Copyright by Di Wu 2016

The Dissertation Committee for Di Wu Certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation:

Understanding Consumer Response to the Olympic Visual Identity

Designs

Committee:

Thomas M. Hunt, Supervisor

Matthew Bowers

Darla M. Castelli

Marlene A. Dixon

Tolga Ozyurtcu

Janice S. Todd

Understanding Consumer Response to the Olympic Visual Identity Designs

by

Di Wu, B.MAN.S.; M.A.

Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

The University of Texas at Austin December 2016

Dedication

To my beloved daughter Evelyn.

Acknowledgements

I want to thank my parents, Weixing Wu and Jie Gao, for their unconditional love and support. I appreciate everything you have done for me. To my husband Andy Chan, thank you for your support through this journey! You are a great husband and father! To my baby girl Evelyn, you are the light and joy of my life. I love you all very much!

Dr. Hunt, I can’t thank you enough for your help, encouragement, and advice that helped me to carry on and complete this long journey. Your advice and guidance of being a scholar and a parent mean so much to me. Thank you for believing in me. I am very fortunate to have you as my advisor. I also want to thank my dissertation committee members— Dr. Matt Bowers, Dr. Darla Castelli, Dr. Marlene Dixon, Dr. Tolga Ozyurtcu, and Dr. Jan Todd, for their encouragement and valuable advice.

I want to thank Dr. Laurence Chalip for bringing me to the field of sport management. You are a great mentor and have been very supportive of my research interest. I have learned so much from you. Your wisdom and inspiration will always encourage me to study what I am truly interested in. Dr. Chris Green, thank you so much for your help and advice in my research, I am very lucky to learn so much from you. I also want to thank Dr. Nancy Kwallek for her great advice and help on this journey.

Last, I want to thank my dearest grandpa, my role model, Dinghua Gao, who fought with a disease for two years and passed away recently. You are the best person that I had ever known. You were so kind, generous, and responsible. Your talent and

v passion for art were the reason for me to be interested in and study visual design. I miss you very much, grandpa.

vi

Understanding Consumer Response to the Olympic Visual Identity Designs

Di Wu, Ph.D.

The University of Texas at Austin, 2016

Supervisor: Thomas M. Hunt

Abstract: Visual identity designs are frequently used as branding tools to build or modify images of sport event and its host destination and to help consumers to identify the event and its host destination. To measure the effectiveness of the Olympic Games visual identity designs regarding their branding values, this study focused on logo design and built a framework based on design studies, image formation studies, and information transfer studies to capture the effects of design messages on consumer evaluations of event image, destination images, and logo representativeness. A 2 (absence and presence of event design message) x 2 (absence and presence of destination design message) x 2 (absence and presence of athletic movement design message) x 2 (nationality) x 2 (gender) experimental design was employed to test the effects of design messages on evaluations of the Olympic Games image, the host destination image, as well as the logo representativeness. The research findings show that the effects of design messages on event image and the host city image were asymmetrical and were limited to certain image dimensions. Design messages of the event, the host city, and athletic movement didn’t significantly influence consumer evaluation of the host city image, but design messages of the event and the host city did affect event type image

vii dimension. Moreover, in general, design messages of the event and the host city can also benefit consumer evaluations of logo representativeness. This study also tested the relationships between evaluations of event image, destination image, logo representativeness and consumer behavioral intentions regarding the event and its destination. Findings suggest that effects of design messages on evaluations of event and host city images are limited and asymmetrical. In general, both event design message and destination design message contributed to logo representativeness of the event and destination. The importance of evaluations of event image, destination image, and logo representativeness on consumer behavioral responses vary depends on consumer behavioral intentions are destination related or event related. Furthermore, the moderating effects of culture and gender were found in this study on evaluations of event image and destination image, as well as consumer decision-making process.

viii Table of Contents

List of Tables ...... xiii

List of Figures ...... xv

Chapter 1 Introduction ...... 1

Chapter 2 Literature Review ...... 10 The Olympic Visual Identity Designs ...... 10 Emblem ...... 11 Mascot ...... 14 Sport Pictogram ...... 17 Marketing Value of Semiotics in Design ...... 19 Semiotics in Visual Design ...... 19 Semiotic Function of Logo Design ...... 21 Studies about Logo Design Effects on Brand Evaluation ...... 22 Effect of Consumer Interpretation of Design Messages on Brand Image Evaluation ...... 24 Effect of Logo Design on Brand Image Evaluation ...... 26 Destination Image ...... 26 Destination Image Formation based on Logo Design ...... 29 Destination Image Measurements ...... 30 Event Image ...... 33 Sport Event Image Evaluation ...... 33 Brand Image Evaluation based on Single and Multiple Design Information Cues...... 35 Behaviroal Intentions Based on Brand Image Evaluation ...... 38 Effect of Logo Design on Logo Representativeness Evaluation ...... 39 Cultural Influence on Consumer Interpretation of Visual Identity Design ...... 41 Gender Influence on Consumer Interpretation of Visual Identity Design ...... 44

ix Pre-existing Knowledge and Pre-existing Attitude toward the Event and the Host Destination ...... 47 Summary and Research Hypotheses ...... 48

Chapter 3 Method ...... 52 Measures ...... 52 Development of Destination Image Scale ...... 52 Development of Event Image Scale ...... 57 Participant Screening ...... 59 Instrument ...... 60 Logo Representativeness Scale ...... 61 Consumer Behavorial Response towards the Olympic Games ...... 61 Consumer Behavorial Response towards the Host City ...... 62 Pre-existing Knowledge and Pre-existing Attitude ...... 63 Demographics ...... 64 Study Design ...... 64 Advertisment Design ...... 65 Procedure ...... 66 Data Analysis ...... 68

Chapter 4 Results ...... 70 Effects of Destination Design Message, Event Design Message, Athletic Movement Design Message, Nationality, and Gender on Destination Image Rating ...... 70 Effects of Destination Design Message, Event Design Message, Athletic Movement Design Message, Nationality, and Gender on Event Image Rating ...... 72 Effects of Destination Design Message, Event Design Message, Athletic Movement Design Message, Nationality, and Gender on Logo Representativeness Rating ...... 77 Effects of Destination Image, Event Image and Logo Representativeness evaluations on Consumer Behavioral Responses toward the Host City and the Olympic Games ...... 81 American Participant Group's Destination Behaviroal Intentions ...... 83

x

Chinese Participant Group's Destination Behaviroal Intentions ...... 84

Chapter 5 Discussion ...... 87 Effects of Design Messages of Logo Design on Consumer Evaluation of the Host City Image and the Olympic Games Image ...... 87 Effects of Design Messages of Logo Design on Consumer Evaluation of Logo Representativeness ...... 90 Effects of Individual Differences on Image Evaluation based on Design Message ...... 91 Cultural Difference ...... 91 Gender Difference ...... 93 Effects of Pre-existing Knowledge and Pre-existing Attitude ...... 94 Effects of Event Image, Destination Image and Logo Representativeness Evaluations on Consumer Behavioral Responses towards the Event and Destination ...... 95 Event-related Behavorial Intentions ...... 96 Individual Differences in Desitnation-related Behavorial Intentions ..97 Other Suggestions for Future Research ...... 99 Destination Image and Event Image Scales based on Design Message ...... 99 Schema Theory and Future Studies Examine Mega Sport Event Visual Identity Designs ...... 100 Studies Regarding the Visual Design Information Processing Styles ...... 103 Understanding Consumer's Metal Maps of Visual Identity Design Interpretation ...... 105 Effects of Design Characters Selection and Combination ...... 106 Studies about Other Visual Identity Design ...... 106 Effects of Design Expertise ...... 106 Concluding Remarks ...... 107 Appendices ...... 110 Appendix A Emblem Design of the Olympic Games Reviewed in This Study ...... 110 xi Appendix B Study Stimuli ...... 113 Appendix C Sample Questionnaire ...... 117 References ...... 125

xii List of Tables

Table 2.1 The Design Messages of the Olympic Visual Identity Designs ...... 11 Table 3.1 Desination Image Attributs List ...... 54 Table 3.2 Result of Factor Analysis of Destination Image Attributes Scale in Main Study ...... 57 Table 3.3 Result of Factor Analysis of the Olympic Games Image Attributes Scale in Main Study ...... 59 Table 3.4 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents in Main Study (N=657) ...... 60 Table 3.5 Result of Factor Analysis of the Logo Representativness Scale in Main Study ...... 61 Table 3.6 Result of Factor Analysis of the Olympic Games Behavirol Scale and Destination Behavorial Reponse Scale in Main Study ...... 63 Table 4.1 Adjusted Means for Destination Image Ratings ...... 71 Table 4.2 Summary of Host City Image Hypothesis ...... 72 Table 4.3 Summary of the Effects of Pre-existing Knowledge and Pre-existing Attitude toward the Event and Host City on Evaluations of Event Image and Destination Image ...... 74 Table 4.4 Adjusted Means for Event Image Ratings ...... 75 Table 4.5 Summary of Event Image Hypothesis ...... 76 Table 4.6 Adjusted Means for Logo Representativeness Ratings ...... 78 Table 4.7 Summary of Logo Representativeness Hypothesis ...... 81 Table 4.8 Regression Results - All Participants ...... 83

xiii Table 4.9 Destination Behavorial Response Regression Results -American Participants ...... 84 Table 4.10 Destination Behavorial Response Regression Results -Chinese Participants ...... 85 Table 4.11 Summary of Behavorial Response Hypothesis ...... 86

xiv List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Framework of Effects of Design Message on Consumer Evaluations of Represented Destination and Event Images, Logo Representativeness and Consequent Behavioral Responses ...... 8 Figure 2.1 Emblem of the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games – Chinese Seal, Dancing Beijing ...... 12 Figure 2.2 Emblem of the 1984 Los Angels Olympic Games ...... 12 Figure 2.3 Emblem of the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games ...... 14 Figure 2.4 Emblem of the 2012 London Olympic Games ...... 14 Figure 2.5 The 2012 London Games Mascot – Wenlock and Paralympics Mascot - Mandeville ...... 15 Figure 2.6 Mascots of the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games – Fuwa ...... 16 Figure 2.7 Mascot of the 1984 Los Angels Olympic Games – Sam the Eagle ...... 17 Figure 2.8 Examples of the 2004 Athens Olympic Games Sport Pictograms ...... 18 Figure 4.1 Interaction between Atheltic Movement and Destination Design messages on the Olympic Games Event Type Dimension Ratings ..75 Figure 4.2 Interaction between Destination and Event Design Messages on Logo Representativeness of the Olympic Games Ratings ...... 79 Figure 4.3 Interaction between Destination and Event Design Messages on Logo Representativeness the Host City Ratings ...... 80

xv Chapter 1 Introduction

Hosting mega sport events such as the Olympic Games not only offers the host city a great chance to show the world its landscape, culture, and traditions, in many distances, destinations also seek to change their images by hosting mega sport events (Brown, Chalip, Jago,

& Mules, 2002), that people may associate images such as “active,” “exciting,” and

“international” with the destination. Thus, mega sport events are often used by destination and local tourism marketers as an effective image building, enhancing, or rectifying tool (Chalip &

Costa, 2005; Li & Kaplanidou, 2013; Ritchie & Smith, 1991). Among mega sport events, the

Olympic Games are desirable choices for tourism destinations because of their magnitude and prominence in the media (Getz, 2008). Meanwhile, International Olympic Committee (IOC) has also carefully chosen the host destinations to protect the brand of the Olympic Games (IOC,

1999; Seguin & O’Reilly, 2008).

Besides function as identity recognition signs to represent each event and the host destination (Garcia, 2008; Lee, Rodriguez, & Sar, 2012), visual identity products such as emblem, torch, mascot and pictogram are important marketing tools that frequently used by event and host destination marketers to build, reinforce, or modify the ideal images for the event and the host city, enhance link between the event and the destination, and to gain positive consumer behavioral responses (e.g., visit intention, purchase intention) (Chalip, 2004; Freeman,

Knight, & O’Reilly, 2006; Magdalinski, 2004). In the case of the Olympic Games, designers often include design messages of the host city, the Olympic Games, and the athletic movement in the visual identity designs (Griggs, Freeman, Knight, & O’Relly, 2012; IOC, 1984, 2004, 2008;

Magdalinski, 2004), and hoping these design messages can help audiences to associate the

1 destination or the event with image attributes such as “vitality,” “friendly,” and “appealing culture” (IOC, 1984, 2008).

To guarantee a sustainable positive image, or to detect and rectify a negative image timely in the minds of event tourists and event audiences, it is necessary for the host destination and event marketers to identify and monitor the images perceived by consumers (King, Chen, &

Funk, 2015). This is especially important and challenging in the context of visual design because an audience’s interpretation of a design product is not necessarily equivalent to the information as sent (Kazmierczark, 2003). Whether the audiences interpret to a design product in an expected way and bring positive marketing results define the effectiveness of design. Unless the receiver comprehends the design as projected, the design is unsuccessful or ineffective (Kazmierczak,

2003). Therefore, in the case of the Olympic Games visual identity designs, whether the audiences of these visual identity designs interpret the design messages of the host city, the

Olympic Games, and athletic movement in the way that the event and destination marketers have expected worth examination.

Although both designers and marketing researchers have acknowledged the importance of visual identity designs in terms of meaning delivery and brand image formation (e.g., Batra &

Homer, 2004; Kazmierczark, 2003; Gwinner & Eaton, 1999) and they have spent effort both theoretically and empirically to select the “right” visual identity designs that can bring desired marketing values. However, knowledge about consumer interpretations of visual identity designs is still very limited (cf., Luchs & Swan, 2011; Mishra, Dash, & Malhotra, 2015).

In practice, a considerable amount of money and efforts have been put into designing and selecting the best visual identity designs for each Olympic Games. For example, designing the

2012 Olympics logo in London cost £400,000 ($672,000) (BBC Sport, 2007). The 2012 Olympic

2 mascot design had cost “just a few thousand pounds” but had taken two whole years to perfect

(Ritson, 2010). Although some visual designs received plausible public feedback (e.g., Lance

Wyman’s graphics program for the 1968 Mexico City Olympic Games), some design products were considered as disappointing that they were not able to elicit consumer responses as expected (Bayley, 2007), and even audiences from the same cultural background were confused about their underlying concepts (Ding & Thompson, 2013). For instance, Aaron Shields, a partner at the design agency BrandInstict, said, “I don’t think people are going to relate to these very modern creations (the 2012 Olympic mascots). The first rule of mascot creation is to make something familiar and accessible, not something alien. This is just going to be seen as another disappointment coming out of the Olympic games” (Blake, 2010). Wenlock and Mandeville (the

2012 Olympic mascots) were described as “creepy,” and “terrifying” (Judkis, 2012). Moreover,

Chinese audiences didn’t notice that Jingjing’s (one of the 2008 Beijing Games mascots) lotus pattern originated in the Song Dynasty (Ding & Thompson, 2013). Thus, consumers don’t necessarily interpret the design messages and form the ideal images of the Olympic Games and the host city in the way that designers or marketers have expected, the intended design message may get “lost in translation” (Ding & Thompson, 2013).

Moreover, researchers have doubted selection procedure of some visual design products.

For example, Ritson (2010) pointed out that the 2012 London Games mascot design had been guided by public reaction with over 40 focus groups commissioned as part of the process which suggests the possibility of over-compensating. All of those show the marketing efforts and results don’t necessarily match.

Academically, logo design has drawn majority of the attention from researchers, and marketing studies regarding logo design choices have been primarily focused on: (1) the effects

3 of logo design evaluations (e.g., design quality, attractiveness) on brand or organization attitude

(Stafford, Tripp, & Bienstock, 2004; Walsh, Winterich, & Mittal, 2010); (2) the effects of design principles such as unity (e.g., congruence in elements), proportion (e.g., “the Golden Ratio”), complexity, symmetry, and roundness on brand or organization attitude (Henderson & Cote,

1998; Henderson, Cote, Leong, & Schmitt, 2003; Janiszewski & Meyvis, 2001; Jiang, Gorn,

Galli, & Chattopadhyay, 2016; Pittard, Ewing, & Jevons, 2007; Veryzer, 1993; Veryzer &

Hutchinson, 1998). Although the holistic evaluation approach and the design principle approach are useful in understanding the branding effects of the attractiveness of visual identity designs’ aesthetic appearance, it has limited contribution to understanding how consumers interpret the design messages and possibly project the perceived meanings on the image(s) of the represented brand(s). For example, when a consumer sees characters of a host city (e.g., yellow Hibiscus from Hawaii) in a logo design, does the yellow Hibiscus help the consumers to associate the destination with the ideal image attributes such as “welcoming,” “beautiful landscape,” or

“interesting culture?” When an audience perceives design messages of both the destination the event from a visual design product, would the destination image or event image evaluation be different?

To date, little is known about the relationship between the meaning perception of design messages in visual identity designs and its marketing effect regarding brand image formation, especially in the context of sport event and tourism destinations (e.g., Freeman et al., 2006;

Nghiêm-Phú, 2015). The directions and strength of the effects are still not clear. This suggests the need for further examination of the effectiveness of visual identity design regarding its marketing function of building brand image.

4 The idea that design products can deliver meaning to the end users is rooted in studies of semiotics (Eco, 1976; Holbrook & Hirschman, 1993). It has been argued that the semiotic function of visual design can be used to positively affect brand evaluation (Hem & Iversen,

1998; Kotler & Armstrong, 1999; Mick, 1986). The association between consumer interpretation of design messages and brand evaluation can be explained by schema theory. According to schema theory, after people perceive information cues from a brand or a product, people may form or modify their beliefs of a brand (Goodstein, 1993). This schema association could be projected on brand image evaluation (Batra & Homer, 2004; Gwinner & Eaton, 1999). Thus, it is possible that perceptions of different design messages (e.g., characters of a host destination, event, athletic movement) that serve as different information cues can influence the evaluation of the projected brand image (i.e., destination image, event image) differently. If this were true, then if the designers use the right “language” in design, consumers could be able to associate certain image attributes with the destination or event brand based on their perception of the design message. However, the strength of such association lacks empirical support in the context of visual identity design. Furthermore, it is a common practice to include multiple design messages in one visual identity design (e.g., combination of the event message and characters of the destination). When consumers perceive different information cues from two different brands

(i.e., the event and the host destination), whether this marketing practice can benefit or damage the destination and the event images is still not clear (Xing & Chalip, 2006).

Furthermore, besides being the transmission of values and characters of the event and its destination, these visual identity designs also play the role as differentiators to help consumers to identify the events and the host cities (Garcia, 2008; Griggs et al., 2012; Hem & Iverson, 2004;

Lee, Rodriguez, & Sar, 2012). Thus, how well these visual identity designs represent the events

5 and the host cities also contribute to visual identity design effectiveness. Designers frequently use iconic elements of a host city or an event to increase such representativeness (Hem &

Iverson, 2004). Although representational fit theory (Sammartino & Palmer, 2012a, 2012b) provides the theoretical support that including relevant design messages such as characters of the host city may benefit the brand it represents, this effect in the context of multiple design messages (e.g., both event message and host city message) has not been tested empirically.

By using visual identity designs to effectively represent an event and its destination and to build or reinforce the ideal images of the event and the host city, marketers eventually want positive consumer responses transform into financial benefits (Preuss, 2004; Ritchie & Smith,

1991). Studies in tourism and sport management have suggested that consumer evaluations of the brand image affect their behavioral intentions such as purchase intention and visit intention (e.g.,

Armenakyan, Heslop, Nadeau, O’Reilly, & Lu, 2013; Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Hallmann &

Breuer, 2010; Kaplanidou & Vogt, 2007). Positive evaluation of logo representativeness may also benefit brand evaluation (van den Bosch, de Jong, & Elving, 2005; Henderson & Cote,

1998) and leads to positive consumer behavioral intentions. Therefore, whether consumer evaluations of brand images and logo representativeness can affect consumer behavioral intentions are important indicators of financial benefits.

Furthermore, one of the goals for the mega event or tourism destination visual identity design is to deliver the same meanings to audiences around the world (Berkaak 1999; Durgee &

Stuart, 1987; Hem & Iverson, 2004). Culture has been suggested to have moderating effect on consumer meaning interpretation of visual design (Bagozzi & Yi, 1989; Crilly, Moultrie, &

Clarkson, 2004; van der Lans et al., 2009; Zhong, 2012), as well as destination and event-related decisions (Briley, Morris, & Simonson, 2000; Kaplanidou, 2009). Moreover, gender difference

6 has been found in visual design related information processing style (Darley & Smith, 1995;

Holbrook, 1986; Meyers-Levy, 1988, 1989), aesthetic tastes and visual design preference

(Holbrook & Schindler, 1994; Moss & Colman, 2001; Tedesco, Chadwick-Dias, & Tullis, 2004), destination choice (Stabler, 1995), sport involvement (Deaner & Smith, 2013; Eccles & Harold,

1991) and sport events’ affect image evaluations (Xing & Chalip, 2006). Thus, culture and gender may moderate the process of design message interpretation and consequent consumer behavioral intentions.

Taken all together, this study examines (1) the projection effects of consumer perception of design messages on the image of host city as a destination, and the image of the Olympic

Games as an event; (2) the effects of consumer perception of design messages on logo representativeness evaluation; (3) the effects of evaluations of destination image, event image, and logo representativeness on consumer behavioral intentions; (4) the moderating effects of culture and gender on evaluation of destination image, event image and logo representativeness, as well as the consequent behavioral intentions toward the event and the host city. The framework of this study is illustrated in Figure 1.1.

7

Figure 1.1 Framework of effects of design message on consumer evaluations of represented destination and event images, logo representativeness and consequent behavioral responses

This study tests the possibility and strength of the projection effects of design message perceptions on event and host destination images, the effect of design message on logo representativeness evaluations in the context of both single and multiple design messages conditions, and the consequent consumer behavioral intentions. The findings of this study contribute to the knowledge of two major research issues regarding branding effects of visual design: (1) the interpretation of design by consumers, and (2) the relationship between consumer design perception and contextual brand judgment (Luchs & Swan, 2011).

8 The research findings are valuable for mega sport event and the host city marketers because the researchers built a framework to measure the effectiveness of visual identity design regarding its marketing purposes, which are to represent the event and/or the host destination, to build, reinforce or modify images of the event and/or the host destination, and positively affect consumer behavioral intentions. Findings in this study can also help designers and marketers to understand the individual differences, improve the overall event experience in the host city, and help to bring financial benefits to the event and the host destination.

9 Chapter 2: Literature Review

This chapter begins with a review of the Olympic Games official reports and relevant literature to identify design messages embedded in the Olympic visual identity designs. The possibility for consumers to perceive meanings based on design messages and project the resulting attributes on the event and its host destination are examined by reviewing work in studies of semiotics in design and information transfer. Following that, studies of destination image dimensions and measurement, event image dimensions and measurement, logo representativeness evaluations based on single and multiple design messages are discussed.

Association between evaluations of destination image, event image and logo representativeness and consumer behavioral intentions are then discussed. Finally, effects of culture, gender, pre- existing knowledge, and pre-existing attitude are discussed.

THE OLYMPIC VISUAL IDENTITY DESIGNS

Visual identity is defined as “a part of the deeper identity of the group, the outward sign of the inward commitment, serving to remind it of its real purpose” (Abratt, 1989, p. 68). In the case of the Olympic Games, the visual identity designs are emblems, colors (official color palette), panorama graphic, typeface, mascots, sports pictograms, functional pictograms, main marks (For programs such as culture, volunteer, environment and torch relay) (IOC, 2004). To create these Olympic Games visual identity designs, design programs and departments are established by each Olympic Committee to create visual identity designs and ensuring the integrity of each design element. The name of the design department varies from the Games, for example, the Atlanta Olympic Committee established the Creative Services Department; the

10 Athens Olympic Committee established the Image & Identity Department. The image of the

Olympic Games is achieved through a team approach. Overall design concepts are developed through the integration of participants from numerous fields, such as architects, landscape architects, graphic and industrial designers, fabric designers, and transportation system designers

(IOC, 1984).

Among the different types of visual identity designs, emblems, mascots, and pictograms are usually more frequently shown to the audiences and receive more media exposure. After reviewing seven summer Olympic Games official reports (1984 LA Games, 1988 Seoul Games,

1996 Atlanta Games, 2000 Sydney Games, 2004 Athens Games, 2008 Beijing Games, 2012

London Games) and relevant Olympic mascots literature, meanings and design messages that the three types of visual identity designs (emblems, mascots, and pictograms) were expected to carry are identified and listed below (see Table 2.1).

Examples of Olympic visual

identity design Design Message Emblem Mascot Pictogram Characters of the host city/country Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Athletic movement Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ The Olympic Games Ÿ Ÿ Inspiring young people Ÿ Ÿ Functional information Ÿ

Table 2.1 The Design Messages of the Olympic Visual Identity Designs

Emblem

The international popularity of Olympic Games emblems began with the Tokyo Games in

1964. Japan’s national symbol, the rising sun, was juxtaposed against the five Olympic rings

(IOC, 1984). The importance of each subsequently Olympic emblem, especially the market

11 value, has grown significantly since the Tokyo Games, and designers have increasingly competed for the opportunity to create the emblem, for both promotional and advertising purposes (IOC, 1984). Thus, the emblem needs to function visually on its own.

