Segmenting Taiwanese tourists to China by ethnic identity and generation

Destination image and familiarity

Since holiday destination choices are heavily relied on destination perceptions (Um and Crompton, 1990), destination image is one of most frequently studied topics in the tourism literature (Gallarza et al., 2002). The concept of destination image emerged from Hunt’s (1971) work, and subsequent studies have dedicated to its conceptualization (Echtner and Ritchie, 1993; Gallarza et al., 2002; Tasci and Kozak, 2006), measurement (Milman, 2012; Pike, 2003), and application to various destinations (Pike and Ryan, 2004; Shani et al., 2009).

Even though tourism researchers have the consensus that destination image is an important concept, they might also agree that destination image is a complicated concept (Gallarza et al., 2002). As destination image can be defined as ‘the sum of beliefs, ideas and impressions that a person has of a destination’ (Crompton, 1979: 18), the challenge for tourism researchers is to capture people’s feelings or impressions. Therefore, attitude theory (Fishbein, 1967; Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) has been frequently applied by tourism researchers in the conceptualization of destination image (Chen and Lin, 2012). Based on the assumption of attitude theory that suggests people follow a process of awareness, interest, desire, and action (Fishbein, 1967), tourism researchers have conceptualized destination image as two constructs, including cognitive image (an individual’s beliefs and knowledge about a destination) and affective image (his or her feelings toward the destination) (Beerli and Martín, 2004; Pike and Ryan, 2004).

Tourism researchers have also frequently measured the images of a certain destination as perceived by its targeted customers (Lin et al., 2012; Rezende-Parker et al., 2003) in that destination images can reveal perceived strengths (or attractiveness) and weaknesses (unattractiveness) of a destination in the eyes of potential tourists (Beerli and Martín, 2004; Echtner and Ritchie, 1993). Therefore, based on destination images as perceived by potential tourists, destination marketers can decide how to promote and how to improve their destinations (Peña et al., 2012).

In order to examine how to intervene the process of destination choice, recent studies have further investigated factors influencing destination image (Beerli and Martín, 2004; Chen et al., 2013; Liou, 2010; Prentice, 2006). Given that the process of destination choice has been assumed as involving intensive information processing (Li et al, 2009; Prentice, 2006; Sirakaya and Woodside, 2005), tourism scholars have paid much attention to stimulus factors influencing destination image, especially focusing on how destination image can be changed by various types of information sources (Prentice, 2004; Shani et al., 2009; Tasci, 2009). As a result, the concept of destination familiarity emerged from the tourism literature.

Destination familiarity, according to Baloglu (2001), can be defined as the number of destination-related experience. As mentioned before, since tourism scholars have generally assumed that customers often actively search for a large amount of destination-related information in the process of destination choice (Sirakaya and Woodside, 2005), the positive effect of destination familiarity on destination image was assumed and supported by previous studies (Baloglu, 2001; Chen and Lin, 2012; Kastenholz, 2010; Prentice, 2004), which suggests that the more the customers are exposed to destination-related information, the more likely they have positive destination images.

However, Prentice’s (2004, 2006) subsequent work defined destination familiarity as a contextual factor rather than a stimulus factor. Specifically, Prentice (2004, 2006) examined the effects of destination familiarity in the context that customers are culturally familiar with a destination, such as Scotland as a tourist destination to Scandinavians (Prentice, 2004). In this context, as argued by Prentice (2004), cultural familiarity might serve as emotional evocations in the process of destination choice. Therefore, the process of destination in the context of cultural familiarity might be intuitive and emotional rather than cognitive (Prentice, 2006). In other words, customers might just want to visit a culturally familiar destination without going through the cognitive process of selecting a destination among alternative destinations.

Segmenting Taiwanese tourists to China

Since the tourism market is increasingly competitive, destination marketers have to design different marketing mixes for customers who have different needs and preferences (Morrison, 2002). Therefore, in the past two decades, much attention has been paid to market segmentation in the tourism literature (Assaker and Hallak, 2012; Chen and Lin, 2012; Pesonen et al., 2011; Petrick, 2002). The implementation of market segmentation aims at partitioning a heterogeneous market as a number of smaller homogenous markets to respond to differing preferences for more precise satisfaction of customers’ varying wants (Wedel and Kamakura, 2000).

Based on Prentice’s (2004, 2006) work on destination familiarity, this research proposes to segment Taiwanese tourists to China by their ethnic identities and generations. As mentioned before, given the historical links and cultural proximity between China and Taiwan, Taiwanese tourists are generally familiar with China as a tourist destination. However, it is articulated that Taiwanese possessing different ethnic identities and belonging to different generations have different levels of emotional attachment to China.

Given that Taiwan has undergone a political transformation from authoritarianism to democracy since the late 1980s (Jacobs and Liu, 2007), the structure of political ideology in Taiwan has also evolved from the unitary ‘China (or Chinese)’ to the contrary ‘China (or Chinese)’ and ‘Taiwan (or Taiwanese)’ (Mattlin, 2004). This contrary ideology or China–Taiwan complex further originates different mental inclinations toward China or Taiwan (Shyu, 2004). Specifically, those who tend to identify themselves as Chinese in Taiwan are more emotionally attached to China and more inclined to support the unification of China and Taiwan, while those who tend to identify themselves as Taiwan are less emotionally attached to China and more inclined to support the independence of Taiwan (Chu and Lin, 2001; Jacobs and Liu, 2007; Sheng, 2002; Shyu, 2004). However, since most of the younger generations in Taiwan did not experience the Second World War and the Chinese Civil War, they are supposedly less influenced by China–Taiwan complex (Chu and Lin, 2001; Jacobs and Liu, 2007; Sheng, 2002; Shyu, 2004).

Building on Prentice’s (2004, 2006) work that suggests customers who are more emotionally attached to a destination have more positive destination images and higher visiting intentions, this research proposes that Taiwanese in different generations with different ethnic identities might differ in terms of their destination images of China and intentions to visit China. Given that destination images as perceived by potential tourists can reveal the strengths and weaknesses of a destination (Chen et al., 2013), it is articulated that segmenting Taiwanese tourists to China by ethnic identity and generation can provide guidance for decisions on the effective specification of marketing mix.

Measures

This research has four main variables, including ethnic identity and generation as the independent variables (segmentation variables) and destination image and travel intention as the dependent variables. Furthermore, in order to test the validity of ethnic identity and generation as the segmentation variables, respondents’ independence/unification identity were also measured.

Destination image was conceptualized as two constructs based on attitude theory (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975), including affective image and cognitive image. Affective image was measured by two orthogonal bipolar dimensions of pleasant–unpleasant, arousing–sleepy, exciting–gloomy, and relaxing–distressing, which have been widely adopted by related studies (Beerli and Martín, 2004; Pike and Ryan, 2004). However, since determinant attributes measuring cognitive image might differ from destination to destination (Lin et al., 2012; Pike, 2003), the items measuring cognitive image were generated from previous literature as well as from the results of in-depth interviews.

A total of 25 Taiwanese residents were interviewed and asked to list salient attributes of China as a tourist destination. Each interview lasted for an average of 30 min. Interviewees with different backgrounds were purposefully selected, while only 25 interviews were conducted because no new information was obtained in the last three interviews. As a result, cognitive image was measured with a 19-item, 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = low evaluation to 7 = high evaluation), which consisted of 10 items generated from literature review (Beerli and Martín, 2004; Gallarza et al., 2002) and 9 items elicited from the results of in-depth interviews.

As suggested by Lam and Hsu (2006) and Pike and Ryan (2004), the concept of travel intention was operationalized as the likelihood to visit the destination within a year (1 = unlikely to visit China to 7 = very likely to visit China). We know that it will be better to have a complete understanding of travel intention if we consider short-term, mid-term, and long-term together like the work of Jang and Feng (2007). However, ethnic identity is a dynamic changing perception that differs based on political changes. Thus, travel intention in the short-term can fit closer to the possible future behavior of our participants in terms of our research topic. Ethnic identity was measured by a single question asking respondents whether they were Taiwanese, Chinese, or both, while independence/unification identity was measured by a question asking respondents which of the following three positions better represent their views on the relations between Taiwan and Mainland China, including maintaining the status quo, seeking unification with China, or seeking independence from China. Both questions have frequently been adopted in previous political science literature (Hsieh and Niou, 2005; Law, 2002; Sheng, 2002).

Sampling and data collection

The target population in this research was considered as individuals who were 18 to 71 years old and living in Taiwan at the time of data collection. Since this research intended to segment Taiwanese tourists to China by ethnic identity and generation, a quota-sampling technique was used in order to reach Taiwanese residents who had different ethnic identities and generations.

As suggested by previous studies (Hsieh and Niou, 2005; Law, 2002; Sheng, 2002; Yu and Hsiao, 2007), Taiwanese ethnic identities could be best predicted by their ethnicity. Specifically, Hoklo people seem more inclined to identify themselves as Taiwanese, while the other ethnic groups—including Hakka, Mainlander, and Aborigines—seem more inclined to identify themselves as Chinese or both (Hsieh and Niou, 2005; Law, 2002; Sheng, 2002; Yu and Hsiao, 2007).

