Sport Marketing Quarterly, 2014, 23, 161-175, © 2014 West Virginia University

Sport Tourism
Impact of Mega Sport Events on
Destination Image and Country Image
Jeeyoon Kim, Joon Ho Kang, and Yu-Kyoum Kim
Jeeyoon Kim, is a PhD candidate in the Department of Sport Management at Florida State University. Her research interests
include mega sporting events, nation branding, and consumer psychology.
Joon Ho Kang, PhD, MBA, is a professor in the Department of Physical Education and the director of the Center for Sports
Industry at Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea. His research interests include sponsorship, sport consumption
behavior, event legacy, and sport for development.
Yu-Kyoum Kim, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Physical Education at Seoul National University. His
research interests include sport consumption behaviors, applied statistics, relationship marketing, and sponsorship.

Abstract
Mega sport events are believed to positively and significantly impact the host country’s destination image
(from the tourism perspective) and country image (from the international marketing perspective). Focusing
on the short-haul market, this study questioned the prevailing “optimism” and empirically examined the
impact of hosting a mega sport event on the destination image and country image through a pre-post study
design. The results presented a mixed (i.e., both positive and negative) impact on the two images, and pat-
terns of image change varied according to sport involvement, media consumption, and previous visit expe-
riences to the host country. Additionally, this study investigated the influence of destination and country
images on visit and purchase intentions. We found strong relationships among constructs and destination
image was the key construct in the relation. The findings suggest the need and possibilities for inter-disci-
plinary research and integrated management strategies for improving destination and country images.

