.73 (.856) 4.80 (1.091) 4.68 (1.203) 5.05 (.942)   .157 

TV programs 4.78 (.941) 4.82 (1.147) 4.73 (1.288) 4.66 (1.311)   .916 

Word-of mouth 4.88 (1.236) 5.59 (1.106) 5.18 (1.284) 5.09 (1.392)   .027* 

Printed or online 

news media 
5.16 (1.024) 5.20 (1.002) 5.16 (1.231) 5.34 (1.014)   .760 

Social media 4.40 (1.249) 4.48 (1.486) 4.64 (1.467) 4.77 (1.440)   .417 

Marital Status 

Single 

(n=186) 

Married 

(n=124) 

Divorced/ 

Separated 

(n=33) 

Other 

(n=38)    

Prior visit 3.80 (1.911) 3.83 (1.886) 3.18 (1.868) 3.76 (1.786)   .345 

General knowledge 

from school 
4.76 (1.040) 4.79 (1.191) 4.82 (.805) 4.61 (1.215)   .814 

TV programs 4.72 (1.185) 4.76 (1.278) 4.79 (1.213) 4.74 (1.017)   .984 

Word-of mouth 5.17 (1.282) 5.04 (1.271) 5.27 (1.295) 5.32 (1.037)   .600 

Printed or online 

news media 
5.23 (1.156) 5.15 (1.190) 5.30 (.907) 5.03 (1.014)   .684 

Social media 4.61 (1.396) 4.60 (1.464) 4.27 (1.634) 4.74 (.963)   .555 

Ethnicity 

White/ 

Caucasian 

(n=281) 

African 

American 

(n=23) 

Hispanic 

(n=25) 

Asian 

(n=39) 

Others 

(n=13)   

Prior visit 3.68 (1.953) 3.70 (1.329) 4.40 (1.323) 4.15 (1.899) 3.08 (2.221)  .147 

General knowledge 

from school 
4.77 (1.117) 4.87 (.869) 4.64 (.860) 4.74 (1.186) 4.54 (1.059)  .894 

TV programs 4.69 (1.233) 4.78 (.998) 4.84 (1.281) 4.97 (1.112) 4.69 (1.135)  .720 

Word-of mouth 5.14 (1.309) 5.17 (1.114) 5.12 (1.364) 5.26 (1.044) 5.08 (1.729)  .986 

Printed or online 

news media 
5.16 (1.168) 5.00 (1.279) 5.44 (.821) 5.33 (.955) 5.31 (1.160)  .589 

Social media 4.54 (1.471) 4.61 (1.118) 4.88 (1.166) 4.85 (1.226) 4.23 (1.687)  .491 

Annual Income 

Under 

$15,000 

(n=75) 

$15,000-

$24,999 

(n=72) 

$25,000-

$34,999 

(n=64) 

$35,000-

$49,999 

(n=55) 

$50,000-

$74,999 

(n=75) 

$75,000 or 

above 

(n=40)  

Prior visit 3.48 (2.120) 3.46 (1.711) 3.61 (1.882) 3.98 (1.769) 4.07 (1.913) 4.13 (1.991) .152 

General knowledge 

from school 
4.80 (1.013) 4.76 (1.055) 4.72 (.983) 5.00 (1.247) 4.65 (1.121) 4.60 (1.265) .493 

TV programs 4.64 (1.111) 4.75 (1.097) 4.72 (1.315) 4.96 (1.465) 4.73 (1.131) 4.63 (1.329) .735 

Word-of mouth 5.03 (1.294) 5.15 (1.252) 4.95 (1.463) 5.25 (1.205) 5.41 (1.209) 5.05 (1.085) .309 

Printed or online 

news media 
5.04 (1.224) 5.25 (.946) 5.20 (1.237) 5.25 (1.092)  5.29 (1.075) 5.08 (1.204) .742 

Social media 4.35 (1.428) 4.72 (1.406) 4.41 (1.706) 4.93 (1.152) 4.72 (1.279) 4.40 (1.532) .138 
Note: 7-point Likert scales (1 = Extremely Unimportant to 7 = Extremely Important) 

 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Hahm, J. (2018) / Events and Tourism Review, 1(1), 13-27.        22 

 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 1 No. 1 (December 2018), 13-27, DOI: 10.18060/22726 

Copyright © 2018 Jeeyeon Hahm 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

For annual income, there was an interesting result in prior visits. It is the only information source 

that showed a steady increase in importance rating as the income level rises. The results of the 

correlation, t-test, and ANOVAs show partial support for H2. 

