Traveling to a Gendered Destination: A Goal-Framed Advertising Perspective

Abstract

This study aims to investigate how goal-framed advertising messages paired with destination gender can influence travel decisions. A 2 (goal-framed messages: gain vs. loss) × 2 (destination gender: masculine vs. feminine) between-subjects experiment is conducted with an online consumer panel. Analysis of variance results indicate that gain-framed messages (vs. loss-framed messages) offer a greater advantage in triggering travel intentions toward masculine destinations. This relationship is mediated by processing fluency and gender identity congruity. When a masculine (vs. feminine) tourism destination is portrayed by gain-framed (vs. loss-framed) messages, consumers experience higher processing fluency and perceive greater congruence of gender identity, causing them to be more willing to travel. Findings suggest a matching effect of goal-framed marketing strategy and destination gender. Discussions and implications for destination managers are also presented.

Keywords

destination gender goal-framing effect processing fluency gender identity congruity travel intentions

Introduction

Gender, independent of biological sex, typically refers in social science to the behavioral, social, and psychological characteristics of men and women (Pryzgoda & Chrisler, 2000). Given the acceptance of anthropomorphic cognition, marketing researchers often use brand gender to portray the masculinity and femininity of brands (Grohmann, 2009). Typical masculine traits include assertiveness, aggressiveness, dominance, toughness, independence, courage, and bravery (Kimmel & Ferber, 2000; Lieven & Hildebrand, 2016); femininity manifests as being nurturing, submissive, graceful, tender, and sensitive (Grohmann, 2009; Schnurr, 2018). Since Grohmann (2009) developed a measurement scale to conceptualize brand gender, a growing number of studies have highlighted the importance of gender stimuli (Grohmann, 2016; Hess & Melnyk, 2016) in driving consumers’ attitudes and preferences (Azar, Aimé, & Ulrich, 2018; Grohmann, 2009; Lieven, Grohmann, Herrmann, Landwehr, & van Tilburg, 2015) and brand equity (Lieven & Hildebrand, 2016; Machado, Vacas-de-Carvalho, Azar, André, & Santos, 2019). Research has also highlighted the overarching effectiveness of brand gender in brand marketing and positioning. According to Lieven et al. (2015), brand gender has contributed to consumer brand equity perceptions above and beyond the impacts of other personality dimensions. In the tourism literature, L. Pan, Zhang, Gursoy, and Lu (2017) developed a destination brand personality scale in which gender-related traits (i.e., femininity and competence) overshadowed other personality traits (e.g., sacredness, vibrancy, and excitement) in determining tourists’ behavioral intentions. Thus, research has shown incremental evidence of the role of gender in driving consumers’ product/brand preferences.

In destination branding, destination gender is an important brand trait and has been frequently applied in destinations’ advertising and marketing communications, such as sparkling South Korea, vibrant Las Vegas, pure New Zealand, and elegant Paris. Unfortunately, aside from treating gender as a personality dimension, few studies have explored destination gender and how associated marketing communication can be tailored to suit a gender image. As “gender” cues have become more ubiquitous in attracting potential tourists by promoting tourists’ connections with destinations (Kumar & Nayak, 2018; L. Pan et al., 2017), gender positioning offers invaluable opportunities for destination marketers to strategize their marketing communications. Even so, the tourism literature has rarely tapped into how of destination gender and marketing communication can shape tourists’ destination choices.

This study assumes a goal-framing perspective to examine how gain-/loss-framed advertising messages influence tourists’ intentions to visit a place as a function of destination gender (i.e., feminine or masculine). The “framing effect” suggests that individuals respond to identical issues differently depending on how such issues are framed (Meyers-Levy & Maheswaran, 2004; Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). A growing body of research has come to imply that aligning product gender with marketing cues (e.g., communications and product designs) can boost consumers’ product evaluations/purchase intentions (e.g., Hess & Melnyk, 2016; Lieven et al., 2015; Schnurr, 2018; van Tilburg, Lieven, Herrmann, & Townsend, 2015). In the travel context, marketing materials (e.g., print and online advertisements) play key roles in framing a destination to appeal to and solicit tourists (Loda, Norman, & Backman, 2007; Tsiakali, 2018). In previous research, goal framing has been used to encourage consumer behavior in contexts such as health communication (Gallagher & Updegraff, 2012; McCormick & Seta, 2016), advertising (Kareklas, Carlson, & Muehling, 2012), and personal savings (H. J. Yoon & Ferle, 2018). However, the effectiveness of goal framing in persuasion appears context-dependent. For example, Levin, Schneider, and Gaeth (1998) argued that negative/loss-framed messages are more persuasive because losses are more motivating than gains. Other studies have shown inconsistent findings (Cho & Boster, 2010; Gray & Harrington, 2011; O’Keefe & Jensen, 2008). In the tourism domain, the goal-framing effect has demonstrated efficacy in predicting travel behaviors such as environmental protection (Kim & Kim, 2014), hotel linen reuse (Blose, Mack, & Pitts, 2015), and hotel booking (Sparks & Browning, 2011); however, this effect remains largely underexplored in destination branding and travel decision-making contexts.

Therefore, the present study aims to investigate the effectiveness of associating goal-framed advertisements with a destination’s gender traits to elicit travel intentions. Our findings bridge several gaps in the literature. First, this study extends the body of work on product gender research by exploring destination gender beyond a personality dimension. In previous literature, gender traits were simply considered components of brand personality (Grohmann, 2009; L. Pan et al., 2017) with little attention paid to how destinations can craft their gender image to entice potential visitors. Compared with other personality traits, brand gender has shown distinct advantages in promoting product evaluation and purchase decisions (Lieven et al., 2015; L. Pan et al., 2017). However, relevant research is mostly confined to consumer gender and how it influences destination selection or preference rather than the role of destination gender in decision making (Gursoy, Del Chiappa, & Zhang, 2017). Thus, examining the effect of destination gender on decision making is essential to guiding marketing strategies in destination promotion.

Second, our findings contribute to goal-framing theory by testing the interaction effect of this theory with destination gender in a hedonic consumption context (i.e., travel and leisure). In addition to establishing associations between goal-framed marketing and destination gender, this study reveals the mechanisms underlying the matching effect through two key mediators (i.e., processing fluency and gender identity congruity). Therefore, this study provides noteworthy cross-domain evidence supporting the efficacy of using goal framing to encourage consumption behavior.

Third, the results of this research offer destination managers firsthand knowledge to revamp their marketing communications through a destination’s gender positioning. Despite recent advances in tourism research, empirical studies on the efficacy of destination advertising in attracting tourists remain scarce. As Byun and Jang (2015) suggested, “there has been almost no related academic or empirical research, especially on the effectiveness of destination advertisements to attract tourists” (p. 31). Because perceived gender can be easily communicated or projected through marketing communications, product labels, and design features (van den Hende & Mugge, 2014), destinations can feasibly adopt the findings of this study to solicit future visitors by aligning their marketing communications with gender positioning.

Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

Gender, Brand Gender, and Gender Identity

Gender has long been a central topic in disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, psychology, and marketing (Lieven et al., 2015; Martin & Gnoth, 2009). Behavioral differences between men and women constitute one of the most hotly debated research topics (Ye, Hashim, Baghirov, & Murphy, 2018). An array of travel and hospitality studies have indicated that men and women exhibit different attitudes and preferences toward the same products (e.g., tourism landscape type; Gao, Barbieri, & Valdivia, 2014). Men and women also engage in distinct information processing modes (S. Pan & Ryan, 2007); source different online media for travel information searches (Gursoy et al., 2017); and express divergent views on destination attributes, motivations, and travel values (Meng & Uysal, 2008).

Aside from gender-based behavior differences, an emerging research stream has begun to examine gendered products/brands (Avery, 2012; Grohmann, 2009; Lieven et al., 2015) and gendered landscapes (Pritchard & Morgan, 2000). Destinations’ feminine or masculine traits have shown high levels of consistency with brand gender items as posited by Grohmann (2009). Specifically, destinations can exhibit masculinity, such as being adventurous, daring, exciting, competent, outdoorsy, rugged, and tough (Kimmel & Ferber, 2000). Feminine destinations may appear mild, poetic, romantic, warm, charming, glamorous, friendly, family-oriented, tranquil, and sentimental (Kumar & Nayak, 2018; L. Pan et al., 2017). When focusing on marketing messages from a destination gender perspective, Pritchard and Morgan (2000) contended that marketers constructively incorporate signs, symbols, images, and fantasies to portray a gendered image as a means of targeting tourists. In their study, the gendered construction of landscapes ranged from the masculinity of North America (using adventurous and exciting natural scenes) to the femininity of the Third World as denoted by exotic female figures (Pritchard & Morgan, 2000).

Gender can function as a salient aspect of personal identity and character (Pryzgoda & Chrisler, 2000; Turban & Ehrensaft, 2018); gender identity refers to the extent to which a person identifies with primarily masculine or feminine personality traits (Martin & Gnoth, 2009; Neale, Robbie, & Martin, 2016). Gender identity characterizes one’s self-perception as either masculine or feminine; as such, this study focuses on destination gender rather than a destination’s gender identity. Gender is a core element of self-cognition that persists throughout the life span. Scholars have argued that an individual’s gender, along with product/brand preferences and potential travel decisions, helps define one’s gender identity (Martin & Gnoth, 2009). As suggested in prior research, gender traits can be used to symbolize places and landscapes to influence individuals’ preferences; therefore, perceived destination gender is likely to influence consumers’ travel decisions and experiences (Yang, Khoo-Lattimore, & Arcodia, 2018).

The Goal-Framing Effect, Information Processing, and Travel Intentions

Levin et al. (1998) identified three major types of valence frames: risky choice framing, attribute framing, and goal framing. Risky choice framing involves choosing between two options under risk, whereas attribute framing and goal framing each focus on the relative effectiveness of positive and negative framing for a single option (Freling, Vincent, & Henard, 2014; Putrevu, 2010). Furthermore, attribute framing manipulates a key object attribute, whereas goal framing manipulates a specific relationship between a behavior and subsequent consequences (e.g., goal attainment) to persuade individuals to perform a particular action (Freling et al., 2014; Lee & Aaker, 2004; Putrevu, 2010). In other words, the goal-framing effect suggests that conducting (or failing to conduct) a certain behavior is directly related to achieving benefits or avoiding losses (Krishnamurthy, Carter, & Blair, 2001). The tourism literature has often described travel motivations as either benefit-driven (i.e., seeking benefits) or avoidance-driven (i.e., escaping monotony; Iso-Ahola, 1982; Wolfe & Hsu, 2004); thus, travel outcomes can be classified as either seeking benefits (positive valence) or avoiding losses (negative valance) for the same goal. This study takes goal framing as a theoretical foundation.

Research on consumer decision making has suggested that, because of the inseparable and intangible characteristics of tourism products, consumers cannot engage in a tourism experience before the product has been purchased and consumed (L. Huang, Gursoy, & Xu, 2014). Most travel purchases also tend to be substantially costlier than everyday purchases, which can present great risks and uncertainties in the decision-making process (L. Huang et al., 2014). To minimize such barriers, consumers tend to perform extensive information searches before making destination choices (Byun & Jang, 2015; Gursoy et al., 2017; Lu, 2019). Synthesizing the goal-framing effect and travel motivation theory, marketing messages could be framed to emphasize either the positives gained from traveling to a destination or the negatives avoided by visiting the same destination (Levin et al., 1998; Snepenger, King, Marshall, & Uysal, 2006). In other words, the goal of travel can be framed in a negative valence (e.g., a form of escapism from the tedium of everyday life and work) or a positive valence (e.g., potential benefits specific to a destination’s characteristics; Hsu, Cai, & Wong, 2007).

Research has found that negative and positive goal-framed messages can each be effective in persuading people to act (Levin et al., 1998). However, it remains unclear which approach is more convincing (Gamliel & Herstein, 2012). The decision to use either messaging style depends on the valence of a given behavior (Cesario, Corker, & Jelinek, 2013; Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). For instance, negative goal framing is more persuasive in instances of high perceived risk, such as illness detection (Cesario et al., 2013). Positive goal-framed messages are generally more persuasive in neutral contexts such as resource recycling (Van de Velde, Verbeke, Popp, & Huylenbroeck, 2010) and medical policy decisions (Gamliel & Peer, 2010). Thus, when the intended behavior leads to positive results, people are more influenced by the benefits fostered by positively framed messages (Schuck & Vreese, 2006). Considering the pleasure-seeking and experiential nature of travel purchases (Gursoy, Spangenberg, & Rutherford, 2006), tourists are likely to follow the principles of hedonic consumption (Girard & Dion, 2010). In this case, gain-framed messages containing positive information are more likely to influence consumers’ product evaluations and decision making compared with loss-framed messages (Levin et al., 1998). Therefore, we postulate that

Hypothesis 1₀: Consumers do not express higher travel intentions toward the destination when a gain-framed (vs. loss-framed) message is presented.

Hypothesis 1: Consumers express higher travel intentions toward the destination when a gain-framed (vs. loss-framed) message is presented.

The Matching Effect Between Goal-Framed Messages and Destination Gender

Mounting evidence has suggested that people believe men and women are different in nearly every comparable way, as are feminine and masculine products/brands (Grohmann, 2009; Schnurr, 2018). Thus, consumers use products’ gender cues to associate a product/destination with stereotypical male and female attributes. For example, a stereotypical woman may be perceived as warm and sympathetic, eager to provide comfort and support; by contrast, a stereotypical man may be associated with achievement-oriented traits to gain competence (Marlene, 1980). Researchers have contended that gender cues can activate gender-specific associations from which consumers ascribe gender-stereotypical knowledge to the brand (Hess & Melnyk, 2016; Lieven et al., 2015). In line with this perception, marketing messages and stimuli (e.g., scent) perceived as congruent with a product’s gender are deemed more favorable (Spangenberg, Sprott, Grohmann, & Tracy, 2006).