Introduction comprise from half to three-quarters of the economic

legacy (Agha, Fairley, & Gibson, 2012). The economic
Countries and local communities host mega sport
impact of the 2018 Winter Olympic Games in
events such as the Olympics or the FIFA World Cup
Pyeongchang is estimated to be $59 billion of which
with expectations to bring benefits such as economic
$39.8 billion is driven by increased long-term tourist
uplift, new job creation, image improvement, promo-
visitation and $10.5 billion by promotion and
tion of domestic products in the global marketplace,
improvement of the host country or local community’s
attraction of foreign investment, increase in tourism,
image (Park & Ju, 2011).
acceleration of urban development, infrastructure
Two related streams of research examine the host
improvement, accumulation of event management
country’s image improvement: One focuses on destina-
expertise, enhancement of the national team’s per-
tion image (i.e., the host country or local community’s
formance, stimulation of sports participation, social
image as a tourism site) and the second focuses on
unification, enhancement in national pride, and intro-
country image (i.e., overall image of the country). From
duction of sustainable development (e.g., Cashman,
the tourism perspective, many studies exist regarding
2002; Kaplanidou, 2012).
the impact of mega sport events on destination image
Among these benefits, improvement of the host’s
that present results of improved destination image after
image is central because it is the foundation of various
hosting sport events (Pike, 2002). Host countries are
other outcomes including increased tourist visitation
commonly “optimistic” about their respective image
and a stronger brand of the host country and its prod-
improvement (Baade & Matheson, 2004), which is the
ucts, which drive the bulk of economic gains (Kim &
primary justification for funding the sport event
Morrison, 2005). According to an economic impact
(Chalip, Green, & Hill, 2003). However, this “opti-
analysis on the 2012 London Olympics, increased
mism” needs to be tempered with realism as several
tourist visits and related revenues were expected to
studies also demonstrate mixed or no impact on the
Volume 23 • Number 3 • 2014 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 161
host’s destination image (Li & Kaplanidou, 2013;
Preuss & Alfs, 2011). On the other hand, from the
international marketing perspective, host countries
commonly utilize mega sport events believing they are
effective marketing outlets for enhancing the country’s
image and thus the brand of the host country’s product
(Dinnie, 2004; Kotler & Gertner, 2002). However, there
is a void of research in the sport context leaving the
claimed benefits unverified. Further research addressing
potentially unjustified optimism on the benefits of des-
tination and country image improvement is imperative,
but challenging due to various methodological issues.
One of the critical issues in image change studies is the
predominant use of cross-sectional design, which raises
concerns about internal validity. A pre-post design
improves the quality of evidence regarding the impact
of a mega-sport event.
Although studied in parallel, destination and country
images are similar and interrelated constructs based on
shared characteristics (e.g., overlapping research topics,
correlated marketing goals, and shared theoretical
base; Mossberg & Kleppe, 2005). A cross-examination
of the two images is necessary to advance research in
destination and country image (for clearer understand-
ing through comparison, cross-application of knowl-
edge, and availing integrative marketing; Elliot,
Papadopoulos, & Kim, 2011). However, no compre-
hensive research exists on the two images with respect
to mega sport events; as a result, an empirical study
laying out the foundation for interdisciplinary research
and integrated image marketing is in order. In this
sense, it is necessary to conduct an empirical research
to understand the relationship between two images
and their connection to relevant behavioral intentions
(i.e., visit and purchase intentions) (Nadeau, Heslop,
O’Reilly, & Luk, 2008).
Therefore, this research aims to: (1) provide theoret-
ical discussions regarding the impacts of hosting a
mega sport event on destination and country images;
(2) empirically examine the impact through pre-post
study design; and (3) examine destination and country
image’s link to the consumer’s behavioral intentions.
Theoretical Framework
The concepts of destination and country images are
based on the “associative network memory model”
(Anderson, 1983) where the memories and knowledge
of a product (i.e., image) is constructed by the associa-
tion of nodes connected through links. The more
salient the nodes and the tighter the links are, the more
likely the information is processed by the “sloppy”
cognitive processors (i.e., consumers), which leads to
stronger brand image and to competitiveness in the
market. Brand elements such as mega events, celebri-
162 Volume 23 • Number 3 • 2014 • Sport Marketing Quarterly
ties, iconic structures, geography, history, art, music,
political and social issues, product quality, and people
(i.e., nodes) and their tight associations to the place
(i.e., links) determine the strength of the brand and are
also the key factors in image formation (Smith, 2005).
In the context of mega sport events’ impact on the
host’s image, mega sport events function as the salient
brand element where the event image transfers to and
strengthens the host country’s image. Event image is
“the cumulative interpretation of meanings or associa-
tions attributed to events by consumers” (Gwinner,
1997, p. 147), which is linked to the physical, emotion-
al, social, organizational, and environmental facets of
the event (Kaplanidou, 2010). When the predominant
event image transfers to destination or country images,
people’s attitude towards the event transfers as well
(i.e., attitude theory; Fishbein, 1967). Transfer of the
positive image of and positive attitude towards the
sport event to destination and country images is the
bedrock of economic gain from hosting mega sport
events, as it is linked to increased visit intention (i.e.,
intention to visit the destination for tourism purposes)
and purchase intention (i.e., intention to purchase the
products made by the country) by consumers.
Hypothesis Development
Destination Image
In tourism research, destination image is defined as “the
sum of beliefs, ideas and impressions that a person has
of a destination” (Crompton, 1979, p. 18). Mega sport
events such as the Olympics or the FIFA World Cup are
powerful brand elements where the event image effec-
tively transfers to destination image (Kotler & Gertner,
2002). With the expectation of massive media attention,
host countries and local communities seek to build
stronger destination brands by building associations
with the event image, which drive tourist visitation and
other related profits. These benefits are vital for the host
to rationalize the bid of the sport event, to secure public
funds, and to legitimize the expenditure of public sub-
sidy (Chalip et al., 2003). Various studies support the
positive influence of mega sport events on destination
image and on visit intention (e.g., Kaplanidou &
Gibson, 2010; Kaplanidou & Vogt, 2007). It is “com-
monly assumed that these impacts [of hosting mega
sport events] are primarily positive in nature” (Ritchie,
1984, p. 4), which explains the increased popularity and
intense competition in bidding to host mega sport
events (Lee, Taylor, Lee, & Lee, 2005).
Despite the prevailing assumption that hosting a
sport event will enhance destination image, this opti-
mistic expectation is put into question as various stud-
ies report inconsistent findings (i.e., positive, negative,
mixed, or no effects) on the impact of hosting a mega
sport event (e.g., Gallarza, Saura, & Garcia, 2002; Kim,
Gursoy, & Lee, 2006). For example, Chalip, Green, and
Hill (2003) conducted an experiment to measure the
impact of a [televised] motor race on destination
image. The results presented both positive and negative
effects of sports event media on destination image with
marginal effect. Similarly, a study on the US public’s
perception of Chinese brands before and after the 2008
Olympics found no evidence of change on the host
country’s (China) image; however, the study found sig-
nificant change in perception of subgroups with high
interest and more media exposure (Li & Kaplanidou,
2013). Thus, the value of sports media exposure should
not be exaggerated without rigorous evidence. The
explanation of insignificant, mixed, or negative out-
comes on destination image improvement is summa-
rized as follows (Getz & Fairley, 2003; Xing & Chalip,
2006): (1) negative externalities (e.g., traffic conges-
tion, environmental damage) and mismanagement of
the event, (2) the lack of adequate media management
when negative publicity about the sport event arises,
(3) the lack of interest and support from the media
and event organizers in destination promotion, and (4)
the discrepancy between the sport event image and the
established image of the destination.
Inconsistent findings on the impact of sport events
on destination image raise questions about measure-
ment issues. Accurate measurement of the impact of
hosting sport events is imperative as “less than reliable
economic benefits calculations cast a dark shadow on
the return on investment claims made by both sport
event organizers and government backers” (Lee &
Taylor, 2005, p. 596). Various studies (e.g., Baade &
Matheson, 2004; Gertner, 2011; Richie, 1984) question
the validity of impact assessment due to the following
four measurement issues: (1) large scope of population
(oftentimes across countries and continents), (2) diffi-
culty in targeting a relevant sample of the population,
(3) need to continually measure image change over
time, and (4) difficulty of controlling other possible
non-event related influences. Researchers advocate for
a non-cross-sectional design with rigorous sampling to
overcome the aforementioned limitations. For exam-
ple, Karadakis and Kaplanidou (2012) attempted to
accurately measure the legacy of the 2010 Winter
Olympics through a longitudinal study. Therefore,
additional research with various waves of data collec-
tion will help advance this line of inquiry. Hypothesis 1
is offered and tested through a pre-post study design.
H1: Destination image (i.e., Urban, Nature,
Culture, Value, Safety, Climate, Convenience
images) of the host country will positively change
after the Olympics.
Volume 23 • Number 3 • 2014 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 163
Country Image
In international marketing, “country image” is
approached in three hierarchical scopes: (1) country
image (i.e., overall image of a country; Martin &
Eroglou, 1993), (2) product-country image (i.e., image
of product and country, where the product and coun-
try image is considered separated but closely related;
Roth & Romeo, 1992), and (3) country-of-origin
image (i.e., product’s image related to particular made-
in country image; Bilkey & Nes, 1982). In this research,
country image will be adopted for its strength in cap-
turing the affective aspects of the country as well as the
cognitive beliefs (Martin & Eroglou, 1993). The con-
sideration of emotions and feelings of the country is
critical (1) in understanding image which is comprised
of both affective and cognitive components, and (2) as
affective components “can lead to much stronger reac-
tions [of consumers] than pure cognitions” (Roth &
Diamantopoulos, 2009, p. 728).
Country image is defined as “the sum of beliefs and
impressions people hold about a place” (Kotler &
Gertner, 2002, p. 251). Country image is important for
the country’s product, as it functions as a “halo” (i.e.,
transferred attribute used as background information;
Thorndike, 1920) or “a construct itself that summarizes
the consumer’s belief about product attributes” when
consumers evaluate the products (Bilkey & Nes, 1982).
Mega sport events can positively impact the host’s
country image through image transfer. Kotler and
Gertner (2002) suggested that hosting prestigious sport
events promote and revamp country image. Dinnie
(2004) recognized “sport as a determinant of country
image perception” (p. 108), and Kavaratzis (2005)
identified “mega event” as a mature form of place mar-
keting. By transferring the image of mega sport events,
the host country’s image can be improved, which con-
tributes to a stronger brand and to core strength for
competitive advantage in the international business
market. However, there is a void of empirical research
evaluating the impact of mega sport event on the host’s
country image. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct an
empirical research on a sport event’s impact on country
image to understand how to improve marketability of
the country and its products. Hypothesis 2 is derived
from the above discussion and evidence.
H2: Country image (i.e., People, Political, Social,
Economic, and Cultural images) of the host coun-
try will positively change after the Olympics.
Destination and Country Images on Behavioral
Intentions
Destination and country images both concern the
image of a place. Both concepts share the same theo-
retical construct of image and are built upon the asso-
ciative network memory model (Anderson, 1983) and
attitude theory (Fishbein, 1967). Although the two
images have conceptual similarities and are inherently
interrelated, the two images have been studied exclu-
sively in tourism and international marketing.
Mossberg and Kleppe’s conceptual research (2005)
was one of the few initiative studies to examine both
destination and country images. They found that desti-
nation and country image studies overlapped in target-
ing the same object (i.e., the image of a place) with the
same goal to gain competitive advantage through
stronger brand image in the international tourism or
business market. The differences laid in that country
image put more emphasis on the domestic product’s
image than the overall image, while the scope of desti-
nation image varied from state, local community, and
country. However, both images were acknowledged as
“a generic pool of associations of a place which is not
linked to any particular context” (p. 497, p. 499). This
indicates possibilities of inter- or cross-disciplinary
application of the findings as the image concept is
employed to both context of either tourism or interna-
tional marketing.
Examining destination and country images’ cross-
effects on behavioral intentions is a necessary initiative
step in order to justify more comprehensive research,
as the eventual goal of the two streams of research is to
induce touristic visitation by consumers and purchase
of the country’s product through improved images
(Dinnie, 2004; Stepchenkova & Mills, 2010). Nadeau