 

Conclusion and implications 

 

The purpose of this study was to identify important sources people use when searching 

for information about a destination. In addition, this study looked into whether different 

information sources are important depending on the destination in question. Lastly, this study 

examined the important information sources based on sociodemographic variables.  

The study results showed some significant differences in information sources for 

destination image among the four country context groups. Word-of-mouth and printed or online 

news media were the top two information sources people used to form their images of countries. 

More specifically, the England group and Greece group considered word-of-mouth as the most 

important information source, whereas the Brazil group and Russia group rated printed or online 

news media the most important. The results indicate that England and Greece depend more on 

word-of-mouth than Brazil and Russia for individuals’ forming an image. Beerli and Martín 

(2004) also found word-of-mouth to be the most influential communication channel in their 

study. This could be due to the fact that people are more familiar with England and Greece by 

previous experience. England was the most visited destination of the four (22.7%). Of the four 

destinations, Brazil and Russia have been in the news related to the Olympic Games more 

recently than the other two destinations due to the fact that the Games were held in 2016 and 

2014, respectively. In addition, there was a good amount of negative publicity that could have 

left a more lasting effect on people. Destination marketers of Brazil and Russia should 

strategically target various print and online news media for positive image formation. Govers et 

al. (2007) found that different information sources influenced perceptions depending on the 

destination, which is confirmed by the current study.  

The lowest rated information source for destination image was related to prior visits. This 

means that the respondents did not see the importance of actual visit in forming their image of a 

destination, which agrees with Sparks and Pan (2009). It shows that destination image can be 

formed through secondary information sources. In this case, where the majority of respondents 

do not have the first-hand experience, this finding is in line with Gartner (1993) that suggests an 

actual visit to be the secondary image and Govers et al. (2007) that proved secondary 

information sources to be important in influencing the image prior to visitation. 

Another part of this study was to find differences in important information sources based 

on sociodemographic variables. The findings of the correlation analysis of age and information 

sources showed a small to medium negative relationship between age and prior visits, general 

knowledge from school, and social media. The results indicate that the older the age, the 

importance of prior visit, general knowledge from school, and social media decreases. In other 

words, the younger the respondent, the more important the individual considered those three 

information sources. Of the three, the negative relationship is strongest in social media. This 

result is understandable because studies show that the younger generation is more dependent on 

social media for collecting information (e.g., Llodrà-Riera et al., 2015). When asking about an 

information source related to general knowledge from school, the respondent is answering based 

on his/her memory. Therefore, the younger the respondent, their recollection of what they 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Hahm, J. (2018) / Events and Tourism Review, 1(1), 13-27.        23 

 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 1 No. 1 (December 2018), 13-27, DOI: 10.18060/22726 

Copyright © 2018 Jeeyeon Hahm 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

learned in school might be livelier. This finding indicates that what is taught during school years 

do have an impact on forming people’s perceptions.  

When comparing the information sources based on education level, overall, there were no 

significant differences except for word-of-mouth between high school graduates and vocational 

school/associate degree holders. This shows that education level is not a good predictor for 

understanding what information sources will be used to form an image. Similar to education 

level, the income level of respondents is not a good variable to provide an understanding of 

information source selection. In contrast, Pitkow and Kehoe (1996), Bonn et al. (1998) and Luo 

et al. (2004) found that income influenced information search preference online.  

For the remaining sociodemographic characteristics, gender, marital status, and ethnicity 

were examined. There were no statistically significant differences found in important 

information sources based on those characteristics. Along the same vein, Schul and Crompton 

(1983) did not find any statistical significance between sociodemographic variables and 

travelers’ information search behavior. The authors suggested psychographic variables to explain 

the external search behavior of international leisure travelers. Unlike previous studies conducted 

by Pitkow and Kehoe (1996), Bonn et al. (1998), Luo et al., (2004), and Kim et al. (2007), the 

current study did not find significant differences between males and females. In terms of 

ethnicity, Bonn et al. (1998) had found that race influenced the usage of the Internet as an 

information source. There are previous studies that found cultural differences (Chen and 

Kerstetter, 1999; Frías et al., 2012). However, the respondents of this study all reside in the U.S., 

although there are different ethnicities. This could have influenced the study results.  