Individuals process information via distinct modes, namely the analytical mode and heuristic mode (Soane, Schubert, Lunn, & Pollard, 2015). Emotions and key contextual factors (e.g., information type and mode) can greatly affect how consumers process incoming information (Kronrod & Danziger, 2013). According to previous studies, when consumers are exposed to an “affect-rich” purchase context (e.g., leisure and travel), presumed hedonic consumption can evoke emotional thinking and attitudes toward the consumption goal (Kronrod & Danziger, 2013). When the goal-framed message has a positive valence and promotion focus, it will likely elicit positive affect; contrarily, a negative loss-framed message has a prevention focus and thus induces negative affect (Buck & Powers, 2011; Putrevu, 2014). Certain studies (Beukeboom & Semin, 2006; King & Janiszewski, 2011) have indicated that individuals’ affective state directly determines their information processing styles and product preferences. For example, negative valence can compel individuals to seek supportive stimuli or products (e.g., tactile products) in their environment; the stereotypical perception of women as warm and sympathetic (i.e., feminine) is consistent with this need. Conversely, positive affect encourages individuals to explore their environment and thus become attracted to products related to novelty and variety, which portrays stereotypically male traits (i.e., masculinity) such as achievement-oriented approaches to gain competence (Marlene, 1980). When processing goal-framed messages within a destination’s gender trait context, associations evoked by the destination’s gender further influence individuals’ mood perceptions, which then shape their information processing styles (Hess & Melnyk, 2016). Specifically, feminine cues trigger the perceiver’s analytical information processing, and prevention-focused goal framing (e.g., avoiding loss) is preferred; a masculine trait is associated with competence and toughness, hence inspiring heuristic processing in favor of promotion-focused goal framing (e.g., gaining benefits; Kimmel & Ferber, 2000; Schnurr, 2018). Drawing on the aforementioned rationale, we propose that

Hypothesis 2₀: The fit between a goal-framed message and destination gender cannot enhance consumers’ travel intentions.

Hypothesis 2: The fit between a goal-framed message and destination gender can enhance consumers’ travel intentions.

Hypothesis 2a₀: Compared with a gain-framed message (i.e., emphasizing positive outcomes), consumers do not express stronger travel intentions toward a feminine destination on exposure to a loss-framed message (i.e., avoiding loss).

Hypothesis 2a: Compared with a gain-framed message (i.e., emphasizing positive outcomes), consumers develop stronger travel intentions toward a feminine destination on exposure to a loss-framed message (i.e., avoiding loss).

Hypothesis 2b₀: Compared with a loss-framed message (i.e., emphasizing negative outcomes), consumers do not express stronger travel intentions toward a masculine destination on exposure to a gain-framed message (i.e., attaining benefits).

Hypothesis 2b: Compared with a loss-framed message (i.e., emphasizing negative outcomes), consumers develop stronger travel intentions toward a masculine destination on exposure to a gain-framed message (i.e., attaining benefits).

The Mediating Role of Processing Fluency Between Goal Framing and Travel Intentions

Processing fluency pertains to the ease with which people subjectively process external information (Alter & Oppenheimer, 2009). Information consistent with people’s mental or emotional state is easier to comprehend, which leads to fluency; people tend to associate such ease with truth and, to some extent, social consensus (Schwarz, 2004). Therefore, fluent messages are more likely to be considered credible, thereby triggering positive affect and positive judgments such as brand preferences (Tsai & McGill, 2011).

In a travel context, when tourists process information that matches their perceptions of destination gender, they are more likely to experience a subjective feeling of fluency and perceived ease of comprehension (Reber, Schwarz, & Winkielman, 2004). This feeling of fluency can lead to a sense of “feeling right,” which yields stronger evaluations and greater willingness to travel (Labroo & Lee, 2006). Therefore, we propose that

Hypothesis 3₀: The feeling of processing fluency does not mediate the matching effect of goal framing and destination gender on consumers’ travel intentions.

Hypothesis 3: The feeling of processing fluency positively mediates the matching effect of goal framing and destination gender on consumers’ travel intentions.

The Mediating Role of Congruity Between Goal Framing and Travel Intentions

Besides processing fluency, we identify congruity as another critical mediator accounting for the matching effect between goal framing and destination gender on travel intentions. The term self-concept explains how individuals view themselves. Self-concept has been presented as multidimensional, consisting of one’s actual self, ideal self, social self, and ideal social self (Sirgy, 1982). The actual self refers to how a person perceives himself or herself, the ideal self captures how a person would like to see himself or herself, the social self is how a person is perceived by others, and one’s ideal social self is how he or she would like to be perceived by others (Sirgy, 1982).

Studies have shown that all individuals possess a self-image that is used to construct their self-identity (Sirgy & Su, 2000). This conspicuous and self-expressive perception of self has come to play an increasingly pivotal role in shaping consumers’ attitudes and purchase behavior by motivating individuals to purchase products/brands that reflect and enhance their self-image and lifestyle (Belk, 2014). The congruency between self-image and product/brand image is labeled self-concept/brand image congruity (Sirgy & Su, 2000). Following Sirgy and Su’s (2000) integrated theoretical framework on congruity in tourism, ample studies have revealed the substantial influence of self-congruity on travel behavior including destination choice, satisfaction, recommendation intention, place attachment, and destination loyalty (Beerli, Meneses, & Gil, 2007; Hosany & Martin, 2012). Research has shown that if an information search yields congruence between a destination’s personality and travelers’ self-image, it can also result in potential favorable attitudes and behaviors toward that destination (Ekinci, Sirakaya-Turk, & Preciado, 2013). Various self-motive needs including self-consistency, self-esteem, social consistency, and approval can be fulfilled by pursuing self-congruity. Once these needs are satisfied, subsequent positive emotions may encourage purchase decisions and behaviors (Kang, Tang, & Lee, 2015; Sirgy & Su, 2000). Therefore, we propose that

Hypothesis 4₀: Self-congruity does not mediate the matching effect of goal framing and destination gender on tourists’ travel intentions.

Hypothesis 4: Self-congruity positively mediates the matching effect of goal framing and destination gender on tourists’ travel intentions.

In this context, customizing marketing messages to reflect destination gender traits can project a distinct destination gender image and brand gender (Klink, 2003; Lieven et al., 2015). Considering that gender identity is a fundamental aspect of self-concept, perceived gender in a brand image can play a critical role in consumers’ decision-making processes (Grohmann, 2009; Schnurr, 2018; Wood & Eagly, 2015). According to the consistency principle, individuals are motivated to achieve cognitive congruence and will adapt their beliefs, attitudes, perceptions, and even actions to achieve harmony among their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (Feiereisen, Broderick, & Douglas, 2009). Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the more congruence a consumer perceives between his or her gender identity schema and a destination gender portrayal in an advertising message (i.e., gender identity congruity; Feiereisen et al., 2009), the more favorable his or her attitudes and evaluations toward the advertised product/brand will be. Therefore, in addition to self-congruity, we propose gender identity congruity as a potential mediator.

Hypothesis 5₀: Gender identity congruity does not mediate the matching effect of goal framing and destination gender on tourists’ travel intentions.

Hypothesis 5: Gender identity congruity positively mediates the matching effect of goal framing and destination gender on tourists’ travel intentions.

Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual framework of this study.

