Destination Promotion through Images: Exploring Tourists′ Emotions and Their Impact on Behavioral Intentions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The aim of the paper is clear and the title is informative and relevant. The abstract is informative and concise.

The authors stated on lines 69-73 that ” no evidence has been found of studies that jointly evaluate the comparisons of two international destinations through the tourism typologies offered, measuring the emotional reactions of the consumer from the approach of two responses (from surveys and psychophysiological)”. For example, in the paper ” Li, S., Walters, G., Packer, J., & Scott, N. (2018). A comparative analysis of self-report and psychophysiological measures of emotion in the context of tourism advertising. Journal of travel research, 57(8), 1078-1092.” ”18 existing destination commercials while their real-time psychophysiological responses and self-report data were collected”. So, considering that two international destinations are compared it cannot be considered that this is a big strength of the paper. My kindly suggestion to the authors is to give more attention and a supplementary work on literature review.

Even the authors referred source [12] when stated on lines 174-176 that are a small amount of studies referring to tourism and visual promotion in specific markets, I have to make the same suggestion to authors regarding the improvement of literature review.

The study methods are valid and reliable and there are enough details in replication of the study. I suggest the authors to add the survey instrument as annex.

For the results, I suggest authors to include a figure with the model where confirmed hypotheses from the theoretical model to be kept.

The authors do not indicated very clear what are the limitations of the study, even they discussed about the directions for the future research.

Even a major improvement of literature review is a strongly recommendation, the overall quality of the paper is good. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The study has certain values to get published. However, it still has some major issues awaiting addressing:

1.      The title is not academic and precise enough. It should be revised.

2.      Part 2 may be better named as ‘model development’ or ‘theoretical foundation’.

3.      Part 3: though authors have listed many reasons regarding why university students should be chosen as the subject, the drawbacks are evident. It can only represent a small portion of the target market because of their limited time and money for travel. It is not very scientific to just select university students as participants as they may be the easiest to find.

4.      Discussion: if there is disparity between surveys and psychological measures, which one is more effective in doing this research? Meanwhile, is it a research objective to prove the existence of such a disparity? Based on my observation, the study states in the first section that the objective is to examine the behavioral tendency instead of comparing the methods.

5.      Conclusion: regarding the practical implications, one suggestion stays on a very traditional route whereas the other is not very doable. Thus, authors are hoped to precisely generate some feasible recommendations for DMOs to follow.

6.      Language issues: for example, there are two ‘furthermores’ in line 356-358.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

It is worth enriching the theory with a reference to the perspective of visual sociology (e.g. by P. Sztompka) and visual anthropology, sociology of free time / leisure (e.g. by W. Cynarski), adding the concept of visual perception in tourism (by J. Urry).

In References, it is also worth considering the work of Kim S.S. et al. (2018), Nostalgia film tourism ... J Travel Tourism Marketing,

and Huan Chen et al. (2021), Improving the tourist's perception ... Sustainability.

So what influences the emotions and perception of tourists, what images - or only from advertising and promotional materials?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors.

 

Thank you for allowing the correction of your paper.

 

First, I believe the introduction should provide a context for the research you present. Table 1 should be included in the literature review, not in the introduction. A brief presentation of the paper should be made at the end of the opening after including the research questions that I would not have in the literature review. 

 

The literature review should include the most exciting issues of the theoretical framework of the research, starting with the concept of emotional imagery, the influence on tourism of the use of emotional imagery, the effects on tourists, and finally, different approaches to the study. 

 

The development of its review corresponds more to a methodological justification than an orderly attempt to establish a state of the question and its different approaches.

 

The methodology is conveniently described, but I have a problem with the sample. Doubt arises whether the students' reaction would be the same as other population groups of different ages. The specificities of the generation have been widely described (Lazarevic, 2012; Kim & Jang, 2014), among others, which may add a bias to the results of the research, which should have been more heterogeneous, especially when this target is not the same as the one that then makes tourist trips.

 

Are there differences in the way of perceiving images between members of generation Y and other generations, such as boomers? It is essential to clarify this question as it has important implications for the study's conclusions.

 

The results are correct concerning the hypotheses proposed using an appropriate statistical method.

 

The discussion should include the bias of the selection made, being qualified with some of the proposals of other authors who investigate larger population cohorts.

 

The conclusions are interesting, but the limited sample and its lack of heterogeneity should be pointed out since it does not represent the sociological universe of tourists.

 

Good luck

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate the authors have made efforts in addressing my comments. However, the manuscript can be better if some parts are improved. For example, in conclusions, authors can directly sum up some theretical contributions (what theory has the study enhanced). This should be a vital point for an academic paper. Meanwhile, please change 2 literature review to a new line. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors, thank you for taking my suggestions into account. I still have some doubts about the structure used when presenting the research questions and some of the essential aspects of the paper. However, I understand that the structure should be flexible depending on the study conducted. 

Focusing on the content, the paper has improved substantially in several aspects, and the comments on the limitations of the sample and its consequences are essential.

 

Well done, best regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf