Article

Selection of Tourism Destination as a Business Perspectives

and Research
Representation of Human Values 3(2) 1–14
© 2015 K.J. Somaiya Institute of
Management Studies and Research
SAGE Publications
sagepub.in/home.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2278533715578554
Beena Salim Saji1 http://bpr.sagepub.com
Mohit Vij2
Sajal Kabiraj3

Abstract
Just like brands of multinational companies there can be different dimensions of brands of tourism des-
tinations too. Certain individuals travel for experiencing and discovering the challenges in the world,
while others travel due to their desire to be seen as a person who has visited some very well-known
sophisticated tourist destinations. Whereas there is a third group that likes travelling because of their
love for nature and a fourth group who would travel to see the historical destinations. The present
research is looking into human perspectives of different values assigned to different tourism destina-
tions using the human value perspective of Schwartz and Boehnke (2004) human values model. The
article develops a model for understanding consumer selection of different tourism destinations which
could be used by the tourism practitioners and governments in preparing strategies for promoting a
specific set of destinations to the right market. The Pearson correlation results show significant positive
and negative correlations between human values and destination selection.

Keywords
human values, tourism destination characteristics, destination branding

Introduction
In the recent past the global tourism industry has grown enormously. As per the latest statistics revealed
by United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) 2014 publication, the international tourist
arrivals grew by 5 percent worldwide in 2013, reaching a record 1.08 billion arrivals, after topping the 1
billion mark in 2012. International tourism receipts rose to US$1159 billion worldwide in 2013 from
US$1078 billion in 2012. However, one of the interesting findings of the same report is that the traditional
concentration of international tourist arrivals in a relatively few destinations will be further reduced and
arrivals will be spread more evenly across the globe. From 2015 onward, emerging economies will, for
the first time in history, receive more international tourist arrivals than advanced ones, receiving over one

1 
Higher College of Technology, Abu Dhabi, UAE.
2 
Skyline University College, Sharjah, UAE.
3 
International Centre for Organization & Innovation Studies (ICOIS), Dongbei Institute of Finance and Economics, Dalian, China.

Corresponding author:
Beena Salim Saji, Associate Professor, Business Abudhabi Men’s College, HCT, P.B. No. 25035 Abu Dhabi, UAE.
Email: beenasaji.s@gmail.com
2 Business Perspectives and Research 3(2)

billion arrivals by 2030 (UNWTO, 2014). As such the market share of emerging economies has increased
from 30 percent in 1980 to 47 percent in 2013, and is expected to reach 57 percent by 2030 (UNWTO,
2014). The developing countries particularly in South Asia and Africa bear a huge role to play in
developing and promoting destinations to the right set of potential tourists. Whereas a number of developed
countries have already established their brands in the minds of tourists, the developing countries are on
their way. There are many industrialized countries such as America, Italy, and France whose public image
seems so powerful, positive, and all-pervasive, one might think they hardly need to bother managing it.
These are the countries which appear synonymous with certain valuable attributes (France for chic and
quality of life, Italy for style and sexiness, and America for technology, wealth, power, youth appeal)
(Morgan, Pritchard, & Pride, 2011). Whereas amongst the developing economies, hardly any country
stands out except a handful of countries such as Brazil which is associated with the merriment of samba
dancing at carnival time, beaches, sport, adventure and so on (Mariutti, Giraldi, & Crescitelli, 2013).
Therefore, the developing countries need to create their destination brands which truly represent the
nation’s attractions and lifestyles and then market it to the potential customers who desire for visiting such
kind of places (Dinnie, 2008). A lot depends on matching the destination characteristics to the tourist’s
psychology (Crompton, 1979). Earlier studies have revealed that when consumers make destination
choices, they make lifestyle statements since they are buying not only an image but also an emotional
relationship (Sheth, Mittal, & Newman, 1999; Urdde, 1999). Consumers have their own “brand ward-
robes” from which they make selections to communicate, reflect and reinforce associations, statements
and memberships, in effect, “consumers enrobe themselves with brands, partly for what they do, but more
for what they help express about their emotions, personalities and roles” (de Chernatony, 1993, p. 178).

Need for Study

With the above background, the present article is an attempt to explore the possible association between the
human values and brand values perceived from a destination. In particular the article focuses on finding the
impact of human values in selecting a destination. The authors have tried to analyze a number of previous
researches and have proposed a model based on the discussion made. Hopefully, the article will be useful
for the tourism practitioners for preparing the tourism products, National Tourism Organizations for pro-
moting the destinations and academicians to further carry on empirical studies on the model proposed.
The article starts with presenting an elaborated background of brand values concept followed by
understanding its relevance in the process of selecting a tourism destination and eventually how does it
all affect the tourism departments or other relevant government bodies to develop and promote their
destinations. Based on the discussion made, later the authors present a conceptual framework identifying
the major human values and their choice of tourism destinations. In order to understand the validity of
the proposed model, an empirical study was conducted on a set of respondents and the results are pre-
sented in the later part of the article. The article concludes with providing implications for the destination
managers to generate an insight for matching their destination with right set of visitors which eventually
result in developing tourism which is sustainable and not short-lived.