Figure 1

Framework of This Study

Methodology

Overview

An online experiment was conducted to investigate the matching effect of goal framing and destination gender on consumers’ travel intentions and the mechanisms underlying this effect. Proposed hypotheses were examined via a 2 (goal-framed messages: gain vs. loss) × 2 (destination gender: masculine vs. feminine) factorial between-subjects experiment. Experimental materials were initially drawn from real destination photographs and travel reviews posted by previous travelers and then pretested with undergraduate students. Undergraduates were recruited on campus and offered a coffee shop coupon as a thank-you for their participation.

Experimental Design and Procedures

Participants. We conducted the online experiment in May 2018. Consumer participants were recruited in China via a commercial online survey company, Sojump (https://www.sojump.com). Individuals who were older than 18 years and had traveled at least once within the past 6 months were eligible to participate. A total of 304 participants were recruited throughout China and randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions. Two criteria were applied to identify and discard invalid responses: (a) responses that did not pass one or more attention check questions and (b) responses that were similar throughout the experiment, indicating a lack of deliberation.

The final sample consisted of 272 valid responses, including 145 women (53.3%) and 127 men (46.7%) among 169 southerners (62.1%) and 103 northerners (37.9%). Half of the participants were between 18 and 25 years old, 32.7% were 26 to 34 years old, and 15.8% were 35 to 54 years old. Most participants had reportedly earned either a bachelor’s degree (42.3%) or a master’s degree (26.5%). The sample size for this study satisfied the criterion of at least 5 to 10 responses per item measured (Zhang, Zhang, Gursoy, & Fu, 2018). Statistical analyses were performed in IBM SPSS 22.0.

Development of experimental materials. Manipulation of experimental factors involved the development of pictorial and text-based messages to simulate online advertisements. The research team developed fictional advertising text-based messages (e.g., destination gender and goal-framed messages) that mimicked real online travel comments. Several iteration procedures were conducted to ensure clarity and successful manipulation of the target treatments. A panel of marketing experts was invited to select destinations representing a clearly masculine or feminine trait, respectively. The masculine landscape illustrated a mountain in northern China, whereas the feminine landscape portrayed a waterside view in southern China. To add rigor to the experimental design, we sourced three mountain views and three waterside destinations and used them simultaneously to eliminate potential biases. In experimental research, using replication within a treatment level can reduce variability and increase interpretation confidence in the results. These pictorial materials were selected based on a joint effort between the research team and a sample of 34 MBA students, who evaluated the salient gender image in a pool of masculine and feminine destinations.

Pretest and pilot testing. As recommended by experimental research experts (Kapuściński & Richards, 2016; Schuck & Vreese, 2006), we conducted a pretest to statistically test the clarity of verbal messages and comparability of pictorial stimuli within each treatment (i.e., three replicates were equally attractive for a masculine or feminine destination). After removing invalid responses, 77 student responses were retained to evaluate fictional advertisements on clarity (1 = extremely unclear, 5 = extremely clear) and attractiveness (1 = extremely unattractive, 5 = extremely attractive). Variance analysis results showed that all textual descriptions were clear and the pictorial stimuli were equally attractive. Apart from the aforementioned manipulation, the aesthetics of the online destination advertisements (e.g., size, color, font, and layout) were identical.

Procedure and measures. Consumer respondents were first subjected to two screening questions before beginning the formal experiment to exclude those who were younger than 18 years or had not traveled within the past 6 months. Those who passed the screening procedures were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions and given detailed instructions. All participants were asked to imagine an occasion when they were expected to choose their next vacation destination. After being exposed to the simulated online destination advertisements, participants were subjected to multiple manipulation check questions and the remaining measures regarding information processing fluency, self-congruity, gender identity congruity, willingness to travel, and demographics.

Measures were adapted from established scales with slight modifications to fulfill the needs of the current study. To ensure translation accuracy of the measurement instrument, we adopted a collaborative approach as suggested by Douglas and Craig (2007): first, we invited two bilingual researchers to translate the instrument into the target language (i.e., Mandarin) independently; then, we invited a third bilingual and experienced researcher to join the first two to discuss all translation differences and reach a final unanimous decision. In the end, the instrument was pretested and further revised based on recommendations from six bilingual tourism and hospitality management PhDs to improve the clarity, comprehension, and effectiveness of communication and translation.

Before multiple-item scales were averaged to form an index to increase the reliability of the measures (Meyvis & van Osselaer, 2018), the reliability and validity of each construct were examined; findings are reported in Table 1. Cronbach’s α (>.60; Amar, Droulers, & Legohérel, 2017; Zuo, Gursoy, & Wall, 2017) and construct reliability indicated sufficient reliability of each construct. Convergent validity and discriminant validity were then calculated. All item-to-factor loadings were significant and exceeded 0.50. Despite the slightly lower average variance extracted (AVE) for processing fluency, AVEs of all other constructs exceeded the threshold of 0.50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Therefore, the measure used in this study demonstrated convergent validity and reliability. The AVE root score for each measured variable was larger than the correlations between each pair of variables, indicating sufficient discriminant validity (Kline, 2011; Table 2).

Table 1

Reliability and Convergent Validity Results of This Study

Variable and Items	M	SD	Factor Loading^a	AVE	Cronbach’s α	Construct Reliability
Travel intentions(TI)				0.76	.89	0.90
TI1: How likely will you plan to visit this place in the next year?	4.86	1.33	0.88
TI2: How likely would you like to visit this place in the next year?	4.93	1.32	0.90
TI3: How possible will you make a hard effort to visit this place in the next year?	4.77	1.44	0.83
Processing fluency (PF)				0.46	.65	0.71
PF1: Please indicate the complexity when understanding the message of the above advertisement.	4.93	1.02	0.50
PF2: Please indicate the complexity when processing the message of the above advertisement.	4.69	1.01	0.67
PF3: Please indicate the complexity of the above advertisement to draw your attention	4.76	1.00	0.83
Self-congruity (SC)				0.84	.95	0.95
SC1: Visiting this place is consistent with how I see myself.	3.34	1.88	0.94
SC2: This place is consistent with how I would like to see myself being at a place.	3.36	1.73	0.92
SC3: Visiting this place is consistent with how I believe others see me.	3.32	1.62	0.88
SC4: This place is consistent with how I would like others to see me being at a place.	3.48	1.85	0.92
Gender identity congruity (GIC)				0.60	.74	0.74
GIC1: Visiting this place is consistent with how I see myself as a man/woman.	5.49	1.04	0.61
GIC2: This place is consistent with how I would like to see myself being a man/woman.	5.58	0.95	0.91

Note: AVE = average variance extracted.

Standardized factor loadings were all significant at p < .01.

Table 2

Discriminant Validity Test for the Measured Variables

	PF	SC	GIC	TI
PF	0.68
SC	0.04	0.92
GIC	0.06	0.27	0.77
TI	0.13	0.11	0.34	0.87

Note: PF = processing fluency; SC = self-congruity; GIC = gender identity congruity; TI = travel intentions; AVE = average variance extracted. Numbers on the diagonal indicate AVE root scores of each variable; numbers off the diagonal are correlations between variables.