The five Olympic Rings are usually included in each emblem design to represent the

Games and the Olympic spirit. The ideal image of the host city and the national prestige of the host country are also the primary concerns in Olympic emblem design. For example, the emblem of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games (see Figure 2.1), “Chinese Seal, Dancing Beijing,” combines the traditional Chinese seal and calligraphic art of the Chinese character jing (“京”)， literally meaning “the capital.” The red color is a favorite of the Chinese people which represents the nation’s blessing and an invitation to the world. The Chinese seal, calligraphic and red color are all highlights of Chinese culture that are presented by the emblem (IOC, 2008). Another example is the LA Olympic Games emblem---Star in Motion (see Figure 2.2). Designers picked stars because they are found in the flags of more than 47 states in the U.S. The symbol colors --- blue, red and white were in part chosen for their traditional significance in the awarding of prizes for first, second and third places (IOC, 1984).

Figure 2.1 Emblem of the 2008 Beijing Figure 2.2 Emblem of the 1984 Olympic Games - Chinese Seal, Dancing Beijing Los Angels Olympic Games

12 Athletic movement, as another important design theme embedded in emblems, is frequently presented by athlete figures in the emblems. For example, the dancing human figure of Beijing Olympic Emblem running and dancing toward victory (IOC, 2008). The embedded athletic movement was expected to deliver the “vitality of the nation” (IOC, 2008). Moreover,

Sydney Games use three colors to form an image of running athlete relaying the Olympic torch

(see Figure 2.3). Blue carve out the form of Sydney Opera House; red and yellow shape the running image (IOC, 2000).

Other forms have also been used to represent the athletic movement. As described in the

LAOOC “Graphic Standards Manual,” the 13 motion lines of the Star in Motion gave the emblem the appearance of action and speed, “The star is a universal symbol of the highest aspirations of mankind, the horizontal bars portray the speed with which the contestants pursue the excellence while the repetition of the star shape connotes the spirit of competition between equally outstanding physical forms” (see Figure 2.2).

Inspiring young people is a comparatively new design concern that was specifically emphasized in 2012 London Olympic Games emblem design (see Figure 2.4). As 2012 London

Games organizing committee chairman Seb Coe said: “It (the emblem) will define the venues we build and the Games we hold and act as a reminder of our promise to use the Olympic spirit to inspire everyone and reach out to young people around the world” (BBC sport, 2007). Similarly,

International Olympic Committee President Jacques Rogge said: “This is a truly innovative brand logo that graphically captures the essence of the London 2012 Olympic Games - namely to inspire young people around the world through sport and the Olympic values” (BBC sport,

2007).

13

Figure 2.3 Emblem of the 2000 Sydney Figure 2.4 Emblem of the 2012 London Olympic Games Olympic Games

Mascot

Mascots have been used beginning with the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich to symbolically represent the Games they are associated with. A beaver called Amik was used in

Montreal and a bear named Misha was used in Moscow. The mascot serves to inject a sense of personality into the Games, capturing the styles, traditions, and cultures of the people of the host country, in an animated form (IOC, 1984).

As part of the event’s bundle of symbolic images, mascots are integral to the “image” that symbolically reflect the host city. The mascots chosen must communicate not only the Olympic spirit and the Games themselves, but promote the culture and history of the city that is expected for the world to notice (Freeman et al., 2006; IOC, 2010). For example, the light on the 2012

London Olympics Mascot Wenlock’s head is based on those found on London’s famous black cabs (see Figure 2.5) (IOC, 2012).

14

Figure 2.5 The 2012 London Games Mascot – Wenlock and Paralympics Mascot - Mandeville

Comparing with a single mascot, multiple mascots are popular choices to present the diverse culture of the host city and nation. For example, Beijing Olympic Games used five dolls, called “Fuwa” (means fortune dolls) in general, and respectively named “Beibei” (Carp),

“Jingjing” (Panda), “Huanhuan” (Child of Fire), “Yingying” (Tibetan antelope), and “Nini”

(swallow). The names of these “Fuwa” put together - “Bei Jing Huan Ying Ni”- reads “ Beijing

Welcomes You” in Chinese (See Figure 2.6) (IOC, 2008). The design inspiration and color of

Fuwa originate from China’s huge landscape, beloved animals, and the Olympic Rings. Their images are also associated with the elements of nature – sea, forest, fire, sky and earth. The design is also influenced by the Chinese folk art. Each Fuwa symbolizes a different blessing - prosperity, happiness, passion, health and good luck (IOC, 2008). They were also created to

“reaffirm national geopolitical unions and cautiously address the sensitive history of invasion and colonization by foreign powers” (Ding & Thompson, 2013, p.98). Another example is about

Athena and Phevos, the mascots of 2004 Athens Olympic Games. Their names were inspired by two Olympian Gods: Athena, goddess of wisdom and patron of the city of Athens; and Phevos, the Olympian god of light and music, known as Apollo. These two characters are also well known to the wider global audience (IOC, 2004).

15

Figure 2.6 Mascots of the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games – Fuwa

The mascot also serves as a symbol to be enjoyed and understood by youth, whose inspiration is important to the Olympic movement (IOC, 2012). Lord Coe, chairman of the

London Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games, defended the mascots, saying the 2012

London Olympics mascot Wenlock and Paralympics mascot Mandeville (see Figure 2.5) would inspire young people to engage with sport. He said, “We’ve created our mascots for children. By linking young people to the values of sport, Wenlock and Mandeville will help inspire kids to strive to be the best they can be” (Blake, 2010). To appeal to children, mascots have become emphatically childlike in both appearance and design since 1980 (Magdalinski, 2004). Mascots are largely juvenile, with well-defined, “loveable” personalities. Negative or aggressive characteristics are not part of a typical mascot’s character, though some may be described as

“charmingly roguish” (Magdalinski, 2004). The mascot of 1984 Olympic---Sam the Eagle had to be recreated as a “short, stubby, cuddly little eagle” that is “warmer, more friendly” to dispel the bald eagle’s image as “rather stem and aloof” (See Figure 2.7) (IOC, 1984). Sydney Olympic

Game mascots - Syd, Olly, and Millie were also depicted as “unselfish, dynamic and optimistic” by SOCOG (1998). Mascots, in this way, are designed to be a “winsome, trusted friend” who offers products in the “spirit not of hucksterism, but of joyous friendship” (Shalit, 2000).

16

Figure 2.7 Mascot of the 1984 Los Angels Olympic Games – Sam the Eagle

The development of mascot also reflects concerns about the Olympic Games and athletic movement. For example, Wenlock wears five bracelets on his wrists in the colors of the Olympic rings. The three points on his head represent the three places on the podium for the medal winners (IOC, 2012). Besides serving as the national bird of the host country, Sam the Eagle was also universally recognized as an incarnation of the ideals cited in the Olympic motto: “Citius,

Altius, Fortius” (swifter, higher, stronger) (IOC, 1984). Moreover, each one of the Beijing

Games Fuwa represents a certain type of sport (e.g., Nini represents Gymnastics; Beibei represents water sports) (Ding & Thompson, 2013).

Sports Pictogram

A pictogram is an icon that has clear pictorial similarities with some object, like the person or women’s room sign that (for some interpreters) appears to be a simplified drawing of a

(specifically, female) human being (Eco, 1976). Pictograms have been part of Olympic design programs since they were first introduced at the 1964 Tokyo Games. The stylized figures were expected to easily communicate information to visitors and participants who have diverse language and cultural backgrounds (IOC, 1984). New pictograms were designed for Mexico in

1968, Munich in 1972 and Moscow in 1980. Montreal (the 1976 Games) chose to use the 1972

17 Munich pictograms. The LAOOC (1984) first inquired about the purchase rights of the pictograms used at the 1972 Munich Games and later the 1976 Montreal Games but found the price to be higher than the costs of commissioning new pictograms and chose instead to sponsor a competition. Some Olympic Games, for instance, the 1988 Seoul Games used the sports pictograms that were distinguishable from the past Games by the division of the composition into trunk, arms, legs and head (IOC, 1988).

As time passes by, pictogram design was getting more and more creative and reflects more concerns about the culture of the host city and nation. The Athens 2004 sports pictograms were inspired by three elements of ancient Greek civilization, and the simplicity of the human form was inspired by the Cycladic figurines (See Figure 2.8). “The artistic expression of the pictogram originates from the black-figure vases, where solid black shapes represent the human body and a single line defines the detailing of the form. The figures of the pictograms are solid and clearly drawn on a background similar to a piece of an ancient vase” (IOC, 2004, p. 319).

“Beauty of Seal Characters,” the pictograms for 2008 Olympic Game, integrate the inscriptions on ancient Chinese bone-ware and bronze-ware with modern graphic arts (IOC, 2008).

Figure 2.8. Examples of the 2004 Athens Olympic Games Sports Pictograms

The Olympic Games visual identity design system is broad and complicated. This study is the author’s first step to examine the research gaps regarding consumer responses towards the

18 Olympic Games visual identity designs. Given different visual identity designs, consumers may form different interpreting process and thus requires different research methods to examine consumer-design interactions in an appropriate and precise way. Logos are “one of the main vehicles for communicating image, cutting through clutter to gain attention, and speeding recognition of the product or company” (Henderson & Cote, 1998, p.15). Therefore, in this study, we will focus on the Olympic emblem design due to the substantial effects of logo design on branding, and focus on the most common design messages of the Olympic emblems: the

Olympic Games, host destination, and athletic movement. Future studies regarding other

Olympic Games visual identity designs are discussed in chapter 5.

MARKETING VALUE OF SEMIOTICS IN DESIGN

Semiotics in Visual Design

Across different design disciplines, the communicative potential of design products has been categorized in various ways (Crilly, Good, Matravers, & Clarkson, 2008). Depends on the perspective that researchers study design products, different theories have been used to examine communication effects of design. For example, design products have been studied as a language that consumers read, and rules of grammar or syntax are then applied (Giard, 1989; Gros, 1984;

Rheinfrank & Evenson, 1996). Design products have also been frequently studied as part of a sign system with which consumers construct meaning, and semiotic theories of interpretation are then applied (Mick, 1986; Mick, Burroughs, Hetzel, & Brannen, 2004; Holbrook & Hirschman,

1993; Vihma, 1995). Moreover, design works have been examined as an instrument of persuasion or argument, and rhetorical perspectives are then applied (Buchanan, 1985, 2001;

Friess, 2010a, 2010b). Among these different approaches to study the communication function of

19 design products, semiotics highlights sign structures and processes with respect to objects and observable details. Semiotics is grounded in the notion that all acts of communication involve messages, or signs, and are sent by creators and received by interpreters (Chandler, 2002), which highlights the two ends of communication in marketing, the design product that signals meaning and the consumers who receive meaning. Therefore, the paradigm of semiotics has frequently been used in design and marketing studies regarding the communication function of design and its marketing value (e.g., Bishop, 2001; Danesi, 2013; Freeman et al., 2006; Zhang, 1997).

Studies in fields of both design and marketing provide theoretical explanation and empirical support of the “encoding” and “decoding” process of design message. In the field of design, product semantics was developed and introduced by Krippendorff and Butter (1984) and is defined as the study of symbolic qualities of man-made shapes, in the cognitive and social context of their use. Studies of product semantics provide insights on the design choices and the communication function of design products, which provides the designers with the possibility to communicate messages through the product to audiences (Wikstrom, 1996).

Semantics, as one of the branches of semiotics, focuses on the relation between signifiers, like words, phrases, signs, and symbols, and what they stand for, their denotation (or meaning)

(Eco, 1976). For example, the word “apple” signifies the familiar fruit. The word is the signifier, and the object is the denotation. It is important to choose the appropriate expressive aspects of signifiers that may be used in equivalence as a semantic resource. Take “cuteness” as an example, Papanek (1995) pointed out that the composition of child physiognomy induces a feeling of warmth and protectiveness in humans. “Cuteness” is the resulting attribute of a smiling baby face that seems to evoke “happiness” and the feeling of protection, and that has been widely used in product design. Thus, consumers may perceive a design message (e.g., baby face)

20 as a signifier, and associate certain image attributes such as “cuteness” (cognitive) and

“happiness” (affective) with the product.

In the realm of marketing, the discussion about semiotics function goes beyond the product design itself, and extends to the branding value of the semiotic function of visual designs. Semiotics has been studied as the meaning production and interpretation of nonverbal signs and symbols in the context of consumer culture (Oswald, 2012). It has been argued that the conceptual foundations of semiotics in marketing can help to build and enhance brand images, fulfill consumer needs, wants, and desires with goods and services through the creation of exchange processes (Kotler & Armstrong, 1999; Mick, 1986; Mick et al., 2004) using language, objects, behaviors, practices, images, symbols, music and sounds (Freeman et al., 2006).

Marketing Semiotics have been used by researchers to understand the cultural meaning of design messages (Danesi, 2013; Mick et al., 2004; Oswald, 2015a, 2015b), and consumer responses toward the brand or product represented by design products, such as event mascots (Freeman et al., 2006), sport logos (Bishop, 2001; Turner, 2015), destination logos (Koller, 2008; Sar,

Rodriguez, Lee, & Kulpavaropas, 2013) and brand logos (Henderson et al., 2003; Machado, de

Carvalho, Torres, & Costa, 2015; Mollerup, 1997; Scott, 1993; Zhang, 1997).

Semiotic Function of Logo Design

Logo designs entail some semiotic connection to the connotation imprinted in the name

(Danesi, 2013). As a brand identity sign, a logo can be referred to as the graphic design that a company uses, with or without its name, to identify itself or its products (Bennett, 1995; Hem &

Iversen, 1998; Henderson & Cote, 1998). From a marketing perspective, both the event and the host city can be considered as individual brands. It has been argued that when consumers are exposed to new or established designs products (e.g., logo, print advertisement), their

21 perceptions of the design products and the way they influence brand evaluations are processed both consciously and subconsciously (Grunert, 1996).

Although it has been suggested that the unique interactions between design product and consumer create incremental brand judgment, which ultimately affects the strength of consumers’ relationships with the brand (Keller, 1993), and previous studies have shown that strong logos can positively influence people’s evaluations of the countries they promote (e.g.,

Hem & Iverson, 1998; Nghiêm-Phú, 2015), however, consumers don’t necessarily interpret design messages in an expected way (Kazmierczark, 2003), logos of poor quality can even damage a destination brand’s reputation (Lee et al., 2012). It is important for researchers and marketers to closely monitor the branding effect of the logos to obtain the ideal marketing outcome.

According to preceding literature, by using design elements such as the Great Wall in

Beijing, the yellow hibiscus from Hawaii, or the Olympic rings as signifiers, designers and marketers expect consumers to: (1) associate the design elements with the represented destinations or the event as denotation, which fulfill the marketing role of representing the brand(s); (2) associate resulting image attributes with the destination brand and/or event brand, which fulfill the marketing role of building ideal brand image. Theories and studies that may help to address the effects on image evaluation and logo representativeness are discussed separately in the following literature review sections.

Studies about Logo Design Effects on Brand Evaluation

To address the branding effect of logo design, researchers have focused majorly on how individual logo design principles (e.g., golden ratio, complexity, roundness) may influence brand or product related evaluation (e.g., Buttle & Westoby, 2006; Fang & Mowen, 2005 ; Muller,

22 Kocher, & Crettaz, 2013; Park, Eisingerich, Pol, & Park, 2013; van den Bosch, de Jong, &

Elving, 2005). van der Lans et al. (2009) pointed out that although such research is useful, it is like studying alphabets—critical to understanding but offering limited insight into word or sentence meaning. Henderson and Cote (1998), in an early attempt to understand broader design characteristics, uncovered three basic design dimensions: elaborateness (complexity, activeness, depth), naturalness (represent, organicity, roundness), and harmony (symmetry, balance).

Elaborateness refers to a design’s richness and its ability to capture the essence of an object, natural designs describe commonly experienced objects, and harmony is related to the congruency of the patterns and parts of design.

Henderson and Cote’s (1998) work contributes to the understanding of the effects of design characters on brand evaluation regarding audiences’ aesthetic experience, that a design’s characters (i.e., harmony, elaborateness, and naturalness) used by designers to create the desired shape can facilitate perception (Anand & Sternthal 1991; Martindale, Moore, & West, 1988) and stimulate arousal (Raymond, Fenske, & Tavassoli, 2003), which can positively affect brand attitude (Walsh et al., 2010). However, this approach is still limited to the branding effect of design principles. It does not explain if consumer interpretation of cultural meaning from a design product has effect on brand image evaluation.

Knowledge about the interpretation of design by consumers and the relationship between consumer design perception and contextual brand judgment is still very limited (Luchs & Swan,

2011). This might because meaning in design is a highly complex phenomenon to investigate and theorize upon (Noth, 1990; Schirato, 1998). Thus, it is necessary to further investigate the ways consumers perceive meanings based on design messages and the possibility of projecting the resulting beliefs and feelings as image attributes on the represented brand.

23 Effect of Consumer Interpretation of Design Messages on Brand Image

After receiving the signifiers from a design product (e.g., design elements of the host city, athletic figures), how does an individual interpret the message and possibly form or modify their existing beliefs and feelings about an event and its host city might be appropriately examined using schema theory (Taylor & Crocker, 1981) and information integration theory (Anderson,

1981). Schema theory is considered as the foundation of meaning interpretation in visual design studies (cf., Gero, 1990; Kazmierczak, 2003; Oxman, 2002). A schema is a generic or abstract knowledge structure, which is used to guide encoding, organization, and information retrieval in a person’s memory (Stein & Trabasso, 1981). A schema includes category attributes of stimulus domains as well as their links, prototypes, and affective tags determining an individual’s attitude toward members of the category (Goodstein, 1993; Robertson & Kassarjian, 1991). Information integration theory suggests that as new information is received, it is processed and integrated into existing beliefs and attitudes (Anderson, 1981). Thus, new information received by an audience from a design product can be associated with existing beliefs of a brand that represented by the design product.

Such schema association may occur and be projected on brand image attributes evaluation (Batra & Homer, 2004; Gwinner & Eaton, 1999). Image formation is regarded as a construction of a mental representation of a destination on the basis of information cues delivered by the image formation agents and selected by a person (Alhemoud & Armstrong,

1996; Court & Lupton, 1997; Gartner, 1993; Tasci & Gartner, 2007). According to Masten

(1988), people transfer sensations generated by visual elements such as logos to the product itself. Thus, the perceived information from a brand’s visual identity design could influence the image attributes evaluation of a destination or an event brand.

24 As a branding tool (Aaker, 1991), it is essential for a logo to reflect positive images of the represented brand to a target market, and to create positive attitudes toward the brand (Biehal,

Stephens, & Curlo, 1992; MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986; Mitchell & Olson, 1981; Park,

Jaworski, & Maclnnis, 1986; Peterson, AlShebil, & Bishop, 2015; Stafford et al., 2004). For example, including elements such as beach and palm tree in a logo may deliver the meaning of

“beautiful landscape” and “relaxing” to the audience. This audience would then associate the

“beautiful landscape” and “relaxing” image schema to the destination, which could be beneficial for the destination as a brand.

Currently, how organizations implement design language to reflect a certain brand image to the consumer, and the exact mechanism of how design translates to positive brand judgments remains a less research issue (cf., Mishra et al., 2015). It is still unclear that whether the above- mentioned assumptions of design message effect on brand evaluation are true, and if the associations are strong enough to function. Moreover, because both destination and event images are highly complex and multi-dimensional (Beerli & Martín 2004; Bigné, Andreu, & Gnoth,

2005; Echtner & Ritchie, 1991; Russell, 1980), to measure the effect of design message on brand image evaluation in a precise way, it is necessary to consider if design messages can be associated with certain or all brand image dimensions.

In the next section, we further discuss how destination image and event image are constructed, we also discuss the possible relationships between perception of the different design messages (i.e., athletic movement, the Olympic Games, and the host city) and the projected image dimensions, as well as the measurements of destination and event image dimensions.

25 EFFECT OF LOGO DESIGN ON BRAND IMAGE EVALUATION

Destination Image

In the field of tourism research, there is no single accepted definition of the destination image. Based on different information processing assumptions of the heuristic–systematic processing theory (Sirgy & Su, 2000), the piecemeal and category-based theory (Keaveney &

Hunt, 1992), and the consumer involvement theory (Poiesz, 1989), there are two major theoretical contradictory descriptions of destination image. One is Crompton’s (1979, p. 18) definition, “the sum of beliefs, ideas, and impressions that an individual has of a destination,” and another one is Gartner’s (1986) definition, “one’s perception of attributes or activities available at a destination.” Tasci, Gartner, and Tamer Cavusgil (2007) compared these two destination image descriptions and the respective theoretical assumptions. They pointed out that

Gartner’s (1986) definition is based on central (systematic) processing, piecemeal-based processing, and high-involvement theories, which assume that the consumer is “a logical thinker capable of effortful processing, who forms impressions by evaluating objects, attribute by attribute, each time” (Tasci et al., 2007, p.198). Therefore, Gartner’s (1986) definition assumes that the consumer will evaluate a destination on the basis of attributes and activities. On the other hand, peripheral (heuristic) processing, category-based processing, and low-involvement theories assume that “the consumer does not have such a cognitive capability to evaluate objects, attribute by attribute, each and every time. Rather, the consumer tries to simplify the evaluation process by using different criteria depending on the situation, thus having gestalt impressions instead of item-by-item evaluations” (Tasci et al., 2007, p.198). Crompton’s (1979) definition rests on the heuristic information processing assumption, and thus destination image is the sum of beliefs and impressions. Furthermore, regarding the schematic nature of images, Walmsley and Young

26 (1998, p.65) identified destination image as “a common structure or schema of evaluations that can be used to differentiate between tourism destinations.” In this study, we adopt Walmsley and

Young’s (1998) schematic perspective and Gartner’s (1986) attribute based description because:

(1) schema theory was used to structure the process of information delivery via design in this study; (2) it is suggested that logo design can capture specific attributes of a destination (Buttle

& Westoby, 2006; Henderson & Cote, 1998; IOC, 1984; IOC, 2008, IOC, 2012; Pittard et al.,

2007).

Although it has been pointed out that image is different from branding, researchers agree that branding is created through image (Cai, 2002; Ekinci, 2003; Jensen & Korneliussen, 2002;

Kotler & Gertner, 2002; Pritchard & Morgan, 2001; Qu, Kim, & Im, 2011). Because of the branding value of destination image, destination marketers have engaged in promotional efforts to establish an ideal image or to change an existing image through advertising and other forms of publicity (Day, Skidmore, & Koller, 2002; MacKay & Fesenmaier, 1997). The Olympic Games visual identity designs have been considered to be an excellent platform to represent the ideal host city image to the world in this destination branding process (Freeman et al., 2006) due to the large number of visitors to the destination and intensive international media coverage

(Armenakyan et al., 2013). For example, the Sydney 2000 Olympics were perceived as an opportunity for Australia to rebrand itself to an international audience as a dynamic, cosmopolitan and culturally diverse society (Berry, 2012). On the other hand, a successful destination branding should allow destinations to create the particular image that the destination intends to portray and then accurately convey that image to visitors (Blain, Levy & Ritchie,

2005). However, it is not an easy job to select appropriate logo design elements to represent the desired image of the destination. For example, it has been criticized that the design of Shanghai’s

27 city logo was very local and didn’t represent Shanghai’s image as one of the most important international metropolises in China (Fan, 2014).

Regardless of the importance of this issue, attribute identification in tourism image research has focused on consumers’ perceptions of the destination name rather than a visual representation of the destination (MacKay & Fesenmaier, 1997). To date, very few studies have been conducted to investigate the effect of logo design message interpretation on the cognitive and affective image components of a destination. Mackay and Fesenmaier’s (1997) study explored the relationship between consumer interpretation of pictorial element of promotional visuals and destination (Riding Mountain National Park in Canada) image interpretation, and found out that perceptions of pictorial representation of a destination (i.e., attractiveness, uniqueness) are significant predictors of participants’ evaluations of destination image dimensions (i.e., activity, familiarity, holiday, atmosphere). Nghiêm-Phú’s (2015) study specifically address the issue of the effect of design message on destination image. The researcher attempted to investigate the images of Vietnam as projected through its provinces/cities’ logos based on a content analysis. The counting of the frequency of attributes recognized in the logos revealed that the natural, cultural, and symbolic attributes dominated the projection of Vietnam’s image. The findings suggested that logo design can carry meaning and has effects on the projected both cognitive and affective image of a place. However, this work did not explicitly develop a framework for measuring destination image, and the affective image attributes from this study were majorly projected from color choices. Nevertheless, the findings in both studies suggest a closer look at image formation literature regarding both cognitive and affective dimensions of the destination image.

28 Destination Image Formation Based on Logo Design

The focal objects of destination image research are often investigated through the lens of attitude formation (Armenakyan et al., 2013). It has been widely accepted and applied in various academic fields that people’s behaviors are affected by attitudes comprised of cognitions (i.e., subject’s knowledge, beliefs, and thoughts about the object) and affect (i.e., subject’s feelings toward and evaluations of the object) (Bagozzi & Burnkrant, 1979; Baloglu & McCleary, 1999;

Chen & Phou, 2013; Gartner, 1993; Jun, Cho, & Kwon, 2008; Wang & Hsu, 2010). In the field of both visual design and advertising, previous design studies have shown that logo design can elicit affective response, cognitive response, and consequently change people’s behavioral intention about a company, a brand or a destination (Blain et al., 2005; Henderson et al., 2003;

Jun et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2012; Masten, 1988; van der Lans et al., 2009; Wang & Hsu, 2010).

Cognitive Image Formation. To form cognitive response towards a visual design, the user or consumer makes judgments about the product based on the information perceived by the senses (Crilly et al., 2004). For example, a consumer first perceives (e.g. sees) a visual identity design whereas the pattern building part of the brain clusters the constructs (e.g. tree – green– peaceful- natural), then the consumer can make judgments after the recall of these constructs,

(Garcia, 2015). The measurements of cognitive image usually capture tourists’ perception on multiple attributes of the destination, such as attractions (cultural, historical, scenery), climate, convenience, environment, service quality, and value (e.g., Armenakyan et al., 2013; Baloglu &

McCleary, 1999; Beerli & Martín, 2004; Gallarza, Saura, & García, 2002; Kim, Kang, & Kim,

2014).