Review of Literature
Every product has a brand image which is a set of beliefs and values associated with the product.
According to several researchers, perceived value of a product or service brand is the trade-off between
Saji, Vij and Kabiraj 3

benefits and sacrifices (McDougall & Levesque 2000; Oliver 1999; Roig, Garcia & Monzonis, 2006;
Sanchez & Iniesta, 2006; Snoj, Korda, & Mumel, 2004; Zeithaml, 1988). Brand value is usually a per-
ception about the benefits that the product or service may give in return for the price, time, effort, risk,
and convenience factors of using the same. These perceived benefits will include the psychological,
functional, emotional, and social benefits too. Torelli, Özsomer, Carvalho, Keh and Maehle (2012) in
their research view brand concepts as representation of human values. Park, Milberg, and Lawson (1991)
see brand concepts as unique abstract meanings associated with brands. These brand concepts which are
abstract are a combination of attributes, benefits, and marketing efforts used in translating these benefits
into higher order concepts (Park, Jaworski, & MacInnis, 1986; Park, Milberg, & Lawson, 1991).
According to Keller (2005), brand concepts reflect both tangible (what the brand does) and the intangible
(what consumers think about the brand). According to Monga and John (2010) brands cannot be abstract
while they convey the brand concepts to different cultures and hence in advertising it is always seen that
advertisements are molded toward the cultural aspects of a region. Globalized companies do localization
of advertising and promotions through the incorporation of concepts and ideas that are in line with the
local culture, value and priorities (de Mooij, 2010).
Further studies by Shavitt, Lee, and Torelli (2008) are of the view that that there should be a cultural
matching between the abstract brand concepts and consumers’ value priorities in order to penetrate in the
local markets. As also there are considerable differences in culture among different countries and regions
(Triandis & Michele, 1995).
Aaker (1997) tried to study the abstract brand concept as an indication of brand personality which is an
early effort to see brand concept as representations of human personality. But Aaker’s five trait dimension
about brand personality lacked generalization across culture and was viewed as characteristics of US
culture only. His brand personality concepts were sincerity, excitement, competence, ruggedness, and
sophistication. Aaker,Martinez, and Garolera (2001) introduced a new dimension in brand personality
which is peacefulness in Japan. Similarly in the case of Korea, passive likeableness emerged as a brand
concept (Yongjun & Spencer, 2005); but many of these lacked generalization across cultures.
Values, on the other hand, are desired abstract representations of end states that serve as guiding prin-
ciple for people’s lives (Schwartz, 1992b). When marketers imbue brands with human values it becomes
more meaningful to the consumers as abstract human values are turned into material reality when embod-
ied by brands (Allen, 2002; Durgee, O’Connor, & Veryzer, 1996). There have been studies demonstrating
a link between product attributes and consumer values. Approaches such as the means–end chain (Gutman,
1982), laddering (Reynolds & Gutman, 1988), activities–interests opinions (Wells & Tigert, 1971), and
the observations of values (Durgee et al., 1996) all aim to uncover and leverage the link between product
attributes and consumer values. Allen and colleague (Allen, 2002; Allen, Gupta, & Monnier, 2008) found
that Australian consumers more favorably evaluate a product such as meat (associated with the human
value of power) or a brand such as Coca-Cola (associated with the value of enjoying life) to the extent that
the values associated with those products are more (vs. less) personally important to those consumers. This
study proved that consumers buy products that match their values. Human values are universal although
the way the values are prioritized may be different (Schwartz, 2012). Hence value survey of Schwartz
(1992) has been universally accepted as a culturally acceptable tool to measure values. Human value pri-
orities are already set to explain cross cultural differences as the study is done on 60 countries. Thorough
research has been done by other researchers like Shavitt et al. (2008); Gugykunst and Ting-Toomey
(1988); Oyserman, Coon, and Markus (2002). de Mooij (2010) predicts the market level of individualism
and collectivism in their research which proves the importance of understanding culturally valuable values
while formulating brand concepts that penetrate into the market. Aaker, Vohs, and Mogilner (2010); Allen,
Gupta, and Monnier (2008) say that brands can possess human characteristics such as values and market-
ers do use these values to build their brands that satisfy and attract customers to them.
4 Business Perspectives and Research 3(2)

Based on Table 1 we may come to a hypothesis that likewise in the field of tourism, tourists may also
have different personality dispositions and they choose and are happy with tourism destinations that
satisfy their basic values.