For the manipulation checks, respondents were asked to indicate their extent of agreement with items such as “The above advertisements mainly state: 1 = the losses if you choose not to visit this destination, 7 = the gains if you choose to visit this destination” for goal-framing manipulations (Levin, Gaeth, Schreiber, & Lauriola, 2002). Participants also rated the destination as a person on feminine traits using four items (i.e., tender, elegant, graceful, and sentimental; Kumar & Nayak, 2018; L. Pan et al., 2017) or masculine traits using four items (i.e., adventurous, dominant, daring, and aggressive; Grohmann, 2009; Kimmel & Ferber, 2000). Participants’ familiarity (e.g., “I am more familiar than most of my friends regarding this kind of landscape”), attitude toward a specific landscape (e.g., “How strong are your feelings about this kind of landscape”), and demographics (e.g., age, gender, education level, geographic location, and income) were used as control variables.

Results

Manipulation Checks

Ratings for the two goal-framed messages were averaged (α = .93) to form a composite goal-framing score. Findings of a one-sample t test indicated significant differences between the means of the gain- and loss-framed message ratings (M_Gain = 5.38, SD_Gain = 0.72, M_Loss = 1.92, SD_Loss = 0.60, p < .001), suggesting successful manipulation. Ratings for the destination gender items were averaged (α_Masculine = .74, α_Feminine = .77) to form another composite score. Results indicated that participants successfully rated their assigned destinations as masculine or feminine as manipulated (M_Masculine = 3.65, SD_Masculine = 0.69; M_Feminine = 4.30, SD_Feminine = 0.49, p < .001).

Hypothesis Testing

Goal-framing effect and travel intentions. Hypothesis 1 proposed that consumers would hold higher travel intentions toward a destination described in a gain-framed (vs. loss-framed) message. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out on the consumer sample with travel intentions as the dependent variable and goal framing as the main factor. The results, F(1, 271) = 2.69, p = .002, indicated that consumers’ travel intentions were significantly higher when exposed to a gain-framed message than to a loss-framed message (M_gain-framed = 5.09, M_loss-framed = 4.67, t[136] = 2.54, p = .01). Hypothesis 1 was thus fully supported.

The matching effect of goal framing and destination gender. Hypothesis 2 posited that a matching effect exists between goal-framed messages and destination gender on travel intentions. A new dummy variable (1 = fit between goal-framed message and destination gender, 0 = lack of fit between goal-framed message and destination gender) was introduced to conduct a repeated-measures ANOVA on varied mixes of treatments of goal-framed messages and destination gender. A homogeneity test of variance was performed on data before conducting the repeated-measures ANOVA. Results showed that all p values of the homogeneity test of variance were above the lowest significance level (α = .05), suggesting that a match between goal framing and destination gender did not influence the population variance of behavioral intentions, hence meeting the prerequisites for variance analysis. The ANOVA results revealed a significant interaction effect, F(1, 271) = 20.11, p < .001, between goal framing and destination gender on travel intention. As such, aligning destination gender with an appropriate goal-framed message resulted in higher willingness to travel.

ANOVA results also indicated a significant main effect of goal framing on travel intentions for feminine destinations, F(1, 135) = 2.44, p < .05. Follow-up planned contrasts suggested that participants who read the loss-framed message for the feminine destination exhibited similar travel intentions as those who were subjected to the gain-framed message (M_gain-framed = 4.75, M_loss-framed = 5.01; t[66] = 1.24, p = .22); (Figure 2) accordingly, Hypothesis 2a was rejected. For masculine destinations, ANOVA tests showed a significant main effect of goal-framed messages, F(1, 135) = 3.80, p < .001. Planned contrasts indicated that participants had higher travel intentions to visit masculine destinations when exposed to a gain-framed message than a loss-framed message (M_gain-framed = 5.38, M_loss-framed = 4.44; t[66] = 5.12, p < .001); (Figure 2) therefore, Hypothesis 2b was supported.

Figure 2

ANOVA Results of Matching Effect Between Goal Framing and Destination Gender

Mediation analysis. The mediating effects of processing fluency, self-congruity, and gender identity congruity were examined via Hayes’ PROCESS procedure (Model 4 in PROCESS; Hayes, 2013). Travel intentions were entered as the dependent variable; processing fluency, self-congruity, and gender identity congruity were treated as mediators; and the fit between goal framing and destination gender was the independent variable while controlling for familiarity, attitude toward the destination, and demographics. The indirect effect of the match between goal framing and destination gender on travel intentions through processing fluency was significant (indirect effect = 0.09, standard error [SE] = 0.05, 95% confidence interval [CI: −0.2068, −0.0232]). The indirect effect of the interaction term of goal framing and destination gender on travel intentions through gender identity congruity was also significant (indirect effect = 0.05, SE = 0.03, 95% CI [0.0022, 0.1400]). However, the indirect effect through self-congruity was not significant (indirect effect = 0.00, SE = 0.01, 95% CI [−0.0199, 0.0416]). As a result, Hypotheses 3 and 5 were supported and Hypothesis 4 was rejected. Self-congruity was not found to be a significant mediator presumably because self-concept involves an overall evaluation of a person, which encompasses views far beyond the gender role (Sirgy & Su, 2000). As this study focused solely on destination gender, this conceptualization may make it difficult for individuals to evaluate the self-congruity of a destination based on destination gender traits alone, especially when considering unfamiliar destinations (e.g., knowledge deficiency).

Conclusions

Theoretical Contributions

We set out to investigate the effectiveness of goal-framed marketing communications in conjunction with destination gender in eliciting travel intentions, followed by an examination of the underlying mechanisms. Grounded in goal-framing theory, this study extends existing knowledge on several fronts. First, our work represents a pioneering attempt to explore brand gender in destination marketing. Research on consumers’ preferences for gendered products has been primarily confined to tangible goods (Neale et al., 2016) with scarce consideration of intangible products/services, including hedonism-driven experiences (e.g., traveling to a gendered destination). Considering the centrality of destination branding and rising competition within the travel industry, developing fresh perspectives to advance existing theory is paramount. Although gender dimensions could be considered part of a brand’s personality portfolio, studies have emphasized its influence on product evaluations across contexts. For example, product marketing research has shown that gendering products can make them more appealing to target customers (e.g., van Tilburg et al., 2015). In the hospitality and tourism literature, scholars have reported that gender traits dominate all other personality traits in destination branding and exhibit the largest effects on consumers’ destination loyalty and self-congruity (e.g., L. Pan et al., 2017). Thus, this study extends the theoretical dialogue regarding destination gender and its burgeoning importance in tourism and hospitality marketing.

Second, this research closes a prominent gap in the literature by revealing that gendering products through marketing communication enhances product evaluation in tourism and hospitality. Although research has underscored the effectiveness of goal framing in health and marketing communication, the literature has not explored how consumers’ gender perceptions of an intangible service product (e.g., a tourism destination) can be leveraged in goal-framed marketing communications. This study demonstrates that gain-framed (vs. loss-framed) messages are generally more persuasive in prompting travel intentions when a specific destination is promoted. This finding resonates with the push-and-pull travel motivation dichotomy (Iso-Ahola, 1982), wherein consumers are pushed by internal desires to escape and pulled by appealing destination attributes (Y. Yoon & Uysal, 2005). Gain-framed messages are bound to external benefits provided by a destination, while loss-framed messages (e.g., “escape your boring daily routine”) point to an internal desire to get away. Thus, gain-framed messages are more useful in pulling travelers toward an intended destination, whereas loss-framed ones may only push individuals toward travel in general.