Furthermore, Taiwanese residents have been defined as three generations based on their birth years (Liu, 1996; Sheng, 2002). Those who were born before 1945 (the first generation) arguably have stronger ethnic identities because they had grown up either in China before the Chinese Civil War or in Taiwan during the Japanese colonial period (Liu, 1996; Sheng, 2002). Those who were born before 1966 but after 1946 (the second generation) are also likely to have strong ethnic identities because they were supposedly to be deeply influenced by their parents (the first generation) in political attitudes (Liu, 1996; Sheng, 2002). However, the third generation or those who were born after 1967 arguably have more neutral ethnic identities because most of them had grown up in the democratic transformation period in Taiwan (Liu, 1996; Sheng, 2002).

Based on the above information, the authors planned to obtain an equal number of samples in each of the following four cells, including the first- and second-generation Hoklo (those who were born before 1966), the third-generation Hoklo (those who were born after 1967), the first- and second-generation Hakka, Mainlander, and Aborigines (those who were born before 1966), and the third-generation Hakka, Mainlander, and Aborigines (those who were born after 1967).

In consideration of available resources, this research attempted to reach 600 respondents with 150 targeted respondents in each of the four geographic areas in Taiwan (the North, South, Central, and East). It was also planned to obtain an equal number of samples (35 samples) in each of the aforementioned cells. The survey data were collected from August to November 2009. The research questionnaire was administered personally to the respondents in the streets of four main cities in Taiwan, including Taipei (North), Taichung (Central), Kaohsiung (South), and Hualien (East). All participants were informed that study is conducted by an academic institute for tourism research without relation to any political parties. As a result, 722 questionnaires were obtained, while 7 questionnaires were eliminated because the respondents lived in foreign areas.

The sample profile indicates that the authors successfully obtained nearly equal samples in the four geographical areas (North Taiwan: 29.5%; Central Taiwan: 24.2%; South Taiwan: 23.8%; and East Taiwan: 21.8%) and in the four cells (the first- and second-generation Hoklo: 22.5%; the third-generation Hoklo: 33.7%; the first- and second-generation Hakka, Mainlander, and Aborigines: 21.1%; and the third-generation Hakka, Mainlander, and Aborigines: 22.7%). As a result, Taiwanese possessing different ethnic identities and belonging to different generations were reached.

Specifically, among a total of 715 respondents, 419 (58.6% of the respondents) identified themselves as Taiwanese, 261 (36.5% of the respondents) as both Taiwanese and Chinese, while 35 (4.9% of the respondents) as Chinese. Even though more respondents identified themselves as Taiwanese, the proportion obtained in this research is close to the latest statistics released by the Election Study Center of the Ethnic Cheng-Chi University (2010) that 52.4% Taiwanese residents regarded themselves as Taiwanese, 40.4% regarded themselves as both Taiwanese and Chinese, 3.8% regarded themselves as Chinese, and 3.4% had no opinion. Since only 35 respondents possessed a solely Chinese identity, they were not included in the entire data analysis. Furthermore, among 715 respondents, 312 (43.6% of the respondents) were born before 1966 (the first and second generations) and 403 (56.4% of the respondents) were born after 1967 (the third generation).

As mentioned before, this research examined the effects of ethnic identity and generation as segmentation variables on destination image and travel intention. Since previous studies indicated that Taiwanese ethnic identities and generations are related to each other (Hsieh and Niou, 2005; Law, 2002; Sheng, 2002; Yu and Hsiao, 2007), Taiwanese tourists to China were defined as the following four segments in this research, including (1) Taiwanese identity holders who were born before 1966 (169 or 24.9% of the respondents); (2) Taiwanese identity holders who were born after 1967 (250 or 36.8% of the respondents); (3) dual identity holders who were born before 1966 (121 or 17.8% of the respondents); and, (4) dual identity holders who were born after 1967 (140 or 20.6% of the respondents).

Data analysis

Data analysis in this research consisted of four steps. In order to test the validity of ethnic identity and generation as the segmentation variables, the first step involved testing the relationships between the aforementioned four segments and independence/unification identity by χ ² tests. In the second step, factor analysis was conducted on the cognitive image and affective image scales to assist data reduction (Hair et al., 1998). In the third step, the differences among four segments in terms of destination images of China and intentions to visit to China were assessed using analysis of variance tests. In the last step, the differences among four segments in terms of their travel experiences to China and other outbound destination were tested by χ ² tests.

Theoretical implications

First, this research verifies the importance of destination familiarity as a contextual factor in the process of destination image formation. As argued by Prentice (2006), in the context that customers are culturally familiar with a destination, such as China as a tourist destination for Taiwanese tourists, cultural familiarity might serve as emotional evocations in the process of destination choice. This is supported through the findings that those who tend to identify themselves as Chinese in Taiwan (who are also more emotionally attached to China) have more positive destination images of China than those who tend to identify themselves as Taiwanese. Given that previous studies tended to conceptualize destination familiarity as a stimulus factor based on the assumption that the process of destination choice is cognitive (Prentice, 2006), it is arguably important to verify the importance of destination familiarity as a contextual factor.

Second, ethnic identity can be used to determine social distance between two culturally similar societies. Empirical results of this study show that dual identity holders perceived higher affective image toward China than Taiwanese identity holders. Moreover, dual identity holders own higher travel intention for China than Taiwanese identity holders. Based on the argument of Prentice (2006) that small social distance leads to stronger affective connection, ethnic identity is a suitable construct to represent social distance in this context. Such finding enriches knowledge about how to measure social distance and even differences in defining social distance in different contexts. For example, for two places with totally different culture and language, the way to perceive social distance is very easy. Researchers can directly see the social distance from tangible performances between these two societies. However, for two places that use same language and culture, researchers need to find some deeper factors to measure the hidden social distance between these two places. Here, ethnic identity is the key factor that we found to explain social identity.

Third, we found inconsistency between prior travel experiences to China and future travel intention to China based on our segments. Dual identity holders who were born before 1966 are highest in both prior travel experience to China and future travel intention. These people follow their ethnic identity to visit a place with small social distance and plan to visit the destination again in the future. Interestingly, Taiwanese identity holders who were born before 1966 ranked second in prior travel experience to China while ranked the lowest in future travel intention to China. This reveals that ethnic identity does not exactly explain people’s possibility to visit a destination. Tourists who have a low ethnic identity toward a destination are still possible to visit the place. But, their travel decision making will be more cognitive rather than affective (Prentice, 2006). Hence, prior travel experience is hard for them to shape affective attachment for future travel intention.

Practical implications

The results of this research also have practical implications. First, although China is generally perceived as an attractive destination by Taiwanese tourists, Taiwanese tourists still perceive China as a destination that offers poor tourism services. Such finding can be found in Table 4. In Table 4, perceived destination quality ranged from 3.39 to 4.01, while destination uniqueness ranged from 5.36 to 5.90. Therefore, when marketing China in Taiwan, efforts should be made to reinforce positive images of destination uniqueness as well as to alter poor evaluations of destination quality. Our items of destination uniqueness also provide directions for DMOs to emphasize uniqueness of China: cultural attractions, historical attractions, beautiful scenery, and variety of attractions.

Second, since Taiwanese holding different identities and belonging to different generations possess different perceptions of China, marketing strategies focusing on these segments are suggested. Specifically, among four segments, DMOs in China should pay more attention to dual identity holders who were born before 1966. Since most of them have previous travel experiences to China and other outbound destinations with fairly positive evaluations of China as a tourist destination, dual identity holders who were born before 1966 are supposedly willing and able to visit China in the foreseeable future. The segment can be taken by DMOs as potential target market. DMOs should have knowledge about the characteristic of this segment and find ways to effectively conduct marketing communication.

Third, DMOs should also pay attention to younger generations who are also supposedly willing and able to visit China. Since only half of them have visited China before, it is articulated that the potential of this market is fairly high. However, a long-term approach should be used for marketing China to Taiwanese identity holders who were born before 1966. Even though many of them have visited China and other outbound destinations, Taiwanese identity holders who were born before 1966 have poor evaluations of China, especially in terms of destination quality.

Fourth, destination uniqueness is the key to improve travel intention of Taiwanese identity holders who were born after 1967. Tourists who were born after 1967 are potential future visitors compared to those who were born before 1966. In Table 4, Taiwanese identity holders who were born after 1967 own significantly higher destination uniqueness toward China than Taiwanese identity holders who were born before 1966. It reveals that although the segment, Taiwanese identity holders who were born after 1967, owns larger social distance compared to dual identity holders, they still perceive positive cognitive image toward China. Thus, DMOs should focus on emphasizing destination uniqueness when conducting marketing communication with Taiwanese identity holders who were born after 1967. By doing so, DMOs are possible to improve travel intention of this segment.

Limitations and future research

Finally, it is worthwhile to mention limitations of this research and recommendations for further research. First, this research has successfully reached Taiwanese from different ethnicities and generations. However, since the quota-sampling method used in this research is nonprobabilistic, the sample is biased toward younger individuals, which might be a limitation in generalizing the findings to all populations in Taiwan. Second, the formulation of this research is based on Prentice’s (2004, 2006) work on destination familiarity and destination image. However, since the purpose of this research was to identify the heterogeneity of Taiwanese tourists to China, a couple of theoretical constructs, including destination familiarity and emotion, were not measured in this research, which might also be a limitation of this research. Therefore, it is proposed to further explore the roles of destination familiarity and emotion in the process of destination choice. Third, the combined influences of prior travel experience to China and prior travel experiences to outbound destinations are worth for deeper exploration. Segments in this study show different rankings in these two travel experiences. Reasons behind the inconsistent rankings and the linkage between these rankings with ethnic identity are interesting and practical issues for future studies.