Table 1. Definitions of 11 Values and Corresponding Higher Order Values

Higher order
type of values Value dimension Abstract goal Individual value items
Self- Power Social status, prestige, control Social power, authority, wealth
enhancement or dominance over people, and
resources
Achievement Personal success through Success, capability, ambition,
demonstrating competence influence on people and events
according to social standards
Openness stimulation Excitement, novelty, challenge in life Daring and varied challenging and
exciting life
Self-direction Independent, thought and action, Creativity, curiosity, independence
choosing, creating, exploring and choosing one’s own life goals
Self- Social concerns Understanding, appreciation, Broad mindedness, social justice
transcendence tolerance, and protection and and world of peace, equality
welfare of people and wisdom
Concern with Protection of the environment Beauty of nature, unity with nature,
nature environmental protection
Benevolence Preservation, welfare, and Helpfulness, honesty, forgiveness,
enhancement of people one whom loyalty , responsibility
one is in frequent personal contact
Conservation Tradition Respect, commitment, acceptance Respect for tradition, humbleness,
of the customs and ideas that accepting ones portion in life,
traditional culture or religion devotion and modesty
provide
Conformity Restraint of actions, inclinations Obedience, honouring parents and
and impulses likely to upset or elders, self-discipline, politeness
harm others and violate social
expectations
Security Safety, harmony, and stability of National security, family
society and self security, social order, cleanliness,
reciprocation of favours

None Hedonism Pleasure, sensuous gratification of Gratification of desires, enjoyment

oneself in life and self-indulgence

Source: Schwartz and Boehnke, 2004.

Brand Values in Context of Tourism Destinations

Every tourist destination has its own characteristics. Most of the tourists end up selecting destinations
that have characteristics that match their personal values. Hence it is important to understand more
Saji, Vij and Kabiraj 5

about different characteristics of different tourism destinations. According to (Zeithaml, 1988) the ben-
efits that a customer receives from purchasing a product would include perceived quality and other
psychological benefits. There is growing competition in the international market on various tourism
initiatives. Countries are competing against one another to attract tourists into their region (Blanke &
Chiesa, 2013). In the present scenario tourism related businesses need to understand more about con-
sumers’ needs, their purchasing intentions and subsequent behaviors. This growing competition empha-
sizes the concept of both quality and value as important factors to attract tourists. It is seen that
destination marketing organizations have recognized the importance of these two factors in revitalizing
their flagging tourism industries (Murphy, Pritchard, & Smith, 2000). According to these reserchers,
destination attractiveness depends both on perceived value and destination environments. Laws (1995)
states that tourists make comparisons between different destinations based on attributes, attractions,
and service of the destinations. The relative importance of any tourist destination may not always be
controllable, but may include several uncontrolable factors like natural environment, culture, climate,
and their general features, like entertainment and failities available (Yuksel, 2001). According to Bajs
(2011) tourists are attracted to tourism destination’s quality of services like food, accomodation, enter-
tainment, tourism infrastructure, hospitality, nature of the local residents, and finally the emotional
experience at destinations. This study very clearly points to the fact that the tourists tend to get emoti-
nally attarcted and/or attached to particular destinations. Subsequently, the present study is focused on
this important attribute of tourism by proposing that individuals are guided by what they value the most
as per their embedded human values. Hence a tourist destination providing an emotional experience
related to that particular human value will generate more interest in a specific type of tourists during
their destination selection.
There are many research studies that try to capture the importance of destination attributes in attract-
ing tourists to those places (Das, Mohapatra, Sharma, & Sarkar, 2007; Grimm & Needham, 2012;
Mishra, 2010). Destination attributes have always found significant attention in creating a brand. Janonis,
Dovaliene, and Virvilaite (2007) have defined brand identity as a concept, including brand uniqueness,
purpose, values, and individuality. It provides an opportunity for the company to achieve competitive
advantage on the basis of the unique brand identity. Florek (2005) has argued that the core brand identity
is the strength of a country brand. A proper brand identity building not only builds a competitive advan-
tage, it also affects the population of the country. Like a company, the brand identity building affects the
morale, team spirit and unity of the stakeholders. Mishra (2010), in his study of Hong Kong as a tourist
destination, tries to identify the important destination facets viz. physique, relationship, reflection, per-
sonality, culture, and self-image of Hong Kong Country Brand based on Kapferer’s Brand Identity Prism
concept. The research findings give us a clear idea that tourist destinations will have different attributes
and these attributes create perceptions of brand values attached to these destinations. Consequently a
destination can be branded based on its attributes such as an adventure location or a nature oriented loca-
tion or historic location or a highly sophisticated location as the case maybe.
Research into human values conducted by Schwartz and Boehnke (2004) points to the fact that people
have different value orientations. Human being share four higher order values and they are self-enhance-
ment (power and achievement), openness (self-direction and stimulation), self-transcendence (social
concerns, concern with nature, and benevolence), and conservation (respect for tradition, conformity,
and security) as per the study. According to Torelli et al. (2012), self-transcendence and conservation
can be considered to be part of collectivism dimension and openness and self-enhancement as part of
individualism in human beings. Their research finding points to the fact that brand concepts should reso-
nate with the consumers’ cultural orientations.
6 Business Perspectives and Research 3(2)

Conceptual Framework
In tourism, the way people decide on destinations has been considered as an important element to the
understanding of tourist behavior. Branding places or geographic locations are like branding products
and services which enables awareness among the target market segments and helps in the growth of tour-
ism in that location (Keller, 2005). The research on the field appears to mainly correspond to segmenta-
tion studies where decision-making styles and other variables emerge related to defining clusters of
tourists (Dolnicar & Grün, 2008). It is a widely accepted fact that tourism decision making is much more
complicated than that of ordinary products (Cai, Ruomei, & Breiter, 2004). Being a high involvement
process (Nicolau, 2013), it relies on the evaluation of a number of information sources such as newspa-
per, magazines, TV, Internet, and friends/relatives. However, the decision making process itself stems
from the human values and affects the various stages of the process.

Figure 1. Human Values and Choice of Location Model

Source: Authors.

The proposed model as given in Figure 1 is an illustration of the possible association between human
values and destination brand values. Four human values have been identified: self-transcendence,
openness, self-enhancement, and conservation. For instance, a destination which is purely natural and
spiritually serene is likely to be chosen by a tourist who has high values of self-transcendence. Similarly,
Saji, Vij and Kabiraj 7

activity destination like New York or Hong Kong will be chosen for the power of the location, the
achievements that the city has made may be chosen to satisfy the tourist’s self-enhancement value.
Finally, destinations like Egypt where a tourist is interested in seeing the culture and civilization is
guided by conservation values. A volunteer tourist going on a social mission, to help in a project in wild
life conservation in Africa or to help people get drinking water in water scarce areas are going to satisfy
their high-end conservation values. The assumptions stand on two major researches conducted in the
past. Research done by Phukan (2012) focuses on the importance of values on destinations that a tourist
selects. According to Phukan (2012), Uttarakhand in India markets spiritual tourism due to its religious
diversity and heritage and spiritual activities like Yoga, meditation, etc. This is a good case study to
understand that individuals who are motivated by spiritual values would choose such destinations more
than tourist who would want adventure. Phukan (2012) clearly points to the spiritual value of the
destination (e.g., Uttarakhand) associated with spiritual, religious traditions and symbols like river
Ganga, for Indians. Grimm and Needham (2012) have conducted a research on why volunteer tourists
select foreign locations to volunteer and what destination attributes and associated organization attributes,
attract them to that destination. The research was done on volunteer tourists, managers, and coordinators
of an Ecuadorian conservation project and it was found that one of the reasons was the altruistic values
in certain tourists that plays an influencing role while selection of the project and destination.

The Need for Study/Broad Objective of the Study

In context of the above background the present article is an attempt to explore the possible association
between the human values predominant within the tourist and perceived brand image of a tourist destina-
tion. In particular the article focuses on finding the impact of human values in selecting a destination. The
authors have tried to analyze a number of previous researches and have proposed a model based on the
discussions made. The article intends to present a conceptual framework based on an empirical analysis,
which can be used as a foundation to further initiate a variety of empirical studies. The model could be
used as a critical tool in understanding and building on the strengths of a destination and identifying the
right set of tourists who would be interested in visiting that destination. Hopefully, the article will be useful
for the tourism practitioners for preparing the tourism products, National Tourism Organizations for pro-
moting the destinations and academicians to further carry on empirical studies on the model proposed.

Methodology
The study did a pilot analysis on the relationship between values and destination preferences. The sam-
ple size for the study was 86 students, selected from the university. The students were between 19 years
and 30 years of age and were pursuing business management programs (BBA and MBA, respectively).
Questionnaire and pictures were used for data collection. Hence, it is a mix of questionnaire and actual
experiential data collection method.
A questionnaire of 35 items was made to measure the human value perception of the respondents. The
items in the questionnaire had four components:
1. Self-transcendence
2. Conservation
3. Openness
4. Self-enhancement
8 Business Perspectives and Research 3(2)

Questionnaire was formulated based on the work of Schwartz, and Boehnke (2004). Cronbach alpha
reliability test and Guttman split-half reliability analysis were used to test the reliability of the test items.
An empirical analysis was done to analyze the correlation between human values and destination
selection intention. A semi-experimental method was used whereby the students after completing the
35-item questionnaire of human values were asked to select destination pictures from five slides, which
were shown one after the other. Each slide had four pictures—showing nature, conservation, adventure,
and meditation and transient places. Pictures were selected after giving the same to expert academicians
in tourism and tourism professionals and getting a consensus through grouping them into the four
different categories chosen for the study. The students were asked to rank each picture based on their
order of preference as A, B, C, D. Where A is most preferable, B second most, C is third most, and D is
the last choice of destination that they would like to go. Pearson correlation was done between the scores
of the questionnaire components and preference of destination given from exhibits.