The findings of this study suggest that destination marketers should seek and understand 

the factors that influence information search behavior, including the Internet, social media, and 

psychographic characteristics. Word-of-mouth consistently ranked highest or second across the 

board. It seems that individuals are able to obtain information about destinations more easily 

through organic and personal experiences. Printed or online news media was another information 

source along with word-of-mouth that ranked highest. Therefore, destination marketers need to 

remain cognizant of what is being portrayed in the media and continue with strong marketing 

campaigns that highlight the positive side of the destination. The key implication for marketers 

of destinations is to make sure they do their best to convey realistic and consistent messages 

across all communication channels. For information sources like social media where control is 

difficult, destination marketers need to be aware of what information is being disseminated. This 

study also suggests that other than age, sociodemographic characteristics do not provide 

destination marketers with strong suggestions for information sources to focus on to form 

destination image. Regarding age, destination marketers can concentrate resources on social 

media for image formation of the younger generation. For academia, this study was able to add 

to the limited and dated body of literature regarding sociodemographic variables and the 

important information sources for destination image.  

 

Limitation and Suggestions for Future Research 

 

The limitations of this study present opportunities for future research. First, this study 

only compared important information sources based on sociodemographic variables. Future 

research should include psychographic characteristics such as motivation, cultural interest, 

familiarity, activity, and travel-specific behaviors to see if these variables can better explain 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Hahm, J. (2018) / Events and Tourism Review, 1(1), 13-27.        24 

 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 1 No. 1 (December 2018), 13-27, DOI: 10.18060/22726 

Copyright © 2018 Jeeyeon Hahm 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

information source selection. Secondly, this study only conducted comparative analyses. Causal 

relationships were not examined in this particular study. It would be interesting to see which 

information sources have a stronger influence on destination image. Third, the majority of 

respondents have not been to the destinations in question. Future studies should include a larger 

sample of people that have first-hand experience with the destination. In addition, the number of 

visits, the duration of the visit, and the degree of involvement with the destination during the stay 

should be collected for more meaningful interpretation of results. Fourth, in terms of information 

sources, future studies should be more specific about the categorization of the sources. For 

example, this study only had one option for news media that included both printed and online 

sources. Therefore, it is difficult to fully understand whether it is the printed news media or 

online news media that is important. Similarly, there was only one category for social media. 

With social media becoming a major information source, having it further classified based on the 

different social media platforms would provide a better understanding of important information 

sources. In addition, it would be interesting to compare the results with a more diverse sample, in 

terms of ethnicity or diverse cultures. Lastly, this study only focused on destination image. A 

future study can concentrate on information sources for event image and see how the results 

differ from the current study.  

 

References 

 

Ashworth, G. & Voogd, H. (1990). Selling the city: Marketing approaches in public sector  

urban planning. London: Belhaven Press. Baloglu, S. (1997). The relationship between 

destination images and sociodemographic and trip characteristics of international 

travellers. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 3(3), 221-233. 

Baloglu, S. & Brinberg, D. (1997). Affective images of tourism destination. Journal of Travel  

Research, 35(4), 11-15. 

Baloglu, S. & McCleary, K. (1999). A model of destination image formation. Annals of Tourism  

Research, 26(4), 868-897. 

Beerli, A. & Martín, J. D. (2004). Factors influencing destination image. Annals of Tourism  

Research, 31(3), 657-681.  

Bonn, M. A., Furr, H. L., & Susskind, A. M. (1998). Using the Internet as a pleasure travel  

planning tool: An examination of the sociodemographic and behavioral characteristics 

among Internet users and non-users. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 22(3), 

303-317. 

Bramwell, B. & Rawding, L. (1996). Tourism marketing images of industrial cities. Annals of  

Tourism Research, 13(1), 201-221. 

Buhalis, D. & Law, R. (2008). Progress in information technology and tourism management: 20  

years on and 10 years after the Internet, the state of e-tourism research. Tourism 

Management, 29(4), 609-623. 

Buhalis, D. & Licata, C. (2002). The future of e-tourism intermediaries. Tourism Management,  

23(3), 207-220. 

Castro, C., Amario, E., & Ruiz, D. M. (2007). The influence of market heterogeneity on the  

relationship between a destination’s image and tourists’ future behavior. Tourism 

Management, 28(1), 175-187. 

