Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 1 (2012) 118–123

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Destination Marketing & Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jdmm

Research Paper

Relationship between self-congruity and destination loyalty: Differences

between first-time and repeat visitors
Chyong-Ru Liu a,1, Wei-Rong Lin b,n, Yao-Chin Wang c,1
a
Graduate Institute of Environment, Recreation and Tourism, National Changhua University of Education, 1 JinDe Road, Changhua City 500, Taiwan, ROC
b
Graduate Institute of Recreation, Tourism and Hospitality Management, National Chiayi University, No. 580, Sinmin Road, Chiayi City 60054, Taiwan, ROC
c
Graduate Institute of Human Resource Management, National Changhua University of Education, 1 JinDe Road, Changhua City 500, Taiwan, ROC

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study examines the relationship between self-congruity and destination loyalty with satisfaction
Received 29 January 2012 as the control variable. Visit experiences of first-time and repeat visitors were utilized as a moderator
Received in revised form variable to explore differences in the main effect. The study collected 326 usable responses by sampling
21 May 2012
visitors to the Yilan Shangrila Recreation Farm, Taiwan. Empirical results reveal that when controlling
Accepted 27 May 2012
for the positive effect of satisfaction on destination loyalty, self-congruity was positively related to
Available online 25 October 2012
destination loyalty. First-time visitors were found to depend more on self-congruity than repeat visitors
Keywords: in forming destination loyalty. Some aspects of destination loyalty were found to be significantly
Self-congruity stronger for repeat visitors than first-time visitors. The implications of these findings and suggested
Destination loyalty
future research directions are discussed.
Moderating effect
& 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Recreation farm

1. Introduction their social distance from a destination. Customers tend to avoid

Gitelson and Crompton (1984) notes that numerous attrac-
tions and destination areas, such as beaches or resorts, are heavily
reliant on repeat visitation. Petrick (2004) finds that loyal visitors
were more likely to return in the future, spread positive word of
mouth, and hence offer a lower risk and more profitable target
market. Thus, many destinations have adopted a business strat-
egy focused on encouraging tourists to become repeat visitors
(Lehto, O’Leary, & Morrison, 2004). For these reasons, this study
aims to ascertain the antecedents of destination loyalty.
Recent years have seen considerable interest in exploring the
relationship between self-congruity and loyalty Sirgy & Su, 2000;
Kressmann et al., 2006; Beerli, Meneses, & Gil, 2007; Sirgy, Lee,
Johar, & Tidwell, 2008. Self-congruity denotes the degree of
congruence between destination visitor image and tourist self-
image (Sirgy & Su, 2000). The relationship between self-congruity
and destination loyalty is based on the theory of social distance.
Social distance indicates the willingness of an individual to
participate in social relationships, with by varying degrees of
closeness, with members of various social groups (Bogardus,
1929). Evaluation of self-congruity helps people to determine
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ886 5 2732931; fax: þ886 5 2732923.
E-mail addresses: crliu@cc.ncue.edu.tw (C.-R. Liu),
s0971241@mail.ncyu.edu.tw (W.-R. Lin),
ilikewriting302@yahoo.com.tw (Y.-C. Wang).
1
Tel.: þ886 4 7232105x2830; fax: þ886 4 7211186.
products or services they perceive as socially distant (Dickson &
MacLachlan, 1990). Accordingly, high self-congruity between self-
image and a destination strengthens loyalty towards that
destination.
Nevertheless, some studies found that self-congruity exerts
unstable effects on consumer behavior. Kressmann et al. (2006)
found that product involvement moderates the influence of self-
congruity on brand loyalty. Sirgy et al. (2008) also noted that
involvement and awareness can moderate the effects of self-
congruity on brand loyalty. Furthermore, numerous questions
regarding the unstable relationship between self-congruity and
destination loyalty remain unanswered. Beerli et al. (2007) found
that self-congruity loses the power to determine destination
choice for visitors who have previously visited a place. Moreover,
since loyal visitors have consistently been identified as an
important market segment, little is known regarding differences
between first-time visitors and repeat visitors (Opperman, 2000).
In attempting to explain the inconsistent relationship between
self-congruity and destination loyalty, this study treats visit
experiences as a moderator variable to investigate differences
between first-time and repeat visitors.
Li, Cheng, Kim and Petrick (2008, p. 279) stated that ‘‘relaxa-
tion and familiarity were identified as the most distinctive
motivations for repeat tourists, while novelty and new cultural
experiences were the most crucial motivations for first-timers’’.
Moreover, Li et al. (2008, p. 280) noted that ‘‘in terms of intended
activities, most findings indicate that repeat visitors prefer social

2212-571X/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2012.05.002
 C.-R. Liu et al. / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 1 (2012) 118–123
activities, such as shopping, dining, and visiting friends and rela-
tives, while first-time visitors enjoy visiting major-iconic attractions
that may help satisfy novelty seeking motivations’’. Thus, owing to
their accumulated travel experiences and differing motivations,
repeat visitors may be less influenced by self-congruity than first-
time visitors in evaluating their destination loyalty.
This study focuses on recreational farms and samples on-site
visitors as participants. Recreational farms are a high-growth
market within the Taiwanese tourism industry (Chang, 2003).
Responses from on-site visitors can help farm managers identify
ways to retain customers. However, without knowing the differ-
ences between first-time and repeat visitors, it is difficult for
planners to provide the most appropriate offerings, such as
activities and attractions, and for marketers to package and
position the destination to appeal most effectively to repeat
visitors (Lehto et al., 2004). This study has two main goals. The
first is to examine the relationship between self-congruity and
destination loyalty, while controlling for the effect of satisfaction
on destination loyalty. The second is to explore the moderating
effects of visit experiences on the relationship between self-
congruity and destination loyalty.
2. Literature review
2.1. Definition of self-congruity
Schenk and Holman (1980) define self-image as how a person
hopes others see them. A person’s self-image comprises their
actual, ideal and social selves (Sirgy, 1985); moreover, people are
likely to buy products that are consistent with their actual or ideal
self-image (Bao, Bao & Sheng, 2010; Litvin & Goh, 2002; Sirgy,
1985). Self-congruity denotes the match between destination
image and tourist self-image (Sirgy & Su, 2000). Sirgy (1985)
add that the congruence between self-image and product image
can boost a customer’s positive attitude and behavior towards a
product, influencing product preferences and purchase intentions.
As Litvin and Goh (2002) observe both favorable customer
attitudes towards a product and purchase likelihood increase
with self-congruity. Kastenholz (2004) also concludes that loyal
tourists display feelings of identification with a destination.
Based on the integrated model of self-congruity and functional
congruity proposed by Sirgy and Su (2000), degrees of self-
congruity result partly from the assessment of destination image.
The stronger the destination image, the more likely it is that
consumers will be able to perceive information critical to evalu-
ating their self-congruity. Restated, self-congruity increases and
decreases with degree of match between destination image and
self-image (Sirgy & Su, 2000; Kastenholz, 2004).
2.2. The relationship between self-congruity and destination loyalty
Social distance can be applied to explain the relationship
between self-congruity and destination loyalty. Park (1924:339)
defines social distance as ‘‘the grades and degrees of understanding
and intimacy which characterize personal and social relations
generally’’. In the absence of familiarity, prejudices and stereotypes
increase social distance and reduce the likelihood of subsequent
tourist revisits (Tasci, 2009). Furthermore, Nyaupane, Teye and Paris
(2008) have found that social distance significantly influences
attitude formation before a trip. Accordingly, this paper hypothe-
sizes that a shorter social distance created by increased self-
congruity can promote tourist loyalty towards a recreational farm.
Numerous publications indicate a renewed interest in the
relationship between self-congruity and destination loyalty.
Kressmann et al. (2006) notes that self-congruity is crucial in
119
predicting brand loyalty. Furthermore, Goh and Litvin (2000) and
Litvin and Goh (2002) find that self-congruity can effectively
predict destination choice. Additionally, Helgeson and Supphellen
(2004) demonstrates that self-congruity independently affects
brand attitude. Sirgy and Su (2000) also observe that self-
congruity denotes a match between destination image and the
tourist’s self-conception; and that a closer match increases the
likelihood of tourists visiting the destination. Thus, the present
paper hypothesizes the following:
H1. Self-congruity is positively related to destination loyalty.
2.3. Differences between first-time and repeat visitors
Gitelson and Crompton (1984) found that first-time visitors
are more likely to be seeking variety and new cultural experi-
ences. A study of tourists to New Zealand conducted by
Oppermann (1997) demonstrates that first-time visitors tend to
spend more money, but stay a shorter time than repeat visitors.
Additionally, first-time visitors tend to explore the destination
extensively while repeat visitors explore more intensively, visit-
ing fewer places but spending more time at each place. Further-
more, first-time visitors appear to be active travel planners who
begin collecting information much earlier than do repeat visitors
(Li et al., 2008). First-time visitors also rely more on advice from
their friends, family, and travel professionals in making travel
decisions (Li et al., 2008). Moreover the pre-trip expectations
of first-timers are based entirely on external information
(Assael, 2004).
Lehto et al. (2004) note that repeat vacations differ from
regular product repurchases because previous trip experiences
can never be duplicated exactly. Furthermore, a more complex
and differentiated image of a destination area develops after
visitors have spent some time there (Fakeye & Crompton, 1991).
Wang (2004) shows that repeat visitors from mainland China to
Hong Kong are likely to stay longer, engage in fewer activities,
and be more involved in local life-related activities than first-time
visitors. Additionally, in making travel decisions, repeat visitors
appear to rely more on their own experiences than on other
information sources, and hence spend much less time on planning
(Li et al., 2008).
2.4. Visit experiences as moderator
In terms of the relationship between self-congruity and desti-
nation loyalty, Beerli et al. (2007) find that self-congruity loses its
power to determine destination choice once visitors have visited a
place. Repeat visitors, owing to their previous experiences of the
destination, tend to have more realistic expectations, while first-
timers may be misled by destination promotions (Fluker &
Turner, 2000; Li et al., 2008). Therefore, less experienced partici-
pants are more easily persuaded by nonmessage cues, and more
experienced participants are more easily persuaded by message
content (Sirgy & Su, 2000). That is, experienced tourists may focus
on utilitarian criteria when evaluating destinations, whereas
inexperienced tourists may focus on holistic, image-based cues,
such as self-congruity (Johar & Sirgy, 1991; Sirgy & Su, 2000).
This study hypothesizes that visit experiences moderate the
relationship between self-congruity and destination loyalty. As
visitor experiences accumulate and motivations change, tourists
consider other factors in deciding whether to visit a destination
rather than simply relying on self-congruity. Factors that stimu-
late loyalty may be the difference between first-time visitors and
repeat visitors. To summarize, visit experiences moderate the
effect of self-congruity on destination loyalty. First-time visitors
consider more factors related to self-congruity in deciding
120 C.-R. Liu et al. / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 1 (2012) 118–123

destination loyalty than do repeat visitors. Given the above, the
paper hypothesizes the following:
H2. Visit experiences moderate the relationship between self-
congruity and destination loyalty. Specifically, the positive effects
of self-congruity on destination loyalty are stronger for first-time
visitors than for repeat visitors.
3. Method
3.1. Sample and data collection
According to statistical data from Taiwan’s Council of
Agriculture (2011), Taiwanese recreation farms attracted over
12 million visitors and contributed US$220 million in economic
gain in 2010. In 2010, over 140,000 foreign tourists visited
Taiwanese farms, creating over US$14 million in economic gain.
Since Taiwan is home to about 23 million people, annual visitor
rates for recreation farms indicate that recreation farms have
become an important sector of Taiwan’s tourism industry. In
recent years, Taiwan’s Council of Agriculture has actively explored
global markets for Taiwanese recreation farms and adopted
southeast Asia, Hong Kong, and Muslim countries as target
markets.
This study selects the Shangri-La Recreation Farm, Yilan, Taiwan,
as its research setting, as this is one of Taiwan’s largest recreation
farms, hosting international visitors. This recreation farm provides
such activities as picking fruit, launching paper lanterns, making rice
balls, observing nature, and experiencing traditional farming culture.
The Shangri-La Recreation Farm also offers theme packages for
visitors to experience seasonal beauty.
A convenience sampling method was employed, since this method
was the most effective to collect the data required to examine
the theoretical relationships (Alexandris, Funk, & Pritchard, 2011).
However, the sampling method adopted in this study nor the places
chosen for collecting the data, it must be recognized that neither
cannot assure representation of all vistiors using the recreation farm.
As such, any interpretation of the results should be made with
extreme care. Self-administered questionnaires were distributed to
visitors at the farm entrance. Data was collected over 12 weeks from
February to April 2010. Two days each week were randomly selected
for sampling, with one of them being a holiday. The procedure
resulted in interviewing 350 visitors. Twenty-four invalid question-
naires were excluded resulting in 326 usable responses.
The sample comprised slightly more female respondents (58.9%)
than males. Respondents’ ages ranged from 18 to 65 years old, with
a mean of 39.9 years old. Most respondents (55.5%) were from
Northern Taiwan, and approximately 63.8% held a university degree.
Regarding respondents’ income, the largest group of respondents
(35.9%) fell into the (USD) $600–$1300 per month income bracket.
About half of the respondents (50.9%) were visiting the Yilan
Shangrila Recreation farm for the first time in the past three years.
Furthermore, over half of the respondents (58.3%) were traveling
with friends, and 35.0% were traveling with family and/or relatives.
Finally, 44.8% of the respondents were on trips lasting one day,
while 42.9% were on trips lasting two days.
3.2. Measurement
The study constructs were operationalized using items from
previous empirical studies. The following information provides
details of the scales used for measurements, including the
independent, dependent and control variables used in the analy-
tical model. All items were measured using a five-point Likert
scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The
construct of self-congruity was derived from previous research by
Sirgy and Su (2000), and Helgeson and Supphellen (2004). Four
items were used to measure self-congruity. The measurement of
destination loyalty was achieved by adapting the scales devel-
oped by Baker and Crompton (2000) and Taylor (1998). As such,
destination loyalty was measured by evaluating participants’
behavior intention rather than their actual behavior. Measures
of loyalty included intention to revisit, saying positive things,
recommending the destination to others, and willingness to pay
more. Satisfaction, a control variable in this study, was measured
by two items noted by Jang and Feng (2007). The first was overall
satisfaction with the destination and the second was the per-
ceived value in visiting the destination.
The survey instrument was prepared in English and then back-
translated into Chinese (Parameswaran & Yaprak, 1987). It was
then tested using a pilot sample of 60 visitors. The visitors in the
pilot sample had no difficulty understanding the survey ques-
tions, and thus no compelling reason existed to change the survey
instrument. Additionally, the questionnaire items were revised by
several top managers of recreation farms to ensure the measure-
ment was realistic.
4. Results
4.1. Measurement reliability and validity analysis
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to assess
overall measurement reliability and validity. Table 1 shows the
details of the measurement properties. The results indicated
acceptable psychometric properties (Bentler & Wu, 1993).

Table 1
Measurement model analysis result.

Constructs Items Mean Normality Standardized CR AVE

(S.D.) (W; K) loadings

Self-congruity Recreation farm is consistent with how I see myself (SC1) 3.90(0.95) (  0.45;  0.48) 0.85 0.93 0.77
I am quite similar to the image of recreation farm (SC2) 3.82(0.98) (  0.36;  0.35) 0.83
Recreation farm is consistent with how I would like to see myself (SC3) 3.81(1.00) (  0.35;  0.75) 0.92
I would like to be perceived as similar to the image of recreation farm (SC4) 3.73(1.05) (  0.44;  0.58) 0.90

Destination loyalty I will revisit to recreation farm (DL1) 3.97(0.94) (  0.70; 0.02) 0.88 0.89 0.68
I will say positive things about the recreation farm to other people (DL2) 4.03(0.87) (  0.67; 0.04) 0.89
I will recommend the recreation farm as a favorable destination to others (DL3) 4.03(0.87) (  0.57;  0.29) 0.89
I will continue to attend the recreation farm if the admission price 3.47(1.03) (  0.25;  0.53) 0.59
was increased (DL4)

Satisfaction Overall satisfaction with the destination (SA1) 3.75(0.82) (  0.20;  0.15) 0.80 0.83 0.72
Perceived value in visiting the destination (SA2) 3.79(0.86) (  0.33;  0.09) 0.89
 C.-R. Liu et al. / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 1 (2012) 118–123 121

Table 2
SC1 DL1
Correlation matrix.
R²=0.50 0.88
Self-congruity 0.85
SC2 0.83 0.89 DL2
Destination loyalty 0.529** Self Destination
0.92 Congruity Loyalty 0.89
0.40
nn
The p value is lower than 0.01. SC3 DL3

0.90 0.59
0.45
SC4 DL4
For example, w2 ¼90.76, w2/df (df ¼32)¼ 2.836, GFI ¼0.95, SRMR¼ Satisfaction
0.060, RMSEA ¼0.076, NNFI¼0.98, and CFI ¼0.98. The composite
reliability (CR) of the three constructs used in this study exceeded 0.80 0.89
the minimum requirement of 0.70, with individual values of 0.93
and 0.87. Reliability testing indicated that multiple measurement SA1 SA2

items provided a highly reliable means of measuring each con-

struct (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). Additionally, Fig. 1. Hypothesized model of self-congruity and destination loyalty.
convergent validity was assessed using the factor loadings in
the measurement model. All confirmatory factor loadings
exceeded 0.50, and were significant at the alpha level of 0.01 Table 3
(Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Furthermore, the average variance Comparisons of path coefficients for first-time and repeat visitors.
extracted (AVE) was 0.77 for both constructs, exceeding the
recommended 0.5 threshold (Hair et al., 1998). Discriminant Path First-time Repeat Dw2(Ddf¼ 1)
validity was also assessed by comparing the AVE with the squared Standard b(t)
correlations between constructs (Hair et al., 1998). The squared
correlation between self-congruity and destination loyalty Self-congruity-Destination loyalty 0.53(6.93)** 0.28(3.83)** 5.22*
( ¼0.5292) was less than AVEs, ensuring the discriminant validity n
p o0.05.
of the constructs as shown in Table 2. nn
po 0.01.

4.2. Self-congruity and destination loyalty

SC1 DL1
A structural model was estimated to test H1. This investigation 0.82
used the LISREL (version 8.8) package to analyze the full struc- R²=0.50 0.91
tural equation model with self-congruity as an exogenous latent SC2 0.83 0.94
Self Destination DL2
variable, destination loyalty as an endogenous latent variable, Congruity Loyalty 0.92
0.94
and satisfaction as a controlling variable. The goodness-of-fit 0.53
DL3
SC3
statistics of the proposed model demonstrate that the model
0.93
fitted data reasonably well (w2 ¼90.76, w2/df (df¼32) ¼2.83, GFI¼ 0.31 0.62
0.95, SRMR ¼0.06, RMSEA ¼0.076, NNFI¼0.98, and CFI¼ 0.98). For SC4 DL4
the structural model, the structural parameter estimates were Satisfaction
statistically significant, indicating that self-congruity (g ¼0.40,
Model fit: χ²=63.52, χ²/df
p o0.01) and satisfaction (g ¼0.45, po0.01) positively influenced 0.81 0.89
(df=32)=1.98, GFI=0.93,
destination loyalty. Thus, H1 was supported. (Fig. 1 shows the
SRMR=0.053, RMSEA=0.050,
structural results of the proposed model). SA1 SA2
NNFI=0.97, CFI=0.98).

4.3. The moderating effect of visit experiences Fig. 2. Structural results for first-time visitors.

In order to examine the moderating effect of visit experiences,

multiple group analysis was performed. Before conducting the
analysis, the respondents were split into two groups: first-time
and repeat visitors, comprising 162 and 160 members respec-
tively. Descriptive information regarding the first-time visitor
group showed that 42% of respondents in this group were male
and 58% were female. Moreover, the mean age of respondents in
this group was 36.5 years and 71.6% had at least a Bachelor’s
degree. The demographic characteristics of the repeat visitor
group, meanwhile, showed that 58.1% of respondents belonging
to this group were male and 41.9% were female. The mean age of
respondents belonging to the repeat visitors group was 37.4 years
and over half had a Bachelor’s degree (68.8%).
The second hypothesis, H2, was tested statistically using the chi-
square difference (Dw2) between constrained and unconstrained
models, assessed on the difference in degrees of freedom (Ddf)
(Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Overall, the chi-square difference
(Dw2(Ddf¼1)¼5.22) between the constrained model (w2 ¼131.70,
df¼65) and the unconstrained model (w2 ¼ 126.48, df¼64) was
significant (po0.05). As shown in Table 3, this result indicated that
the relationship between self-congruity and loyalty differed signifi-
cantly between first-time and repeat visitors. Specifically, the first-
time visitor group displayed stronger effects of self-congruity on
loyalty than the repeat visitor group (see Figs. 2 and 3). Thus, H2
was supported.
4.4. Differences on loyalty items between first-time and
repeat visitors
In order to explore the differences between first-time and
repeat visitors further, the study conducted an additional test for
the existence of differences in loyalty items between first-time
and repeat visitors. Table 4 lists the test results, which indicate
significant (p o0.05) differences between first-time and repeat
visitors in three items: ‘‘I will say positive things about the
recreation farm to other people (DL2)’’, ‘‘I will recommend the
recreation farm as a favorable destination to others (DL3)’’, and ‘‘I
would continue to visit the recreation farm if the admission price
was increased (DL4)’’.
122 C.-R. Liu et al. / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 1 (2012) 118–123