Hypothesis
There will be positive and significant relationship between self-transcendence, conservation, openness,
and self-enhancement responses and the destination selection of the respondents.
Null hypotheses
1. There is no relationship between selection of self-transcendence destinations and self-transcen-
dence human values.
2. There is no relationship between selection of conservation destinations and conservation human
values.
3. There is no relationship between selection of openness to new experiences based destination and
openness of human value.
4. There is no relationship between selection of self-enhancement destinations and self-enhance-
ment value.

Findings and Analysis

Cronbach’s Alpha was carried out to test the reliability of the test items. Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient
of reliability was found to be 0.768 on 35 items which suggests a high reliability of the test. Details of
Cronbach’s alpha are given in Table 2.

Table 2. Reliability Statistics

Cronbach’s alpha based on

No. of items
Cronbach’s alpha standardized items
0.709 0.768 35

Source: Authors.

Guttman split half reliability was deployed to test the reliability of the test. Reliability refers to the
consistency and stability in the results of a test or scale. A test is said to be reliable if it yields similar
results in repeated administrations when the attribute being measured is believed not to have changed in
Saji, Vij and Kabiraj 9

the interval between measurements even though the test may be administered by different people and
alternative forms of the test are used. But in cases where only one test is administered one time to a group
the use of split half reliability is done to determine reliability of the test. In this case the Guttman split
half reliability for the test is 0.667.

Correlation Results
Destination selection of respondents was correlated with the human values questionnaire responses to
observe the significant relationship that exists between the different variables viz. self-transcendence
destinations, conservation destination, openness/adventurous destinations and self-enhancement or
achievement oriented destinations. It was found that the selection of destinations is significantly corre-
lated with human values of transcendence, conservation, openness and self -enhancement.
The results (Table 3) showed similar findings as suggested in the hypothesis that selection of different
types of destination is associated with the human values of the respondents. There was a high correlation
value of self-transcendence destination selection and human values of self-transcendence which was
positive and significant based on Pearson Two tailed correlation (r = 0.323, p ≤ 0.01 significance level,
with reference to Table 3. The other significant and positive result was the relationship between selection
of destination considered under openness variable and openness human values, which was r = 0.451, p ≤
0.01. However, there was no significant correlation between selection of destinations under conservation
as well as self enhancement variables and the corresponding human values (conservation values and self
enhancement values).
At the same time some significant negative correlations (Table 4) were found in the results of Pearson
correlation analysis. There was significant and negative correlation of destination selection self-tran-
scendence and destination selection openness (r = -.373, p ≤ 0.01) and destination selection self enhance-
ment (r = -.478, p ≤ 0.01). This demonstrated the fact that respondents who selected self-transcendence,
nature destinations would not necessarily prefer adventurous destinations like mountaineering, skiing
and so on and self enhancement / achievement oriented and materialistic would not necessarily prefer
destinations like metropolitan cities.
Conservation destination lovers will not select destinations assumed under openness and self enhance-
ment variables, which is proved by the negative and significant results of correlation with values of r =
-0.449, p ≤ 0.0 and r = -0.405, p ≤ 0.01, respectively. There is a negative correlation between openness
destination selection and self-transcendence too which is significant (r = -0.373, p ≤ 0.01). This show
that travelers who choose openness related destinations would not prefer any other destination and the
negative and significant correlation results highlight the relationship which is negative between open-
ness and other human values clearly here (Table 3 ).
Another interesting correlation was between the scores of variable under self enhancement destination
and that of self-transcendence which is significant and negative (r = -0.478, p ≤ 0.01). Similarly, negative
and significant correlation was observed between variables under self enhancement and openness/
adventurous destination (r = -0.391, p ≤ 0.01) as well as with variable under conservation destination (r
= -0.405, p ≤ 0.01) (Table 3). This shows the mutual exclusiveness in selection of or choice of destinations
when people are oriented towards one type of tourism destination.
The results clearly demonstrated that human values do have a significant relationship in destination
selection. For instance there was low probability for people having the characteristic “openness to new
experiences” to select any other destination other than that which offers such an experience. Also, conser-
vation destination seekers had little chance of selecting openness or self-enhancement destinations. On the
10 Business Perspectives and Research 3(2)

contrary, there existed a relationship between conservation and self-transcendence which suggested that
these destinations were likely to be swapped by tourists having any of these as dominant human value.