and colleagues (2008) incorporated the constructs of
country image (i.e., overall country and people images)
into destination image. In their empirical test of the
integrative model of destination and country images
and their effect on travel intention, the overall image
of the country and its people presented a direct effect
on destination image and indirect influence on visit
intention. As part of a model exploring the relations of
country image, product belief, and destination belief
(i.e., image) and their influence on product and desti-
nation receptivities (encompassing intention), Elliot
and colleagues (2013) found significant influence of
country image on both product and destination recep-
tivity, and of destination belief only on destination
receptivity. The results of the two studies identified the
cross-effect between destination and country images,
indicating the necessities of theoretical convergence
based on attitude theory. These studies highlighted the
close interactions among destination and country
image constructs, and the academic and marketing
benefits of a comprehensive research on the two
images. However, further research investigating the
relation between destination and country images and
identifying which image is the key construct that influ-
164 Volume 23 • Number 3 • 2014 • Sport Marketing Quarterly
ences the consumer’s behavioral intentions is needed.
Such research lays out the essential foundation for
comprehensive research on destination and country
images. Based on the discussion and the evidence pre-
sented above, hypotheses 3 and 4 are proposed.
H3: Destination image of the host country will
influence the behavioral intentions (i.e., visit
intention and purchase intention of country prod-
ucts).
H4: Country image of the host country will
influence the behavioral intentions (i.e., visit
intention and purchase intention of country prod-
ucts).
Methodology
We conducted a pre-post study on the 2008 Beijing
Olympic Games. Considering constraints such as geo-
graphical distance and cost, population familiar with
and geographically close to the host country (i.e.,
short-haul market) was selected as a more feasible and
immediate target market. Short-haul travel holds a
major portion of the overall tourism earnings, because
the likelihood of actual travel is higher (“distant desti-
nations have great difficulty attracting more than a 1%
or 2% share of departures”; McKercher, Chan, & Lam,
2008, p. 208). In this sense, we prioritized the short-
haul market with the expectation of further research to
be conducted on a less familiar population in the
future. Thus, we selected South Koreans as our popu-
lation, which is one of the top tourism markets for
China partly due to geographical proximity and active
business ties between the two countries.
First, we investigated potential South Korean
tourists’ change in perception of destination and coun-
try images of China before and after the Olympics.
Furthermore, we compared the image changes among
different groups based on their sport involvement,
media consumption level, and visit experience to the
host country. In the second part, we conducted a SEM
analysis with destination image, country image, visit
intention, and purchase intention to comprehensively
depict the relations among the constructs of interest.
Participant and Sampling
The theoretical population of this study was the gener-
al public of Korea who watched the Olympics only
through media channels (i.e., TV, internet). Target
participants were people living in Seoul ages 18 to 67
because this age group is (1) the largest media con-
sumer in general and of the Olympics (Choi, 2010),
and (2) the biggest spender on tourism and product
purchase (Kim & Yoo, 2002). Compared to the census
(gender: 51.4% male, average age: 39.3, average
monthly income: $4,061.68), demographics of our
sample adequately matched the general population in
both the pre- (gender: 54% male, average age: 37.14,
average monthly income: $4,363.63) and post-games
surveys (gender: 56% male, average age: 39.58, average
monthly income: $4,423.29).
The pre-games survey took place 130-160 days prior
to the Games. This time frame was chosen because the
Olympics promotional campaigns by the national
Olympic committee and by the three main TV host
broadcasters of Korea started 100 days prior to the
Games. We used quota sampling based on gender and
age (4 levels, 10-years interval). Using self-adminis-
tered questionnaires, four assistants trained with expe-
rience in survey-based research collected data through
the intercept method at malls and main streets located
downtown. We obtained 628 questionnaires after elim-
inating 24 incomplete questionnaires.
For the post-games survey, we randomly selected 480
participants from the 628 participants of the pre-games
survey and contacted them through email (contact
information was collected in the pre-games survey) 3-
33 days after the Games, which was immediately after
the peak of the Olympics-related media exposure.
Response rate was 39.79% with 191 participants
responding. We retained 172 questionnaires in the
analysis after the elimination of 12 incomplete ques-
tionnaires and seven ineligible responses for the analy-
sis (based on the screening questions, we excluded
participants who visited the host country between the
first and second waves of survey and participants influ-
enced by unique personal experience). Non-response
bias and attrition bias of pre- and post-games partici-
pants were not of critical concern due to an adequate
match between census and sample demographics
(Armstrong & Overton, 1977; Dooley & Linder, 2003).
Instruments
We adopted and modified Chalip and Green’s destina-
tion image scale (1996) with 40 items on 9 sub-dimen-
sions (i.e., Developed Environment, Natural
Environment, Value, Sightseeing Opportunities, Safety,
Novelty, Climate, Convenience, and Family
Environment). Based on the literature review (e.g.,
Hwang, Hwang, Jung, & Choi, 2007; Park, 2009) and
expert panel discussion, Chalip and Green’s scale was
selected for the following reasons. First, the selected
scale is the most comprehensive to capture Korean’s
image dimensions of China and thus may avail more
useful implications for visit intention. Second, the
selected scale incorporates the images dimensions that
are key considerations for Korean’s tourism decision
making (e.g., cost, hygiene, leisure opportunities, and
cultural heritage). And third, the selected scale demon-
strated good psychometric properties including con-
Volume 23 • Number 3 • 2014 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 165
tent validity, convergent validity, and discriminant
validity in the previous uses (e.g., Chalip et al., 2003).
For the country image scale, we developed a scale with
31 items on 5 dimensions (i.e., People, Political, Social,
Economic, and Cultural) based on various studies on
country image measurement (e.g., Martin & Eroglu,
1993; Roth & Diamantopoulos, 2009). All items for
destination and country images were 7-point Likert-
type scales anchored by 1 = strongly disagree and 7 =
strongly agree. The items were initially written in
English and translated into Korean. Then, native
speakers of both languages translated each item back
into English to check reliability. An expert panel dis-
cussion with two professors and seven doctoral stu-
dents in sport management took place to check face
validity. In addition, prior to the main test administra-
tion, we pilot tested the scale with a sample of college
students (n = 47) for the following reasons (Groves,
2004): (a) to examine the psychometric properties of
the preliminary pool of items; (b) to assess the variabil-
ity in outcome measures that assisted in determining
the sample size for the main study; and (c) to identify
problematic areas related to instrument design, item
construction, and sampling method. Such preliminary
analyses are necessary in order to purify and refine the
survey prior to conducting the principal study. Each
item’s total correlation for destination and country
image scales ranged from .559 to .955. We eliminated
the survey items based on expert evaluation on transla-
tion validity and parsimony as well as the results from
the pilot study; destination image scale to 20 items on
7 dimensions (i.e., Urban, Nature, Culture, Value,
Safety, Climate, and Convenience) and country image
scale to 15 items on 5 dimensions. Descriptions of
dimensions and items are provided in Table 2.
Additionally, we included questions on visit inten-
tions to the host country (2 items), purchase intention
of the host country’s products (2 items), sport involve-
ment (4 items; developed based on Zaichkowsky, 1985,
and Shank & Beasley, 1998), previous visit experience
to the host country before the Olympics (1 item), and
demographics (5 items; age, gender, occupation,
income level, and email contact information). In the
post-games survey, we collected information on the
Olympic related media consumption during the event
(5 items; main consumption source, consumption time
per week through TV, consumption time per week
through internet, three most memorable incidents of
the Olympics, and three reasons of being interested in
Olympic related media), visit experience to the host
country since the first wave of survey (for screening
purpose), and the three most memorable incidents
related to the host country between the first and sec-
ond wave surveys (open-ended question; for screening
purpose).
In recognition of the possibility of biasing effects
from measuring multiple constructs in a single survey
administration, we drafted items in ways that reduced
ambiguity of their meanings during the instrument
development stage (e.g., substituting vague words such
as many and sometimes with specific words). In addi-
tion, we conducted Harman’s one-factor test (Harman,
1976). No single factor emerged, nor did one general
factor account for the majority of variance. Taken
together, common methods variance was likely not a
serious threat in this study.
The main study consists of two parts: first, through
mean structure analysis and descriptive analysis, we
examined the changes in destination and country
images after the Olympics. We used participants who
completed the survey both before and after the events
(n = 172). Second, using responses from pre-game sur-
vey (n = 628), we conducted a SEM examining the
influence of destination and country images on tourist
and consumer behaviors.
Results
Study 1
Measurement Assessment. To assess the psychometric
properties of the scales, we conducted a confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) using Mplus7. The data met the
linearity assumption and severe multicollinearity or
singularity was not present. However, the normalized
Mardia’s coefficient (1985) of skewness was 37.42 (p <
.001) and the kurtosis was 35.86 (p < .001), indicating
a lack of multivariate normality. Thus, we adopted the
Satorra-Bentler (1994) correction method. The meas-
urement model fit the data adequately (S-B χ2/df =
711.35/494 = 1.43, CFI = .92, SRMR = .07, RMSEA =
.05, WRMR = 1.04).
All factor loadings were significant in the predicted
direction (p < .001; ranging from .56 to .99). As a
measure of internal consistency, we used Raykov’s
structural equation modeling (SEM) method (Raykov,
2001) rather than the more widely used Cronbach’s
coefficient alpha to assess scale reliability. Raykov’s
method is considered to yield a less biased estimate
than Cronbach’s coefficient alpha in all types of meas-
urement models except for the essentially τ-equivalent
model (Graham, 2006). All reliability coefficients
except for People were larger than .70, ranging from
.64 to .92. All of the average variance extracted (AVE)
values except for People, Economic, and Urban image
were greater than .50 (ranging from .37 to .86; refer to
study 2 for explanation on AVE values). Thus, the
measures demonstrated fair convergent validity and
166 Volume 23 • Number 3 • 2014 • Sport Marketing Quarterly
reliability (Hair et al., 1992). The factors are presented
in detail in Table 2.
We examined the discriminant validity for each con-
struct by performing multiple χ2 difference tests of
unity between all pairs of constructs. The uncon-
strained model (correlation estimated freely) was sig-
nificantly better than the constrained model in all
comparisons (the smallest adjusted DS-B χ2 was 65.04,
p < .001). In addition, the AVE values for all con-
structs were larger than the corresponding squared
inter-construct correlations, providing additional sup-
port for discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker,
1981). In aggregate, the results indicate that the meas-
ures possessed adequate psychometric properties.
Results on Destination and Country Images Change.
To examine the changes in destination and country
images before and after the Games, we conducted a
series of multiple-group SEM analyses with a mean
structure (Table 1). Based on widely accepted guide-
lines of model fit indices (Weston & Gore, 2006; Yu,
2002), the model fit the data well (S-B χ2/df =
1383.37/1034 = 1.34, CFI = .95, SRMR = .06, RMSEA
= .04, WRMR = 0.99).
Overall, participants positively perceived Nature and
Culture images of the host country while they nega-
tively perceived Safety and Convenience images.
However, Convenience image significantly improved
(Dχ, change in latent mean, = .22, p < .05) after the
event. The overall participants’ ratings on all country
image dimensions were below neutral point except
Cultural image. Additional analyses took place by
grouping the participants based on sport involvement.
Convenience image showed significant positive change
(Dχ = .44, p < .05) in the high sport involvement
group (n = 72), while Climate image change was sig-
nificant but negative (Dχ = -.23, p < .05) in the low
sport involvement group (n = 80). We conducted a
comparison of the high and low media consumption
groups. The high group (n = 68) averaged 753.34 min-
utes of Olympic related media consumption per week
through TV and internet and the low group (n = 68)
averaged 131.38 minutes. Convenience image had a
significant positive change in both high (Dχ= .34, p <
.05) and low (Dχ= .34, p < .05) media consumption
groups. In terms of visit experience to the host coun-
try, significant negative change occurred in Culture
image (Dχ= -.39, p < .05) among people with visit
experience (n = 85). Among people with no visit expe-
rience to the host country (n = 87), there was signifi-
cant improvement in Convenience image (Dχ= .42, p
< .05). Hypothesis 1 was partially supported as
Convenience image significantly changed after the
event in the collective group and as the significance of
image change varied among subgroups.
 Table 1
Mean Structural Analysis on Destination and Country Image Changes
* p < .05 Destination Image Country Image
Urban Nature Culture Value Safety Climate Conve. People Political Social Econ. Cultural