In the case of logo design, designers often use a combination of typographical, figurative, and abstract images to create a logo that carries the pictorial attributes of a destination (Buttle &

29 Westoby, 2006; Henderson & Cote, 1998; Pittard et al., 2007). Thus, the cognition-based image perception and generated meaning can be projected on the cognitive image of a destination.

Affective Image Formation. The cognitive components and the affective component of an image are distinct but hierarchically related (Gartner, 1993). It has been suggested that peoples’ feelings and emotions toward a destination may play an important role in image formation, in addition to the physical, concrete attributes of the place (Baloglu & Brinberg, 1997;

Zhang, Fu, Cai, & Lu, 2014). Although cognitive image has been the focal point of investigation in earlier studies, more and more researchers have acknowledged the role of the affective dimension of destination image in recent studies (Baloglu, 2000; Lee, C., Lee, Y., & Lee, B.,

2005; Qu, Kim, & Im, 2011). A joint cognitive-affective approach has been adopted in many tourism studies as an attempt to capture destination image in a better way (Kaplanidou & Vogt,

2007; Martin & Bosque, 2008; Morais & Lin, 2010). In the context of visual design, it is suggested that shapes in logo design can generate emotional perceptions among the viewers

(Henderson & Cote, 1998; Nghiêm-Phú, 2015), which could be projected on the affective image of the destination. This affective aspect of meaning delivery in logo design has been acknowledged in the Olympic visual identity designs, that these design products are expected to emotionally engage the audiences (Garcia, 2008).

Destination Image Measurements. Although previous studies have suggested measuring destination image from both cognitive and affective aspects (Kaplanidou & Vogt,

2007; MacKay & Fesenmaier, 1997; Martin & Bosque, 2008; Morais & Lin, 2010; Nghiêm-Phú,

2015), destination images based on consumer perception are known to be complexly determined

(Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Tasci et al., 2007) and to be multidimensional (Beerli & Martín

2004; Echtner & Ritchie, 1991). Common destination attributes have ranged from the tangible

30 attributes such as scenery and sites to the abstract attributes such as friendliness and attractiveness (MacKay & Fesenmaier, 1997).

Different sets of image attributes were used in different studies. For example, regarding cognitive images, in Chen and Tsai’s (2007) research, destination image consisted of four dimensions (destination brand, entertainment, nature and culture, sun and sand) has a significantly positive effect on behavioral intentions comprised of likeliness to revisit and willingness to recommend to others. The results of Alcaniz, Sanchez, and Blas’ (2009) research revealed that the functional component of the cognitive destination image, based on more tangible or measurable perceptions, such as scenery, accommodation or price levels, significantly affects the revisit intention. Furthermore, the psychological component of cognitive destination image contains more abstract and intangible characteristics, such as atmosphere or friendliness, also show influence on the intention to recommend (Basaran, 2016).

To measure consumer emotional reactions to events and tourism destination, usually on semantic-differential scales, the affective image is assessed by an individual’s emotional experience such as happiness and excitement evoked by the destination experience (Baloglu &

Brinberg, 1997; Zhang et al., 2014). Russell and his colleagues derived a two-dimensional environmental evaluation model (Pleasure and Arousal) (Russell, 1980; Russell & Pratt, 1980;

Russell & Snodgrass, 1987) from a general psychology model including three dimensions, pleasure, arousal and dominance (Mehrabian, 1980). Pleasure reflects the degree to which consumers feel good or happy with the surrounding environment, arousal refers to the degree to which they feel stimulated or active (Bitner, 1992), and dominance describes a feeling of control and influence over one’s surroundings and others versus feeling controlled or influenced by situations and others (Mehrabian, 1996). Although the three-dimensional model has been shown

31 to be robust across applications (Bakker, van der Voordt, Vink, & de Boon, 2014), it has been argued that when evaluating environment (e.g., destination, event, theme park), consumer emotions are consisted of two independent dimensions, pleasure and arousal (Bigné et al., 2005;

Russell, 1980), because dominance dimension reflects feelings of control related to consequent behavior (Seligman, 1975), and it is not independent of the other two dimensions (Russell,

1980). Furthermore, several studies in tourism and events (e.g., Baloglu & Brinberg, 1997; Bigné

& Andreu, 2004; Xing & Chalip, 2006) support the applicability of Russell’s (1980) two- dimensional model, although the image attributes used in these studies are not exactly the same.

Accordingly, Russell’s (1980) two-dimensional model is used in this study to guide the selection of affective image attributes.

Furthermore, when using an Olympic Games emblem as a communication platform, not all of the destination attributes (e.g., shopping facilities) are the primary concerns for designers and marketers. As Chalip (2004) suggested, it is necessary to identify the appropriate destination attributes that can be captured by the Olympic Games emblem design. In this study, we also focus on the image attributes of the host city as the destination, not the host country, because it is important to note that the Olympic Committee (IOC) stipulates that the Games are given to cities, not countries (Freeman et al., 2006).

In brief, to obtain appropriate destination image attributes that can be elicited by consumer perception of logo design messages and also capture both cognitive and affective aspect of the destination, a content analysis of the relevant mega sporting event emblem design literature (e.g., design manuals) and destination branding materials is conducted and described in the method section of this study.

32 Event Image

A mega-event is a “major one-time or recurring event of limited duration, developed primarily to enhance the awareness, appeal and profitability of tourism in the short and/or long- term” (Ritchie, 1984, p.2). The Olympic Games have high status and global scale effects and fall into the category of mega-events.

The Games are open to the public, have clearly identified themes and unique symbols, are

organized periodically (every four years for each of the summer and winter Olympic

Games), have predetermined opening and closing dates, use permanent structures that are

owned by host cities/regions and not the event organizers, consist of separate and special

activities, and take place in predetermined community(ies). The ‘mystique’ around them

and the internationality of the experience has given the utmost significance to the OG as a

means to promote a place, attract tourists, increase awareness, and invite investments

(Armenakyan et al., 2013, p. 114-115).

Gwinner (1997, p. 147) suggested that event image can be defined as “the cumulative interpretation of meanings or associations attributed to events by consumers.” Regarding the

Olympic Games, the IOC is well aware of the importance of its brand image and has placed considerable effort to protect the brand of the Olympic Games and enhance its position with a careful choice of the host destinations (IOC, 1999).

Sport Event Image Evaluation

It is suggested that the image determinant principles that apply to destination image (i.e., an image consists of affective and cognitive components) may also be used to measure sport

33 event image (Gwinner & Eaton, 1999; Hallmann & Breuer, 2010; Koo, Quarterman, & Flynn,

2006). After receiving design messages about a sport event, the host city, and athletic movement, an audience may associate the resulting cognitive or affective image attributes with the represented sport event brand.

In order to measure the cognitive and affective components of sport event image quantitatively, researchers have used different variables in previous research (Armenakyan et al.,

2013; Gwinner & Eaton, 1999; Hallmann & Breuer, 2010; Koo et al., 2006; Xing & Chalip,

2006). For example, in Armenakyan et al.’s (2013) study about the Olympic Games image change included a comprehensive list of attributes to capture the Olympic Games image (e.g., likeability, attractive, worthy, educational experience, international, party atmosphere, excellent athletic competition). Lee, Y. K., Kim, S., Lee, C. K., and Kim, S. H.’s study (2014) included functional value (e.g., reasonably priced, economical, value for money) and emotional value

(e.g., pleasurable, make me happy) in their study to measure sport event image. Besides these measurements of the Olympic Games image reported in previous research, the IOC has also reported that consumers associate the Olympic brand with the desired Olympic values, including peace, festivity, cultural exchange, fair play, equality, tradition, honor, excellence, educational experience, and international harmonization (IOC, 2001, 2002; Seguin & O’Reilly, 2008).

For the purpose of this study, image attributes that describe both cognitive and affective aspects of the Olympic Games image that could be projected by emblem design are selected and described in the method section.

Brand Image Evaluation Based on Single and Multiple Design Information Cues

34 Based on preceding literature review, it is logical to assume that when different information cues are given, individuals will evaluate the projected brand image differently. For example, if an audience sees the Afield tower as the character of Paris in a logo design, he or she may associate cognitive image attributes such as “appealing culture” and “popular tourism destination” and affective image attributes such as “pleasant” with the destination brand. If the audience sees athletic figure in a logo design, he or she may associate affective image attributes such as “exciting” and “active” with the represented brand.

It is a common practice that designers choose to include a combination of different design messages (e.g., destination and athletic movement, event and athletic movement) when designing a logo. This design practice may complicate the brand image evaluation process because of multiple sources of information cues. For example, if the combination involves a destination brand and athletic movement, then the perception of athletic movement is expected to add or reinforce image attributes such as “active” and “exciting” to the destination brand.

Moreover, in the case of the Olympic Games, designers frequently include all three design messages in emblem design (e.g., 2000 Sydney Games emblem). It is important to notice that this multiple design message approach frequently involves information cues from two well- established brands, the Olympic Games, and the host city.

Rooted in schema theory, marketing studies that measure the effect of multiple information cues are usually based on the associative network model. This model sees memory as consisting of a network of nodes with links connecting those nodes (Keller, 2003). Nodes represent stored information in our memory, and the links between the nodes represent the strength of associations between nodes. Information that can be stored in a memory network includes things of a verbal, visual, abstract or contextual nature and recall of information occurs

35 through a process called spreading activation (Keller, 2003). Information transfer from one brand to another happens when consumers integrate a node from one brand’s association set to that of the partner brand (Brown et al., 2002; Till & Shimp, 1998). Thus, when two major brands appear in the same advertisement, the image of one brand (e.g., host city) can be modified by incorporating the other brand’s (e.g., the Olympic Games) information, and vise versa (Simon &

Ruth, 1998; Washburn, Till, & Priluck, 2000). Consequently, it is expected that this transfer can be activated when consumers perceive design messages that represent the event and its destination. Information cues from each design message may jointly influence the Olympic

Games and host city image projection.

The interaction effect of different brand information cues has been examined as a phenomenon of brand association in many event sponsorship studies (Ferrand & Pages, 1999;

Grohs & Reisigner, 2005; Gwinner & Eaton, 1999; Koo et al., 2006). Keller (2003) considered the brand image as “perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associations held in memory” (p.3) and suggested that when a brand becomes associated with a sponsored entity, some of the associations connected to the sponsored entity may become linked in memory to the brand.

Furthermore, the transfer of images across linked entities, such as the Olympic Games and the host destination, has been studied as a co-branding image-transfer practice (Xing &

Chalip, 2006) with the Olympic Games image potentially influencing the host destination image, and the host destination image affecting the image of the Olympic Games itself. A few studies have addressed this effect in the context of sport event and host destination, and the findings show that the attribute-based image transfer is possible (Hallmann & Breuer, 2010; Xing &

Chalip, 2006), but asymmetrical (Xing & Chalip, 2006). For example, using sport event to

36 promote the destination image might benefit a city with active image, and may hurt a city with inactive image (Xing & Chalip, 2006).

Besides the image transfer studies, previous event and tourism studies have discussed the effect of hosting the Olympic Games on destination image evaluation. However, inconsistent findings of the Olympic Games impact on the host destination have been reported in previous studies. Positive impact reported including improved international tourism in South Korea after the 1988 Seoul Summer Olympics (Jaffe & Nebenzahl, 1993) and enhanced reputation of South

Africa after their bid for the 2004 Summer Olympic Games (Hiller, 2003). Nevertheless, Heslop,

Nadeau, and O’Reilly (2010) reported that the 2008 Beijing Olympics did not show any significant positive contribution either to the image of the Olympic Games or the image of China for Americans and Chinese respondents. Yet, significant improvements were noted after the

Beijing Olympics in the images held by American respondents concerning the people of China.

Similar mixed and limited positive results were reported in Lee’s (2010) study of the Beijing

Olympics among residents of Hong Kong. Therefore, the effect of receiving event information cues on destination image evaluation is uncertain.

Studies related to the image transferring between an event brand and the host destination brand, and the studies that examine the effect of hosting the Olympic Games on destination image demonstrate that the value of visual identity design as a symbol of destination and event can vary as a function of what each design message or design message combinations as information cue(s) bring(s) to the destination and event image. A brand’s goal is to be strongly connected to positive associations in consumers’ memory because brands strongly connected to their associations will receive the greatest activation (Keller, 2003), thus, a successful logo design should include design message(s) that can create strong associations between ideal image

37 attributes and the represented brand(s). Accordingly, it is important to carefully choose the combination of design messages to maximize such branding benefit. It is not clear, however, whether combinations of multiple design messages in a logo design have joint effects on consumer evaluations of the Olympic Games image and the host city image, as they haven’t been empirically tested.

BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS BASED ON BRAND IMAGE EVALUATION

Positive evaluations of destination image and event image can lead to positive behavioral intention towards the destination and the event (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Chen & Tsai, 2007;

Ferrand & Pages, 1999; Gartner, 1993, 1996; Kaplanidou & Vogt, 2007). It has been reported that positive evaluation of a destination’s image has positive effects on word of mouth

(Armenakyan et al., 2013; Byon & Zhang, 2010; Chen & Tsai, 2007), willingness to visit

(Armenakyan et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2007), and revisit the destination (Alcaniz et al., 2009;

Bigné, Sanchez, & Sanjez, 2001; Chen & Tsai, 2007; Tasci et al., 2007). Positive evaluation of sport event image can also elicit positive effects on word of mouth (Armenakyan et al., 2013;

Lee et al., 2014), willingness to watch the sport event on TV (Armenakyan et al., 2013), willingness to attend the sport event in person (Armenakyan et al., 2013), as well as purchase intentions (Alexandris, Tsaousi, & James, 2007; Jun et al., 2008; Koo et al., 2006). However,

Kaplanidou (2007) reported that the destination image influenced revisit intention to the destination, but event image didn’t.

To capture the marketing effect of visual identity design messages on consumer behavioral response, this study examines the effects of consumer evaluation of destination image and event image in relation to consumer behavioral responses toward the event and the

38 destination.

EFFECT OF LOGO DESIGN ON LOGO REPRESENTATIVENESS EVALUATION

As part of a graphic identity system, a logo functions as a tangible cue for brand name

(Hakala, Lätti, & Sandberg, 2011; Schechter, 1993; Stafford et al., 2004). A logo is defined as “a graphic representation or image that triggers memory associations of the target brand” (Walsh et al., 2010, p.76). The identification function of a logo has been largely discussed in logo design literature (Ahn, Suh, Lee, & Pedersen, 2013; Grobert, Cuny, & Fornerino, 2016; Peterson,

AlShebil, & Bishop, 2015). In the case of destination logos, they are considered as “part of a destination’s sign system and are applied to communicate the destination’s identity to internal and external audiences” (Hem & Iversen, 2004, p. 87). Thus, after consumers perceive information cues from different design message(s) from an Olympic Games emblem design, besides the possibility that they can form, reinforce or change the existing image schema of the represented brands, they may also form, reinforce or change evaluations of how well the emblem represents the brands.

Logo representativeness has been discussed as the “similarity” between the logo and destination (Hem & Iverson, 2004) and logo “identity recognition” (Lee et al., 2012). Identity recognition is defined as “the degree to which people see the correspondence between the elements present in the logo design and the logo as a whole and the country’s identity” (Lee et al., 2012, p. 586). Tourism researchers have pointed out that it is essential for a logo to capture the core characteristics of the country it represents because of country logos function as

“information processing short-cuts” (Kotler & Gertner, 2002). That is, design information that confirms people’s existing knowledge and attitude about a destination may attract the audience’s attention rather than new information (Lee et al., 2012). Based on these arguments, when such a

39 logo happens to be an emblem for a mega-event hosted in a tourism destination, the logo design that captures the core characteristics of the destination and the event may lead to positive consumer evaluation of logo representativeness.

Both fluency theory (Reber, Winkielman, & Schwarz, 1998; Reber, Schwarz, &

Winkielman, 2004) and representational fit theory (Sammartino & Palmer, 2012a, 2012b) provide possible explanations to this consumer preference. Fluency theory focuses on the ease of processing and posits that people prefer visual displays to the extent that they are processed more easily (or fluently) (Reber et al., 1998; Reber et al., 2004). However, fluency theory has been criticized that it leaves out a crucial variable in aesthetic judgment, which is the meaning or message of the image as intended by the artist and/or as inferred by the viewer (which assuredly may not be the same) (Palmer, Schloss, & Sammartino, 2013). Alternatively, representational fit theory suggests that people prefer images to the extent that their spatial composition optimally conveys an intended or inferred meaning of the image. In other words, people prefer a design that’s easy to process, and the “fit” between the design element and the meaning is the reason for easy processing. For example, their study findings have shown that people prefer standard compositions with a neutral title that merely describes the content of the picture (e.g. side-view of a plane with the title “Flying”) but nonstandard compositions when they “fit” a title with compatible spatial implications (e.g. rear-view of a plane with the title “Departing”)

(Sammartino & Palmer, 2012b). The representational fit theory has been tested to the representational fit between titles and object positions, between titles and perspectives, as well as representational fit and preference of object positions and perspectives (Palmer et al., 2013).

Accordingly, it is logical to assume that a logo design that includes design messages of the event and the host city that it represents can help people to link the messages with the

40 represented event and destination, which should smooth the interpretation process. In other words, including these design messages that maximize the “representational fit” between the visual identity design and the represented brands might contribute to higher consumer evaluation of the represented brands. However, findings about “representational fit” of a design product have been limited to single subject, no empirical study has shown that the same is true in comparison with fluency in the combined conceptual and/or perceptual domain, that is, whether delivering multiple messages would positively affect consumer evaluation of logo representativeness, and if the effect differs given different combinations of the design messages

(e.g., event and host city design messages, host city and the athletic movement design messages).

Furthermore, a logo that represents the brand well may have positive effects on consumer evaluation of the represented brand (van den Bosch et al., 2005; Henderson & Cote, 1998; Lee et al., 2012), and the positive influence may carry onto consequent consumer behaviors such as purchase intention and visit intentions. Although no significant effect of logo representativeness was found on visit intention in Lee et al.’s (2012) study, it is necessary to examine if the same effect exists on consumer behaviors given different choices of design message.

CULTURAL INFLUENCES ON CONSUMER INTERPRETATION OF VISUAL IDENTITY DESIGN

Logo literature has emphasized that a logo should readily evoke the same intended meaning across people (Crampton Smith, & Tabor, 1996; Durgee & Stuart, 1987; Redström,

2006). Keller (1993, 2003) similarly argues that marketing stimuli should communicate one clear message that is difficult to misinterpret. Although it is believed that the more strategically successful the design is, the more accurately and consistently it triggers similar thoughts in different audiences (Monö, 1997; Redström, 2006), it is important to understand the individual

41 differences do add to the difficulty in visual design to ensure the same meaning for the global audiences (Crilly et al., 2004).

The interpretation of a design may vary depends on the cultural norms of the viewer or consumer (Bellantoni, 2005; Crilly et al., 2004). Human cognitive processes are influenced by cultural factors (Segall, Dasen, Berry, & Poortinga, 1999). Subjective culture represents mental processes such as beliefs, values, and norms shared by a group of people (Berry, Poortinga,

Segall, & Dasen, 1992; Bock, 1994; Hofstede, 1980; Holland & Quinn, 1987; Leung, Bhagat,

Buchan, Erez, & Gibson, 2005; Triandis, 1972). A subjective conceptualization of culture, using values and norms at the nation-state level, has been the most commonly employed approach for studying culture in the marketing literature (e.g., Clark, 1990; Nakata & Sivakumar, 1996;

Overby, Woodruff, & Gardial, 2005).

Within the consumer behavior and design realm, Holland and Quinn (1987, p.16) suggest that the meaning identified in cognitive models holds “possible clues to the underlying cultural knowledge that enters into linguistic and other behavior.” They employ reconstructed schema

(acquired through native speakers’ intuitions and analysis of natural discourse) to access cultural meaning. Furthermore, cross-cultural psychologists emphasize that cultural values and norms are the primary precursors to differences in sensory sensitivity and discrimination, color-coding and categorization, patterns and pictures, and aesthetics (Berry et al., 1992). In the context of visual design perception and interpretation, differences in visual perception among people from different cultures exist because visual images are perceived in a way that they have experienced and learned (Segall et al., 1999). These suggest that different cultural background may influence the ways consumers perceive and form interpretations of design messages, and the ways they integrate the new information cues to the represented brand.

42 Rooted in schema theory, Kazmierczak (2003) did a plausible job explaining this process by proposing designs as diagrams of mental maps of individual and collective cultures, and the possible gap in meaning coding and decoding. Kazmierczak (2003) focused on the diagrammatic nature of knowledge presentation necessitates the emergence of intelligent design as informed by a rational selection and a combining of visual syntax to induce specific inferences followed by subsequent behaviors. When a design product is shown to an audience, the content of design becomes part of the audience’s thought, which is formed through this person’s interaction with the design product. As such, the content of design is created and owned by this person. There would be no content, nor a design without the audience’s interpretation of the meaning.

The moderating effect of culture on consumer perception of design messages has been reported in a number of design studies and destination studies. For example, Jun et al.’s (2008) study about international consumers’ attitude toward the corporate identity logo shows that affect was more important for the American participants whereas cognition was more significant for the Korean participants. Moreover, a series of studies aiming at evaluating three sets of videophone icons and pictograms developed in Japan, the U.S, and England by Piamonte,

Ohlsson and Abeysekera (1999) showed the effects of cultural differences in memory testing toward icon design. In terms of metaphor design, researchers have attempted to explore cultural differences in perception toward metaphor design of virtual campuses (Evers, 1998; Evers,

Kukulska-Hulme & Jones, 1999), and the studies conclude that users from different cultures perceive the meanings of metaphoric graphics differently. Regarding destination image evaluation, Funk, Toohey, and Bruun (2007) reported that cultural difference moderates perceived benefits of relaxation and cultural learning. International participants from cultures dissimilar to Australia were more likely to agree that traveling to Australia to participate in an

43 international running event would provide opportunities for relaxation and cultural learning.

Furthermore, cultural difference in consumer decision-making process (Briley et al.,

2000) has also been reported in tourism studies. Culture differences between Asian tourists and

Australian hosts regarding their cultural values, rules of social behavior, and perceptions of service significantly influenced tourists’ satisfaction (Reisinger & Turner, 2002a, 2002b).

National cultural differences also affect German and Japanese tourists’ travel behaviors (i.e., external information search, trip planning, travel party characteristics, and trip characteristics)

(Litvin, Crotts, & Hefner, 2004). In the case of destination choice, Kaplanidou (2009) reported that North American audiences rated local attractions of tourism destination significantly higher than the European audiences. She suggested that European destinations feature a longer history and, as a result, people coming from such regions could have higher standards that could lower their destination image perceptions.

Taken together, cultural difference may moderate consumers’ evaluations of the destination image, the event image, logo representativeness, and consequent behavioral intentions. Because a better understanding of the moderating influences of culture on various domains is needed to develop an effective marketing strategy and superior marketing performance (Crotts & Erdmann, 2000; Hofstede, 2001; Leung et al., 2005; Yaprak, 2008), the moderating effect of culture is examined in this study.

GENDER INFLUENCE ON CONSUMER INTERPRETATION OF VISUAL IDENTITY DESIGN

Socio-biological research suggests that men and women are not only different due to socialization (gender roles) but also due to inherent factors (Lueptow, Garovich, & Lueptow,

1995), which lead to different information process style, design product preference, and decision-making process.

44 Gender difference at the cognitive level refers to the different information processing modes used by males and females. Meyers-Levy (1988, 1989) proposed that men are “selective processors” and women are “comprehensive processors.” Men often rely on a subset of highly available and salient cues in place of detailed message elaboration, while women attempt to assimilate all available information before rendering judgment. The possible explanation for this difference is that women have a lower threshold for elaborative processing than that of men. It is suggested that women process the information cues as long as they feel they are of certain importance, whereas men process the information cues only when they are of high importance

(Sun, Lim, Jiang, Peng, & Chen, 2010). The gender differences in information processing style have been reported in a number of previous studies (Darley & Smith, 1995; Gregory, 1998;

Holbrook, 1986; Meyers-Levy, 1988, 1989; Wood, 1966). Accordingly, when given an emblem design, an audience’s gender may affect the way this audience processes the design messages.

The information cues that are considered to be important to use for brand image judgment and logo representativeness judgment may differ by gender. In other words, certain design information cues may be valuable for males’ brand image judgment or logo representativeness judgment, but not for females, and vice versa. However, contradictory findings have been reported in studies regarding image evaluation. In MacKay and Fesenmaier’s (1997) study about pictorial element of destination in image formation, it was found that gender affected the perception of the image for the atmosphere (i.e., peaceful, relaxing, pleasant, beautiful) and holiday (i.e., vacation, family oriented, affordable, like a park) dimensions. Beerli and Martín

(2004) reported that for both the affective and cognitive dimensions, women tend to evaluate the destination more positively than men. Xing and Chalip (2006) also reported females rated affective image of destination and sport event more positive than men did. Yet, dissimilar results

45 found by Gibson, Qi, and Zhang (2008) indicate that gender didn’t affect destination image evaluation.