Table 3. Pearson Correlation Results

Cons Open
EXSELFTRA EXCONS EXOPEN EXSELFEN ST total total total SE total
EXSELFTRA Pearson
1 0.195 −0.373** −0.478** 0.323** 0.168 −0.073 0.102
Correlation
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.072 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.122 0.505 0.352
N 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
EXCONS Pearson
0.195 1 −0.449** −0.405** −0.061 −0.191 −0.319** 0.270*
Correlation
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.072 0.000 0.000 0.578 0.079 0.003 0.012
N 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
EXOPEN Pearson
−0.373** −0.449** 1 −0.391** −0.176 −0.037 0.451** −0.188
Correlation
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.104 0.732 0.000 0.083
N 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
EXSELFEN Pearson
−0.478** −0.405** −0.391** 1 −0.014 0.052 −0.162 −0.079
Correlation
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.901 0.634 0.137 0.472
N 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
ST total Pearson
0.323 **
−0.061 −0.176 −0.014 1 0.536** 0.170 0.455**
Correlation
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.002 0.578 0.104 0.901 0.000 0.118 0.000
N 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
Cons total Pearson
0.168 −0.191 −0.037 0.052 0.536** 1 0.233* 0.422**
Correlation
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.122 0.079 0.732 0.634 0.000 0.031 0.000
N 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
Open total Pearson
−0.073 −0.319** 0.451** −0.162 0.170 0.233* 1 0.134
Correlation
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.505 0.003 0.000 0.137 0.118 0.031 0.218
N 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
SE total Pearson
0.102 0.270* −0.188 −0.079 0.455** 0.422** 0.134 1
Correlation
Sig. (two-tailed) 0.352 0.012 0.083 0.472 0.000 0.000 0.218
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
Source: Authors.

The study hence clearly adds value to the existing knowledge by proving the relationship between
human values and destination selection to some extent. It will be interesting to do further research using
variables like age, gender, nationality and religious orientations to understand what are the predictors
that are likely to affect destination selections of tourists. More comprehensive study with larger sample
Saji, Vij and Kabiraj 11

from diverse countries can ensure the strength of relationship that has been identified in this study much
more objectively and with strong scientific rigor.

Summary and Conclusion

There are many studies which have looked into destination brand values and culture and established
strong evidence that destination personality affects tourist buying behaviors. Brand personality is a con-
sumer construct that appeals to researchers (Aaker, 1997; Gardner & Ley, 1955) and to the practitioners
as well (Plummer, 1985), especially as its importance has become more apparent (Hosany, Ekinci, &
Uysal, 2007). Values are desired abstract representations of end states that serve as guiding principle for
people’s lives (Schwartz, 1992a). When marketers imbue brands with human values it becomes more
meaningful to the consumers as abstract human values are turned into material reality when embodied
by brands (Allen, 2002; Durgee et al., 1996). The contribution of the present study model is to an extent
different from the previous studies as it attempted to establish a linkage between human values of the
customer and its influence on making destination choices. The study agreed with the concepts presented
in earlier studies that destinations have their own unique culture and values and the same should not be
ignored during destination branding by marketers. The values of self-enhancement and openness were
considered to be more individualistic by nature and values of conservation and self-transcendence were
considered to be more collectivistic. Hence the above conceptual arguments are set to connect these
important concepts of culture, human values, destination attributes, and values in developing a model for
tourism destination selection process.
The present research thus highlighted concepts of human values, culture,and destination characteris-
tics or brand values with the model based on these important values which drive tourism destination
choices. Rather than viewing destination branding just from a perspective of destination characteristics,
the research pointed to develop a more conceptual insight in merging destination characteristics with
human higher order values and culture. There should be more seriousness/emphasis in understanding the
tourist values as well as destination values and culture before developing a brand for a destination.
Selection of a tourism destination by a tourist thus could be more a match between their values and the
destination characteristics. Hence it is appropriate to understand and brand a tourist destination on the
basis of its core community and cultural values to develop a model of sustainable tourism for all the
stakeholders involved, namely, the visitors, the local community, the government, and other tourism-
related economy activists. Keeping any one of these stakeholders away from the branding process may
not create an ideal model for developing any region or country as a prominent tourism destination.

Managerial Implications
The study proved the relationship between human values and destination selection of individuals. This
finding is considered interesting for marketing managers and tourism organizations while targeting
tourists for different destinations. Managers could utilize this know-how while presenting different
options to the travel seekers. With the advent of many marketing research technologies, it would be
easier to tap consumer values regarding their basic orientations, like self-transcendence, self enhancement,
conservation, or openness. Based on this knowledge, the mangers would be able to guide the tourists to
different experiential destinations related to their basic human values. Another widely used technique to
attract tourists to a destination is by developing all the four human-value-related characteristics in the
12 Business Perspectives and Research 3(2)

destination through guided tours that have all the components, which might satisfy different individuals
in the same group—say a family or group of friends. It would also be important to look into diverse
human values of the group. The tourism manager could identify ways through gaps between the human
values and destination attributes be reduced by arranging participatory activities or visit to some nearby
attractions filling up those gaps. The results also implied that it is imperative for the tour operators to
train their teams to understand the basic requirement of specific group of tourists while planning and
conducting tours for them. Although different counties or destinations highlight one typical core
characteristic of the destination while building their brand image, attracting variety of tourists in relation
to their human values through an assimilation of different brand characteristics, remains a rewarding
puzzle to be solved.

Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Future Research

The research on this model needs to be continued conceptually and empirically. Future researchers
should test the validity of this model in an empirical manner on a larger population to prove the relation-
ships highlighted in the model. The model proposes a relationship between different human values and
respective destination choices. Conceptual expansion of the model requires an in-depth analysis of other
human factors that may affect destination selection. Since tourists do not travel alone and the decision
for tourism location is made together as family in many cases, it will be interesting to look into the
dynamic interplay of different demographic and cultural differences in consumer values that may affect
destination selection. The present research is conducted only on a small group of 86 college-going adult
population. If it is carried out on more heterogeneous population interesting results and findings may
emerge. Future researchers can focus on collectivism and individualism cultural dimensions and connect
it with the destination attributes.

References
Aaker, J.L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347–356.
Aaker, J.L., Martinez, B. &Garolera, V. (2001). Consumption symbols as carriers of culture: A study of Japanese and
spanish brand personality constructs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(3), 492–508.
Aaker, J.L., Vohs, K.D., & Mogilner, C. (2010). Non profits are seen as warm and for profits are seen as competent:
Firm stereotypes matter. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 224–237.
Allen, M.W. (2002). Human values and product symbolism: Do consumers form product preference by comparing
the human values symbolized by a product to human values that they endorse? Journal of Applied Social
Psycholgy, 32(12), 2475–2501.
Allen, M.W., Gupta, R., & Monnier, A. (2008). The interactive effect of cultural symbols and human values on taste
evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(2), 294–308.
Bajs, I. P. (2011). Attributes of tourist destination as determinants of tourist perceived value. International Journal
of Management Cases, 13(3), 547–554. ISSN: 17416264.
Blanke, J., & Chiesa, T. (2013). The Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report 2013 Reducing Barriers to
economic growth and job creation. World Economic Forum ISBN-13: 978-92-95044-40-1.
Cai, L.A., Ruomei, F., & Breiter, D. (2004). Tourist purchase decision involvement and information preferences.
Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(2), 138–148.
Carlos, J.T., Ozsomer, A., Carvalho, S., Keh, H.T., & Maehle, N. (2008). A measure of brand values: Cross-cultural
implications for brand preferences, acr 2008 symposium proposal on new perspectives in global branding: A
session overview. Retrieved from www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/v36/502876_102853_v1.doc
Crompton, J. (1979). Motivations of pleasure vacations. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(4), 408–424.
Saji, Vij and Kabiraj 13

Das, D., Mohapatra, P.K.J., Sharma, S.K., & Sarkar, A. (2007). Factors influencing the attractiveness of a tourist
destination. Journal of Services Research, 7(1), 103–134.
Dolnicar, S. & Grün, B. (2008). Challenging “factor-cluster segmentation. Journal Of Travel Research, 47(1),
63–71. Retreived April 9, 2015, from Business Source Elite, Ipswich, MA.
de Chernatony, L. (1993). Categorising brands: Evolutionary processes underpinned by two key dimensions. Journal
of Marketing Management, 9(2), 173–188.
de Mooij, M. (2010). Global marketing and advertising: Understanding cultural paradoxes. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Dinnie, K. (2008). Nation branding: Concepts, issues, practice. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Durgee, Jeffrey F., O’Connor, Gina C., & Veryzer, Robert W. (1996). Observations: Translating values into product
wants. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(6), 90–102.
Florek, Magdalena (2005). The country brand as a new challenge for Poland. Place Branding, 1(2), 205–214.
Gardner, B.B., & Ley, S.J. (1955). The product and the brand. Harvard Business Review, (33)–39.
Grimm, K.E., & Needham, M.D. (2012). Moving beyond the “I” in motivation: Attributes and perception of
conservation volunteer tourists. Journal of Travel research, 51(4), 488–501.
Gugykunst, W.B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Culture and interpersonal communication. Newbury Park, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Gutman, Jonathan (1982). A means–end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. Journal of
Marketing, 46(Spring), 60–72.
Hosany, S., Ekinci, Y., & Uysal, M. (2007). Destination image and destination personality. International Journal of
Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 1(1), 62–68.
Janonis, Vytautas, Dovaliene, Aiste, & Virvilaite, Regina (2007). Relationship of brand identity and image.
Engineering Economics, 1(51), 69–79.
Keller, K.L. (2005). Strategic brand management: Building measuring and managing brand equity (2nd ed.). New
York: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Laws, E. (1995). Tourist destination management: Issues, analysis and policies. London: Routledge.
Nicolau, J.L. (2013). Direct versus indirect channels: Differentiated loss aversion in a high-involvement,
non-frequently purchased hedonic product. European Journal of Marketing, 47(1/2), 260–278.
doi:10.1108/03090561311285547
Mariutti, F.G., Giraldi, M.E., & Crescitelli, E. (2013). The image of Brazil as a tourism destination: An exploratory
study of the American market. International Journal of Business Administration, 4(1), 3–16.
Monga, A.B., & John, D.R. (2010). What makes brands elastic? The influence of brand concepts and styles of
thinking on brand extension evaluation. Journal of Marketing, 74, 80–92.
Morgan, N., Pritchard, A., & Pride, R. (2011). Tourism places, brands and reputation management. In N. Morgan,
A. Pritchard & R. Pride (Eds), Destination brands: Managing place reputation (3rd ed., pp. 3–19). Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Murphy, P., Pritchard, M.P., & Smith, B. (2000). The destination product and its impact on traveller perceptions.
Tourism Management, 21, 43–52.
McDougall, G., & Levesque, T. (2000). Customer satisfaction with services: Putting perceived value into equation.
Journal of Services Marketing, 14(5), 392–410.
Mishra, A.S. (2010). Destination branding: A case study of Hong Kong. IUP Journal of Brand Management, 7(3),
49–60.
Oliver, R.L. (1999). Value as excellence in consumption experience. In M.B.U. Holbrook (Ed.), Consumer value: A
framework for analysis and research. London: Routledge.
Oyserman, D.H., Coon, H.M., & Markus, K. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism. Personality and
Social psychology Bulletin, 128(1), 3–72.
Park, C.W., Jaworski, B.J., & MacInnis, D.J. (1986). Strategic brand concept: Image management. Jopurnal of
Marketing, 50(October), 135–145.
Park, C., Milberg, S.J., & Lawson, R. (1991). Evaluation of brand extensions: The role of product level similarity
and brand concept consiustency. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(October), 185–193.
14 Business Perspectives and Research 3(2)

Phukan, H. (2012). Case study: Uttarakhand as a spiritual tourist destination: An emerging research. Advances in
Management, 5(5), 42–48.
Plummer, J.T. (1985). How personality makes a difference. Journal of Advertising Research, 24(6), 27–31.
Reynolds, Thomas J., & Gutman, Jonathan (1988). Laddering, theory, method, analysis, and interpretation. Journal
of Advertising Research, 28(1), 11–31.
Roig, J. C. F., Garcia, J. S., Tena, M. A. M., & Monzonis, J. L. (2006). Customer perceived value in banking
services. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 24(5), 266–283.
Sánchez, Fernández, R., & Iniesta, Bonillo, M. A. (2006). Consumer Perception of Value: Literature Review and
a New Conceptual Framework. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior,
19, 40–58.
Schwartz, S.H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and
Culture, 2(1), 321–328. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116
Schwartz, S.H. (1992a). Universal in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests
in 20 countries. In P.Z. Mark (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (1–65). San Diego: Academic
Press.
Schwartz, S.H. (1992b). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries.
In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). New York: Academic Press.
Schwartz, S.H., & Boehnke, K. (2004). Evaluating the structure of human values with confirmatory factor analysis.
Journal of Research in Personality, 38(3), 230–255.
Shavitt, S., Lee, A.Y., & Torelli, C.J. (2008). Cross cultural issues in consumer behavior. In Michaela Wanke (Ed.),
Social psychology of consumer behavior (pp. 227–250). New York: Psychology Press.
Shavitt, S., Lee, A., & Johnson, T.P. (2008). Cross-cultural consumer psychology. In Handbook of consumer
psychology (pp. 1103–1131).
Sheth, J.N., Mittal, B., & Newman, B.I. (1999). Customer behavior: Consumer behavior and beyond. Fort Worth.
TX: Dryden.
Snoj, Boris, Korda, Aleksandra Pisnik, & Mumel, Damijan (2004). The relationships among perceived quality,
perceived risk and perceived product value. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 13(3), 156–167.

Torelli, C.J., Ozsomer, A., Carvalho, W.S., & Hean, T.K. (2012). Brand concepts as representaions of human values:
Do cultural congruity and compatability between values matter. Journal of Marketing, 76, 92–108.
Triandis, H.C., & Michele, J.G. (1995). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and
collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 118–128.
UNWTO. (2014). UNWTO tourism highlights 2014 edition. Retrieved 3 November 2014, from http://dtxtq4w60xqpw.
cloudfront.net/sites/all/files/pdf/unwto_highlights14_en_hr_0.pdf
Urdde, M. (1999). Brand orientation: A mindset for building brands into strategic resources. Journal of Marketing
Management, 15(1–3), 117–133.
Wells, William D., & Tigert, Douglas J. (1971). Activities, interestsand opinions. Journal of Advertising Research,
11(4), 27–35.
Yongjun, S., & Spencer, F.T. (2005). Brand personality structuresin United States and Korea: Common and culture
specific factors. Journal of consumer Psychology, 15(4), 334–350.
Yuksel, A. (2001). Managing customer satisfaction and retention: A case of tourist destinations, Turkey. Journal of
Vacation Marketing, 7(2), 153–168.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: A means-end model and synthesis of
evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.