General Pre-games 4.74 5.50 5.68 4.34 2.56 3.60 2.97 3.30 2.78 3.04 2.77 5.24
(n=172) Post-games 4.80 5.53 5.60 4.29 2.62 3.56 3.19 3.30 2.89 3.06 2.80 5.10
Mean diff. 0.06 0.03 -0.08 -0.05 0.06 -0.04 0.22 0.00 0.11 0.02 0.03 -0.14
p-value 0.54 0.78 0.44 0.64 0.53 0.99 *0.02 0.96 0.36 0.87 0.97 0.21

Sport High Pre-games 4.82 5.57 5.79 4.54 2.62 3.76 3.01 3.38 2.96 3.17 2.95 5.30
Involve. (n=72) Post-games 4.94 5.52 5.69 4.32 2.85 3.71 3.45 3.43 3.06 3.42 3.04 5.05
Mean diff. 0.12 -0.05 -0.10 -0.22 0.23 -0.05 0.44 0.05 0.10 0.25 0.09 -0.25
p-value 0.45 0.79 0.52 0.16 0.09 0.83 *0.00 0.66 0.84 0.15 0.39 0.18

Low Pre-games 4.75 5.41 5.56 4.20 2.43 3.56 2.92 3.23 2.66 2.91 2.61 5.23
(n=80) Post-games 4.74 5.50 5.40 4.25 2.42 3.33 2.98 3.18 2.79 2.80 2.61 5.17
Mean diff. -0.01 0.09 -0.16 0.05 -0.01 -0.23 0.06 -0.05 0.13 -0.11 0.00 -0.06
p-value 0.90 0.53 0.31 0.92 0.80 *0.03 0.51 0.74 0.37 0.33 0.97 0.19

Media High Pre-games 4.55 5.49 5.70 4.45 2.61 3.66 2.95 3.24 2.65 3.13 2.78 5.37
Consump. (n=68) Post-games 4.88 5.54 5.60 4.30 2.65 3.65 3.29 3.22 2.96 3.04 2.91 5.11
Mean diff. 0.33 0.05 -0.10 -0.15 0.04 -0.01 0.34 -0.02 0.31 -0.09 0.13 -0.26
p-value 0.06 0.80 0.57 0.37 0.97 0.13 *0.02 0.96 0.06 0.64 0.48 *0.04

Low Pre-games 4.77 5.44 5.66 4.24 2.53 3.54 2.90 3.38 2.99 2.94 2.75 5.11
(n=68) Post-games 4.78 5.57 5.67 4.36 2.62 3.67 3.24 3.34 2.81 3.13 2.80 5.07
Mean diff. 0.01 0.13 -0.01 0.12 0.09 0.13 0.34 -0.04 -0.18 0.19 0.05 -0.04
p-value 0.70 0.48 0.97 0.48 0.14 0.56 *0.02 0.95 0.34 *0.03 0.65 0.88

Previous Yes Pre-games 4.82 5.63 5.82 4.48 2.51 3.55 3.00 3.30 2.73 3.08 2.79 5.46
Visit to (n=85) Post-games 4.69 5.40 5.43 4.35 2.61 3.49 3.13 3.17 2.82 2.97 2.69 4.90
the host Mean diff. -0.13 -0.23 -0.39 -0.13 0.10 -0.06 0.13 -0.13 0.09 -0.11 -0.10 -0.56
country p-value 0.41 0.14 *0.01 0.32 0.76 0.69 0.28 0.18 0.54 0.48 0.37 *0.00

No Pre-games 4.66 5.36 5.53 4.19 2.61 3.65 2.94 3.31 2.82 2.99 2.76 5.02
(n=87) Post-games 4.86 5.59 5.67 4.36 2.79 3.70 3.36 3.40 2.91 3.22 2.87 5.15
Mean diff. 0.20 0.23 0.14 0.17 0.18 0.05 0.42 0.09 0.09 0.23 0.11 0.13
p-value 0.27 0.16 0.55 0.26 0.09 0.72 *0.00 0.57 0.81 0.06 0.34 0.27

Volume 23 • Number 3 • 2014 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 167

 Table 2
Measurement Properties of Scale Items

Dimensions Scale Items Est. S.E. ρ AVE Mean SD

Destination Image
Urban 1. China has urbanized cities .73 .03 .75 .49 5.45 1.36
Image as a modernized 2. China has a developed business industry .63 .03 4.28 1.21
place 3. China has modern streets and buildings .73 .03 4.73 1.32
Nature 1. China has many opportunities to enjoy nature .88 .02 .90 .74 5.58 1.25
Image as a place with 2. China has a beautiful natural scenery .90 .01 5.41 1.26
natural scenic beauty 3. China has many natural spectacles .80 .02 5.43 1.21
Culture 1. China has a rich cultural heritage .88 .02 .82 .76 5.58 1.15
Image as a place with 2. China has a unique culture .87 .02 5.57 1.16
abundant cultural heritage 3. China has famous historical sites .87 .02 5.80 1.14
Value 1. China’s traveling cost is reasonable .84 .02 .90 .75 4.59 1.24
Image as a place worth its 2. China’s accommodation cost in reasonable .91 .02 4.37 1.27
traveling cost 3. China’s facility and attraction ticket price are reasonable .84 .02 4.22 1.26
Safety 1. China is safe to travel .61 .03 .81 .61 2.96 1.23

168 Volume 23 • Number 3 • 2014 • Sport Marketing Quarterly

Image as a secured and 2. China’s cities and tourist site are clean .87 .02 2.47 1.14
sanitary place to travel 3. China is safe from disease .84 .02 2.16 1.05
Climate 1. China is a place to enjoy good weather .88 .02 .89 .81 3.54 1.23
Image as a place with good 2. China has pleasant weather .92 .02 3.47 1.20
weather
Convenience 1. China’s hotels and transportation is well-developed .77 .02 .86 .67 3.09 1.13
Image as a place providing 2. China has infrastructure for entertainment and leisure .88 .02 2.99 1.08
traveler-friendly service 3. China provides good quality service .81 .02 2.87 1.08
Country Image
People 1. Chinese people are trustworthy .68 .04 .72 .46 3.02 1.24
Image of the general public 2. Chinese people are kind .69 .03 3.31 1.19
3. Chinese people are diligent .66 .03 3.52 1.38
Political 1. China is a capitalist country .51 .04 .76 .55 3.17 1.50
Image as a country with 2. China is a democratic country .90 .02 2.49 1.22
political civilization 3. China is a civilized country .76 .03 2.55 1.35
 Regarding the country image changes, hypothe-
sis 2 was partially supported, but only by image

1.30

1.16

1.33

1.43

1.60
1.42
1.22

1.17
1.37

1.31
1.41

1.39

1.57
SD changes in subgroups but not in the collective
group. Cultural image in the high media con-
Mean

2.99

2.77

5.22

3.36

4.68
2.81
2.97

2.17
3.09

5.28
4.91

2.97

4.54
sumption group (Dχ = -.26, p < .05), Social image
in the low media consumption group (Dχ= .19, p
< .05), and Cultural image among people with
AVE

.57

.45

.60

.82

.87
visit experience to the host country (Dχ= -.56, p <
.05) exhibited significant changes before and after
the Games. All changes in Cultural image were
.80

.71

.82

.90

.93
ρ

negative while Social image changes were positive.

However, neither overall participants nor the two
sport involvement groups reported significant
S.E.

.03
.03
.03
.03
.04
.03
.03
.03
.03

.04
.04
.03
.03
change in any country image dimensions.
Additionally, there was no significant change in
visit intention (μpre = 4.52, μpost = 4.43, Dχ =
Est.

.76
.77
.74
.71
.67
.62
.78
.82
.73

.85
.95
.90
.96
-.09, p > .05) or purchase intention (μpre =3.17,
μpost = 3.07, Dχ = -.10, p > .05) before and after
the Games.
Study 2
Measurement Assessment. The data met the lin-
earity assumption and severe multicollinearity or
singularity was not present. However, the normal-
2. Do you intend to purchase “made in China” products?
1. Are you planning to visit China for tourism in 5 years?

ized Mardia’s coefficient of skewness was 58.80 (p

2. Do you intend to visit China for tourism in 5 years?

< .001) and the kurtosis was 70.17 (p < .001),

3. Chinese business environment is well-developed

1. Will you purchase “made in China” products?

indicating lack of multivariate normality. Thus, we

adopted the Satorra-Bentler (1994) correction
method. The measurement model fit the data ade-
quately (S-B 2/df = 1005.59/611 = 1.43, CFI = .97,
2. Chinese products has good quality

SRMR = .04, RMSEA = .03, WRMR = 1.28).

1. Chinese living standard are high

All factor loadings were significant in the pre-

dicted direction (p < .001; ranging from .51 to .96;
1. Chinese culture is authentic

3. Chinese culture is unique

Table 2). All reliability coefficients were larger

2. Chinese culture is diverse
1. China has a stable society

than .70 (ranging from .71 to .93) and all of aver-

2. China is well-ordered

age variance extracted (AVE) values except for

3. China is peaceful

People, Economic, and Urban images were greater

than .50 (ranging from .45 to .87). The measures
Measurement Properties of Scale Items, continued

demonstrated fair convergent validity and reliabil-

Scale Items

ity. The unconstrained model (correlation estimat-

ed freely) was significantly better than the
constrained model in all comparisons (smallest
adjusted S-B χ2 was 219.36, p < .001). In addition,
the AVE values for all constructs except Economic
image were larger than the corresponding squared
Image as a country with
Image as a country with

abundant cultural heritage

Image as a country with

inter-construct correlations (Table 3), providing

support for discriminant validity.
Behavioral Intentions
economic power

Purchase Intention

We decided not to drop the three constructs

social stability

with AVE values lower than .50 (i.e., People,

Visit Intention

Economic, and Urban). Our justification is both

Dimensions

empirical and theoretical. First, following widely

Economic

Cultural

recommended statistical guidelines, we use the

Table 2

Social

confidence interval of AVE values rather than

using point estimate. The confidence interval of
Volume 23 • Number 3 • 2014 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 169
Table 3
Estimated Correlation Matrix for the Latent Variables
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Mean SD

1.People 3.29 1.01

2.Political .39 2.75 1.11
3.Social .59 .47 2.93 1.12
4.Economic .50 .58 .68 2.68 0.98
5.Cultural .19 -.11 .09 .09 5.13 1.16
6.City -.01 -.04 -.09 -.10 -.08 4.83 1.06
7.Nature -.01 -.07 -.06 -.06 -.08 .72 5.49 1.13
8.Culture -.04 -.07 -.07 -.07 -.10 .65 .75 5.67 1.06
9.Value -.08 -.08 -.05 -.04 -.01 .34 .25 .36 4.40 1.15
10.Safety .01 .05 .00 -.02 -.05 .06 -.04 -.05 .14 2.53 0.97
11.Climate .06 .00 -.01 .01 .00 .25 .27 .23 .19 .44 3.50 1.16
12.Convenience -.03 -.02 -.05 -.08 -.02 .27 .12 .13 .25 .68 .51 2.99 0.97
13.Purchase -.02 .01 -.06 -.08 -.04 .36 .18 .16 .21 .34 .20 .38 3.17 1.34
14.Visit -.01 -.08 -.07 -.06 -.05 .47 .37 .33 .28 .21 .27 .32 .34 4.61 1.54