Moreover, gender difference has been reported to have moderating effect on decision- making process regarding the choice of destination and sport event participation. For example, gender difference has been found in travel motives (Collins & Tisdell, 2002; McGehee, Loker-

Murphy, & Uysal, 1996), travel information search preference (Kim, Lehto, & Morrison, 2007), sport involvement (Deaner & Smith, 2013; Eccles & Harold, 1991), and sport tourism participation (Gibson, 1998). For example, Australian women considered certain travel motives

(e.g., socialization, prestige, and culture experience) as more important than men did (McGehee et al., 1996). Travel for leisure purpose was reported to be a more appealing choice for women than men (Collins & Tisdell, 2002). Furthermore, in Funk and his colleagues’ (2007) research about willingness to participate in an international running event, the findings show that gender moderates perceived benefits of socialization, relaxation, cultural experience, knowledge exploration and cultural learning. Therefore, when making a decision about destination or sport event related choices (e.g., visit intention, watch intention, purchase intention) based on evaluations of destination image, event image, and logo representativeness, it is possible that men and women rely on different information cues, and/or consider the same information cue with different importance.

Collectively, the literature indicates gender is an important indicator in consumers’ evaluations of destination image, sport event image, and logo representativeness based on design message perceptions, as well as consequent destination and sport event related behaviors. Thus, gender difference is examined in this study.

46 PRE-EXISTING KNOWLEDGE AND PRE-EXISTING ATTITUDE TOWARD THE EVENT AND THE

HOST DESTINATION

Bramwell and Rawding (1996) pointed out that projected destination images are transmitted or diffused through communication channels to the consumers who filter these image messages through their subjective states such as prior experiences, knowledge, needs, preferences, and motivations, thereby altering and forming them into “their own unique representations or mental constructs” (Bramwell & Rawding, 1996, p. 202). Marketing researchers similarly point out that choice largely draws upon prior knowledge and attitude to evaluate new, consistent, and conflicting information (Bettman, Johnson, & Payne, 1991) toward advertisement stimuli (Burke & Edell, 1986), thus, prior knowledge and attitude have particular importance in brand judgment (Simonin & Ruth, 1998). People tend to pay attention to information that confirms their existing knowledge and attitude and disregard new information that challenges their existing views (Kotler & Gertner, 2002; Lee et al., 2012).

Regarding destination image evaluation, it has been reported by MacKay and Fesenmaier

(1997) that participants who are familiar with the destination are likely to perform a more affective evaluation of the destination image, people who lack familiarity are likely to perform a more cognitive evaluation of destination image. Lee et al. (2012) also reported that pre-existing knowledge and attitude toward a destination have significant moderating effects on individuals’ evaluation of country image. The more people knew and the more positively they felt toward the country, the more positive they evaluated the country image. Similarly, work by Funk and James

(2006) suggests the level of prior knowledge plays a central role in the developmental progression of sport consumer involvement. Therefore, when people see an Olympic Games emblem design, their pre-existing knowledge and attitudes toward the Olympic Games and the

47 host city may affect their evaluation of the event and destination images. Thus, the pre-existing knowledge and attitudes towards the event and destination are examined as the covariates in this study.

SUMMARY AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

Taken all together, although there are grounds in preceding studies for expecting the effects of the Olympic Games emblem design messages on evaluations of the event image, the host city image, logo representativeness, and consequent consumer behavioral intentions, no previous study has examined whether the effects exist. Thus, the major purposes of this study are to examine: (1) how different design messages of an Olympic Games emblem influence consumer evaluations of the cognitive and affective components of the Olympic Games image, the host city image, and the logo representativeness of the event and the host city; (2) whether the effects vary by different combinations of design messages; (3) how well do consumers’ evaluations of the destination image, event image and logo representativeness predict their behavioral intentions; (4) whether culture and gender have moderating effects on destination image, event image, and logo representativeness evaluation, as well as consequent destination and event related behavioral intentions.

Accordingly, hypotheses are constructed based on preceding literature review to address the effects of design messages on evaluations of destination image, the Olympic Games’ event image, logo representativeness, consequent behavioral intentions, as well as the moderating effects of gender and culture.

48 Hypotheses about the Effects of Design Messages on Host City Image

H1: Participants’ ratings of a host city’s image differ as a function of the design messages included in an emblem design after controlling for their pre-existing knowledge of and attitudes towards the host city and the event.

Hypotheses about individual difference:

H2: Respondents’ ratings of a host city’s image based on an emblem design differ as a function of culture after controlling for their pre-existing knowledge of and attitudes towards the host city and the event.

H3: Respondents’ ratings of a host city’s image based on an emblem design differ as a function of gender after controlling for their pre-existing knowledge of and attitudes towards the host city and the event.

Hypotheses about the Effects of Design Messages on Event Image

H4: Participants’ ratings of the Olympic Games’ event image differ as a function of the design messages included in an emblem design after controlling for their pre-existing knowledge of and attitudes towards the host city and the event.

Hypotheses about individual difference:

H5: Respondents’ ratings of the Olympic Games’ event image based on an emblem design differ as a function of culture after controlling for their pre-existing knowledge of and attitudes towards the host city and the event.

H6: Respondents’ ratings of the Olympic Games’ event image based on an emblem design differ as a function of gender after controlling for their pre-existing knowledge of and attitudes towards the host city and the event.

49

Hypotheses about the Effects of Design Messages on Logo Effectiveness

H7a: Participants will evaluate the logo representativeness of the host city more positively when the emblem design represents the host city characters after controlling for their pre-existing knowledge of and attitudes towards the destination and the event.

H7b: Participants will evaluate the logo representativeness of the Olympic Games more positively when the emblem design represents the Games after controlling for their pre-existing knowledge of and attitudes towards the destination and the event.

H7c: Participants will evaluate the logo representativeness of the host city and the Olympic

Games more positively when the emblem design represents the athletic movements after controlling for their pre-existing knowledge of and attitudes towards the destination and the event.

Hypotheses about individual difference:

H8: Respondents’ ratings of the logo representativeness based on an emblem design differ as a function of culture after controlling for their pre-existing knowledge of and attitudes towards the host city and the event.

H9: Respondents’ ratings of the logo representativeness based on an emblem design differ as a function of gender after controlling for their pre-existing knowledge of and attitudes towards the host city and the event.

Hypotheses about Behavioral Intentions

H10: Respondents’ event related behavioral intentions are positively related to their ratings of the host city image, the Olympic Games’ event image, and the logo representativeness.

50 H11: Respondents’ destination related behavioral intentions are positively related to their ratings of the host city image, the Olympic Games’ event image, and the logo representativeness.

Hypotheses about individual difference:

H12: Respondents’ behavioral intentions differ as a function of culture.

H13: Respondents’ behavioral intentions differ as a function of gender.

51 Chapter 3: Method

In order to examine the research hypothesis, experimental design is employed to test the effects of meaning encoding in design messages on consumer evaluations of the Olympic Games image, destination image, logo representativeness, and the consequent behavioral responses toward the Olympic Games and the host city. The development process of event and destination image scales and other instruments used in this study including logo representativeness scale, pre-existing knowledge scale, pre-existing attitude scale, and consumer behavioral response scale are described in this chapter. The chapter also describes demographic characters of the participants, study design, procedure, and data analysis method that used in this study.

MEASURES

Development of destination image scale

Semantic differential is a technique for “fleshing out the connotation of words” or constructing “connotative profiles” (Danesi, 2008, p.27). It is considered to be appropriate to examine the relationship between design elements and user evaluation when formulating design strategies (Wilson & Haładewicz-Grzelak, 2015). This technique has been applied in previous design studies to explore consumer interpretation of the product, such as corporate logo design

(Jun et al., 2008), telephone design (Hsu, Chuang, & Chang, 2000), and sports car design

(Wilson & Haładewicz-Grzelak, 2015). It has also been tested in marketing studies that examine consumer evaluation of destination image (e.g., Baloglu & Brinberg, 1997; Bigné & Andreu,

2004; Hallmann & Breuer, 2010) and sport event image (e.g., Kaplanidou, 2007; Hallmann &

Breuer, 2010; Xing & Chalip, 2006).

To develop such a semantic differential scale that measures the projected destination

52 image dimensions based on design messages of an Olympic emblem design, a qualitative content analysis was conducted to select the destination attributes that are expected by the Olympic emblem designers and the Olympic Games marketers to deliver to the event audiences.

Qualitative content analysis is a dynamic form of analysis of verbal and visual data that is oriented toward summarizing the informational contents of that data (Altheide, 1987; Morgan,

1993). It is recommended as the analysis strategy of choice in qualitative descriptive studies

(Sandelowski, 2000). Content analysis of tourism brochures is also considered as a way to contribute to both reliability and content validity of the destination image scale (Tasci et al.,

2007), and has been used to explore dimensions of destination image (Govers & Go, 2004;

Stepchenkova & Zhan, 2013) and event image (Scott & Smith, 2005). Hence, qualitative content analysis was used to analyze data and subtract image attributes that are associated with emblem design.

To do so, the investigator reviewed seven Summer Olympic Games Official Reports

(1984 LA Games, 1988 Seoul Games, 1996 Atlanta Games, 2000 Sydney Games, 2004 Athens

Games, 2008 Beijing Games, 2012 London Games) to examine the host city image descriptions that are expected to be signaled by the Olympic emblem design. During the coding, the data was read across the cases looking for common themes from the groupings of general meaning.

Patterns within the responses were grouped together based on commonalities. The units of meaning that relevant to the research purpose were identified and categorized (Simpson, 2010).

To ensure the trustworthiness, the investigator discussed the data coding and categorization process with a faculty member expert in sport history, and both agreed with that the way of coding and categorization make sense. To test the reliability of the Olympic Games host city image attributes on other mega sport event host cities, the investigator also reviewed

53 two mega sport event official websites and compared the attributes list with the image attributes of these two events’ host cities. The two online websites are: the “city” section on the official websites of the CommonWealth Games; the “discover Glasgow” section in Glasgow 2014 XX

CommonWealth Games website (http://www.glasgow2014.com/glasgow/discover-glasgow).

The attributes identified in the content analysis were then compared to the items of image scales used in previous destination studies to develop a scale for the purpose of this study. The items were retained only if both researchers agreed that they were meaningful descriptors of destinations that could be represented by a logo. This yielded an initial list of 14 items.

Table 3.1 Destination Image Attributes List

Image Destination Image Attributes Items used in this study Type

Scenery

• Beautiful landscape Great natural scenery Cognitive • Attractive scenery (Armenakya et al., 2013) • Magnificent Coastline • Natural views

Culture Attraction

• Cultural heritage Culturally interesting Cognitive • Art (Armenakya et al., 2013) • Architecture • Landmarks • World heritage sites/museums/concert halls • Culturally interesting

Destination Popularity

• Impact Popularity Cognitive • Awareness (Hallmann & Breuer, 2010) • Reputation

International

• Unite the East and the West International-regional Cognitive • International (Hallmann & Breuer, 2010) • Cosmopolitan • Global destination

54 Table 3.1, cont.

Diverse

• Strong and diverse multicultural community • Cultural diversity Diverse-Non-diverse Cognitive

Welcoming/Friendly

• Welcome visitors from all over the world Welcoming-Unwelcoming Cognitive • Warm Friendly-Unfriendly • Friendly (Armenakya et al., 2013)

Fun

• Great fun Fun-Boring Affective • Great entertainment • Variety activities • Playful

Modern/Traditional

• Rapid urban development Modern-traditional Cognitive • Modern (Hallmann & Breuer, 2010) • Traditional • Great business environment

Memorable

• Memorability of experience Memorable-Unremarkable Affective • Memorable (Armenakya et al., 2013) Affective Image • Vibrant and energetic cheerful-gloomy, Affective • Anything is possible exciting-dull, • Exciting pleasant-unpleasant • Alive relaxing-distressing • Electrifying atmosphere (Hallmann & Breuer, 2010; Kaplanidou, 2007) • Vitality

Cognitive destination image attributes were then transformed to a three six-point rating scale (popularity, scenery, culture attraction) and five seven-point semantic differential items using the indicators international – regional; diverse - non-diverse; modern – traditional; welcoming – unwelcoming; friendly – unfriendly.

The affective image of the host city was measured on a seven-point rating scale with four semantic differentials items indicating the emotion towards the destination used in Hallmann and

Breuer (2010), and Kaplanidou (2007): cheerful-gloomy; exciting-dull; pleasant-unpleasant;

55 relaxing-distressing. We also added fun – boring; memorable – unremarkable based on content analysis. According to Russell’s (1980) two-dimensional (pleasure and arousal) model, the selected four sets of adjectives captures both of the dimensions, with cheerful-gloomy, pleasant- unpleasant, memorable – unremarkable and fun – boring under the dimension of pleasure, whereas exciting-dull and relaxing-distressing under the dimension of arousal.

Following review by a group of 5 students who evaluated the suitability of each item as a reasonable descriptor of mega-event destination, all items were used in the main study.

In order to obtain a reduced scale with simple structure, ratings on the 14 items (collected from the 657 respondents in the main study) were factor analyzed using principal components extraction with varimax rotation. Factors with eigenvalues greater than unity were retained, which yielded three factors. The items, fun-boring, friendly-unfriendly and memorable- unremarkable had multi-dimensional loadings. Therefore, these items were deleted, and the factors were re-estimated. The final three-factor solution is shown in Table 3.2. Inspection of

Table 3.2 shows that it accounted for 74.451% of the variance in the final 11 items. The alphas for each subscale range from 0.83 to 0.89, which suggests good reliability. Factor 1 was labeled

“Destination Attraction” and includes items that majorly attract tourists. Factor 2 was labeled

“Destination Type,” which included descriptors of destination type. Factor 3 was labeled

“Destination Affective Image” and includes descriptors of affective image of a destination. The items for each subscale were averaged to create a score. Thus, scores for each ranged from 1-7.

56

Component Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Destination Attraction Alpha= .89 Natural Scenery .232 .082 .846 Culturally Interesting .187 .089 .897 Popular among tourists .124 .129 .886

Destination Type Alpha= .83 International-Regional .174 .814 .073 Diverse - Non-diverse .243 .806 .076 Modern – Traditional .177 .740 .107 Welcoming – Unwelcoming .289 .773 .105

Destination Affective Image Alpha= .89 Dull- Exciting .833 .241 .209 Distressing- Relaxing .839 .218 .232 Gloomy- Cheerful .807 .266 .258 Unpleasant-Pleasant .773 .249 .052

Eigenvalue Total 5.094 1.890 1.206 % of Variance 46.305 17.186 10.960 Note: N=657.

Table 3.2 Result of Factor Analysis of Destination Image Attributes Scale in Main Study

Development of Event Image Scale

Similar to the host city image attributes selection process, event image attributes were selected based on content analysis of the seven Olympic Games official reports, and the attributes were compared to previous sport event studies to develop an event image scale.

Cognitive event image attributes were transformed to a six-point rating scale with two six-point rating scale: atmosphere; elite level competition (Koo et al., 2006), and two seven-point semantic differentials using the indicators, international-regional; modern- traditional (Hallmann &

Breuer, 2010).

57 To measure the affective image of the event, two of the items from Kaplanidou (2007): cheerful-gloomy; pleasant-unpleasant were used, two items from Xing & Chalip (2006) were included: calm -exciting; leisurely-active. The selection of the adjectives was also guided by

Russell’s (1980) two-dimensional model with cheerful-gloomy and pleasant-unpleasant under the dimension of pleasure; calm -exciting; and leisurely-active under the dimension of arousal.

The list of event image attributes was then also given to 5 graduate students to read through and select the ones that are appropriate to describe the Olympic Games. All of the attributes were remained to use in the final study.

The eight items (collected on the 657 respondents in the main study) were also factor analyzed using principal components extraction with varimax rotations to obtain a reduced scale with simple structure. Factors with eigenvalues greater than unity were retained. The items, cheerful-gloomy, pleasant-unpleasant had multi-dimensional loadings. Therefore, these items were deleted, and the factors were re-estimated. The final three-factor solution (shown in Table

3.3) accounted for 82.217% of the variance in the remaining items. The Cronbach’s alphas for subscale event attraction is 0.85, and for event affective image subscale is 0.80, both suggest good reliability. The Cronbach’s alpha for event type subscale is 0.70, which is comparatively low but still considered as acceptable for use in the final study. Factor 1 was labeled “Event

Attraction” and includes descriptors of the attraction for audiences. Factor 2 was labeled “Event

Type,” which included event characters. Factor 3 was labeled “Event Affective Image” and includes descriptors of affective image. The items for each subscale were again averaged to create a score. Thus, scores for each ranged from 1-7.

58

Component Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Event Attraction Alpha=.85 Elite level competition .924 .061 .115 Extraordinary atmosphere .923 .070 .122

Event Type Alpha=.70 International-Regional .185 .099 .831 Modern – Traditional .046 .019 .881

Event Affective Image Alpha=.80 Calm-Exciting .112 .901 .089 Leisurely- Active .016 .919 .030

Eigenvalue Total 2.264 1.484 1.185 % of Variance 29.245 27.922 25.050 Note: N=657.

Table 3.3 Result of Factor Analysis of the Olympic Games Image Attributes Scale in Main Study

PARTICIPANT SCREENING

A total of seven hundred and fifteen (715) participants completed the questionnaire.

However, fifty-eight (58) surveys were not used due to unanswered questions leaving a total of six hundred and fifty-seven (657) usable surveys. Four hundred and fifty-nine (459) participants are Chinese (69.9%), and one hundred and ninety-eight (198) participants are American (30.1%).

Participants’ age ranged from 18-61 years (M= 26.3, SD= 10.2). Four hundred and forty-four

(444) participants (67.6%) were between the ages of 18 to 24, fifty-six (56) participants (8.5%) were in the age range of 25 to 30, and ninety-one (90) participants (13.7%) were in the age range of 31 to 40, thirty (30) participants (4.6%) were between the age of 41 to 50, and the remaining thirty-three respondents (5.6%) falling between the ages of 51 and older. Participants with some

59 college credit, and have not received a degree yet accounted for 11.4% of the sample, participants with associate degree accounted for 48.2% of the sample, and participants with bachelor’s degree accounted for 23.7%, participants with master’s degree or doctorate degree accounted for 7.6%. Frequency results are shown in Table 3.4.

Chinese U.S. Characteristics Total Percent Participants Participants Gender Male 292 125 417 63.5% Female 167 73 240 36.5% Age 18-24 290 154 444 67.6% 25-30 41 15 56 8.5% 31-40 71 19 90 13.7% 41-50 26 4 30 4.6% 51 and older 31 6 37 5.6% Education Less than high school 13 3 16 2.4% High school graduate 33 10 43 6.5% Some college credit, no 50 25

degree 75 11.4% Associate degree 230 87 317 48.2% Bachelor’s degree 101 55 156 23.7% Master’s degree 17 8 25 3.8% Doctorate degree 15 10 25 3.8%

Table 3.4 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents in Main Study (N=657)

INSTRUMENT

Besides the scales to measure destination image, event image, and logo representativeness, the instrument also includes scales that measure participants’ pre-existing knowledge and pre-existing attitude toward the host city and the Olympic Games, their behavioral responses toward the host city and the Olympic Games, and demographics.

60

Logo Representativeness Scale

To measure the “representation fit” between the logo and represented brand: the Olympic

Games and its host city, Hem and Iversen’s (2004) scale was selected. This scale was used to

measure the level of match or similarity between the logo and Fjord Norway as a tourist

destination in their study. They reported Cronbach’s alpha of 0.93. There were two items scored

on a six-point scale in the measurement (1=completely untrue; 6= completely true). The items

were worded and adopted into the questionnaire. In this study, the scale had an alpha of 0.94

towards the Olympic Games and towards the host city (see Table 3.5).

Eigen % of Scale item Survey Questions M SD α value Variance Logo Representativeness Logo and the 1. The logo represents the 2024 Olympic Games 4.02 1.34 1.878 93.877 .94 Olympic very well. Games 2. The logo fits the 2024 Olympic Games very 4.05 1.33 well. Logo and the 1. The logo represents the Gold Coast in Australia 4.09 1.30 1.895 94.733 .94 Host City very well. 2. The logo fits the Gold Coast in Australia very 4.09 1.28 well. Table 3.5 Result of Factor Analysis of the Logo Representativeness Scale in Main Study

Consumer Behavioral Response towards the Olympic Games

To measure consumer behavioral intentions towards the Olympic Games as event, six

items from Armenakyan et al.’s (2013) study were selected and worded with reference to event

response (α = .904 - .013). The items asked about prediction of an individual’s intentions to

watch the Olympic Games on TV, recommend friends to watch the Olympic Games on TV,

attend the Olympic Games in the Gold Coast, recommend friends to attend the Olympic Games

in the Gold Coast. Two additional purchase intentions were also included to measure event

61 response. Two measures of purchase intention (purchase for self and purchase as a gift) adapted from Spears and Singh (2004) were employed. Respondents will take a look of a T-shirt with the logo design and rate the statements based on a six-point Likert-type scale ranking from

“Completely untrue” to “Completely true.” The scale has an alpha of 0.89 in this study (see

Table 3.6).

Consumer Behavioral Response Towards the Host City

To measure consumer behavioral intentions towards the host city as destination, two items from Armenakyan et al.’s (2013) study was selected and worded with reference to destination response (α = .937- .957). The items asked about prediction of an individual’s intentions to visit the destination even without the event, recommend friends to visit the destination even without the event. The items were also rated on a six-point Likert-type scale ranking from “completely untrue” to “completely true.” The scale has an alpha of 0.92 in this study (see Table 3.6).

62

Eigen % of Scale Item Survey Questions M SD α value Variance OG event behavioral response Willingness to watch the Games on TV Watch How likely do you think it is that Chris would watch the 4.65 1.40 3.948 65.794 .89 2024 Olympic Games on TV. Recommend to How likely do you think it is that Chris would 4.59 1.34 watch recommend friends to watch the 2024 Olympic Games on TV? Willingness to attend the Games in the destination Attend-OG Chris is considering plans for future trip, how likely do 4.30 1.38 you think it is that Chris would attend the 2024 Olympic Games in the Gold Coast? Recommend to How likely do you think it is that Chris would 4.17 1.30 attend OG recommend friends to attend the 2024 Olympic Games in the Gold Coast? Willingness to purchase Buy for self Chris wants to buy a shirt, and is considering about the 4.50 1.47 above choice to wear during the summer, how likely is Chris to purchase the T-shirt? Buy as gift Chris wants to buy a shirt as gift, and is considering 4.63 1.34 about the above choice, how likely is Chris to purchase this T-shirt as gift? Destination behavioral response Willingness to visit the destination even without the Games Visit-DT How likely do you think it is that Chris would visit the 4.04 1.27 1.847 92.339 .92 Gold Coast even without the 2024 Olympic Games? Rec-Visit-DT How likely do you think it is that Chris would 4.01 1.31 recommend a friend to visit the Gold Coast even without the 2024 Olympic Games? Table 3.6 Result of Factor Analysis of the Olympic Games Behavioral Response Scale and Destination Behavioral Response Scale in Main Study

Pre-existing Knowledge and Pre-existing Attitude

Both the participants’ pre-existing knowledge and pre-existing attitude toward the

destination and event were measured using Lee et al.’s (2012) six-point Likert scale

(1=completely untrue, 6= completely true) in response to the statements “ I know a lot about the

Gold Coast in Australia.” and “ I know a lot about the Olympic Games.” “In general, I feel

positively toward the Gold Coast.” and “In general, I feel positively toward the Olympic

Games.” These four questions were asked before respondents were exposed to the study stimuli.

63 DEMOGRAPHICS

Questions about participants’ gender, age, nationality, occupation, household income, and ethnicity (for U.S. participants only) were included in the instrument. The choices of income for

Chinese participants were adjusted according to Chinese average house income.

STUDY DESIGN

A 2 (gender) x 2 (nationality) x 2 (presence and absence of the Olympic Games design message) x 2 (presence and absence of the host city design message) x 2 (presence and absence of athletic movement design message) experimental design was employed to test the effect of design messages and individual difference. There were eight different conditions in total to test the effect of three different design messages, and each condition includes a different logo design.

Each participant was randomly assigned to one of the eight experimental conditions. The eight experimental conditions of stimuli design was: (1) the presence of the messages of host city, the

Olympic Games and athletic movements in the emblem design; (2) the presence of the messages of host city and the athletic movements in the emblem design; (3) the presence of messages of the Olympic Games and the athletic movements in the emblem design; (4) the presence of the movements in the emblem design only; (5) the presence of messages of host city and the

Olympic Games in the emblem design ; (6) the presence of messages of the host city in the emblem design only; (7) the presence of messages about the Olympic Games in the emblem design only; (8) the absence of the messages of host city, the Olympic Games and athletic movements in the emblem design.

64 Advertisement Design

Subject’s familiarity influence people’s perception and attitude (Zaichokowsky, 1985), therefore, a mega event logo (the emblem of the 2018 Commonwealth Games in the Gold Coast in Australia) that doesn’t represent the home countries (China and U.S.) of the participants was selected as the stimulus in each experimental condition. The investigator designed eight logos based on this emblem. The destination of the 2018 Commonwealth Games is the Gold Coast in

Australia. Therefore, the Gold Coast is chosen as the Olympic Games host city in the main study.

It is a common marketing practice that advertisement messages are paired with event emblem for event promotion purpose (Hem & Iverson, 2004). Therefore, a sentence of description of the event and the destination was included in the advertisement below the emblem design: “Plan now to see the world’s best sport at the 2024 Summer Olympic Games in

Australia’s premier beach resort region: The Gold Coast” (See Appendix B).

To include design message of the host city, the images that frequently been associated with the Gold Coast were chosen: the sun, palm tree, seagull, and waves. To include design message about the event, the Olympic Rings were chosen. To represent the athletic movement, the original drawings of a swimmer, a hurdler and a gymnastic in the emblem of the 2018

Commonwealth Games in the Gold Coast in Australia were kept. The drawings were framed with black line to increase awareness (see Appendix B).

The selection of the design objects is guided by design principles to ensure validity so that participants’ evaluations of the host city and the event reflect their perception of the design objects that represent the event, the host city, and athletic movement. According to design semiotics, figurativeness, and its opposite endpoint, abstractness, reflect the degree to which a sign depicts objects from the natural and sensitive world: a sign is abstract when there are no

65 links to the sensitive world, while a figurative sign represents object from the real world

(Greimas & Courtes,́ 1982). Therefore, comparing with abstractive design, design objects that portrait the host city and the athletic movement were selected. Although the Olympic rings were considered as abstract design, because of the well-established association with the Olympic

Games, the Olympic rings were chosen to represent the Olympic Games.

Moreover, color carries intrinsic meaning that communicates the desired image

(Bottomley & Doyle, 2006; Labrecque & Milne, 2012) and influence consumer perception of advertising (Gorn, Chattopadhyay, Yi, & Dahl, 1997). Therefore, to eliminate the profound effect of color in this study, the advertisements are in black and white.

PROCEDURE

This study used an online questionnaire to collect data. Participants received the survey recruitment message on email lists provided by a public college in Southern U.S., a public college in Southeast China, and an energy material company in Southeast China. Potential participants were instructed to click a link that leads them to the survey website if they were interested in the study. Participants were then instructed to first read a consent form before they access the questionnaire. All participants were encouraged to print out a copy of the consent form. In the consent form, the participants were informed that the participation in this study is completely voluntary; there are no known risks or costs associated with this study; the risks in this study are no greater than everyday life; this study is anonymous; participants can withdraw from this study at any time without penalty and may skip questions that they do not wish to answer; the purpose of this survey is to collect information about an Olympic visual identity design product to further knowledge of the Olympic visual identity designs; this questionnaire is

66 about visual identity design; participants need to take a look at a picture of a visual identity design first and then complete the questionnaire; this questionnaire will take approximately 8 to

12 minutes; participants’ responses will be strictly confidential and will be used for research purposes only.

There were 3 sections in the questionnaire. In section 1, participants were asked their pre- existing knowledge and attitude toward the Gold Coast and the Olympic Games. In section 2, participants were asked to take a look of an Olympic emblem design advertisement very carefully and then respond to the following statements about logo representativeness, destination image, event image, their willingness to watch, to visit the destination, to attend the event in the destination, and to recommend friends to attend the event in the destination. Items from the logo representativeness (4 items), destination image scale (3 items), event image scale (2 items), were worded and adopted in the questionnaire; each statement asks the participants to rate their response on a six-point Likert-type scale, from “Completely untrue” to “Completely true.” Also, the destination image was measured on 11 semantic differential items and the event image was measured on six semantic differential items. Each respondent will be asked to rate the attributes on a seven-point semantic differential scale. Respondents were then instructed to use a six item six-point Likert-type scale ranking from “Completely untrue” to “Completely true” to rate their behavioral response intention towards the event and destination.

Respondents were then asked to take a look of a T-shirt with the logo design, and rate their willingness to purchase the T-shirt for self and purchase as gift based on a six-point Likert- type scale ranking from “Completely untrue” to “Completely True.” In the last section, demographic information was collected: gender, age, nationality, occupation, household income and ethnicity (for U.S. participants only).

67 The researcher translated the English informed consent form, questionnaire, and recruitment material into Chinese to collect Chinese data before the data collection phase. The researcher’s first language is Chinese and scored “Superior” in ACTFL’s (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages) Chinese language test. The investigator is also fluent in

English. After the documents (consent form, questionnaire, recruitment script) were translated, the documents were then translated back to English (back-translated) by a Chinese scholar expert in communication studies.

DATA ANALYSIS

To assess the effects of single design message and the joint effects of multiple design messages on consumer evaluation of the destination image, the event images and logo representativeness, and to test the moderating effects of culture and gender, a set of 2 (gender) x

2 (nationality) x 2 (presence and absence of the Olympic Games design message) x 2 (presence and absence of the host city design message) x 2 (presence and absence of athletic movement design message) multivariate tests were employed for which the destination image, event image, and logo representativeness scores were the dependent variables, nationality, gender and the presence and absence of destination, event, and athletic movement design messages were independent variables, and the pre-existing knowledge and pre-existing attitude toward the event and destination were covariates.

In order to determine whether evaluation of the destination image, event image, and logo representativeness affect consumer behavioral intentions towards the destination and the event, hierarchical regressions were conducted. Participants’ gender, nationality, three dimensions of the destination image, three dimensions of event image and two dimensions of logo

68 representativeness were the independent variables. The dependent variables are the event behavioral responses and destination behavioral responses.

69 Chapter 4: Results

This chapter first reports the results of MANCOVA analysis examining the effects of nationality, gender, the event, destination, and athletic movement messages on destination image.

Then the second MANCOVA testing the impact of the same variables on event image ratings are presented. The results of the third MANCOVA that are testing the impact of the same variables on logo representativeness are then presented. Finally, the results of the regression tests about respondents’ behavioral intentions toward the event and destination are reported respectively.

EFFECTS OF DESTINATION DESIGN MESSAGE, EVENT DESIGN MESSAGE, ATHLETIC MOVEMENT DESIGN MESSAGE, NATIONALITY, AND GENDER ON HOST CITY IMAGE RATING

The MANCOVA for destination image tested all main effects, two-way, three-way, four- way and five-way interactions among respondents’ nationality, gender, as well as presence and absence of the event design message, destination design message, and athletic movement design message on participants’ evaluation of the host city image with pre-existing knowledge and attitude toward the destination and the event as covariates.

Multivariate tests using Wilk’s Lambda reveals that no significant results in all the five- way, four-way, three-way, or two-way interactions (.119 .05). Moreover, except the main effect of gender (F[3, 619]= 9.098, p < .001, partial eta squared= .042), nationality (F[3, 619]= 3.455, p < .05, partial eta squared= .016), pre-existing attitude towards the destination and event (13.230< F[3, 619] < 21.440, p < .001), all other main effects were not significant (i.e., event message, destination message and athletic movement message) ( .258

.05). Therefore, the presence of event, destination or athletic movement message didn’t significantly influence participants’ evaluation of the destination image. Thus,

H1 is not supported.

70 The significant effects of gender, nationality and pre-existing attitude were further examined by the univariate analysis to identify significant effects on each dimension of the destination image ratings. The results of univariate tests indicate that significant gender difference in rating the destination image was captured in the host city affective image dimension

(F[1, 621]= 25.503, p < .001, partial eta squared= .039), but not in the host city attraction or host city type dimension: (.421< F[1, 621] <4.520, p> .05). Significant nationality difference in the host city image evaluation was captured in the host city type dimension (F[1, 621]= 12.441, p <

.01, partial eta squared= .012), but not in the host city attraction or affective image dimension

(.515< F[1, 621] <2.532, p> .05). Significant main effects of pre-existing attitude were found in all of the destination image dimensions (3.849< F[1, 621] <61.635, p< .05). The effects of pre- existing knowledge and pre-existing attitude toward the event and host city on destination image evaluation are summarized in Table 4.3.

In order to obtain a better understanding of the results, the adjusted means for the significant dimensional effects of gender and nationality are presented in Table 4.1. Examination of Table 4.1 shows that the females’ ratings of host city affective image were higher than that of males. Therefore, H3 for host city affective image dimension was supported, but for host city attraction and host city type dimensions were not supported.

Source Effect Pattern Host City Image Dimensions Host City Host City Host City Affective Attraction Type Image Gender Male NS NS 1.996 Female 2.478 Nationality Chinese NS 2.023 NS American 1.690

Table 4.1 Adjusted Means for Host City Image Ratings

71

Further examination of Table 4.1 also shows that Chinese participants rated the host city

type image dimension more positively than American participants did. Thus, H2 for host city

type dimension was supported and for the host city attraction and affective image dimensions

were not supported. A summary of destination image hypotheses is presented in Table 4.2.

Hypothesis Att. Type AI. H1: Participants’ ratings of a host city’s image differ as a function of the Destination design messages included in an emblem design after controlling for their pre- U U U existing knowledge of and attitudes towards the host city and the event. Event U U U Athletic movement U U U H2: Respondents’ ratings of a host city’s image based on an emblem design differ as a function of culture after controlling for their pre-existing U S U knowledge of and attitudes towards the host city and the event.

H3: Respondents’ ratings of a host city’s image based on an emblem design differ as a function of gender after controlling for their pre-existing U U S knowledge of and attitudes towards the host city and the event.

Note. Att. stands for host city attraction dimension, Type stands for host city type dimension, and AI. stands for host city affective image dimension; U stands for unsupported; S stands for supported; PS stands for partially supported.

Table 4.2 Summary of Host City Image Hypothesis

EFFECTS OF DESTINATION DESIGN MESSAGE, EVENT DESIGN MESSAGE, ATHLETIC MOVEMENT DESIGN MESSAGE, NATIONALITY, AND GENDER ON EVENT IMAGE RATING

As with destination image, the MANCOVA for event image tested all main effects, two-

way, three-way, four-way and five-way interactions among respondents’ nationality, gender, as

well as presence and absence of the event design message, destination design message, and

athletic movement design message on participants’ rating on event image dimensions with pre-

existing knowledge and attitude toward the destination and the event as covariates.

72 Multivariate tests using Wilk’s Lambda reveals no significant results in all the five-way, four-way, and two-way interactions (.359 < F[3, 619] < 2.161, p > .05). Except the three-way interaction among gender, athletic movement design message, and host city design message (F

[3, 619]= 3.488, p < .05, partial eta squared= .017), all other three-way interactions were not significant (.067 < F[3, 619] < 1.960, p > .05). Moreover, significant main effects existed in all variables (4.822 < F[3, 619] <34.900, p < .01), except nationality, event message, and pre- existing knowledge towards the Olympic Games ( .414 .05). The result suggests that the presence and absence of Olympic Games message didn’t significantly affect participants’ evaluation of the Olympic Games image. Thus, H4 for the effect of event message on event image evaluation is not supported. Nationality didn’t significantly affect participants’ evaluation of the Olympic Games image neither, thus, H5 is not supported.

The significant effects in multivariate test were further examined by the univariate analysis to identify significant effects on each event image dimension. Significant main effects of pre-existing knowledge and attitude of destination on event image evaluation were found in event type and affective image dimensions (4.850< F[1, 621] <17.675, p< .05), but not in event attraction dimension (1.524< F[1, 621] <2.995, p> .05). A significant effect of the pre-existing attitude of the Olympic Games was found in all of the three event image dimensions (4.860<

F[1, 621] <99.646, p< .05). The effects of pre-existing knowledge and pre-existing attitude toward the event and host city on event image evaluation are summarized in Table 4.3.

73

Destination Image Dimension Event Image Dimension Dest. Event Dest. Dest. Event Event Affective Affective Attraction Type Attraction Type Image Image Pre-existing Knowledge NS NS NS NS S S towards Destination Pre-existing Attitude S S S NS S S towards Destination Pre-existing Knowledge NS NS NS NS NS NS towards Event Pre-existing Attitude S S S S S S towards Event

Table 4.3 Summary of the Effects of Pre-existing Knowledge and Pre-existing Attitude toward the Event and Host City on Evaluations of Event Image and Destination Image

In order to accommodate the effect of the three-way interaction among gender, athletic movement, and host city messages, the univariate tests were conducted separately for males and females. The results of the univariate tests identified the two-way interaction between athletic movement and host city messages were not significant on all three dimensions in male group

(.203 .05). Significant two-way interaction effect (athletic movement x host city) was found in female group on event affective image dimension (F [1, 220]= 9.441, p <

.01, partial eta squared= .041). No significant two-way interaction between athletic movement and host city design messages were found in the other two dimensions for female participants

(.118 < F[1, 220] < 9.441, p > .05). The adjusted means for the interaction effect between destination and athletic movement design message in both male and females groups are presented in Table 4.4. The interaction between athletic movement and host city messages for the female group is graphed in Figure 4.1. Therefore, H4 for the effect of athletic movement design message and destination design message on event image evaluation was partially supported.

74

Group Effect Pattern Event Image Event Event Affective

Attraction Type Image Male No athletic movement and no destination NS NS NS Destination and no athletic movement Athletic movement and no destination Athletic movement and destination Female No athletic movement and no destination NS 2.259 NS Destination and no athletic movement 1.551 Athletic movement and no destination 2.221 Athletic movement and destination 2.658

Table 4.4 Adjusted Means for Event Image Ratings

Figure 4.1 Interaction between Athletic Movement and Destination Design Messages on the Olympic Games Event Type Image Dimension Ratings.

Examination of Table 4.4 and Figure 4.1 shows that for females respondents when there is no destination design message in a logo, their ratings of event type image dimensions were

75 similar with or without athletic movement design message. When the destination message is

included in the logo design, they preferred the combination of destination message and athletic

movement message than only destination message and no athletic movement message included

in the logo design. In other words, females prefer the logo design to include both destination

message and athletic movement message, or athletic movement message only, or destination and

athletic movement message than only include destination design message. Therefore, including

destination message without the athletic movement message may hurt females’ evaluation of

event type image dimension. Thus, H6 for event type dimension was supported. The hypotheses

of event image are summarized in Table 4.5.

Hypothesis Att. Type AI. H4: Participants’ ratings of the Olympic Games’ event image differ as a Destination message function of the design messages included in an emblem design after U PS U controlling for their pre-existing knowledge of and attitudes towards the host Event message city and the event. U U U Athletic movement U PS U H5: Respondents’ ratings of the Olympic Games’ event image based on an emblem design differ as a function of culture after controlling for their pre- U U U existing knowledge of and attitudes towards the host city and the event.

H6: Respondents’ ratings of the Olympic Games’ event image based on an emblem design differ as a function of gender after controlling for their pre- existing knowledge of and attitudes towards the host city and the event. U U U

Note. Att. stands for event attraction dimension, Type stands for event type dimension, and AI. stands for event affective image dimension; U stands for unsupported; S stands for supported; PS stands for partially supported.

Table 4.5 Summary of Event Image Hypothesis

76

EFFECTS OF DESTINATION DESIGN MESSAGE, EVENT DESIGN MESSAGE, ATHLETIC MOVEMENT DESIGN MESSAGE, NATIONALITY, AND GENDER ON LOGO REPRESENTATIVENESS RATING

As with destination and event image, the MANCOVA for logo representativeness tested all main effects, two-way, three-way, four-way and five-way interactions among respondents’ nationality, gender, as well as presence and absence of the event design message, destination design message, and athletic movement design message with pre-existing knowledge and pre- existing attitude towards the destination and the event as covariates.

Multivariate tests using Wilk’s Lambda reveals that all the five-way, four-way and three- way interactions were not significant (.022 < F[2, 620] < 2.806, p > .05). Except the two-way interaction between athletic movement and destination design messages, and between destination and event design messages (3.213 .05). The main effects of gender, athletic movement message, and pre-existing attitude towards the destination were not significant (.894 <

F[2, 620] < 2.574, p > .05). Thus, athletic movement didn’t significantly affect participants’ logo representativeness evaluation, so H7c was not supported. Gender also had no significant influence on participants’ logo representativeness evaluation, so H9 was not supported.

Nevertheless, significant main effects existed in all other variables (i.e., event design message, destination design message, nationality, pre-existing knowledge towards the event, pre- existing knowledge towards the destination, and pre-existing attitude towards the event) (3.867

The univariate test indicates the two-way interaction between athletic movement and destination messages, and the main effect of nationality were not significant on representing the

77 Olympic Games or represent host city dimensions ( .076< F [1,621] <3.040, p > .05). Thus, H8 about culture difference was not supported. Consequently, the interaction effect of destination and athletic movement messages, as well as the main effect of nationality were not interpreted in the following discussion. The effect of the two-way interaction between destination and event were significant on both representing the Olympic Games and representing host city dimensions

(5.750< F [1,621] <6.347, p < .05). The adjusted means for the effects are presented in Table 4.6.

The interaction between destination and event design messages on representing the Olympic

Games dimension is graphed in Figure 4.2. The interaction between destination and event message on representing destination dimension is graphed in Figure 4.3.

Represent Represent Source Pattern OG Event Destination Destination x Event No destination and no event .664 .692 Event and no destination 1.278 1.138 Destination and no event .840 1.104 Destination and event .953 1.075

Table 4.6 Adjusted Means for Logo Representativeness Ratings

Examination of Table 4.6 shows that participants considered that when there is no destination design message embedded in the logo, the logo represents the Olympic Games better with than without the event message. When the destination message is included in the logo design, the logo only represents the Olympic Games slightly better with than without the event message. Thus, H7b was partially supported.

78 Figure 4.2 Interaction between Destination and Event Design Messages on Logo Representativeness of the Olympic Games Ratings

For representing the host city, when destination message is included, participants rated the logo representativeness of the destination better than no destination or event design message.

When destination message is not included, participants considered the logo design with event message represents the destination better. In other words, any type of message (event, destination) or message combination leads to more positive rating than no message in evaluating logo representativeness of the host city. Therefore, H7a was partially supported. A summary of the logo representativeness hypotheses is presented in Table 4.7.

79

Figure 4.3 Interaction between Destination and Event Design Messages on Logo Representativeness of the Host City Ratings.

Furthermore, the univariate test results show that significant main effects of the pre- existing knowledge and attitude towards the Olympic Games, and the pre-existing knowledge of the destination on logo representativeness rating were found in both of the logo representativeness dimensions (5.751< F[1, 621] <24.228, p< .05).

80 Hypothesis Dest. Event H7a: Participants will evaluate the logo representativeness of the host city more positively when the emblem design represents the host city characters after controlling PS for their pre-existing knowledge of and attitudes towards the destination and the event. H7b: Participants will evaluate the logo representativeness of the Olympic Games more positively when the emblem design represents the Games after controlling for S their pre-existing knowledge of and attitudes towards the destination and the event.

H7c: Participants will evaluate the logo representativeness of the host city and the Olympic Games more positively when the emblem design represents the athletic movements after controlling for their pre-existing knowledge of and attitudes towards U U the destination and the event.

H8: Respondents’ ratings of the logo representativeness based on an emblem design differ as a function of culture after controlling for their pre-existing knowledge of and U U attitudes towards the host city and the event.

H9: Respondents’ ratings of the logo representativeness based on an emblem design differ as a function of gender after controlling for their pre-existing knowledge of and U U attitudes towards the host city and the event.

Note. Dest. stands for logo representativeness for destination, and event stands for logo representativeness for the Olympic Games; U stands for unsupported; S stands for supported; PS stands for partially supported.

Table 4.7 Summary of Logo Representativeness Hypothesis

EFFECTS OF DESTINATION IMAGE, EVENT IMAGE AND LOGO REPRESENTATIVENESS EVALUATIONS ON CONSUMER BEHAVIORAL RESPONSES TOWARD THE HOST CITY AND THE OLYMPIC GAMES

In order to examine the relationship between evaluation of destination image, event

image, logo representativeness, and consumer behavioral responses towards destination and

event, consumer behavioral responses towards destination and event were regressed on the

destination image, event image and logo representativeness.

Regression results show participants’ evaluations of the destination attraction image

dimension, destination affective image dimensions, and event attraction image dimension were

significant indicators of participants’ event behavioral response (R2 = .359, p < .001).

81 Examination of table 4.8 shows that the higher the respondents’ ratings of the destination attraction, destination affective image, and event attraction dimensions, the more likely they would watch the event on TV, recommend friends to watch the event on TV, attend the event in the destination, recommend friends to attend the event in the destination, and purchase souvenir for themselves and as gifts. Thus, H10 was supported in the dimensions of destination attraction, destination affective image, and event attraction. It was not supported in the dimensions of destination type, event type, event affective image, or logo representativeness.

Regression results also show that participants’ nationality, destination attraction, destination affective image, and logo representativeness of the event significantly predicted participants’ destination behavioral response (R2 = .297, p < .001). Nationality provided significant prediction of event-related behavioral intentions but not destination-related behavioral intentions. Thus, H12 was supported for event-related behaviors, but not destination-related behaviors. Due to this significant nationality difference found in the regression result, the analyses were then conducted again for American and Chinese participant groups separately to further examine the difference regarding their destination-related behavioral intentions.

Gender didn’t provide significant prediction of event or destination related behavioral intentions. Thus, H13 was not supported.

82

2 Dimension R F(10, 646) B SE Beta t(646)

OG Event Behavioral Response .359 36.110*** Gender .117 .076 .051 1.541 Nationality .235 .132 .061 1.774 Destination Attraction .212 .043 .241 4.900*** Destination Type -.036 .038 -.043 -.944 Destination Affective Image .234 .045 .240 5.176*** Event Attraction .208 .038 .249 5.438*** Event Type .020 .034 .026 .574 Event Affective Image -.019 .022 -.032 -.905 Represent OG Event .087 .045 .101 1.920 Represent Host City -.088 .046 -.100 -1.911 Destination Behavioral Response .297 27.301*** Gender .088 .089 .034 .996 Nationality -.450 .155 -.105 -2.907** Destination Attraction .283 .051 .287 5.586*** Destination Type .000 .045 .000 -.010 Destination Affective Image .145 .053 .134 2.751** Event Attraction .051 .045 .055 1.152 Event Type -.040 .040 -.047 -1.005 Event Affective Image -.048 .025 -.070 -1.916 Represent OG Event .165 .053 .173 3.126** Represent Host City .022 .054 .022 .410 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 Table 4.8 Regression Results – All participants

American Participant Group’s Destination Behavioral Intentions

The dimensions of destination attraction and event affective image provided significant

prediction of American participants’ destination behavioral response (R2 = .323, p < .001).

Examination of Table 4.9 shows that the higher an American participant’s rating of the

destination attraction (i.e. natural scenery, culturally interesting, popular among tourists), the

more positive his or her destination behavioral intentions would be. In contrary, event affective

image affected American participants’ destination response in a negative way, that the “exciting”

83 and “active” image of the Olympic Games negatively influenced American participants

willingness to visit or recommend friends to visit the host city without the event.

Dimension R2 F(8, 189) B SE Beta t (189)

American .323 11.263*** Destination Attraction .475 .086 .482 5.531*** Destination Type .100 .076 .109 1.318 Destination Affective Image .109 .094 .099 1.163 Event Attraction -.099 .072 -.110 -1.378 Event Type -.114 .073 -.129 -1.563 Event Affective Image -.150 .050 -.209 -3.018** Represent OG Event .126 .084 .136 1.497 Represent Host City .010 .093 .010 .104 ** p < .01; *** p < .001

Table 4.9 Destination Behavioral Response Regression Results – American participants

Chinese Participant Group’s Destination Behavioral Intentions

The dimensions of destination attraction, destination affective image, event attraction,

and logo representativeness of the event provided significant prediction of Chinese participants’

destination behavioral response (R2 = .293, p < .001). Examination of Table 4.10 shows that all

these factors positively affect Chinese participants destination behavioral intentions. The higher

they evaluate the destination attraction, destination affective image, event attraction and logo

representativeness of the event, the more likely they would visit the destination and recommend

friends to visit the destination.

84

2 Dimension R F(8, 450) B SE Beta t(450)

Chinese .293 23.321*** Destination Attraction .198 .062 .201 3.213** Destination Type -.048 .054 -.051 -.883 Destination Affective Image .161 .063 .151 2.552* Event Attraction .148 .058 .158 2.566* Event Type .005 .048 .006 .098 Event Affective Image -.015 .029 -.022 -.518 Represent OG Event .151 .068 .155 2.228* Represent Host City .036 .066 .036 .535 * p < .05; ** p < .01 Table 4.10 Destination Behavioral Response Regression Results – Chinese Participants

After comparing American and Chinese participant groups’ results, H11 was supported in

destination attraction dimensions, and it was partially supported in the dimensions of destination

affective image and logo representativeness of the Olympic Games. Hypotheses regarding

participants’ destination and event related behavioral intentions are summarized and presented in

table 4.11.

85

Hypothesis H10: Respondents’ event related behavioral intentions are positively D Att. D Type D AI. related to their ratings of the host city image, the Olympic Games’ S U S event image and the logo representativeness. E Att. E Type E AI.

S U U Dest. Event U U

H11: Respondents’ destination related behavioral intentions are D Att. D Type D AI. positively related to their ratings of the host city image, the Olympic S U PS Games’ event image and the logo representativeness. E Att. E Type E AI. U U U Dest. Event U PS H12: Respondents’ behavioral intentions differ as a function of culture. Dest. BI Event BI S U H13: Respondents’ behavioral intentions differ as a function of gender. Dest. BI Event BI U U Note. D Att. stands for event attraction dimension, Type stands for event type dimension, and AI. stands for event affective image dimension; Dest. stands for logo representativeness for destination, and event stands for logo representativeness for the Olympic Games; Dest. BI stands for destination related behavioral intentions and event BI stands for event related behavioral intentions; U stands for unsupported; S stands for supported.

Table 4.11 Summary of Behavioral Intentions Hypothesis

86 Chapter 5: Discussion

This chapter first discusses the theoretical and practical implications of effects of logo design messages on consumer evaluations of the Olympic Games image, the host city image, and logo representativeness of the event and its host city. Following that, effects of consumer evaluations of host city image, the Olympic Games image, and logo representativeness on behavioral responses toward the host city and the Olympic Games are discussed. The moderating effects of culture and gender on image evaluations, logo representativeness evaluations, and consequent behavioral intentions are also discussed correspondingly. Finally, implications for future research other than those included in the above discussion are noted.

EFFECTS OF DESIGN MESSAGES OF LOGO DESIGN ON CONSUMER EVALUATIONS OF THE HOST CITY IMAGE AND THE OLYMPIC GAMES IMAGE

Given the branding value of logo design on brand image formation (Bennett, 1995; Hem

& Iverson, 2004; Henderson & Cote, 1998; Nghiêm-Phú, 2015), very few studies have examined the effect of logo design messages on evaluations of host city image and mega sport event image.

Design relies on the selection and schematization of sensory characteristics in order to enable receivers to conceive of something quite beyond what is actually seen (Kazmierczak, 2003). It is suggested that a visual design carries meaning that can be interpreted by consumers (the perceived meaning) (Crilly et al., 2008; Demirbilek & Sener, 2003; Wikström, 1996). Schema theory (Taylor & Crocker, 1981) and associative network model (Keller, 2003) suggest each design message functions as information cue to activate relevant image attributes of the represented brand. This study built a framework and proposed that logo design messages function as information cues, consumers perceive these information cues and associate the

87 resulting cognitive and affective image attributes with the represented sport event and host city.

This assumption was tested in both single design message and multiple design messages conditions, and it was expected that the effects of design messages are strong enough to benefit brand image evaluation, either together or separately. Findings show that effects of design messages are limited and asymmetrical, that design messages had effects on certain image dimension for event image, but no effect was found on destination image. Interactions between different design messages were also examined and reported in this study, that a design message’s effect on brand image formation could be moderated by other design messages, but this interaction effect is limited to certain design message combination. Findings also illustrate the significance of gender and cultural background in such design message based image formation.

Successful image transfer requires the associations to be strong enough to function

(Keller, 2003). It is expected that the resulting image attributes from the design messages of the host city, the event, and athletic movement can be associated strong enough with both cognitive and affective images of the host city and the event. Findings in this study partially but not fully support this theoretical assumption. Design messages of the Olympic Games, the host city, and athletic movement didn’t significantly influence consumer evaluations of the host city image dimensions, either together or separately. In terms of the sport event image formation, design messages of athletic movement and host city did have significant joint effect on consumer evaluation of the event type image dimension. These suggest that although the resulting image schema of perceived design message could be associated with represented brand (Batra &

Homer, 2004; Gwinner & Eaton, 1999), the effect doesn’t necessarily exist on all image dimensions, and the strength of such schema associations is limited.

88 Furthermore, the joint effect of design messages was only found between athletic movement and destination design messages on evaluation of the event type image dimension, which was also moderated by gender. For females, destination design message as the only design message in logo design is the least favorite choice for event type image dimension evaluation.

However, it is helpful to add athletic movement design message to destination design message, as the result shows that females were more likely to associate the “international” and “modern” image with the Olympic Games when athletic movement design message is included. This suggests the effect of one design message on the represented brand image evaluation can be moderated by other design messages, although this moderating effect is not guaranteed in all design messages. However, the exact reasons for the asymmetrical interaction effects are unclear, as the observed asymmetries in image attributes transfer are not adequately accounted for by current theories of logo design and brand image transfer studies.

To help destination and event brand marketers to monitor their logo design branding strategy, future studies are needed to further examine the associations between different design messages and projected image attributes in terms of direction and strength, the differences in image association regarding different types of brands, and the possible interaction effects among different design messages on image evaluation.

Findings of design message effect on image evaluation also have values in practical implications. Designers frequently chose to change design characters of a brand to achieve image modification (Ahn et al., 2013; Walsh et al., 2010). However, findings in this study show that using design message to change destination brand image may not be as simple and effective as expected. Similarly, destination marketers also expect that hosting mega sport event can benefit host destination image (Brown et al., 2002). Yet, findings in this study show that the event

89 design message didn’t significantly affect the destination image perception, destination marketers need to consider other design strategies (e.g., color) to enhance the transfer between event image and destination image.

The positive effect of host city message on consumer evaluation of event type dimension of the event image supported the IOC’s careful choice about host destination (IOC, 1999). For sport event marketers, if they want to create or maintain an “international” and “modern” event image, they may consider to careful choose the best design message combination to maximize the image building outcome.

EFFECTS OF DESIGN MESSAGES OF LOGO DESIGN ON CONSUMER EVALUATIONS OF LOGO REPRESENTATIVENESS

The branding values of designs also rely on their ability to distinguish products from competitors and help gain recognition (Bloch, 1995; Creusen & Schoormans, 2005; Hem &

Iverson, 2004; Henderson & Cote, 1998; Schmitt & Simonson, 1997). Inappropriate logos are difficult to store or access in memory, they are not likable and they fail to create a sense of meaning that matches the destination they support (Henderson & Cote, 1998). According to representational fit theory (Sammartino & Palmer, 2012a, 2012b), people would rate a logo design more positively if the design element shows similarity with the intended meaning. Thus, design messages should be able to activate relevant information nodes about the destination or the event and increase the similarity between the logo and the represented brand. In the context of the Olympic Games emblem design, it is assumed that the design messages of the event, the host destination, and the athletic movement could increase the logo representativeness of the represented destination and event, either separately or jointly. This study extends the representational fit theory to combined conceptual and perceptual domain, and tested the effects

90 of design messages regarding their representativeness in both single and multiple design messages conditions.

Findings in this study are partially consistent with the representational fit theory and suggest that the similarity may be enhanced by certain combinations of design messages. It was found that design messages of the event or its host destination can increase people’s evaluation of the logo representativeness of the host city or the event, either separately or jointly.

Participants considered the logo represents the Olympic Games the best when only the event message is included in the logo design. Destination design message also contributes to the logo representativeness of the event, either individually or jointly with event design message.

Similarly, participants considered the logo represents the destination better when either the

Olympic Games message, or the destination message, or both are included in logo design.

Overall, both event design message and destination design message contribute to logo representativeness of the event and destination. For event and destination marketers with the goal to enhance destination and event recognition or help consumers to recognize the destination and/or event brand, it is beneficial to include the destination and/or event messages. It is interesting that design message of athletic movement was not an important indicator of the logo representativeness, which suggests that comparing with the “direct” information cues of the event and the destination, the information cue of athletic movement was not considered as important to consumers when they evaluate logo representativeness.

EFFECTS OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES ON DESIGN MESSAGE BASED EVENT AND HOST DESTINATION IMAGE EVALUATIONS

Culture Difference

Individual differences moderate the perception of projected images (Bramwell &

Rawding (1996). Previous studies have suggested that sport tourists who travel to attend mega

91 sport events such as the Olympic Games may differ on their perceptions of event and destination cognitive images as well as their behavioral intentions given the different expectations and beliefs they may possess due to their cultural differences, which may arise from their residence in different geographic regions (Hofstede, 2001). In this study, culture difference between

American and Chinese regarding design message perception on destination image evaluation was found in the destination type image dimension. Chinese rated destination type image more positively than Americans did, which means based on design messages, Chinese considered the

Gold Coast to be more international, diverse, modern and welcoming than Americans did. This cultural difference might due to different expectations of the host destination. China is a developing country, while both America and Australia are developed countries. Thus, it is possible that people from China may have higher expectation about a city in developed nation.

Americans, on the other hand, are from a developed nation, and may have lower expectation about the Gold Coast regarding these destination characters.

Furthermore, culture difference was not found in the evaluation of event image, nor logo representativeness. This might because comparing with the Gold Coast, the Olympic Games has a well-established brand image, and the Games were hosted in both China and U.S. in the past, so the ways people use design messages to evaluate the image of the Games could be similar.

People from China and U.S. also used design message information cues similarly when making a judgment about logo representativeness of the Games and the destination.

The findings in this study contribute to knowledge about culture difference in design message interpretation, that in the context of logo design, cultural difference may exist in the cognitive image dimension, which is different from previous study suggestion about cultural difference in the attraction image perception (Kaplanidou, 2009). American and Chinese may

92 have different interpretations of design messages that lead to destination image attributes such as modern, welcoming, diverse, and international. The cultural difference found in this study emphasizes the importance of design that can successfully deliver culture meaning in the way that people from the different cultural background can elicit similar meaning. Future studies are needed to specifically examine the cultural influence on consumer interpretation of logo design characters and forms, which can help the designers to create the universal meaning in visual design and limit interpretation bias due to cultural difference.

Gender Difference

Gender differences have been reported in consumers’ information processing style

(Meyers-Levy, 1988, 1989) and image evaluation (Beerli & Martín, 2004; MacKay &

Fesenmaier, 1997; Xing & Chalip, 2006). The moderating effects of gender on consumer evaluations of destination image and event image based on design messages were partially supported in this study. When evaluating a destination image, females rated the host city’s affective image more positively than males did. This gender difference might due to females are more intuitive and males are more rational regarding their information processing styles

(Epstein, Pacini, Denes-Raj, & Heier, 1996). Thus, women are more sensitive to visual cues that link to affective image. However, the same effect was not significant in the event affective image dimension. This may suggest that the gender difference of affective image perception due to visual design is context based. Men are comparatively more involved in sport activities (Birrell,

1988; Eccles & Harold, 1991). Therefore, women’s advantage in interpreting affective image visual cues might be neutralized in the context of sport events.

The gender difference found in event image evaluation was regarding the cognitive image

93 component. For females, the presence of the host city message without the athletic movement message was the least effective option to deliver positive event type image, and the combination of the host city and athletic movement message was the most favorite choice considering about their evaluation of the event type image. For males, the difference among these design message combinations was not significant. This gender difference might be explained by the possibility that women responded to nonverbal stimuli by evoking more associative, imagery-laced interpretations, and more elaborate descriptions than males (Wood, 1966), thus, women are more likely to pay attention to details of information than men do (Nowaczyk, 1982).

In general, females seem to be more sensitive to information cues from a logo design and are more likely to use detailed information cues to make brand image judgment. Therefore, if a marketing goal is to attract females to attend or watch a sport event, logo designers may add athletic movement message to the emblem design to help to enhance females’ evaluation of the sport event, or they can choose to pair the destination message with athletic movement message to benefit the sport event image evaluation.

Effects of Pre-existing Knowledge and Pre-existing Attitude

Although pre-existing knowledge and attitude were suggested to have significant moderating effects on country image evaluation (Lee et al., 2012), the finding of this study show that only pre-existing attitude towards the destination and the event affected consumer evaluation of most of the dimensions of destination image and event image, except pre-existing attitude toward the destination didn’t significantly affect event attraction image dimension evaluation.

Pre-existing knowledge didn’t significantly influence most of the image dimension evaluations, except pre-existing knowledge towards destination affected event type and event affective image dimension evaluations. However, pre-existing knowledge did affect logo representativeness

94 effect, while pre-existing attitude didn’t. Thus, it is possible that when evaluating the image of an event or the host destination, an individual’s pre-existing attitude affects the ways he or she perceives the relevant image attributes, and his or her pre-existing knowledge plays an important role regarding the judgment about whether perceived logo design information fits the represented brand.

Furthermore, regarding the attitudinal effect of mere exposure (Zajonc, 1968), that mere repeated exposure of a consumer to a stimulus (e.g., advertisement) enhances his or her attitude towards it, marketing campaign of the Olympic Games and host destination may help to increase pre-existing knowledge and attitude toward the event and its destination. As Hem and Iversen

(2004) pointed out, image formation is developed from a wide range of sources (brand elements, newspapers, reports, movies, literature, promotion and advertising, information from tour operators or destination companies, word-of-mouth, etc.). Each of the information sources could give important information about single attractions or cluster of attractions about a destination or an event thereby developing the image of the destination or the event in a consumer’s mind.

EFFECTS OF EVENT IMAGE, DESTINATION IMAGE, LOGO REPRESENTATIVENESS, CULTURE, AND GENDER ON CONSUMER BEHAVIORAL RESPONSES TOWARD THE EVENT AND THE DESTINATION

The purpose of creating ideal images of the sport event and the destination rest largely on the financial benefits caused by positive consumer behavioral intentions (Preuss, 2004; Ritchie &

Smith, 1991). It is expected that positive evaluations of destination image and event image can benefit destination and event related behavioral intentions (Armenakyan et al., 2013; Baloglu &

McCleary, 1999; Gartner, 1993; Kaplanidou & Vogt, 2007). To address this marketing issue, this study tested how well consumers’ evaluations of event image, destination image, and logo representativeness predict their behavioral intentions towards the Olympic Games and the host

95 city. Results show that the importance of different dimensions of event image, destination image, and logo representativeness vary depends on the predicted behavioral intentions are event-based or destination-based. The effects on destination behavioral intentions also differ by national culture.

Event-Related Behavioral Intentions

For event-related behavioral intentions, the findings are partially consistent with previous studies about event image evaluation on consequent consumer behavioral intentions (Alexandris et al., 2007; Amenakyan et al., 2013; Jun et al., 2008; Koo et al., 2006). Event attraction image dimension significantly influenced participants’ event behavioral intentions, but the image dimension of event type and event affective image didn’t. If a participant considers the event to have elite level competition and extraordinary atmosphere, the more likely he or she will be willing to attend the event in the destination, to watch the event on TV, to recommend friends, and to purchase event merchandise for self and as a gift.

Positive evaluations of the destination attraction and destination affective image dimensions also enhance event behavioral intentions. In other words, whether a consumer considers the host destination to have great natural scenery, interesting cultural, popular among tourists, and has the appealing affective image (i.e., exciting, relaxing, cheerful, pleasant) is important to make their decisions regarding the sport event. This finding supports IOC’s careful choice of host destination, which is believed to be able to benefit the event (IOC, 1999).

Designers and event marketers should focus on not only event attraction image building, but also destination features in designing marketing campaigns for the event.

96 Individual Difference in Destination-Related Behavioral Intentions

For destination related behaviors, culture differences are apparent here in the ways that consumer destination decision varies as a function of selected information cues. Destination attraction image dimension was positively associated with both American and Chinese participants’ destination-related intentions, however, destination affective image, event attraction image component, and logo representativeness of the Games were considered as important factors in destination choice only for Chinese participants. Furthermore, event affective image dimension significantly affected American participants in a negative way.

The cultural difference may suggest American and Chinese consumers have different decision-making process regarding destination choice, which is consistent with previous study findings of national culture difference in destination evaluation (Kaplanidou, 2009). It was found that the exciting and active image attributes of the Olympic Games negatively affected American consumers’ willingness to visit the destination even without the event and recommend the destination to friends to visit, but the negative effect was not significant for Chinese. The negative effect here might due to the fact that mega sport event such as the Olympic Games usually attracts huge amount of tourists to the destination, for example, Beijing hosted 6.5 million tourists during Olympics (Yao, 2008), including 382,000 from abroad, and Rio de

Janerio received 1.17 million tourists during the Olympic Games, 410,000 of whom were foreigners (Kalvapalle, 2016). Such huge crowd may be associated with potential risks for foreign travelers that their destination travel experience might be disturbed by the mega event hosted in the destination, especially for Americans. The “exciting” and “active” image of the event may remind consumers about these concerns. Reisinger and Movondo (2006) reported that

American tourists were likely to perceive more risk associated with international travel and had

97 higher levels of anxiety. This anxious and nervous feeling about attending major events may due to perceived threats to safety (Kim & Chalip, 2004; Qi, Gibson, & Zhang, 2009). In the context of mega sport event, safety and security were also reported as influential factors in tourists’ decisions about attending the Athens Olympic Games (Neirotti & Hilliard, 2006). Qi et al.,

(2009) pointed out that although not statistically significant, risk factors of personal safety, cultural risk, socio-psychological risk and violence risk negatively affect Americans’ intention to attend the Olympic Games in China. To gain a better understanding of the possible links among related constructs and the role of constrains and facilitators on destination decisions (Um &

Crompton, 1990, 1992; Qi et al., 2009), future studies are needed to further the examination of culture difference regarding the associations among perceived design message, projected destination image, perceived risk factors, and consequent behavioral intentions.

Another possible explanation is the inconvenience (e.g., long wait, increased expense) that could be associated with a large crowd, which can negatively affect tourists’ predicted destination experience. The national cultural difference here may suggest American and Chinese participants’ different tolerance levels of such inconvenience. Chinese are comparatively used to the large crowd, so the affective image of the Games didn’t significantly worry them as much as

American participants did regarding their destination related responses. For Chinese, the event attraction image attributes (i.e., elite level competition, extraordinary atmosphere) were even considered to be a bonus. Chinese consumers also consider whether the logo well-represents the

Olympic Games is important to make a destination choice, which reinforces the importance of the sport event in their destination choice. Further investigation is needed to test the national cultural differences regarding tourists’ expectations of a tourism destination with similar and

98 different cultural settings, and their attitude towards large crowds that are associated with mega events.

The culture difference found in this study may suggest whether a mega event is tourism attraction or distraction depends on people’s culture background. For people from the cultural background that are less likely to worry about the potential inconvenient caused by hosting mega event, they are more likely to consider mega sport event as an attraction for a tourism decision.

Marketers may take this effect into consideration when they design their marketing campaign and minimize those concerns for potential tourists.

Furthermore, although gender difference was reported in previous studies about destination related choice (Stabler, 1995), sport event related consumer behaviors (e.g., Deaner

& Smith, 2013; Eccles & Harold, 1991; Gibson, 1998), and perceived risks about the destination

(Qi et al., 2009). No significant gender difference was found in this study regarding consumers’ destination and event-related behavior intentions.

OTHER SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Destination Image and Event Image Scales based on Design Message

Based on previous study findings that image formation should be measured from both cognitive and affective aspects (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Echtner & Ritchie, 1993), the framework proposed by this study includes measuring both cognitive and affective aspects of destination image and event image. The image scales developed in this study are capable of measuring both aspects of the destination and the event images based on perceptions of design messages. The image dimensions of event (i.e., event attraction, event type, event affective image) and destination (i.e., destination attraction, destination type, destination affective image)

99 can help to capture the image attributes that a logo design may delivery. Thus, the image scales are useful in measuring logo design effectiveness for designers and marketers.

Schema Theory and Future Studies Examine Mega Sport Event Visual Identity Designs

Schema theory is considered as the foundation of studies regarding communication in design (Kazmierczak, 2003). In this study, schema theory well structured the possible design- consumer interaction regarding the cognitive and affective responses based on the perception of the semiotic meanings of design message. However, based on the theoretical model in this study, the strength of the associations between design message and consumer brand image evaluation has been found to be limited. Besides the possibility that the mega event emblem designs only have limited influence on consumers’ brand image evaluation, it is important to notice that the effects of design principles such as color, ratio, and complexity are not tested in this study. It is possible that the associations between design messages and brand images could be strengthened when design messages are presented appropriately with design principles. To gain a better understanding of such combined effect, design principles need to be tested using the model of this study, as the design principles may mediate or moderate consumer interpretation of design message and evaluation of brand images.

Effects of Design Principles

Meaning delivery frequently rely on the choice of design principles such as roundness, symmetry, balance, and color (Henderson & Cote, 1998; Madden, Hewett, & Roth, 2000). The direction and strength of image attribute association based on design message perception could be moderated by choice of design principles. One of the important design principles that have shown powerful influence on meaning delivery in marketing practices is color. Colors are

100 considered as convincing visual cues for persuasive communications purpose, such as delivering identity, meaning, or novelty to an object or idea (Aslam, 2006; Garber & Hyatt, 2003).

Considering about Nghiêm-Phú’s (2015) study finding that the affective image attributes were majorly projected from color choices, the effect of design messages on affective image dimensions might be strengthened by appropriate choices of color. It is widely accepted that color plays an important role in provoking affect in consumers (Madden et al., 2000). Long- wavelength colors (e.g., red and yellow) are considered to be more positively arousing than

Short- wavelength colors (e.g., blue and green) (Jacobs & Hustmyer, 1974), and these physiological reactions seem to be indicative of various psychological outcomes such as anxiety or pleasure (Kwallek, Lewis, & Robbins, 1988; Valdez & Mehrabian, 1994). For example,

Labrecque and Milne (2012) reported that a brand’s use of the color red or other warm colors such as orange conveys more excitement than cooler colors such as blue.

Marketers have long known the power of color in designing logos (Madden et al., 2000;

You, Zhang, & Koyama 2013). In the context of the Olympic Games visual identity design, colors have been applied to different visual identity designs (e.g., emblem, mascot, torch, stadium interior and exterior design) to convey the ideal image of the host city and the Olympic

Games. For example, Sydney emblem has three colors, and each color of the logo has symbolic meanings: blue refers to the blue harbor; yellow represents sun and beach; red means the native culture (IOC, 2000). Moreover, colors’ emotional effects have been used in Olympic visual design to obtain ideal affective responses. The LA Games used twelve official colors (i.e., magenta, chrome yellow, aqua, vermillion, light blue, green, lavender, information yellow, pink, dark blue and violet), because colors are “warm, inviting and festive, expressing a harmony reminiscent of a spring-time burst of color” and “ultimately representing the Mediterranean

101 environment of the original Greek Olympics and the festive, celebratory colors of Asia and Latin

America” (IOC, 1984, p.252). Thus, using appropriate color or color combinations may benefit consumer evaluations of cognitive and affective images of the destination and event, as well as logo representativeness.

However, connotative color associations and color symbolism tends to be culture-bound and may also vary across different contexts and circumstances (Bellantoni, 2005). For example, while the color white is used in many Western countries to represent purity and innocence, it is seen as a symbol of mourning in many Eastern countries (Elliot & Maier, 2007). Red has the meaning of fortune and good luck in China, and thus is the traditional wedding color. However, only prisoners use a red pen to write down their names in China, so signature in red would be considered as offensive in Chinese culture. Purple represents royal family and has the meaning of elegant in Europe, but it is a sign of feminine in America.

Therefore, the cultural variety adds the complexity in color usage in message delivery by changing the meanings associate to the colors and/or color combinations. Different color choices in the Olympic visual identity design may be associated with different meanings and elicit different emotional responses given the audiences’ different cultural backgrounds. The design teams need to understand the possible variance in people’s perceptions due to such culture norms of color. Therefore, it’s necessary to include consumers’ cultural background into consideration when studying the color effect in mega event visual design. Color effect was not tested in this study, but future studies are needed to examine the important color effect of the Olympic visual identity design on consumer responses regarding the culture difference.

102 Studies Regarding the Visual Design Information Processing Styles

Consumer interpretation of visual designs as information cues has been studied in different ways. This study adopted the attribute-based approach, which assumes that the consumers form logical evaluations of objects based on attributes perceived (Tasci et al., 2007), and thus the information processing is considered to be systematic and piecemeal-based. A rival school of thought is the category-based approach, which assumes that consumers try to simplify the evaluation process by using different criteria depending on the situation and form gestalt impressions instead of attribute-by-attribute evaluations (Tasci et al., 2007), and thus the information processing is considered to be heuristic and category-based. Thus, consumer evaluation of design products could be the sum of beliefs and impressions of the product (e.g.,

Crompton, 1979).

This study tested emblem designs with a higher level of naturalness (e.g., used the sun, the palm tree), which offers the audiences the hints of using relevant image attributes to make judgments. However, it is possible that the choice of information processing style is design object-based, that the holistic approach may be appropriate towards the visual design product that has a purpose of leaving a holistic impression. For example, when given abstract designs

(e.g., the 2012 London Games emblem), people may not have relevant existing schema in their mind to associate this design messages with, thus it would be less likely for them to make an attribute-by-attribute evaluation. Instead, audiences may form a holistic impression (e.g., good, high quality) towards the design and the associated brand image. Such holistic impression has been tested as participants’ attitude towards design products. For example, based on Henderson and Cote’s (1998, p.19) scale, destination logos were evaluated on four seven-point differential

103 scales (Negative – Positive; Unattractive – Attractive; Poor quality – High quality; Bad – Good) in Hem and Iverson’s (2004) study.

Nevertheless, there is a concern about using holistic evaluation for such a mega event visual identity design that such evaluation could be influenced by other non-design related factors. For example, in Ding and Thompson’s (2013) study, although the design messages in

Fuwa (the 2008 Beijing mascots) were considered as “lost in translation” and caused confusion in interpretation for the Chinese participants, however, the Fuwa design was still considered to be a success. The researchers suggested that it is because “the emotional eruption of centuries- old Chinese nationalism in celebration of a world-class mega-event could have led the public to identify (perhaps blindly) the Fuwa as symbolic of the Beijing Olympics such that it became a matter of pride or even duty to support not only the national celebration of the Olympics, but also everything related to the Beijing Games” (Ding & Thompson, 2013, p.98). Nonetheless, the same is probably not true for audiences with different nationality. Such influence needs to be investigated and controlled in studies that adopt the holistic approach.

Furthermore, Hem and Iverson (2004) argued that the holistic judgment is associated with evaluations of logo representativeness and logo design characters (e.g., balanced- unbalanced, boring-fun, complex-simple), which suggests a possibility that attribute-based and category-based evaluation may be co-exist. However, it is not clear if the overall impression is a result of evaluations of design attributes, and if such dual-process evaluation occurs only towards certain types of design.

Therefore, future studies are needed to examine whether it is true that consumers adopt different information processing styles (attribute-based or category-based) based on design choice, and whether the holistic evaluation is a concluding judgment of the design attributes.

104 Understanding Consumers’ Mental Maps of Visual Identity Design Interpretation

One of the goals for visual identity design studies is to build a comprehensive model that precisely predicting consumer response given different design messages, design principles, and individual differences. However, research to date has been focused on measuring consumer response towards the design product and/or the represented brand (e.g., Pittard et al., 2007;

Nghiêm-Phú, 2015; Walsh et al., 2010). In these marketing and design studies, the attributes and criteria used were usually developed by design experts and researchers to test the desired outcome. Nevertheless, the attribute list and criteria may not fully capture the attributes and criteria generated and used by consumers. Limited effort has been spent on understanding how exactly consumers perceive and interpret design messages. In other words, how does an audience create a mental map given a visual design? Is there a common path of such mental maps to help to predict consumer interpretation? These questions need to be answered in future studies, as these studies may help to re-evaluate the links between visual design messages and brand evaluation.