 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Hahm, J. (2018) / Events and Tourism Review, 1(1), 13-27.        25 

 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 1 No. 1 (December 2018), 13-27, DOI: 10.18060/22726 

Copyright © 2018 Jeeyeon Hahm 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

Chen, P. & Kerstetter, D. (1999). International students’ image of rural Pennsylvania as a travel  

destination. Journal of Travel Research, 37(3), 256-266.  

Chen, C. & Tsai, D. (2007). How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral  

intentions? Tourism Management, 28(1), 1115-1122. 

Crompton, J. L. (1979). An assessment of the image of Mexico as a vacation destination and the  

influence of geographical location upon that image. Journal of Travel Research, 17(4), 

18-23.  

Deng, Q. & Li, M. (2013). A model of event–destination image transfer. Journal of Travel 

Research, 53(1), 69-82.  

Echtner, C. M. & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1993). The measurement of destination image: An empirical  

assessment. Journal of Travel Research, 31(4), 3-13.  

Fakeye, P. C. & Crompton, P. L. (1991). Image differences between prospective, first-time and  

repeat visitors to the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Journal of Travel Research, 30(2), 10-

16.  

Florek, M. & Insch, A. (2011). When fit matters: Leveraging destination and event image 

congruence. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 20(3-4), 265-286. 

Fodness, D. & Murray, B. (1998). A typology of tourist information search strategies. Journal of  

Travel Research, 37(2), 108-119. 

Fodness, D. & Murray, B. (1999). A model of tourist information search behavior. Journal of  

Travel Research, 37(3), 220-230. 

Frías, D. M., Rodríguez, M. A., Castañeda, J. A., Sabiote, C. M., & Buhalis, D. (2012). The  

formation of a tourist destination’s image via information sources: The moderating effect 

of culture. International Journal of Tourism Research, 14(5), 437-450. 

Gartner, W. C. (1993). Image formation process. In: Uysal, M. & Fesenmaier, D. (eds)  

Communication and channel systems in tourism marketing. New York: Haworth Press, 

pp.191-215. 

Gartner, W. & Hunt, J. (1987). An analysis of state image change over a twelve-year period  

(1971-1983). Journal of Travel Research, 26(2), 15-19.  

Gitelson, R. J. & Crompton, J. L. (1983). The planning horizons and sources of information used  

by pleasure vacationers. Journal of Travel Research, 21(3), 2-7. 

Govers, R., Go, F. M., & Kumar, K. (2007). Promoting tourism destination image. Journal of  

Travel Research, 46(1), 15-23. 

Gunn, C. (1972). Vacationscape: Designing tourist regions. Washington DC: Taylor and  

Francis/University of Texas. 

 

 

Gursoy, D. (2011). Destination information search strategies. In: Wang, Y. & Pizam, A. (eds)  

Destination marketing and management: Theories and applications. Oxfordshire UK: 

CABI, pp. 67-81.  

Gwinner, K. (1997). A model of image creation and image transfer in event sponsorship.  

International Marketing Review, 14(3), 145-158. 

Hallmann, K., Kaplanidou, K., & Breuer, C. (2010). Event image perceptions among active 

and passive sports tourists at marathon races. International Journal of Sports Marketing 

& Sponsorship, 12(1), 37-52. 

Kaplanidou, K. (2009). Relationships among behavioral intentions, cognitive event and  

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Hahm, J. (2018) / Events and Tourism Review, 1(1), 13-27.        26 

 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 1 No. 1 (December 2018), 13-27, DOI: 10.18060/22726 

Copyright © 2018 Jeeyeon Hahm 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

destination images among different geographic regions of Olympic Games spectators. 

Journal of Sport & Tourism, 14(4), 249-272. 

Kaplanidou, K. & Gibson, H. J. (2012). Event image and traveling parents’ intentions to attend  

youth sport events: A test of the reasoned action model. European Sport Management 

Quarterly, 12(1), 3-18.  

Kerstetter, D. & Cho, M. H. (2004). Prior knowledge, credibility and information search Annals  

of Tourism Research, 31(4), 961-985.  

Kim, D., Lehto, X. Y., & Morrison, A. M. (2007). Gender differences in online travel  

information search: Implications for marketing communications on the Internet. Tourism 

Management, 28(2), 423-433.  