these constructs with point AVE estimate lower than
.50 includes .50, suggesting we can’t conclude that
AVE values of those constructs are lower than .50.
Second, factor loadings of the constructs with AVE val-
ues lower than .50 are all greater than .60, which is a
commonly used cut-off value (Hair et al., 1992). And
third, the three constructs demonstrate good discrimi-
nant validity. Lastly, based on previous literature and
expert review, the three constructs with AVE values
lower than .50 have good content validity and still
prove necessary in achieving the research purpose of
the current study. Overall, the results suggest adequate
psychometric properties for the measures.
Structural Equation Modeling. We conducted a SEM
analysis to examine the impact of destination and
country images on tourist and consumer behaviors.
Like any pre-post study, the sample of post-study is
inherently the subset of the pre-study. Therefore, it is
necessary to use both the subset and overall group only
if significant change in the subset is expected regarding
the main characteristics of interest. There is no theory
or empirical evidence to suggest that stable characteris-
tics such as the relationship between images and
behavioral intentions changes within relatively short
periods of time. It is important to understand the dis-
tinction between the change in images and behavioral
intentions and the change in the relationship between
images and behavioral intentions. Ratings on images
and behavioral intentions can fluctuate within a short
timeframe. However, the relationship between them is
rather enduring over time. In fact, the additional path
analysis shows this relationship strength and pattern
was consistent between the pre-and post-samples.
For the reasons above, we only used the overall
group (i.e., the pre-games survey respondents) to
170 Volume 23 • Number 3 • 2014 • Sport Marketing Quarterly
examine the relationship between images and behav-
ioral intentions. The model was statistically equivalent
to the measurement model and the results indicate
good fit of the model to the data (S-B χ2/df =
1005.59/611 = 1.43, CFI = .97, SRMR = .04, RMSEA =
.03, WRMR = 1.28). The model’s estimates appear in
Table 4 and Figure 1. Regarding the influence of desti-
nation images on behavioral intentions, Urban (stan-
dardized γ = .33, S.E. = .08, p < .01) and Value images
(standardized γ = .10, S.E. = .05, p = .04) had signifi-
cant influence on Visit Intention while Urban (stan-
dardized γ = .38, S.E. = .08, p < .01), Safety
(standardized γ = .21, S.E. = .06, p < .01), and
Convenience images (standardized γ = .16, S.E. = .07,
p = .02) had significant influence on Purchase
Intention. For country image, no path from country
image dimensions to Visit Intention and Purchase
Intention was significant. Overall, hypothesis 3 was
supported while hypothesis 4 was not.
Discussion
The contribution of this paper is (1) adding empirical
evidence for the impact of hosting mega sport events
on destination and country images through a pre-post
study, (2) calling the common expectations of positive
image changes into question by presenting mixed
results, (3) providing theoretical understanding of
image change in relation to sport involvement, media
exposure, and previous visit experience, (4) verifying
the close relation among destination and country
image and visit and purchase intentions, and (5) estab-
lishing destination image as the key construct affecting
the constructs of interest.
This research’s mixed findings align with inconsis-
tent findings from previous research (e.g., Baade &
Table 4
Parameter Estimates for the Structural Equation Modeling

Image → Visit Intention Image → Purchase Intention

Est. S.E. Est./S.E p-value Est. S.E. Est./S.E p-value

Destination Image Urban *.33 .08 3.95 <.01 *.38 .08 4.94 <.01
Nature .09 .08 1.20 .23 -.07 .08 -0.89 .37
Culture -.02 .07 -0.32 .75 -.05 .07 -0.66 .51
Value *.10 .05 2.19 .03 .05 .05 1.11 .27
Safety .08 .07 1.25 .21 *.22 .06 3.39 <.01
Climate .05 .05 0.99 .32 -.05 .05 -0.98 .33
Convenience .12 .07 1.75 .08 *.16 .07 2.26 .02
Country Image People .04 .06 0.65 .52 .01 .07 0.09 .93
Political -.07 .06 -1.31 .19 .04 .06 0.65 .52
Social -.03 .07 -0.40 .69 -.01 .08 -0.12 .90
Economic .03 .08 0.41 .68 -.05 .08 -0.62 .53
Cultural -.03 .04 -0.67 .50 .00 .04 0.09 .93

* p < .05.

* Only significant paths at alpha level 0.05 are presented.

Figure 1. Results for Structural Equation Modeling in Study 2.

Volume 23 • Number 3 • 2014 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 171