It is important to point out that the methods used to collect data about consumers’ mental maps need to be carefully chosen, as the consumers’ may process certain design information unconsciously, and individual differences such as culture, gender, and age, may influence their mental-mapping. Research method such as eye-tracking may help to capture the information processed unconsciously. This technology may also help to detect the individual differences that affect visual information process styles. For example, maybe Chinese and Japanese tend to look for information cues in different order, because Chinese usually read a text from left to right, while Japanese usually read the text from right to left.

105 In conclusion, although meaning in design is highly complex and difficult to measure, it is possible that researchers can test, compare, and pattern the similarities in consumers’ mental map path to predict consumer interpretations. When given individual difference such as culture and gender, possible modifications can be adopted by using different design strategies, such as a set of different designs to represent one theme, but each of the design can approach different groups of audience. Future research is needed to test consumer responses towards this type of design strategies.

Effects of Design Characters Selection

The possible interaction effects between and among different design messages were examined in this study. However, within each design message (e.g., the design message of the destination), different characters of the host destination (e.g., the sun, seagulls, palm three) may also have joint effects on design message interpretation. These characters of the host city function as the cultural schemas of the destination brand, which are expected to contribute to the audiences’ evaluations of the brand. These cultural schemas can be considered as the loose networks of shared knowledge that consists of a central concept and its associated beliefs, values, and objects (Oyserman, 2011). When several cultural schemas are perceived by an audience at the same time, how to maximize the positive outcome by selecting the appropriate combinations of the cultural schemas to present in visual design needs further examination.

Studies about Other Visual Identity Designs

Regardless the economical and cultural benefits of mega sport event visual identity designs (Griggs et al., 2012), studies that examine the branding effect of mega event visual identity designs are still in the early stage of development. This study reviewed the design

106 concerns of popular visual identity designs (i.e., emblem, mascot, pictograms), but the examination was focused on emblem design only. Future studies that investigate consumer interpretations of other visual identity designs also worth attention, because consumer-design interaction is a complex process, and this process vary depend on the form of the visual design. It worth to point out the semiotic value of mascots has received some attention from researchers.

Researchers have attempted to study human factors affecting mascot design from cognitive approach (Lin, R., Lin, C., & Ko, 1999), the symbolic meaning and functional meanings of

Olympic licensed products with the image of 2004 Olympic mascots on them (Apostolopoulou,

Papadimitriou, & Damtsiou, 2010), the functions of mascot design as advertising tool in meaning delivery (Magdalinski, 2004), and mascot design message encoding process using a framework of semiotic metafunctions (Griggs et al., 2012). However, these studies were majorly qualitative analysis based on designers and event marketers’ design concerns, which is useful in understanding the expected functions of mascot design, but empirical studies are needed to measure the effectiveness of mascot design on consumers’ end. How exactly consumers perceive and form interpretation of visual identity designs also need further examination.

Effects of Design Expertise

Design message perceptions can be affected by design expertise, which helps to explain the possible gaps between design intentions and consumer interpretation. Some scholars consider only a few people have the “good eye” for analyzing the visual art (cf., Berlyne, 1971;

Csikszentmihalyi & Robinson, 1990). For example, Ou et al. (2012) reported that observers with a design background liked low-chroma color pairs or those containing colors of similar hue more than non-design observers. Leder, Carbon, and Ripsas (2006) suggest that the effect of an individual’s art knowledge affected understanding the artist’s intention only when given longer

107 presentation time (10s). To gain a better understanding of the gap between the sent design message and perceived audience interpretation, and to improve design effectiveness, future studies are needed to measure design expertise’s effect in such design message interpretation and consequent brand image evaluation.

Concluding Remarks

The findings of this study demonstrate that emblem design messages can influence consumer interpretation and evaluation of the event image, but not destination image. The direction and intensity of the relationships between the design messages and the consumer responses are not consistent. Design messages may jointly affect image evaluation, which the host city and the athletic movement messages contributed to the event type image dimension for the event, but this interaction effect is limited and doesn’t apply to all of the design message combinations. Therefore, the effect of design messages on represented brand image evaluation is possible, but not guaranteed as a branding strategy. Moreover, this study extends the representational fit theory to combined conceptual and perceptual domain, and partially support the theoretical assumption. Furthermore, the importance of different dimensions of event image, destination image, and logo representativeness varies depends on the predicted behavioral intentions. This study also reveals the importance of culture in image evaluation and consequent behavioral intentions, as well as the role of gender in image evaluation.

The study raises theoretical and practical questions and identifies linkages between works in design messages, image formation, design representativeness, consequent consumer behaviors, gender, and culture. All these point to future research in consumer interpretation of

108 mega event visual identity designs in order to gain a better understanding of how the choices of design messages can be effectively utilized to obtain ideal consumer responses.

109 Appendix A: Emblem Design of the Olympic Games Reviewed in This Study

Emblem of 1984 Los Angels Games

Emblem of 1988 Seoul Games

Emblem of 1996 Atlanta Games

110

Emblem of 2000 Sydney Games

Emblem of 2004 Athens Games

Emblem of 2008 Beijing Olympic

111

Emblem of 2012 London Games

112 Appendix B: Study Stimuli

113

114

115

116 Appendix C: Sample Questionnaire

117

118

119

120

121

122

123 124 Reference

Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name.

New York: The Free Press.

Abratt, R. (1989). A new approach to the corporate image management process. Journal

of Marketing Management, 5(1), 63-76.

Ahn, T., Suh, Y. I., Lee, J. K., & Pedersen, P. M. (2013). Sport fans and their teams’

redesigned logos: An examination of the moderating effect of team identification

on attitude and purchase intention of team-logoed merchandise. Journal of Sport

Management, 27(1), 11.

Alcaniz, E., Sanchez, I., & Blas, S. (2009). The functional-psychological continuum in

the cognitive image of a destination: a confirmatory analysis. Tourism

Management, 30, 715-723.

Alexandris, K., Tsaousi, E., & James, J. (2007). Predicting sponsorship outcomes from

attitudinal constructs: The case of a professional basketball event. Sport

Marketing Quarterly, 16, 130–139.

Alhemoud, A., & Armstrong, E. (1996). Image of tourism attractions in Kuwait. Journal

of Travel Research, 34 (Spring), 76–80.

Altheide, D. L. (1987). Reflections: Ethnographic content analysis. Qualitative

Sociology, 10(1), 65-77.

Anand, P., & Sternthal, B. (1991). Perceptual fluency and affect without recognition.

Memory Cognition, 19(3), 293–300.

Anderson, N. H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. New York: 125 Academic Press.

Apostolopoulou, A., Papadimitriou, D., & Damtsiou, V. (2010). Meanings and functions

in Olympic consumption: A study of the Athens 2004 Olympic licensed products.

European Sport Management Quarterly, 10(4), 485-507.

Armenakyan, A., Heslop, L., Nadeau, J., O’Reilly, N., & Lu, I. (2013). Tell me who’s

your host and I’ll tell you who you are: Olympic Games image before and after

the 2008 and 2010 Olympic Games. International Journal of Sport Management

and Marketing, 14, 71-95.

Aslam, M. M. (2006). Are you selling the right colour? A cross‐cultural review of colour

as a marketing cue. Journal of Marketing Communications, 12(1), 15–30.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1989). The degree of intention formation as a moderator of the

attitude-behavior relationship. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52, 266-279.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Burnkrant, R. E. (1979). Attitude organization and the attitude-

behavior relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 913-929.

Bakker, I., van der Voordt, T., Vink, P., & de Boon, J. (2014). Pleasure, arousal,

dominance: Mehrabian and Russell revisited. Current Psychology, 33(3), 405-

421.

Baloglu, S. (2000). A path analytic model of visitation intention involving information

sources, socio-psychological motivations, and destination image. Journal of

Travel & Tourism Marketing, 8(3), 81-90.

Baloglu, S. (2001). Image variations of turkey by familiarity index: Informational and

experiential dimensions. Tourism Management, 22(2), 127-133. 126 Baloglu, S., & Brinberg, D. (1997). Affective images of tourism destinations. Journal of

Travel Research, 35(4), 11–15.

Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. W. (1999). A model of destination image formation. Annals

of Tourism Research, 26, 868-897.

Basaran, U. (2016). Examining the relationships of cognitive, affective, and conative

destination image: A research on Safranbolu, Turkey. International Business

Research, 9(5), 164-179.

Batra, R., & Homer, P. M. (2004). The situational impact of brand image beliefs. Journal

of Consumer Psychology, 14(3), 318-330.

Bayley, S. (2007, June 9). You can’t fool the British people with a logo and an instant

brand. The Guardian. Retrieved from

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jun/10/olympics2012.design

BBC Sport. (2007, June 04). London unveils logo of 2012 Games. BBC. Retrieved from

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-

/sport2/hi/other_sports/olympics_2012/6718243.stm

Beerli, A. J., & Martín, H. S. (2004). Factors influencing destination image. Annals of

Tourism Research, 31(3), 657-681.

Bellantoni, P. (2005). If it’s purple, someone’s gonna die: The power of color in visual

storytelling. Boston, MA: Focal.

Bennett, P. D. (1995). Dictionary of Marketing Terms. Lincoln- wood, IL: NTC Business

Books.

127 Berkaak, O. A. (1999). In the heart of the volcano: the Olympic Games as Mega Drama.

In A. M. Klausen, (Eds.), Olympic Games as Performance and Public Event (pp.

49 -75). New York, NY: Berghahn Books.

Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-

Crofts.

Berry, J. (2012). A uniform approach? Designing Australian national identity at the

Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. Journal of Design History, 26(1), 86-103.

Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (1992). Cross-Cultural

Psychology: Research and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bettman, J. R., Johnson, E. J., & Payne, J. W. (1991). Consumer decision making. In T.S.

Robertson & H. H. Kassarjian (Eds.), Handbook of consumer behavior (pp. 281 –

315). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Biehal, G., Stephens, D., & Curlo, E. (1992). Attitude toward the ad and brand choice.

Journal of Advertising, 21(3), 19-36.

Bigné, J. E., & Andreu, L. (2004). Emotions in segmentation. Annals of Tourism

Research, 31(3), 682-696.

Bigné, J. E., Andreu, L., & Gnoth, J. (2005). The theme park experience: An analysis of

pleasure, arousal and satisfaction. Tourism Management, 26(6), 833-844.

Bigné, J. E., Sanchez, M. I., & Sanchez, J. (2001). Tourism image, evaluation variables

and after purchase behaviour: Inter-relationship. Tourism Management, 22, 607-

616.

128 Birrell, S. J. (1988). Discourses on the gender/sport relationship: From women in sport to

gender relations. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, 16, 459-502.

Bishop, R. (2001). Stealing the signs: A semiotic analysis of the changing nature of

professional sports logos. Social Semiotics, 11(1), 23-41.

Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers

and employees. Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 57-71.

Blain, C., Levy, S. E., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2005). Destination branding: Insights and

practices from destination management organizations. Journal of Travel

Research, 43(4), 328-338.

Blake, H. (2010, May 19). Olympic mascots Wenlock and Mandeville branded

“patronising rubbish.” The Telegraph. Retrieved from

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/7742259/Olympic-mascots-Wenlock-

and-Mandeville-branded-patronising-rubbish.html

Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response.

Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 16-29.

Bock, P. K. (1994). Handbook of psychological anthropology. Westport, CT: Greenwood

Press.

Bottomley, P. A., & Doyle, J. R. (2006). The interactive effects of colors and products on

perceptions of brand logo appropriateness, Marketing Theory, 6(1), 63-83.

Bramwell, B., & Rawding, L. (1996). Tourism marketing images of industrial cities.

Annals of Tourism Research, 23(1), 201-221.

Briley, D. A., Morris, M.W., & Simonson, I. (2000). Reasons as carriers of culture: 129 Dynamic versus dispositional models of cultural influence on decision making.

Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (September), 157–178.

Brown, G., Chalip, L., Jago, L., & Mules, T. (2002). The Sydney Olympics and Brand

Australia. In N. Morgan, A. Pritchard & R. Pride (Eds.), Destination

branding: Creating the unique destination proposition (pp.163-185). Oxford, UK:

Butterworth-Heinemann.

Buchanan, R. (1985). Declaration by design: rhetoric, argument, and demonstration

in design practice. Design Issues, 2(1), 4-22.

Buchanan, R. (2001). Design and the new rhetoric: productive arts in the philosophy of

culture. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 34(3), 183-206.

Burke, M. C., & Edell, J. A. (1986). Ad reactions over time: Capturing changes in the

real world. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(1), 114-118.

Buttle, H., & Westoby, N. (2006). Brand logo and name association: It’s all in the name.

Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 1181–1194.

Byon, K. K., & Zhang, J. J. (2010). Development of a scale measuring destination image.

Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 28(4), 508 – 532.

Cai, L. A. (2002). Cooperative branding for rural destinations. Annals of Tourism

Research, 29(3), 720-742.

Chalip, L. (2004). Beyond impact: a general model for sport event leverage. In B.W.

Ritchie & D. Adair (Eds.), Sport tourism: interrelationships, impacts and issues

(pp. 226–252). Clevedon, UK: Channel View Publications.

130 Chalip, L., & Costa, C. A. (2005). Sport event tourism and the destination brand:

Towards a general theory. Sport in Society, 8(2), 218-237.

Chandler, D. (2002). Semiotics: The basics. London: Routledge.

Chen, C. F., & Phou, S. (2013). A closer look at destination: Image, personality,

relationship and loyalty. Tourism Management, 36, 269-278.

Chen, C. F., & Tsai, D. (2007). How destination image and evaluative factors affect

behavioral intentions? Tourism Management, 28, 1115-1122.

Clark, T. (1990). International marketing and national character: A review and proposal

for an integrative theory. Journal of Marketing, 54 (October), 66–79.

Collins, D., & Tisdell, C. (2002). Gender and differences in travel life cycles. Journal of

Travel Research, 41(2), 133-143.

Court, B., & Lupton, R. A. (1997). Customer portfolio development: Modeling

destination adapters, inactives, and rejecters. Journal of Travel Research, 36 (1),

35–43.

Crampton Smith. G., & Tabor, P. (1996). The role of the artist-designer. In T. Winograd

(Ed.), Bringing design to software (pp. 37-57). MA, USA: Addison-Wesley,

Reading.

Creusen, M. E. H., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2005). The different roles of product

appearance in consumer choice. Journal of Product Innovation Management,

22(1), 63-81.

Crilly, N., Good, D., Matravers, D., & Clarkson, P. J. (2008). Design as communication:

Exploring the validity and utility of relating intention to interpretation. Design 131 Studies, 29(5), 425-457.

Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, P. J. (2004). Seeing things: consumer response to the

visual domain in product design. Design Studies, 25(6), 547–577.

Crompton, J. L. (1979). An assessment of the image of Mexico as a vacation destination

and the influence of geographical location upon that image. Journal of Travel

Research, 17 (4), 18-23.

Crotts, J. C., & Erdmann, R. (2000). Does national culture influence consumers'

evaluation of travel services? A test of hofstede's model of cross-cultural

differences. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 10(6), 410-419.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Robinson, R. E. (1990). The art of seeing: An interpretation of

the aesthetic encounter. Los Angeles, Calif; Malibu, Calif;: J.P. Getty Museum.

Danesi, M. (2008). Of cigarettes, high heels, and other interesting things: An

introduction to semiotics. New York: Palgrave Macmillans.

Danesi, M. (2013). Semiotizing a product into a brand. Social Semiotics, 23(4), 464-476.

Darley, W., & Smith, R. (1995). Gender differences in information processing strategies:

An empirical test of the selectivity model in advertising responses. Journal of

Advertising, 24, 41-56.

Day, J., Skidmore, S., & Koller, T. (2002). Image selection in destination positioning: A

new approach. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 8 (2), 177–186.

Deaner, R. O., & Smith, B. A. (2013). Sex differences in sports across 50 societies.

Cross-Cultural Research, 47(3), 268-309.

Demirbilek, O., & Sener, B. (2003). Product design, semantics and emotional response. 132 Ergonomics, 46, 1346–1360.

Ding, Y. & Thompson, L. (2013). Re-evaluating the Beijing Olympic Fuwa Mascots in

the Circuit of Culture. Asia Pacific Journal of Sport and Social Science, 2(2), 87-

103.

Durgee, J. F. & Stuart, R.W. (1987). Advertising symbols and brand names that best

represent key product meanings. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 4 (3), 15-24.

Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1991). Gender differences in sport involvement: Applying

the Eccles’ expectancy-value model. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 3, 7–

35.

Echtner C. M., & Ritchie, B. J. R. (1991). The meaning and measurement of destination

image. Journal of Tourism Studies, 2(2), 2-12.

Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1993). The measurement of destination image: An

empirical assessment. Journal of Travel Research, 31 (3), 3-13.

Eco, U. (1976). A Theory of Semiotics. London: Macmillan.

Ekinci, Y. (2003). An investigation of the determinants of customer satisfaction. Tourism

Analysis, 8(2), 193-196.

Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2007). Color and psychological functioning. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 16(5), 250-254.

Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in

intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 390-405.

133 Evers, V. (1998). Cross-cultural understanding of metaphors in interface design. Paper

presented at the Conference of Cultural Attitudes towards Communication and

Technology ‘98, Science Museum, Exhibition Road, London.

Evers, V., Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Jones, A., (1999). Cross-cultural understanding of

interface design: A cross-cultural analysis of icon recognition. Paper presented at

the International Workshop on Internationalisation of Products and Systems,

Rochester, New York.

Fan, H. (2014). Strategic communication of mega-city brands: challenges and solutions.

In P. O. Berg & E. Bjorner (Eds.), Branding Chinese Mega-Cities: Policies,

Practices and Positioning (pp. 132-143). Massachusetts, USA: Edward Elgar

Publishing, Inc.

Fang, X., & Mowen, J. C. (2005). Exploring factors influencing logo effectiveness: An

experimental inquiry. Advances in Consumer Research, 32, 161.

Ferrand, A., & Pages, M. (1999). Image management in sport organisations: the creation

of value. European Journal of Marketing, 33(3/4), 387 – 402.

Freeman, I., Knight, P., & O'Reilly, N. (2006). Symbolism and the effectiveness of

Olympic mascots. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing,

2(1-2), 41–58.

Friess, E. (2010a). Designing from data: Rhetorical appeals in support of design

decisions. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 24(4), 403-444.

Friess, E. (2010b). The sword of data: Does human-centered design fulfill its rhetorical

responsibility? Design Issues, 26(3), 40-50. 134 Funk, D. C., & James, J. D. (2006). Consumer loyalty: The meaning of attachment in the

development of sport team allegiance. Journal of Sport Management, 20(2), 189-

217.

Funk, D. C., Toohey, K., & Bruun, T. (2007). International sport event participation:

Prior sport involvement; destination image; and travel motives. European Sport

Management Quarterly, 7(3), 227-248.

Gallarza, M. G., Saura, I. G., & García, H. C. (2002). Destination image: towards a

conceptual framework. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 56-78.

Garber, L. L., Jr., & Hyatt, E. M. (2003). Color as a tool for visual persuasion. In L.

M. Scott & R. Batra (Eds.), Persuasive imagery: A consumer response

perspective. Adversity and consumer psychology (pp. 313–336). Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Garcia, B. (2008). One hundred years of cultural programming within the Olympic

Games. (1912-2012): Origins, evolution and projections. International Journal of

Cultural Policy, 14(4), 361-376.

Garcia, F. D. C. (2015). The influence of visual product aesthetics on consumer response-

Does design trigger purchase intentions? Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283697498_The_Influence_of_Visual_

Product_Aesthetics_and_its_Influence_on_Consumer_Response_-

_Does_Design_Trigger_Purchase_Intentions

Gartner, W. C. (1986). Temporal influences on image change. Annals of Tourism

Research, 13(4), 635-644. 135 Gartner, W. C. (1993). Image formation process. Journal of Travel and Tourism

Marketing, 2(2/3), 191-215.

Gartner, W. C. (1996). Tourism development: Principles, processes, and policies.

NewYork: VanNostram Reinhold.

Gero, J. S. (1990). Design prototypes: A knowledge representation schema for design. AI

Magazine, 11(4), 26–36.

Getz, D. (2008). Event tourism: Definition, evolution, and research. Tourism

Management, 29(3), 403-428.

Giard, J. (1989). Product Semantics and Communication: Matching the Meaning to the

Signal. In S. Vihma (Ed.), Semantic visions in design: Proceedings from the

symposium on design research and semiotics (pp. b1-b7). Helsinki: University of

Industrial Arts Helsinki.

Gibson, H. J. (1998). Active sport tourism: Who participates? Leisure Studies, 17(2),

155-170.

Gibson, H. J., Qi, C. X., & Zhang, J. J. (2008). Destination image and intent to visit china

and the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. Journal of Sport Management, 22(4), 427-

450.

Gregory, R. L. (1998). Eye and brain: The psychology of seeing. Oxford University

Press.

Griggs , G., Freeman , I., Knight, P., & O’Reilly, N. (2012). A vision of London in the

twenty-first century or just terrifying monsters: a semiotic analysis of the official

mascots for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Leisure Studies, 136 31(3), 339-354.

Grunert, K. G. (1996). Automatic and strategic processes in advertising effects. Journal

of Marketing, 60(4), 88-101.

Goodstein, R. C. (1993). Category-based applications and extensions in advertising:

Motivating more extensive ad processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 87-

99.

Gorn G. J., Chattopadhyay, A., Yi, T., & Dahl, D.W. (1997). Effects of color as an

executional cue in advertising: They’re in the shade. Management Science.

43(10), 1387–1400.

Govers, R., & Go, F. M. (2004). Cultural identities constructed, imagined and

experienced: A 3-gap tourism destination image formation model. Tourism: An

International Interdisciplinary Journal, 52 (2), 165–182.

Greimas, A. J., & Courteś , J. (1982). Semiotics and Language: An Analytical Dictionary,

translated by L. Crist, D. Patte, J. Lee, E. McMahon II, G. Philips and M.

Rengstorf. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Grobert, J., Cuny, C., & Fornerino, M. (2016). Surprise! we changed the logo. Journal of

Product & Brand Management, 25(3), 239-246.

Grohs, R., & Reisinger, H. (2005). Image transfer in sports sponsorships: An assessment

of moderating effects. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship,

7(1), 42–48.

Gros, J. (1984). Reporting progress through product language. Innovation: The Journal of

the Industrial Designers Society of America, 3(2), 10-11. 137 Gwinner, K. (1997). A model of image creation and image transfer in event sponsorship.

International Marketing Review, 14(3), 145-158.

Gwinner, K., & Eaton, J. (1999). Building brand image through event sponsorship: The

role of image transfer. Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 47-57.

Hakala, U., Lätti, S., & Sandberg, B. (2011). Operationalising brand heritage and cultural

heritage. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 20(6), 447-456.

Hallmann, K., & Breuer, C. (2010). Image fit between sport events and their hosting

destinations from an active sport tourist perspective and its impact on future

behaviour. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 15(3), 215–237.

Hem, L. E. & Iverson, N. M. (2004). How to develop a destination brand logo: A

qualitative and qualitative approach. Scandinavian journal of hospitality and

tourism, 4(2), 83-106.

Henderson, P. W., & Cote. J. A. (1998). Guidelines for selecting or modifying logos.

Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 14–30.

Henderson, P. W., Cote, J.A., Leong, S.M., & Schmitt, B. (2003). Building strong brands

in Asia: Selecting the visual components of image to maximize brand strength.

International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20 (4), 297-313.

Heslop, L. A., Nadeau, J., & O'Reilly, N. (2010). China and the Olympics: Views of

insiders and outsiders. International Marketing Review, 27(4), 404-433.

Hiller, H. H. (2003). Mega-events, urban boosterism and growth strategies: an analysis of

the objectives and legitimations of the Cape Town 2004 Olympic bid.

International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(2), 449–458. 138 Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related

values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions,

and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Holbrook, M. B. (1986). Aims, concepts, and methods for the presentation of individual

differences to design features. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 337–347.

Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C.(1993). The semiotics of consumption: Interpreting

symbolic consumer behavior in popular culture and works of art. Berlin: Mouton

de Gruyter.

Holbrook, M. B., & Schindler, R. M. (1994). Age, sex, and attitude toward the past as

predictors of consumers’ aesthetic tastes for cultural products. Journal of

Marketing Research 31(3), 412–422.

Holland, D., & Quinn, N. (1987). Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Hsu, S. H., Chuang, M. C., & Chang, C. C. (2000). A semantic differential study of

designers’ and users’ product form perception. International Journal of Industrial

Ergonomics, 25, 375-391.

International Olympic Committee (1984), Official Olympic Games Report 1984 Los

Angles, Vol. 1, part 1, p.240-252.

International Olympic Committee (1988), Official Olympic Games Report 1988 Seoul,

Vol. 1, Chapter 23, p.656-660.

International Olympic Committee (1996), Official Olympic Games Report 1996 Atlanta. 139 International Olympic Committee (1999), Olympic Marks and Imagery Usage Handbook.

Retrieved from http://161.58.101.22/olimpicos/Olympic_Marks_Handbook.pdf

International Olympic Committee (2000), Official Olympic Games Report 2000 Sydney.

International Olympic Committee (2001), Marketing Matters, Vol. 18, International

Olympic Committee, Lausanne, pp. 1-12.