DL1
develop positive attitudes toward the product, and then moti-
SC1
0.85
vates their product preference and purchase behavior. Moreover,
R²=0.57 0.84 the studies of Beerli et al. (2007) and Litvin and Goh (2002) also
SC2 0.79 0.84 find that self-congruity strongly predicts tourist behavior.
DL2
Self Destination
Congruity Loyalty 0.83
For first-time visitors, self-congruity exerted more positive
0.87
0.28 effects on destination loyalty. This study suggests that this occurs
SC3 DL3
because first-time visitors lack experience of the destination;
0.84
0.62 0.54 thus, first-time visitors making travel decisions tend to base them
SC4 DL4 on affect factors like self-congruity (Sirgy & Su, 2000). The results
Satisfaction are consistent with earlier findings (Sirgy & Su, 2000; Beerli et al.,
2007) that the influence of self-congruity on travel decision
Model fit: χ²=62.97, χ²/df
0.76 0.89 making reduces when visitors are already familiar with the
(df=32)=1.96, GFI=0.93,
destination.
SRMR=0.072, RMSEA=0.078, SA1 SA2 Moreover, this study also found that repeat visitors are
NNFI=0.97, CFI=0.98).
significantly more likely than first-time visitors to say positive
Fig. 3. Structural results for repeat visitors. things about the recreation farm, recommend it to others, and
continue returning even when the cost of visit is increased. Such
findings echo those of Petrick and Backman (2002) that repeat
Table 4 visitors are more likely to revisit a destination.
Comparisons of loyalty items for first-time and repeat visitors.
5.1. Implications
Loyalty items Mean (S.D.) t-value p-value