Matheson, 2004; Gertner, 2011; Getz & Fairley, 2003;
Kim et al., 2006), which argues against the general
belief of the positive impact of mega sport events and
challenges the justification of public funding for the
event. The occurrence of negative and insignificant
impact of mega sport events alerts the romantic opti-
mism of huge positive impacts, urging for an approach
to the issue with healthy skepticism. One of the plausi-
ble explanations for the mixed and partially insignifi-
cant findings in this study may lie in our focus on the
short-haul market. Based on schema theory (Barlett,
1932; Lynch & Schuler, 1994), when presented with
new information, people recall the established schema
and evaluate its congruence with the new information.
While congruent information is easily accepted, incon-
gruent information is put under scrutiny likely to be
distorted or “filtered out” to avoid conflict with the
established schema (Xing & Chalip, 2006). Consumers
of short-haul markets tend to have strongly established
schema of the host country due to familiarity, which
may have negated the influence of mega sport event on
the host’s images (Chalip, et al., 2003).
In regards to destination and country images change,
the event had a positive impact on convenience image.
The high sport involvement group, high and low media
consumption groups, and no visit experience group
also exhibited improvement in convenience image. This
improvement insinuates the successful inclusion of
iconic structures as the new image component of the
host country—the modern and convenient-to-use
infrastructure such as the national stadium, the nation-
al aquatic center, and the new international airport.
Applying the concept of image transfer and associative
network memory model, the new sport facilities
became the salient “nodes” linked with the host coun-
try’s image. Additional analysis reported all 172 partici-
pants identified the Olympics as the host country’s key
image component, and 14.0% of them mentioned the
“new sport facilities” as their first-recollected image
component of the 2008 Olympics. Our results suggest
that the Chinese organizers effectively conveyed the
convenience features to the Korean audience and that
the event image successfully transferred to and associat-
ed with the host’s images. Regarding the convenience
image change process, there are two plausible explana-
tions that are (1) through cognitive processing of the
convenience features for people highly involved in the
information processing and (2) through the “halo
effect” (Thorndike, 1920) for people with low involve-
ment for information processing. Further research on
the image change process is recommended.
Interestingly, the event had a negative influence on
culture and cultural image among people with previ-
ous visit experience to the host country. Applying
172 Volume 23 • Number 3 • 2014 • Sport Marketing Quarterly
schema theory (Barlett, 1932; Lynch & Schuler, 1994)
and expectation disconfirmation (Trail & James, 2013),
this potentially reveals a case where the established
schema is adjusted as incongruence with the new
information is substantial, and where strong negative
expectation disconfirmation leads to highly negative
perceptions. In this study, people with visit experience
had high expectations (i.e., highest pre-games evalua-
tion) and may have had strong positive cultural images
established from previous visits (i.e., image of abun-
dant cultural heritage and historic attractions; Gibson,
Qi, & Zhang, 2008). But, the new modern image as the
Olympic host country (Zhang & Zhao, 2009) may have
conflicted with the image of rich culture and traditions
falling short of their expectations in cultural aspects,
leading to negative image change. Our supposition
brings attention to “(in)congruence” and “expecta-
tion” in destination and country images research, but
further verification is needed as other potential influ-
ences of external factors may have influenced the
change of cultural images.
The change in social image was positive in the low
media consumption group. With a higher response
rate of watching the Olympics (1) as it happens to be
available on the news media (12.6% vs. 3.2%), and (2)
to follow up on the popular material of conversation
(10.4% vs. 1.8%), the low consumption group was
revealed as more exposed to easily accessible and wide-
ly but succinctly covered newscasts (compared to sport
telecast or Olympic-focused programs of the high
group) based on the data collected on media consump-
tion in this study. During the 2008 Olympics, news-
casts in Asia (Preuss & Alfs, 2011) and in Korea (Lee &
Kang, 2010) predominantly projected refined, well-
ordered and organized social image of the host country
(e.g., well-organized Games, well-trained volunteers),
possibly leading to the positive social image change
only among the low group where there was room for
improvement. This claim conjectures the influence of
media source on image perception. Further content
analysis with a focus on different media sources is nec-
essary to verify the conjecture, as our study is descrip-
tive and does not explain causal relationships in the
Olympics, media source and image changes.
Destination image demonstrated significant influ-
ence on visit and purchase intentions while country
image had no significance (Figure 1). Urban and value
images were influential factors that drove visit inten-
tion, while urban, safety, and convenience images had
significant effects on purchase intention. Another
interesting finding was that country image had no
effect on either of the intentions while destination
image significantly influenced both. The significant
connection between purchase intention (normally
linked to country image) and destination image was a
compelling finding, identifying destination image as
the key construct in the relationship among all the
other constructs of interest. However, in order to
adopt destination image as the key construct, it is
imperative to develop further studies investigating this
potential link.
For the next step in examining the relationship
between destination and country images, two potential
interpretations are suggested as a starting point based
on previous research. First is to understand destination
image as a pathway linking country image and inten-
tions. This claim aligns with Nadeau and colleagues’
research (2008) where country image was found to be
“directly relevant to destination beliefs and indirectly
to intentions through evaluation of the destination” (p.
101). If this is the case, the importance of destination
image raises as a factor with direct influence on behav-
ioral intentions, and as the mediator that links country
image and intentions. The second interpretation is to
view destination image a sub-dimension of country
image. Conceptually, country image concerns the over-
all image of country, and touristic image (i.e., destina-
tion image) can be included as part of the scope
(Anholt, 2004) because the country is inclusive of all
the destinations. In this case, destination image could
be treated as the decisive dimension in the overall
country image construct affective on visit and purchase
intentions, as touristic image had a more direct and
significant influence on behavioral intentions. Further
research on the mechanism of destination and country
images is necessary to advance the theoretical under-
standing on the topic.
Marketing Implications
The close connection among the constructs of interest
highlighted the demand of an integrated marketing
strategy for destination and country images. An inte-
grated strategy strengthens the effectiveness by simul-
taneously coping the closely related constructs and
enhances the efficiency through collective efforts of the
fields of tourism and international marketing.
Destination image is identified as the key construct in
the relationship with direct effects on both behavioral
intentions. Additionally, in this case, destination image
is an advantageous starting point in the host country
image marketing as it is more highly perceived than
country image (Table 4). Therefore, focus should lie
on establishing a strong positive destination image
linked to the event when planning an integrated image
marketing strategy.
The complex impact of a mega sport event on desti-
nation and country images calls for elaborate market-
ing strategies on each dimension. In this case, the host
Volume 23 • Number 3 • 2014 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 173
country successfully conveyed the new facility as the
brand element, establishing convenience image. As
such, communication plans customized for each
dimension should be established. Possible conflict
among dimensions or between specific dimensions and
the event image needs consideration as well. The possi-
ble conflict of the Olympics’ modern image with the
host country’s image of abundant cultural heritage is a
good example of such conflict. To avoid similar con-
flicts, marketers should cogitate on the expected out-
comes of hosting mega sport events dimension by
dimension from the planning stage. When conflicts are
anticipated, strategically prioritizing the key dimension
is beneficial. Prioritizing the dimensions identified to
affect the consumer’s behavioral intentions is also a
logical criterion. Divergent outcomes among sub-
groups suggest the importance of consumer segmenta-
tion as well, as consumers had distinctive image
perceptions and image change patterns based on sport
involvement, media consumption level, and previous
visit experience.
Limitations and Suggestions
There are several limitations that need to be noted in
this paper. First, the case of Koreans’ image perception
of China has limited applicability in representing the
international perspective, as it is more focused on the
short-haul market and as the relationship between the
two countries has unique facets. Thus, further research
examining the impact of mega sport events on the
host’s images in different contexts (i.e., different coun-
tries with various geographical distance, familiarity,
cultural communality) and cross-cultural studies are
suggested. Particularly, research on a less familiar pop-
ulation (i.e., long-haul market) can provide valuable
implications for the destination image and possibly
report a greater image change through the Olympics.
However, it is important to understand that both less
and more familiar populations are equally valuable.
Thus, it would be ideal to collect data from multiple
countries, which is achievable only through multiple
studies in the future.
Second, adding to a simple SEM analysis, further
research providing empirical support of the close-rela-
tions among the two images and behavioral intentions
and investigating the mechanism of two image con-
structs is in need. Specifically, understanding the role
of destination image in relation to country image is
critical in developing collaborative image marketing
strategies. Additionally, research simultaneously
exploring the image formation process of destination
and country images would be beneficial.
Third, this research is limited to two waves of data
collection with five to six months passing between the
two waves. There are limitations as (1) the sport event
image may have already impacted the host image by
the first wave of survey, and (2) the impact may decay