International Olympic Committee (2002), “Working with Olympic brand”, Sponsor

workshop, June, Athens.

International Olympic Committee (2004), Official Olympic Games Report 2004 Athens,

Vol. 1, p.319-320.

International Olympic Committee (2008), Official Olympic Games Report 2008 Beijing,

Chapter 14, p. 265-271.

International Olympic Committee (2010). Olympic summer games mascots from Munich

1972 to Beijing 2008. Retrieved from

http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Reference_documents_

Factsheets/2010_Summer%20_Games_Mascots_ENG.Pdf

International Olympic Committee (2012), Official Olympic Games Report 2012 London.

Jacobs, K.W., & Hustmyer, F.E. (1974). Effects of four psychological primary colors on

GSR, heart rate and respiration rate. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 38, 763–766.

Jaffe, E., & Nebenzahl, I. (1993). Global promotion of country image: do the Olympics

count? In N.G. Papadopoulos & L.A. Heslop (Eds.), Product-country images:

Impact and role in international marketing (pp.433–452). New York:

International Business Press. 140 Janiszewski, C., & Meyvis, T. (2001). Effects of brand logo complexity, repetition, and

spacing on processing fluency and judgment. Journal of Consumer Research,

28(1), 18–32.

Jensen, O., & Korneliussen, T. (2002). Discriminating perceptions of a peripheral “nordic

destination” among European tourists. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3(4),

319-330.

Jiang, Y., Gorn, G. J., Galli, M., & Chattopadhyay, A. (2016). Does your company have

the right logo? How and why circular- and angular-logo shapes influence brand

attribute judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(5), 709-726.

Judkis, M. (2012, July 26). London 2012 mascots, Wedlock and Mandeville: Are they

creepy? The Washington Post. Retrieved from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/london-2012-

olympics/wp/2012/07/26/london-2012-mascots-wenlock-and-mandeville-are-

they-creepy/

Jun, J.W., Cho, C.H., & Kwon, H. J. (2008). The role of affect and cognition in consumer

evaluations of corporate visual identity: Perspectives from the United States and

Korea. Journal of Brand Management, 15(6), 382-398.

Kalvapalle, R. (2016, August 24). Rio de Janeiro welcomed 1.17 million tourists in two

weeks. Marca. Retrieved from http://www.marca.com/en/olympic-

games/2016/08/24/57bda7a0468aeb3e158b4596.html

Kaplanidou, K. (2007). Affective event and destination image: their influence on

Olympic travelers' behavioral intentions. Event Management, 10(2), 159–173. 141 Kaplanidou, K., & Vogt, C. (2007). The interrelationship between sport event and

destination image and sport tourists’ behaviours. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 12,

183–206.

Kaplanidou, K. (2009). Relationships among behavioral intentions, cognitive event and

destination images among different geographic regions of Olympic Games

spectators. Journal of Sport and Tourism. 14(4) 249-272.

Kazmierczak, E.T. (2003). Design as meaning making: from making things to the design

of thinking. Design Issues, 19 (2), 45-59.

Keaveney, S. M., & Hunt, K. A. (1992). Conceptualization and operationalization of

retail store image: A case of rival middle-level theories. Journal of the Academy

of Marketing Science, 20(2), 165-175.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand

equity. Journal of Marketing, 57, 1-22.

Keller, K. L. (2003). Understanding brands, branding, and brand equity. Interactive

Marketing, 5(1), 7-20.

Kim, N., & Chalip, L. (2004). Why travel to the FIFA World Cup? Effects of motives,

background, interest, and constraints. Tourism Management, 25, 695–707.

Kim, J., Kang, J. H., & Kim, Y.K. (2014). Impact of mega sport events on destination

image and country image. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 23(3), 161-175.

Kim, D., Lehto, X. Y., & Morrison, A. M. (2007). Gender differences in online travel

information search: Implications for marketing communications on the Internet.

Tourism Management, 28(2), 423-433. 142 King, C., Chen, N., & Funk, D. C. (2015). Exploring destination image decay: A study of

sport tourists’ destination image change after event participation. Journal of

Hospitality & Tourism Research, 39, 3-31.

Koller, V. (2008). The World in One City. Semiotic and Cognitive Aspect of City

Branding. Journal of Language and Politics, 7(3), 431–450.

Koo, G. Y., Quarterman, J., & Flynn, L. (2006). Effect of perceived sport event and

sponsor image fit on consumers’ cognition, affect, and behavioral intentions.

Sport Marketing Quarterly,15(2), 80-90.

Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (1999). Principles of marketing. Upper Saddle River, New

Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Kotler, P., & Gertner, D., (2002). Country as brand, product, and beyond: A place

marketing and brand management perspective. Journal of Brand Management,

9(4), 249-261.

Krippendorff, K., & Butter, R. (1984). Product semantics: Exploring the symbolic

qualities of form. Innovation: The Journal of the Industrial Designers Society of

America, 3(2), 4-9.

Kwallek, N., Lewis, C. M., & Robbins, A. S. (1988). Effects of office interior color on

workers’ mood and productivity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 66, 123–128.

Labrecque, L. I., & Milne, G. R. (2012). Exciting red and competent blue: the importance

of color in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(5), 711-

727.

LAOOC (1984). Graphic Standards Manual. Los Angles: LAOOC. 143 Leder, H., Carbon, C., & Ripsas, A. (2006). Entitling art: Influence of title information on

understanding and appreciation of paintings. Acta Psychologica, 121(2), 176-198.

Lee, A. L. (2010). Did the Olympics help the nation branding of China? Comparing

public perception of China with the Olympics before and after the 2008 Beijing

Olympics in Hong Kong. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 6(3), 207–227.

Lee, C. K., Lee, Y. K., & Lee, B. K. (2005). Korea’s destination image formed by the

2002 World Cup. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 839-858.

Lee, Y. K., Kim, S., Lee, C. K., & Kim, S. H. (2014). The impact of a mega event on

visitors’ attitude toward hosting destination: Using trust transfer theory. Journal

of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 31(4), 507-521.

Lee, S., Rodriguez, L., & Sar, S. (2012). The influence of logo design on country image

and willingness to visit: A study of country logos for tourism. Public Relations

Review, 38 (4), 584-591.

Leung, K., Bhagat, R., Buchan,N., Erez, M., & Gibson, C. B. (2005). Culture and

international business: Recent advances and their implications for future research.

Journal of International Business Studies, 36(4), 357-378.

Li, X., & Kaplanidou, K. (2013). The impact of the 2008 Beijing Olympic games on

China's destination brand: A U.S.-based examination. Journal of Hospitality &

Tourism Research, 37(2), 237-261.

Lin, R., Lin, P. C., & Ko, K. J. (1999). A study of cognitive human factors in mascot

design. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 23(1), 107-122.

144 Litvin, S. W., Crotts, J. C., & Hefner, F. L. (2004). Cross-cultural tourist behaviour: A

replication and extension involving Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance dimension.

International Journal of Tourism Research, 6(1), 29-37.

Luchs, M., & Swan, K. S. (2011). Perspective: the emergence of product design as a field

of marketing inquiry. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(3), 327–

345.

Lueptow, L., Garovich, L., & Lupetow, M. (1995). The persistence of gender stereotypes

in the face of changing sex roles: Evidence contrary to the sociocultural model.

Ethology and Sociobiology, 16(6), 509-530.

Machado, J. C., de Carvalho, L. V., Torres, A., & Costa, P. (2015). Brand logo design:

Examining consumer response to naturalness. Journal of Product & Brand

Management, 24(1), 78-87.

MacKay, K., & Fesenmaier, D. (1997). Pictorial element of destination in image

formation. Annals of Tourism Research, 24, 537–565.

MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. E. (1986). The role of attitude toward the ad

as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations.

Journal of Marketing Research, 23(2), 130-143.

Madden, T.J., Hewett, K., & Roth, M.S. (2000). Managing images in different cultures: a

cross-national study of colour meanings and preferences. Journal of International

Marketing, 8(4), 90–107.

Magdalinski, T. (2004). Cute, loveable characters: The place and significance of mascots

in the Olympic movement. International Centre for Olympic Studies, 75-92. 145 Martin, H. S., & Bosque, I. A. (2008). Exploring the cognitive-affective nature of

destination image and the role of psychological factors in its formation. Tourism

Management, 29(2), 263-277.

Martindale, C., Moore, E., & West, A. (1988). Relationship of preference judgments to

typicality, novelty and mere exposure. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 6(1), 79–96.

Masten, L.D. (1988). Packaging’s proper role is to sell the product. Marketing News, 22

(2), 16.

Mehrabian, A. (1980). Basic dimensions for a general psychological theory. Cambridge,

MS: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain.

Mehrabian, A. (1996). Pleasure-arousal-dominance: a general framework for describing

and measuring individual differences in temperament. Current Psychology, 14(4),

261–292.

Meyers-Levy, J. (1988). The influence of sex roles on judgment. Journal of Consumer

Research, 14 (March), 522-530.

Meyers-Levy, J. (1989). Gender Differences in Information Processing: A Selectivity

Interpretation. In Cognitive and Affective Responses to Advertising. Eds. Patricia

Cafferata and Alice M. Tybout. Lexington and Toronto: Lexington Books, 219-

260.

McGehee, N. G., Loker-Murphy, L., & Uysal, M. (1996). The Australian international

pleasure travel market: Motivations from a gendered perspective. The Journal of

Tourism Studies, 7(1), 45-57.

146 Mick, D. G. (1986). Consumer research and semiotics: Exploring the morphology of

signs, symbols, and significance. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), 196-213.

Mick, D. G., Burroughs, J. E., Hetzel, P., & Brannen, M. Y. (2004). Pursuing the

meaning of meaning in the commercial world: An international review of

marketing and consumer research founded on semiotics. Semiotica, 152(1), 1-74.

Mishra, A., & Dash, S., & Malhotra, N. K., (2015). An integrated framework for design

perception and brand equity. AMS Review, 5(1), 28-44.

Mitchell, A. A., & Olson, J. C. (1981). Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of

advertising effects on brand attitude? Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 318-

332.

Mollerup, P. (1997). Marks of excellence: The function and variety of trademarks.

London: Phaidon.

Monö, R. (1997). Design for product understanding : the aesthetics of design from a

semiotic approach. Stockholm: Liber.

Morais, D. B., & Lin, C. H. (2010). Why do first-time and repeat visitors patronize a

destination? Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 27(2), 193- 210.

Morgan, D. L. (1993). Qualitative content analysis: A guide to paths not taken.

Qualitative Health Research, 2(1), 112-121.

Moss, G., & Colman, A. M. (2001). Choices and preferences: Experiments on gender

differences. Brand Management, 9(2), 89-98.

147 Moss, G., Gunn, R., & Heller, J. (2006). Some men like it black, some women like it

pink: Consumer implications of differences in male and female website design.

Journal of Consumer Behavior, 5(4), 328-341.

Muller,̈ B., Kocher, B., & Crettaz, A. (2013). The effects of visual rejuvenation through

brand logos. Journal of Business Research, 66, 82–88.

Nakata, C., & Sivakumar. K. (1996). National culture and new product development: An

integrative review. Journal of Marketing, 60(1), 61-72.

Neirotti, L., & Hilliard, T. (2006). Impact of Olympic spectator safety perception and

security concerns on travel decisions. Tourism Review International, 10, 269–284.

Nghiêm-Phú, B. (2015). Projected country image: An investigation of provinces/cities’

logos. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 20(1), 1466-1485.

Nöth, W. (1990). Handbook of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Nowaczyk, R. H. (1982). Sex-related differences in the color lexicon. Language &

Speech, 25(3), 257-265.

Ou, L., Ronnier Luo, M., Sun, P., Hu, N., Chen, H., Guan, S., Woodcock, A., Caivano, J.

L., Huertas, R., Treméau, A., Billger, M., Izadan, H., & Richter, K., (2012). A

cross‐cultural comparison of colour emotion for two‐colour combinations. Color

Research & Application, 37(1), 23-43.

Oswald, L. R. (2012). Marketing semiotics: Signs, strategies, and brand value. Oxford:

OUP Oxford.

Oswald, L. R. (2015a). The structural semiotics paradigm for marketing research:

Theory, methodology, and case analysis. Semiotica, 2015(205), 115-148. 148 Oswald, L. R. (2015b). Creating value: the theory and practice of marketing semiotics

research. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press,.

Overby, J. W., Woodruff, R. B., & Gardial, S. F. (2005). The influence of culture upon

consumers’ desired value perceptions: A research agenda. Marketing Theory,

5(2), 139–163.

Oxman, R. (2002). The thinking eye: Visual re-cognition in design emergence. Design

Studies, 23(2), 135-164.

Oyserman, D. (2011). Culture as situated cognition: Cultural mindsets, cultural fluency,

and meaning making. European Review of Social Psychology, 22, 164–214.

Palmer, S. E., Schloss, K. B., & Sammartino, J. (2013). Visual aesthetics and human

preference. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 77-107.

Park, C. W., Eisingerich, A. B., Pol, G., & Park, J. W. (2013). The role of brand logos in

firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 66(2), 180-187.

Park, C. W., Jaworski, B. J., & Maclnnis, D. J. (1986). Strategic brand concept-image

management. Journal of Marketing, 50(4), 135-145.

Peterson, M., AlShebil, S., & Bishop, M. (2015). Cognitive and emotional processing of

brand logo changes. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 24(7), 745-757.

Poiesz, T. B. C. (1989). The image concept: Its place in consumer psychology. Journal of

Economic Psychology, 10(4), 457-472.

Preuss, H. (2004). The economics of staging the Olympics: A comparison of the games,

1972-2008. Northampton, MA;Cheltenham, UK;: E. Elgar.

Pritchard, A., & Morgan, N. J. (2001). Culture, identity and tourism representation: 149 Marketing Cymru or Wales? Tourism Management, 22(2), 167-179.

Piamonte, D.P.T., Ohlsson, K., & Abeysekera, J. D.A., (1999). Across the Seas a User-

Based Evaluation of Candidate Telecommunication Icons. Retrieved from

http://epubl.luth.se/1402-1528/1999/06/

Pittard, N., Ewing, M., & Jevons, C. (2007). Aesthetic theory and logo design:

Examining consumer response to proportion across cultures. International

Marketing Review, 24(4), 457-473.

Qi, C. X., Gibson, H. J., & Zhang, J. J. (2009). Perceptions of risk and travel intentions:

The case of china and the Beijing Olympic games. Journal of Sport & Tourism,

14(1), 43-67.

Qu, H. L., Kim, L. H., & Im, H. H. (2011). A model of destination branding: integrating

the concepts of the branding and destination image. Tourism Management, 32(3),

465e476.

Raymond, J. E., Fenske, M. J., & Tavassoli. N. T. (2003). Selective attention determines

emotional responses to novel visual stimuli. Psychological Science, 14(6) 537–

542.

Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic

pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and

Social Psychology Review, 8, 364–382.

Reber, R., Winkielman, P., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Effects of perceptual fluency on

affective judgments. Psychological Science, 9, 45–48.

Redström, J. (2006). Towards user design? On the shift from object to user as the subject 150 of design. Design Studies, 27(2), 123-139.

Rheinfrank, J. & Evenson, S. (1996). Design languages. In T. Winograd (Ed.), Bringing

design to software (pp. 63-80). New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.

Reisinger, Y., & Mavondo, F. (2006). Cultural differences in travel risk perception.

Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 20(1), 13–31.

Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. W. (2002a). Cultural differences between Asian tourist

markets and Australian hosts, Part 1. Journal of Travel Research, 40(3), 295-315.

Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. W. (2002b). Cultural differences between Asian tourist

markets and Australian hosts: Part 2. Journal of Travel Research, 40(4), 374-384.

Ritchie, J. R. B. (1984). Assessing the impact of hallmark events: Conceptual and

research issues. Journal of Travel Research, 23(1), 2–11.

Ritchie, J. R. B., & Smith, B. H. (1991). The impact of a mega-event on host region

awareness: A longitudinal study. Journal of Travel Research, 30(1), 3-10.

Ritson, M. (2010, June 07). Brand design: A penis for London’s Olympic Games?

Branding Strategy Insider. Retrieved from

http://www.brandingstrategyinsider.com/2010/06/brand-design-a-penis-for-

londons-olympic-games.html

Robertson, T., & Kassarjian, H. (1991). Handbook of Consumer Behavior. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Rodriguez, L., Asoro, R. L., Lee, S., & Sar, S. (2013). Gestalt principles in destination

logos and their influence on people’s recognition and intention to visit a country.

Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 3(1), 91-107. 151 Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 39, 1161-1178.

Russell, J. A., & Pratt, G. (1980). A description of affective quality attributed to

environment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(2), 311-322.

Russell, J. A., & Snodgrass, J. (1987). Emotion and environment. In D. Stockols, & I.

Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 245-280). New York:

John Wiley & Sons.

Sammartino, J. & Palmer, S. E. (2012a). Aesthetic issues in spatial composition: Effects

of vertical position and perspective on framing single objects. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(4), 865-879.

Sammartino, J. & Palmer, S. E. (2012b). Aesthetic issues in spatial composition:

Representational fit and the role of semantic context. Perception, 41, 1434-1457.

Sandelowski, M. (2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in

Nursing & Health, 23, 334–340.

Sar, S., Rodriguez, L., Lee, S., & Kulpavaropas, S. (2013). The influence of mood and

symbolic value on the evaluation of destination logos. Visual Communication

Quarterly, 20(2), 64-74,

Schechter, A. H. (1993). Measuring the value of corporate and brand logos. Design

Management Journal, 4(1), 33-39.

Schirato, T. (1998). Meaning. In P. Bouissac (Ed.), Encyclopedia of semiotics (pp. 396-

399). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

152 Scott, D. (1993). Air France’s Hippocampe and BOAC’s Speedbird: The semiotic status

of the logos. French Cultural Studies, 4, 107–127.

Scott, N., & Smith, A. E. (2005). Use of automated content analysis techniques for event

image assessment. Tourism Recreation Research, 30(2), 87 –91.

Segall, M. H., Dasen, P. R., Berry, J. W., & Poortinga, Y. H. (Eds.). (1999). Cognitive

Processes. In Human behavior in global perspective: an introduction to cross-

cultural psychology (pp. 160–185). Allyn and Bacon.

Seguin, B., & O’Reilly, N. (2008). The Olympic brand, ambush marketing, and clutter.

International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 4(1/2), 62–84.

Seligman, M. (1975). Helplessness. On depression, development and death. San

Francisco: Freeman.

Shalit, R. (2000, March 24) The Mr Peanut Chronicles. Salon.com. Retrieved from:

http://archive.salon.com/media/col/shal/2000/03/24/doughboy2/index.html.

Simonin, B. L., & Ruth, J. A. (1998). Is a company known by the company it keeps?

Assessing the spillover effects of brand alliances on consumer brand attitudes.

Journal of Marketing Research, 35(1), 30-42.

Simpson, C. (2010). Case studies of Hispanic caregivers of persons with dementia:

Reconciliation of self. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 21,167-174.

Sirgy, M. J., & Su, C. (2000). Destination image, self-congruity, and travel behavior:

Toward an integrative model. Journal of Travel Research, 38(4), 340-352.

SOCOG. (1998). Sydney Olympic Image Guidelines. Sydney: SOCOG.

Spears, N. & Singh, S. N. (2004), Measuring attitude toward the brand and purchase 153 intentions. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 26(2), 53-66.

Stabler, M. (1995). The Image of Destination Regions: Theoretical and Empirical

Aspects. In B. Goodall & G, Ashworth (Eds.), Marketing in the tourism industry:

The promotion of destination regions (pp.133-161). London: Croom Helm.

Stafford, M. R., Tripp, C., & Bienstock, C. C. (2004). The influence of advertising logo

characteristics on audience perceptions of a nonprofit theatrical organization.

Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 26(1), 37-45.

Stein, N. L., & Trabasso, T. (1981). What’s in a story: An approach to comprehension

and instruction. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of instruction

(pp.213-267). New York: Routledge.

Stepchenkova, S., & Zhan, F. (2013). Visual destination images of Peru: Comparative

content analysis of DMO and user-generated photography. Tourism Management,

36(7), 590-601.

Sun, Y., Lim, K.H., Jiang, C., Peng, J.Z., & Chen, X. (2010). Do males and females think

in the same way? An empirical investigation on the gender differences in Web

advertising evaluation. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1614-1624.

Tasci, A. D. A., & Gartner, W. C. (2007). Destination image and its functional

relationships. Journal of Travel Research, 45(4), 413-425.

Tasci, A. D. A., Gartner, W. C., & Tamer Cavusgil, S. (2007). Conceptualization and

operationalization of destination image. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism

Research, 31(2), 194-223.

154 Taylor, S. E. & Crocker, J. (1981). Schematic bases of social information processing. In

E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario

Symposium, Vol. 1. (pp. 89-134). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tedesco, D., Chadwick-Dias, A., & Tullis, T. (2004). Demographic Differences in

Preferred Web Site Content. Aging by Design. Presentation at Bentley College,

Waltham, Massachusetts.

Till, B. D., & Shimp, T. A. (1998). Endorsers in advertising: The case of negative

celebrity information. Journal of Advertising, 27(1), 67-82.

Triandis, H. C. (1972). The analysis of subjective culture. New York: Wiley.

Turner, J. S. (2015). The semiotics of a Native American sports logo: The signification of

the “Screaming Savage.” Journal of Sport Media, 10(2), 89-114.

Um, S., & Crompton, J. L. (1990). Attitude determinants in tourism destination choice.

Annals of Tourism Research, 17(3), 432-448.

Um, S., & Crompton, J. L. (1992). The role of perceived inhibitors and facilitators in

pleasure travel destination decisions. Journal of Travel Research, 30(3), 18–25.

Valdez, P., & Mehrabian, A. (1994). Effects of color on emotions. Journal of

Experimental Psychology, 123, 394–409. van den Bosch, A. L. M., De Jong, M. D. T. & Elving, W. J. L. (2004). Managing

corporate visual identity: use and effects of organizational measures to support a

consistent self-presentation. Public Relations Review, 30(2), 225-34.

155 van den Bosch, A. L. M, de Jong, M. D. T., & Elving, W. J. L. (2005). How corporate

visual identity supports reputation. Corporate Communications: An International

Journal, 10(2), 108-116. van der Lans, R., Cote, J.A., Cole, C. A., Leong, S. M., Smidts, A., Henderson, P. W.,

Bluemelhuber, C., Bottomley, P.A., Doyle, J. R., Fedorikhin, A., Moorthy, J.,

Ramaseshan, B., & Schmitt, B. H. (2009). Cross-National Logo Evaluation

Analysis: An Individual-Level Approach. Marketing Science, 28(5), 968-985.

Veryzer, R. W. (1993). Aesthetic response and the influence of design principles on

product preferences. Advances in Consumer Research, 20, 224.

Veryzer, R. W. J., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1998). The influence of unity and prototypicality

on aesthetic responses to new product designs. Journal of Consumer Research,

24(4), 374-385.

Vihma, S. (1995). Products as representations: A semiotic and aesthetic study of design

products. Helsinki: University of Art and Design.

Walmsley, D. J., & Young, M. (1998). Evaluative images and tourism: The use of

personal constructs to describe the structure of destination images. Journal of

Travel Research, 36(3), 65-69.

Walsh, M. F., Winterich, K. P., & Mittal, V. (2010). Do logo redesigns help or hurt your

brand? The role of brand commitment. Journal of Product & Brand Management,

19(2), 76–84.

Wang, C. Y., & Hsu, M, K. (2010). The relationships of destination image, satisfaction,

156 and behavioral intentions: An integrated model. Journal of Travel &Tourism

Marketing, 27(8), 829-843.

Washburn, J. H., Till, B. D., & Priluck, R. (2000). Co-branding: Brand equity and trial

effects. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(7), 591-604.

Wikstrom, S. (1996). Value creation by company- consumer interaction. Journal of

Marketing Management, 12, 359–374.

Wilson, A., & Haładewicz-Grzelak, M. (2015). Sports utility semiotics: A semantic

differential study of symbolic potential in automobile design. Semiotica,

2015(207), 1-29.

Wood, M. M. (1966). The influence of sex and knowledge of communication

effectiveness of spontaneous speech. Word, 22, 112-137.

Xing, X. & Chalip, L. (2006). Effects of hosting a sport event on destination brand: a test

of co-branding and match-up models. Sport Management Review, 9(1), 49-78.

Yao. (2008, August 26). Beijing hosts 6.5 million tourists during Olympics. Xing Hua

News. Retrieved from http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-

08/26/content_9717952.htm

Yaprak, A. (2008). Culture study in international marketing: a critical review and

suggestions for future research. International Marketing Review, 5(2), 215-229.

You, Z., Zhang, X., & Koyama, S. (2013). Informational vs. Emotional Appeals of Logo

Design in Influencing Purchase Intentions for Plant-factory-produced Vegetables.

International Journal of Advances in Psychology, 2013, 2(4), 224-231.

157 Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Familiarity: product use, involvement, or expertise? Advances

in Consumer Research, 12, 296-299.

Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 9(2p2), 1-27.

Zhang, L. (1997). The charm and seduction of brand names. In I. Rauch & G. F. Carr

(Eds.), Semiotics around the world: Synthesis in diversity, Volume 2 (pp. 1263-

1268). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Zhang, H., Fu, X., Cai, L. A., & Lu, L. (2014). Destination image and tourist loyalty: A

meta-analysis. Tourism Management, 40, 213-223.

Zhong, C. (2012). Chinese and western cultural differences embodied in industrial

design. Material Science Forum, 697-698, 754-759.

158