Third, by controlling for individual gender differences, this research mainly focused on situational effects where, when pairing gain-framed messages with masculine destinations, consumers exhibited stronger intentions to travel. To explain this matching effect, our study unravels hidden mechanisms from different angles. When a goal-framed message aligned with destination gender, consumers experienced greater processing fluency and developed stronger behavioral intentions. Research has shown that consumers favor brands/products whose brand gender is personally congruent (Grohmann, 2009). When a destination is personified with human traits, using appropriate goal-framed messages can help consumers see a shared gender identity between themselves and the destination, which may inspire visit intention.

Interestingly, although a statistically nonsignificant result led to rejection of Hypothesis 2a (i.e., loss-framed advertising messages outperform gain-framed messages in driving intentions to visit a feminine destination), the direction was nevertheless compatible with our original hypothesis. In other words, when evaluating feminine destinations, participants’ average responses (i.e., travel intentions) to loss-framed messages were more favorable than their overall responses to gain-framed ones. Despite the consistent direction with Hypothesis 2a, we can rationalize this nonsignificant finding as follows. Previous conceptualizations of associating product gender with message framing were based on tangible goods rather than hedonic experiences. Recent study has shown that pursuing hedonic benefits causes consumers to favor feminine products over masculine ones because femininity can elicit a sense of being caring, tender, and considerate, which is linked to hedonism (Schnurr, 2018). However, these feminine traits could further cause perceivers to engage in analytic and detail-oriented information processing (Mayer & Tormala, 2010), which requires high personal involvement and mitigates the goal-framing effect (Putrevu, 2010).

Despite this unexpected result, this illuminating finding marks a meaningful step in product gender research by highlighting the importance of the product type to be evaluated (e.g., tangible goods vs. experiences). When assessing experience-driven products such as travel, travel intentions to feminine destinations appear immune from goal-framing effects, whereas intentions to visit masculine destinations are stimulated using gain-framed (vs. loss-framed) messages.

Managerial Implications

Managerially, our results have substantiated the advantages of using gain-framed marketing communications to promote travel destinations. Scholars have noted the importance of design elements such as brand logo, color, type fonts and layout in a destination’s online advertisements (Rodríguez-Molina, Frías-Jamilena, & Castañeda-García, 2015). This study adds further insight into the importance of leveraging an appropriate combination of pictorial elements and framing messages to develop useful communication strategies that draw visitation. Managers and website designers should exploit the goal-framing effect and use gain-framed marketing messages to solicit consumers’ visitation. Special attention should be paid to masculine destinations, where marketing messages should be mindfully designed with gain-framed verbal advertisements. Furthermore, destinations can cultivate a masculine aura through pictures, videos, and other visual aids by taking advantage of natural landscape elements (e.g., a broad river, upstanding mountains, or vast green forest) and presenting daring and adventurous tourist activities (e.g., hiking, big-wave surfing, camping in the deep forest, wild horse riding, and farm work; Brandth & Haugen, 2005).

Based on the results of this study, we advise managers to spotlight destination gender via verbal and visual signals to portray a feminine or masculine image. As our findings suggest, gender identity congruence can drive consumers to perceive self-relevance and visit a potential destination. A well-crafted website can also foster consumers’ positive evaluations of destination image (Rodríguez-Molina et al., 2015) with an easily distinguishable gender trait. Online travel agencies can apply the findings of this study to add diversity to their destinations’ branding portfolios. Managers may disseminate gender symbols of promoted destinations (e.g., via pictures and gender frames) and include gender-congruent sightseeing activities/events in travel itineraries. Despite the advantages of marketing brand gender, destination managers should be cautious when accommodating overseas tourists. Although gender identity has been universally acknowledged, individuals with different cultural backgrounds may exhibit distinct perceptions toward a specific landscape (Carter, 2014). Travel agencies should consider monitoring the cultural nuances of overseas travelers and present brand gender via preferred landscapes and activities defined by consumers’ home culture.

Limitations and Summary

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, the cultural upbringing of the sample suggests a clear distinction between gender roles. Perceived destination gender may vary widely among societies characterized by high and low levels of gender equality; cultures with blurred gender roles may yield different findings (Ditta-Apichai & Kattiyapornpong, 2019). Second, this study explores the goal-framing effect when a destination’s masculinity or femininity is salient. However, as tourism development advances, commercialized destinations may include a variety of attractions and landscapes featuring a blend of masculine and feminine traits. Therefore, how to design advertising messages abiding by the goal-framing effect for gender-complex destinations remains uncertain. We also did not consider the effects of website design elements such as font type, size, or color and graphical layout. Additionally, our experiment design considered the focal traveler in isolation from group influence. Previous research has alluded to differences in travel decision making among travel parties (e.g., group travel, family travel, and solo travel; Gracia & Alarcón-Urbistondo, 2016). Likewise, research should examine how consumers respond to goal-framed messages for a gendered destination within and outside a group.

Summary

Despite several decades of exploration of goal-framing effects, a lack of consensus persists around the choice of a positive or negative valence in different contexts (Cesario et al., 2013). This study offers new evidence to reconcile inconsistent findings from earlier research to help streamline the application of goal-framing theory in travel and tourism. Accumulating evidence, including the present study, suggests that gain-framed cues may outperform loss-framed cues in evoking neutral or positive behaviors (Gamliel & Peer, 2010; Van de Velde et al., 2010). As most tourism products/services are related to positive outcomes (vs. risk prevention), promoting the “benefits” of travel may well be more persuasive than preventing “losses.” When considering using goal-framed messages under gendered destination contexts, a gain-framed strategy may be particularly useful for a masculine destination due to high processing fluency and individuals’ gender identity congruity. The goal-framing effect will likely be less pronounced for a feminine destination given the more detail-oriented information processing mode evoked by femininity, preferences for feminine products in hedonic consumption (e.g., traveling), and dominant male-gazed destination landscapes and advertisements (Pritchard & Morgan, 2000).

Footnotes

Authors’ Note:

This work was financially supported by the Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China [Grant Number LQ18G020006].

ORCID iDs

Li Pan

Lu Lu

Li Pan, PhD (e-mail: lexiepan0909@126.com), is a lecturer in the College of Economics and Management in the Zhengyang Tourism Research Institute at Zhejiang Normal University, China. Lu Lu, PhD (e-mail: lu.lu0001@temple.edu), is an assistant professor at the Department of Tourism and Hospitality Management, School of Sport, Tourism and Hospitality Management, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA. Dogan Gursoy, PhD (e-mail: dgursoy@wsu.edu), is the Taco Bell distinguished professor at Washington State University in the School of Hospitality Business Management.

References

Alter

A. L.

Oppenheimer

D. M.

(2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 219-235.

Amar

Droulers

Legohérel

(2017). Typography in destination advertising: An exploratory study and research perspectives. Tourism Management, 63, 77-86.

Avery

(2012). Defending the markers of masculinity: Consumer resistance to brand gender-bending. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29, 322-336.