First time Repeat

In marketing to first-time visitors, high self-congruity with
destination image may motivate a greater desire to visit a
I will revisit to recreation 3.87 4.08 1.951 0.052 destination (Goh & Litvin, 2000; Sirgy & Su, 2000; Litvin & Goh,
farm (DL1) (0.992) (0.887) 2002). The match between farm image and ideal/social selves
I will say positive things 3.92 4.14 2.30* 0.022
enhances the loyalty of first-time visitors. Accordingly, in market-
about the recreation (0.877) (0.868)
farm ing activities, such as advertising or promotion programs, man-
to other people (DL2) agers should attempt to capture the ideal and social selves of
I will recommend the 3.93 4.14 2.12* 0.035 potential target markets. Simultaneously, managers should also
recreation (0.920) (0.813)
ensure visitors can truly enjoy farm factors that match their ideal
farm as a favorable
destination
and social selves during their experience. Additionally, for first-
to others (DL3) time visitors, farm managers should provide persuasive tourism
I will continue to attend 3.26 3.69 3.77** 0.000 information to stimulate their revisit intention (Fakeye &
the recreation farm if the (1.019) (1.017) Crompton, 1991).
admission price was
In marketing to repeat visitors, farm managers should also
increased (DL4)
design strategies to improve their willingness to recommend their
n
p o 0.05. destination to others (Fakeye & Crompton, 1991). Thus, in
nn
p o0.01. relationship marketing, farm managers can map out some prac-
tical programs such as Very Important Person (VIP) cards or
birthday celebrations so as to create and maintain good relation-
5. Discussion and conclusion ships with repeat visitors. Moreover, farm managers can also
provide theme packages for artists or vegetarians. By doing so,
This study discusses the effect of self-congruity on destination repeat visitors can have a unique farm experience, share experi-
loyalty. The analytical results reveal a positive relationship ences with others and satisfy their self-image, which will improve
between self-congruity and destination loyalty. Furthermore, visit their willingness to revisit the farm.
experiences moderate the relationship between self-congruity
and destination loyalty. Specifically, when controlling for the 5.2. Limitations and future research directions
effect of satisfaction, first-time visitors exhibit stronger positive
effects of self-congruity on destination loyalty than repeat visi- This study is subject to some limitations. First, the study was
tors. For repeat visitors, however, satisfaction is better than self- limited to the context of the Shangri-La Recreation Farm in
congruity in explaining loyalty. This may be because familiarity Taiwan. The extent to which our findings are generalizable to
with a destination can reduce risk and the need to collect other destination or other recreation farm is unclear. Second, the
information (Stewart & Vogt, 1999), thereby increasing destina- use of convenience sampling can introduce unknown degrees of
tion satisfaction. This analytical result is consistent with that both systematic and variable errors.
obtained by Mohr, Backman, Gahan and Backman (1993), which Some areas worthy of future research are as follows. First, the
indicates that repeat visitors always have a higher level of present findings demand further inquiry to verify the moderating
satisfaction than first-time visitors. effects between self-congruity and destination loyalty. Previous
The study findings indicate that self-congruity is positively studies find product involvement (Kressmann et al., 2006),
related to destination loyalty. The recreational farm examined in customer involvement (Sirgy et al., 2008), and customer aware-
this study is a destination where tourists can touch nature, ness (Sirgy et al., 2008) to moderate the influence of self-
experience rural life, and enjoy a leisure environment. The congruity on loyalty. Second, the survey was conducted at a
findings suggest that when visitors can closely match the farm’s recreation farm in Taiwan, with Taiwanese participants. To
image with their self-image, they will become loyal to the farm. increase the external validity, future research could be under-
This finding is consistent with Sirgy (1985), who finds that the taken in different places and involving participants from different
match between self-image and product image helps customers nations. Third, the research model is worth testing in different
 C.-R. Liu et al. / Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 1 (2012) 118–123
types of destinations. Fourth, future research can use actual visits
to measure loyalty and thereby generate novel findings.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the Chung-Cheng Agriculture
Science & Social Welfare Foundation, Taiwan for financially
supporting this research under Contract No. 99-09.
References
Alexandris, K., Funk, D. C., & Pritchard, M. (2011). The impact of constraints on
motivation, activity attachment, and skier intentions to continue. Journal of
Leisure Research, 43(1), 56–79.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural modeling in practice: A review
and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
Assael, H. (2004). Consumer behavior: A strategic approach. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Baker, D. A., & Crompton, J. L. (2000). Quality, satisfaction and behavioral
intentions. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 785–804.
Bao, Y., Bao, Y., & Sheng, S. (2010). Motivating purchase of private brands: Effects