Kim, J., Kang, J. H., & Kim, Y. (2014). Impact of mega sport events on destination image and 

country image. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 23(3), 161-175. 

Lai, K. (2015). Destination images penetrated by mega-events: A behaviorist study of the 

2008 Beijing Olympics. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 20(4), 378-398. 

Llodrà-Riera, I., Martínez-Ruiz, M. P., Jiménez-Zarco, A. I., & Izquierdo-Yusta, A. (2015). A  

multidimentional analysis of the information sources construct and its relevance for 

destination image formation. Tourism Management, 48, 319-328. 

Luo, M., Feng, R., & Cai, L. A. (2004). Information search behavior and tourist characteristics.  

Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 17(2-3), 15-25. 

MacKay, K. J. & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1997). Pictorial element of destination in image formation.  

Annals of Tourism Research, 24(3), 537-565. 

Mazursky, D. (1989). Past experience and future tourism decisions. Annals of Tourism Research,  

16(3), 333-344. 

Milman, A. & Pizam, A. (1995) The role of awareness and familiarity with a destination: The  

Central Florida case. Journal of Travel Research, 33(3), 21-27. 

Munar, A. M. (2011). Tourist-created content: Rethinking destination branding. International  

Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 5(3), 291-305.  

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.  

Pan, B. & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2006). Online information search: Vacation planning process.  

Annals of Tourism Research, 33(3), 809-832.  

Pearce, P. (1982). Perceived changes in holiday destinations. Annals of Tourism Research, 9(2),  

145-164. 

Phelps, A. (1986). Holiday destination image – The problem of assessment: An example  

developed in Menorca. Tourism Management, 7(3), 168-180. 

 

Pitkow, J. E. & Kehoe, C. M. (1996). Emerging trends in the WWW user population.  

Communications of the ACM, 39(6), 106-108.  

Prentice, R. & Andersen, V. (2003). Festival as creative destination. Annals of Tourism  

Research, 30(1), 7-30.  

Schul, P. & Crompton, J. L. (1983). Search behavior of international vacationers: Travel-specific  

lifestyle and sociodemographic variables. Journal of Travel Research, 22(2), 25-30. 

Sharifpour, M., Walters, G., Ritchie, B. W., & Winter, C. (2014). Investigating the role of prior  

knowledge in tourist decision making: A structural equation model of risk perceptions 

and information search. Journal of Travel Research, 53(3), 307-322. 

Sparks, B. & Pan, G. W. (2009). Chinese outbound tourists: Understanding their attitudes,  

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Hahm, J. (2018) / Events and Tourism Review, 1(1), 13-27.        27 

 

Events and Tourism Review Vol. 1 No. 1 (December 2018), 13-27, DOI: 10.18060/22726 

Copyright © 2018 Jeeyeon Hahm 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

 

constraints and use of information sources. Tourism Management, 30(4), 483-494. 

Stern, E. & Krakover, S. (1993). The formation of a composite urban image. Geographical  

Analysis, 25(2), 130-146. 

Tasci, A. D. A. (2009). Social distance: The missing link in the loop of movies, destination 

image and tourist behavior? Journal of Travel Research, 47(4), 494-507. 

Tasci, A. D. A. & Gartner, W. C. (2007). Destination image and its functional relationships.  

Journal of Travel Research, 45(4), 413-425.  

Tasci, A. D. A., Gartner, W. C., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2007). Conceptualization and  

operationalization of destination image. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 

31(2), 194-223. 

Um, S. & Crompton, J. L. (1990). Attitude determinants in tourism destination choice. Annals of  

Tourism Research, 17(3), 432-448. 

Vich-I-Martorell, G. A. (2004). The internet and tourism principals in the Balearic Islands.  

Tourism and Hospitality Research, 5(1), 25-44.  

Woodside, A. G. & Ronkainen, I. A. (1980). Vacation travel planning segments: Self-planning  

vs. user of the motor club and traveler agents. Annals of Tourism Research, 7(3), 385-

394. 

Wu, S. I., Wei, P. L., & Chen, J. H. (2008). Influential factors and relational structure of Internet  

banner advertising in the tourism industry. Tourism Management, 29(2), 221-236. 

Xiang, Z. & Gretzel, U. (2010). Role of social media in online travel information search.  

Tourism Management, 31(2), 179-188. 
 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