Azar

S. L.

Aimé

Ulrich

(2018). Brand gender-bending: The impact of an endorsed brand strategy on consumers’ evaluation of gendered mixed-target brands. European Journal of Marketing, 52, 1598-1624.

Beerli

Meneses

D. G.

Gil

M. S.

(2007). Self-congruity and destination choice. Annals of Tourism Research, 34, 571-587.

Belk

(2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1595-1600.

Beukeboom

C. J.

Semin

G. R.

(2006). How mood turns on language. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 553-566.

Blose

J. E.

Mack

R. W.

Pitts

R. E.

(2015). The influence of message framing on hotel guests’ linen-reuse intentions. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 56, 145-154.

Brandth

Haugen

M. S.

(2005). Doing rural masculinity: From logging to outfield tourism. Journal of Gender Studies, 14, 13-22.

10.

Buck

Powers

S. R.

(2011). Emotion, media, and the global village. In Doveling

von Scheve

Konijn

E. A.

(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of emotions and mass media (pp. 181-194). New York, NY: Routledge.

11.

Byun

Jang

S. C.

(2015). Effective destination advertising: Matching effect between advertising language and destination type. Tourism Management, 50, 31-40.

12.

Carter

(2014). Gender socialization and identity theory. Social Sciences, 3, 242-263.

13.

Cesario

Corker

K. S.

Jelinek

(2013). A self-regulatory framework for message framing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 238-249.

14.

Cho

Boster

F. J.

(2010). Effects of gain versus loss frame antidrug ads on adolescents. Journal of Communication, 58, 428-446.

15.

Ditta-Apichai

Kattiyapornpong

(2019). Assessing the link between cultural influences and persuasibility in online daily deals. Journal of Hospitality, 1, 31-40. Retrieved from http://htmjournals.com/jh/index.php/jh/article/view/5

16.

Douglas

S. P.

Craig

C. S.

(2007). Collaborative and iterative translation: An alternative approach to back translation. Journal of International Marketing, 15, 30-43.

17.

Ekinci

Sirakaya-Turk

Preciado

(2013). Symbolic consumption of tourism destination brands. Journal of Business Research, 66, 711-718.

18.

Feiereisen

Broderick

A. J.

Douglas

S. P.

(2009). The effect and moderation of gender identity congruity: Utilizing “real women” advertising images. Psychology & Marketing, 26, 813-843.

19.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.

20.

Freling

T. H.

Vincent

L. H.

Henard

D. H.

(2014). When not to accentuate the positive: Re-examining valence effects in attribute framing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124, 95-109.

21.

Gallagher

K. M.

Updegraff

J. A.

(2012). Health message framing effects on attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A meta-analytic review. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 43, 101-116.

22.

Gamliel

Peer

(2010). Attribute framing affects the perceived fairness of health care allocation principles. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 11-20.

23.

Gamliel

Herstein

(2012). Effects of message framing and involvement on price deal effectiveness. European Journal of Marketing, 46, 1215-1232.

24.

Gao

Barbieri

Valdivia

(2014). Agricultural landscape preferences: Implications for agritourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 53, 366-379.

25.

Girard

Dion

(2010). Validating the search, experience, and credence product classification framework. Journal of Business Research, 63, 1079-1087.

26.

Gracia

R. D.

Alarcón-Urbistondo

(2016). Toward a gender understanding of the influence of the couple on family vacation decisions. Tourism Management Perspectives, 20, 290-298.

27.

Gray

J. B.

Harrington

N. G.

(2011). Narrative and framing: A test of an integrated message strategy in the exercise context. Journal of Health Communication, 16, 264-281.

28.

Grohmann

(2009). Gender dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 46, 105-119.

29.

Grohmann

(2016). Communicating brand gender through type fonts. Journal of Marketing Communications, 22, 403-418.

30.

Gursoy

Del Chiappa

Zhang

(2017). Preferences regarding external information sources: A conjoint analysis of visitors to sardinia, Italy. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 34, 806-820.

31.

Gursoy

Spangenberg

E. R.

Rutherford

D. G.

(2006). The hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of attendees’ attitudes toward festivals. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 30, 279-294.

32.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Journal of Educational Measurement, 51, 335-337.

33.

Hess

A. C.

Melnyk

(2016). Pink or blue? The impact of gender cues on brand perceptions. European Journal of Marketing, 50, 1550-1574.

34.

Hosany

Martin

(2012). Self-image congruence in consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 65, 685-691.

35.

Hsu

C. H. C.

Cai

L. A.

Wong

K. K. F.

(2007). A model of senior tourism motivations: Anecdotes from Beijing and Shanghai. Tourism Management, 28, 1262-1273.

36.

Huang

Gursoy

. (2014). Impact of personality traits and involvement on prior knowledge. Annals of Tourism Research, 48, 42-57.

37.

Iso-Ahola

S. E.

(1982). Toward a social psychological theory of tourism motivation: A rejoinder. Annals of Tourism Research, 9, 256-262.

38.

Kang

Tang

Lee

J. Y.

(2015). Self-congruity and functional congruity in brand loyalty. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 39, 105-131.

39.

Kapuściński

Richards

(2016). News framing effects on destination risk perception. Tourism Management, 57, 234-244.

40.

Kareklas

Carlson

J. R.

Muehling

D. D.

(2012). The role of regulatory focus and self-view in “green” advertising message framing. Journal of Advertising, 41(4), 25-39.

41.

Kim

S. B.

Kim

D. Y.

(2014). The effects of message framing and source credibility on green messages in hotels. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 55, 64-75.

42.

Kimmel

Ferber

A. L.

(2000). White men are this nation: Right-wing militias and the restoration of rural American masculinity. Rural Sociology, 65, 582-604.

43.

King

Janiszewski

(2011). The sources and consequences of the fluent processing of numbers. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 327-341.

44.

Kline

R. B.

(2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

45.

Klink

R. R.

(2003). Creating meaningful brands: The relationship between brand name and brand mark. Marketing Letters, 14, 143-157.

46.

Krishnamurthy

Carter

Blair

(2001). Attribute framing and goal framing effects in health decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, 382-399.

47.

Kronrod

Danziger

(2013). “Wii will rock you!” The use and effect of figurative language in consumer reviews of hedonic and utilitarian consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 726-739.

48.

Kumar

Nayak

J. K.

(2018). Destination personality: Scale development and validation. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 42, 3-25.

49.

Labroo

A. A.

Lee

A. Y.

(2006). Between two brands: A goal fluency account of brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 374-385.

50.

Lee

A. Y.

Aaker

J. L.

(2004). Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 205-218.

51.

Levin

I. P.

Gaeth

G. J.

Schreiber

Lauriola

(2002). A new look at framing effects: Distribution of effect sizes, individual differences, and independence of types of effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 411-429.

52.

Levin

I. P.

Schneider

S. L.

Gaeth

G. J

. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 149-188.

53.

Lieven

Grohmann

Herrmann

Landwehr

J. R.

van Tilburg

(2015). The effect of brand design on brand gender perceptions and brand preference. European Journal of Marketing, 49, 146-169.

54.

Lieven

Hildebrand

(2016). The impact of brand gender on brand equity: Findings from a large-scale cross-cultural study in ten countries. International Marketing Review, 33, 178-195.

55.

Loda

M. D.

Norman

Backman

K. F.

(2007). Advertising and publicity: Suggested new applications for tourism marketers. Journal of Travel Research, 45, 259-265.

56.

(2019). Online information search, familiarity, hotel expectation, perceived safety, and destination image of Thailand: A comparison between Asian and Western tourists. Journal of Hospitality, 1, 50-62. Retrieved from http://htmjournals.com/jh/index.php/jh/article/view/8

57.

Machado

J. C.

Vacas-de-Carvalho

Azar

S. L.

André

A. R.

Santos

B. P.

(2019). Brand gender and consumer-based brand equity on Facebook: The mediating role of consumer-brand engagement and brand love. Journal of Business Research, 96, 376-385.

58.

Marlene

(1980). The impact of sex stereotypes upon adult self-imagery. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 121-125.

59.

Martin

B. A. S.

Gnoth

(2009). Is the Marlboro man the only alternative? The role of gender identity and self-construal salience in evaluations of male models. Marketing Letters, 20, 353-367.

60.

Mayer

N. D.

Tormala

Z. L.

(2010). “Think” versus “feel” framing effects in persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 443-454.

61.

McCormick

Seta

J. J.

(2016). Lateralized goal framing: How health messages are influenced by valence and contextual/analytic processing. Psychology & Health, 31, 535-548.

62.

Meng

Uysal

(2008). Effects of gender differences on perceptions of destination attributes, motivations, and travel values: An examination of a nature-based resort destination. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16, 445-466.

63.

Meyers-Levy

Maheswaran

(2004). Exploring message framing outcomes when systematic, heuristic, or both types of processing occur. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 159-167.

64.

Meyvis

van Osselaer

S. M. J.

(2018). Increasing the power of your study by increasing the effect size. Journal of Consumer Research, 44, 1157-1173.

65.

Neale

Robbie

Martin

(2016). Gender identity and brand incongruence: When in doubt, pursue masculinity. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 24, 347-359.

66.

O’Keefe

D. J.

Jensen

J. D.

(2008). Do loss-framed persuasive messages engender greater message processing than do gain-framed messages? A meta-analytic review. Communication Studies, 59, 51-67.

67.

Pan

Zhang

Gursoy

(2017). Development and validation of a destination personality scale for mainland Chinese travelers. Tourism Management, 59, 338-348.

68.

Pan

Ryan

(2007). Gender, framing, and travelogues. Journal of Travel Research, 45, 464-474.

69.

Pritchard

Morgan

N. J.

(2000). Privileging the male gaze: Gendered tourism landscapes. Annals of Tourism Research, 27, 884-905.

70.

Pryzgoda

Chrisler

J. C.

(2000). Definitions of gender and sex: The subtleties of meaning. Sex Roles, 43, 553-569.

71.

Putrevu

(2010). An examination of consumer responses toward attribute- and goal-framed messages. Journal of Advertising, 39(3), 5-24.

72.

Putrevu

(2014). Effects of mood and elaboration on processing and evaluation of goal-framed appeals. Psychology & Marketing, 31, 134-146.

73.

Reber

Schwarz

Winkielman

(2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 364-382.

74.

Rodríguez-Molina

M. A.

Frías-Jamilena

D. M.

Castañeda-García

J. A.

(2015). The contribution of website design to the generation of tourist destination image: The moderating effect of involvement. Tourism Management, 47, 303-317.

75.

Schnurr

(2018). What’s best for whom? The effect of product gender depends on positioning. European Journal of Marketing, 52, 367-391.

76.

Schuck

A. R. T.

Vreese

C. H. D.

(2006). Between risk and opportunity news framing and its effects on public support for EU enlargement. European Journal of Communication, 21, 5-32.

77.

Schwarz

(2004). Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 332-348.

78.

Sirgy

M. J.

(1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 287-300.

79.

Sirgy

M. J.

(2000). Destination image, self-congruity, and travel behavior: Toward an integrative model. Journal of Travel Research, 38, 340-352.

80.

Snepenger

King

Marshall

Uysal

(2006). Modeling Iso-ahola’s motivation theory in the tourism context. Journal of Travel Research, 45, 140-149.

81.

Soane

Schubert

Lunn

Pollard

(2015). The relationship between information processing style and information seeking, and its moderation by affect and perceived usefulness: Analysis vs. procrastination. Personality and Individual Differences, 72, 72-78.

82.

Spangenberg

E. R.

Sprott

D. E.

Grohmann

Tracy

D. L.

(2006). Gender-congruent ambient scent influences on approach and avoidance behaviors in a retail store. Journal of Business Research, 9, 1281-1287.

83.

Sparks

Browning

(2011). The impact of online reviews on hotel booking intentions and perception of trust. Tourism Management, 32, 1310-1323.

84.

Tsai

C. I.

McGill

A. L.

(2011). No pain, no gain? How fluency and construal level affect consumer confidence. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 807-821.

85.

Tsiakali

(2018). User-generated-content versus marketing-generated-content: Personality and content influence on traveler’s behavior. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 27, 946-972.

86.

Turban

J. L.

Ehrensaft

(2018). Research review: Gender identity in youth: Treatment paradigms and controversies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 59, 1228-1243.

87.

Tversky

Kahneman

(1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.

88.

Van de Velde

Verbeke

Popp

Huylenbroeck

G. V.

(2010). The importance of message framing for providing information about sustainability and environmental aspects of energy. Energy Policy, 38, 5541-5549.

89.

van den Hende

E. A.

Mugge

. (2014). Investigating gender-schema congruity effects on consumers’ evaluation of anthropomorphized products. Psychology & Marketing, 31, 264-277.

90.

van Tilburg

M. V.

Lieven

Herrmann

Townsend

. (2015). Beyond “pink it and shrink it” perceived product gender, aesthetics, and product evaluation. Psychology & Marketing, 32, 422-437.

91.

Wolfe

Hsu

(2004). An application of the social psychological model of tourism motivation. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 5(1), 29-47.

92.

Wood

Eagly

A. H.

(2015). Two traditions of research on gender identity. Sex Roles, 73, 461-473.

93.

Yang

E. C. L.

Khoo-Lattimore

Arcodia

(2018). Power and empowerment: How Asian solo female travellers perceive and negotiate risks. Tourism Management, 68, 32-45.

94.

Hashim

N. H.

Baghirov

Murphy

(2018). Gender differences in Instagram hashtag use. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 27, 386-404.

95.

Yoon

H. J.

Ferle

C. L.

(2018). Saving behavior messaging: Gain/loss framing self/family orientations, and individual differences in collectivism. Journal of Advertising, 47, 146-160.

96.

Yoon

Uysal

(2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: A structural model. Tourism Management, 26, 45-56.

97.

Zhang

Gursoy

(2018). Message framing and regulatory focus effects on destination image formation. Tourism Management, 69, 397-407.

98.

Zuo

Gursoy

Wall

(2017). Residents’ support for red tourism in China: The moderating effect of central government. Annals of Tourism Research, 64, 51-63.