of store image, product signatureness, and quality variation. Journal of Business
Research, 64(2), 220–226.
Beerli, A., Meneses, G. D., & Gil, S. M. (2007). Self-congruity and destination choice.
Annals of Tourism Research, 34(3), 571–587.
Bentler, P. M., & Wu, E. J. C. (1993). EQS/windows user’s guide. Los Angeles: BMDP
Statistical Software.
Bogardus, E. S. (1929). Measuring social distances. Journal of Applied Sociology, 9,
299–308.
Chang, T. C. (2003). Development of leisure farms in Taiwan, and perceptions of
visitors thereto. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 15(1), 19–40.
Dickson, J., & MacLachlan, D. (1990). Social distance and shopping behavior.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18(2), 153–161.
Fakeye, P. C., & Crompton, J. L. (1991). Image differences between prospective,
first-time, and repeat visitors to the Lower Rio Grade Valley. Journal of Travel
Research, 30(2), 10–15.
Fluker, M. R., & Turner, L. W. (2000). Needs, motivations, and expectations of a
commercial whitewater rafting experience. Journal of Travel Research, 38(4),
380–389.
Gitelson, R. J., & Crompton, J. L. (1984). Insights into the repeat vacation
phenomenon. Annals of Tourism Research, 11, 199–217.
Goh, H., & Litvin, S. (2000). Destination preference and self-congruity. Paper
presented at the the annual conference proceedings of Travel and Tourism
Research Association, Burbank, CA.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data
analysis (5th ed.). NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Helgeson, J. G., & Supphellen, M. (2004). A conceptual and measurement compar-
ison of self-congruity and brand personality: The impact of socially desirable
responding. International Journal of Market Research, 46(2), 205–233.
Jang, S., & Feng, R. (2007). Temporal destination revisit intention: The effects of
novelty seeking and satisfaction. Tourism Management, 28, 580–590.
123
Johar, J. S., & Sirgy, J. M. (1991). Value expressive versus utilitarian appeals: When
and why to use which appeal. Journal of Advertising, 20(3), 23–34.
Kastenholz, E. (2004). Assessment and role of destination-self-congruity. Annals of
Tourism Research, 31(3), 719–723.
Kressmann, F., Sirgy, M. J., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Huber, S., & Lee, D.-J. (2006).
Direct and indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty. Journal
of Business Research, 59(9), 955–964.
Lehto, X. Y., O’Leary, J. T., & Morrison, A. M. (2004). The effect of prior experience
on vacation behavior. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4), 801–818.
Li, X., Cheng, C.-K., Kim, H., & Petrick, J. F. (2008). A systematic comparison of first-
time and repeat visitors via a two-phase online survey. Tourism Management,
29(2), 278–293.
Litvin, S. W., & Goh, H. K. (2002). Self-image congruity: A valid tourism theory?.
Tourism Management, 23(1), 81–83.
Mohr, K., Backman, K. F., Gahan, L. W., & Backman, S. J. (1993). An investigation of
festival motivations and event satisfaction by visitor type. Festival Management
and Event Tourism, 1(3), 89–97.
Nyaupane, G. P., Teye, V., & Paris, C. (2008). Innocents abroad. Attitude change
toward hosts. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(3), 650–667.
Opperman, M. (2000). Where psychology and geography interface in tourism
research and theory. in: A. G. Woodside, G. I. Crouch, J. A. Mazanec,
M. Opperman, & M. Y. Sakai (Eds.), Consumer psychology of tourism, hospitality
and leisure (pp. 19–37). Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.
Oppermann, M. (1997). First-time and repeat visitors to New Zealand. Tourism
Management, 18(3), 177–181.
Parameswaran, R., & Yaprak, A. (1987). A cross-national comparison of consumer
research measures. Journal of International Business Studies, 18(1), 35–49.
Park, R. E. (1924). The concept of social distance as applied to the study of racial
attitudes and racial relations. Journal of Applied Sociology, 8, 339–344.
Petrick, J. F. (2004). Are loyal visitors desired visitors?. Tourism Management, 25(4),
463–470.
Petrick, J. F., & Backman, S. J. (2002). An examination of the construct of perceived
value for the prediction of golf travelers’ intentions to revisit. Journal of Travel
Research, 41(1), 38–45.
Schenk, C. T., & Holman, R. H. (1980). A sociological approach to brand choice: The
concept of situation self-image. Advances in Consumer Research, 7, 610–614.
Sirgy, M. J. (1985). Using self-congruity and ideal congruity to predict purchase
motivation. Journal of Business Research, 13, 195–206.
Sirgy, M. J., Lee, D.-J., Johar, J. S., & Tidwell, J. (2008). Effect of self-congruity with
sponsorship on brand loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 61(10), 1091–1097.
Sirgy, M. J., & Su, C. (2000). Destination image, self-congruity, and travel behavior:
Toward an integrative model. Journal of Travel Research, 38(4), 340–352.
Stewart, S. I., & Vogt, C. A. (1999). A case-based approach to understanding
vacation planning. Leisure Sciences, 21(2), 79–95.
Taiwanese Council of Agriculture (2011). Performance of Taiwanese Council of
Agriculture in recent 3 years/promoting recreation farms. Retrieved March 18,
2012, from /http://www.coa.gov.tw/view.php?catid=23412S.
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.
Taylor, T. B. (1998). Better loyalty measurement leads to business solutions.
Marketing News, 32(22), 41–42.
Wang, D. (2004). Tourist behavior and repeat visitation to Hong Kong. Tourism
Geographies, 6(1), 99–118.