after the Games. For better assessment of the impact of
mega sport event on the host’s image, a longitudinal
study covering from the bid initiation to the aftermath
phase of the Games with multiple waves of data collec-
tion is needed. Fourth, to understand and predict the
consumer’s behavior, measures of consumer behav-
ioral intentions were used instead of the actual behav-
ior. This might have inflated the consumer’s response
to the image change, suggesting research with measure
on actual behavior.
Lastly, due to the impracticability of complete con-
trol over external influences, non-Olympic related fac-
tors may have contaminated the results of this
research. Despite endeavors to minimize the influence
through various screening questions, limitations in this
aspect still exists. Experimental research is expected to
cope with such limitations, but challenges of less vivid
description in the real world will be faced. We suggest
conducting research on a less prestigious sport event
where only a part of the population is aware of the
event, and then comparing the two groups of people
aware of and not aware of the event. This approach
can counter both issues of the control of external fac-
tors and the realistic description of the practical field.
References
Agha, N., Fairley, S., & Gibson, H. (2012). Considering legacy as a multi-
dimensional construct: The legacy of the Olympic Games. Sport
Management Review, 15, 125-139.
Anderson, J. R. (1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 261-295.
Anholt, S. (2004). Nation-brands and the value of provenance. In N.
Morgan, A. Pritchard, & R. Pride (Eds.), Destination branding (pp. 26-
39). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in
mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 396-402.
Baade, R. A., & Matheson, V. (2004). The quest for the cup: Assessing the
economic impact of the World Cup. Regional Studies, 38, 343-354.
Barlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psy-
chology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Bilkey, W., & Nes, E. (1982). Country-of-origin effects on product evalua-
tions. Journal of International Business Studies, 13, 89-99.
Cashman, R. (2002). Impact of the games on the Olympic host cities [PDF
document]. Retrieved from http://ceo.uab.cat/lec/pdf/cashman.pdf/
Chalip, L., & Green, B. C. (1996). Development of the Destination Image
Scale. Brisbane, Australia: Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation.
Chalip, L., Green, C., & Hill, B. (2003). Effects of sport event media on des-
tination image and intention to visit. Journal of Sport Management, 17,
214-234.
Choi, Y. H. (2010). Research on the TV audience profile of the 2008 Beijing
Olympic program rating. Journal of Sport and Leisure Studies, 39, 307-318.
Crompton, J. (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.
Dinnie, K. (2004). Place branding: Overview of emerging literature. Place
Branding, 1, 106-110.
174 Volume 23 • Number 3 • 2014 • Sport Marketing Quarterly
Dooley, L. M., & Lindner, J. R. (2003). The handling of nonresponse error.
Human Resources Development Quarterly, 14, 99-110.
Elliot, S., Papadopoulos, N., & Kim, S. S. (2011). An integrative model of
place image exploring relationships between destination, product, and
country images. Journal of Travel Research, 50, 520-534.
Fishbein, M. E. (1967). Readings in attitude theory and measurement.
Oxford, UK: Wiley.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models
with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of
Marketing Research, 18. 39-50.
Gallarza, M. G., Saura, I. G., & Garcia, H. C. (2002). Destination image:
Towards a conceptual framework. Annals of Tourism Research, 29, 56-78.
Gertner, D. (2011). Unfolding and configuring two decades of research and
publications on place marketing and place branding. Place Branding and
Public Diplomacy, 7, 91-106.
Getz, D., & Fairley, S. (2003). Media management at sport events for desti-
nation promotion: Case studies and concepts. Event Management, 8,
127-139.
Gibson, H., Qi, C., & Zhang, J. (2008). Destination image and intent to visit
China and the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. Journal of Sport
Management, 22, 427-450.
Graham, J. M. (2006). Congeneric and tau-equivalent estimates of score
reliability: What they are and how to use them. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 66, 930-944.
Groves, R. M. (2004). Survey errors and survey costs. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Wiley Publishers.
Gwinner, K. (1997). A model of image creation and image transfer in event
sponsorship. International Marketing Review, 14, 145-158.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1992).
Multivariate data analysis with readings (3rd ed). New York, NY:
Macmillan.
Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Hwang, I. C., Hwang, Y. Y., Jung, H. S., & Choi, S. A. (2007). The impact of
travel motivation and images in China on destination loyalty. Journal of
Industrial Economics and Business, 20, 2095-2118.
Kaplanidou, K. (2010). Active sport tourists: Sport event image considera-
tions. Tourism Analysis, 15, 381-386.
Kaplanidou, K. (2012). The importance of legacy outcomes for Olympic
Games four summer host cities residents’ quality of life: 1996-2008.
European Sport Management Quarterly, 12, 397-433.
Kaplanidou, K., & Gibson, H. J. (2010). Predicting behavioral intentions of
active event sport tourists: The case of a small-scale recurring sports
event. Journal of Sport and Tourism, 15, 163-179.
Kaplanidou, K., & Vogt, C. (2007). The interrelationship between sport
event and destination image and sport tourist’s behavior. Journal of
Sport and Tourism, 12, 183-206.
Karadakis, K., & Kaplanidou, K. (2012). Legacy perceptions among host
and non-host Olympic Games residents: A longitudinal study of the
2010 Vancouver Olympic Games. European Sport Management
Quarterly, 12, 243-264.
Kavaratzis, M. (2005). Place branding: A review of trends and conceptual
models. The Marketing Review, 5, 329-342.
Kim, H., Gursoy, D., & Lee, S. B. (2006). The impact of the 2002 World
Cup on South Korea: Comparison of pre- and post-games. Tourism
Management, 27, 86-96.
Kim, S. H., & Yoo, E. N. (2002). The market feature of Korea out-bound
travelers. The Academy of Korea Tourism Policy, 8, 47-66.
Kim, S., & Morrison, A. (2005). Change of images of South Korea among
foreign tourists after the 2002 FIFA World Cup. Tourism Management,
26, 233-247.
Kolter, P., & Gertner, D. (2002). Country as brand, product, and beyond: A
place marketing and brand management perspective. Journal of Brand
Management, 9, 249-261.
Lee, J. Y., & Kang, H. M. (2010). Beijing Olympics news patterns and news
symbolization. Journal of Social Research, 11, 25-46.
Lee, C. K., & Taylor, T. (2005). Critical reflections on the economic impact Yu, C. (2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable
assessment of a mega-event: The case of 2002 FIFA World Cup. Tourism models with binary and continuous outcomes. Unpublished dissertation.
Management, 26, 595-603. University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
Lee, C. K., Taylor, T., Lee, Y. K., & Lee, B. (2005). The impact of a sport Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of
mega-event on destination image: The case of the 2002 FIFA World Consumer Research, 12, 341-352.
Cup Korea/Japan. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Zhang, L., & Zhao, S. X. (2009). City branding and the Olympic effect: A
Administration, 6, 27-45. case study of Beijing. Cities, 26, 245-254.
Li, X. R., & Kaplanidou, K. K. (2013). The impact of the 2008 Beijing
Olympic Games on China’s destination brand: A US-based examina-
tion. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 37, 237-261.
Lynch, J., & Schuler, D. (1994). The match-up effect of spokesperson and
product congruency: A schema theory interpretation. Psychology and
Marketing, 11, 417-445.
Mardia, K. V. (1985). Mardia’s test of multinormality. In S. Kotz & N. L.
Johnson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistical sciences, vol. 5 (pp. 217-221).
New York, NY: Wiley.
Martin, I., & Eroglu, S. (1993). Measuring a multi-dimensional construct:
Country image, Journal of Business Research, 28, 191-210.
McKercher, B., Chan, A., & Lam, C. (2008). The impact of distance on inter-
national tourist movements. Journal of Travel Research, 47, 208-224.
Mossberg, L., & Kleppe, I. A. (2005). Country and destination image—
Different or similar image concepts? The Service Industries Journal, 25,
493-503.
Nadeau, J., Heslop, L., O’Reilly, N., & Luk, P. (2008). Destination in a
country image context. Annals of Tourism Research, 35, 84-196.
Park, J. M. (2009). A study on the selective attributes of travel products on
Korean tourist bound for China and Japan. Korean Journal of Tourism
Management, 23, 297-318.
Park, T. I., & Ju, W. (2011). Economic impact of the 2018 Winter Olympics
Pyeongchang. (HIS Report 11-17). Hyundai Research Institute.
Retrieved from http://www.hri.co.kr/
Pike, S. (2002). Destination image analysis—A review of 142 papers from
1973 to 2000. Tourism Management, 23, 541-549.
Preuss, H., & Alfs, C. (2011). Signaling through the 2008 Beijing
Olympics—Using mega sport events to change the perception and
image of the host. European Sport Management Quarterly, 11, 55-71.
Raykov, T. (2001). Estimation of congeneric scale reliability using covari-
ance structure analysis with nonlinear constraints. British Journal of
Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 9, 315-323.
Ritchie, J. R. B. (1984). Assessing the impact of hallmark events: Conceptual
and research issues. Journal of Travel Research, 23(2), 2-11.
Roth, K. P., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2009). Advancing the country image
construct. Journal of Business Research, 62, 726-740.
Roth, M. S., & Romeo, J. B. (1992). Matching product category and country
image perceptions: A framework for managing country-of-origin effects.
Journal of International Business Studies, 23, 477-497.
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and stan-
dard errors in covariance structure analysis. In A. Von Eye & C. C.
Clogg (Eds.), Latent variable analysis: Applications for developmental
research (pp. 399-419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Shank, M. D., & Beasley, F. M. (1998). What constitutes consumer behavior
literacy? Marketing Education Review, 8, 37-43.
Smith, A. (2005). Reimaging the city: The value of sport initiatives. Annals
of Tourism Research, 32, 217-236.
Stepchenkova, S., & Mills, J. E. (2010). Destination image: A meta-analysis
of 2000–2007 research. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and
Management, 19, 575-609.
Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 4(1), 25-29.
Trail, G. T., & James, J. D. (2013). Sport consumer behavior. Seattle, WA:
Sport Consumer Research Consultants Internet Publishing.
Weston, R., & Gore, P. A. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation mod-
eling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 719-751.
Xing, X., & Chalip, L. (2006). Effects of hosting a sport event on destination
brand: A test of o-branding and match-up models. Sport Management
Review, 9, 49-78.

Volume 23 • Number 3 • 2014 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 175

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.