The Relational Dynamics of Political Debates: A Politeness Approach Approach

The concept of image has been analysed from a variety of perspectives, where “different aspects are covered by different disciplines” (Rodrigues et al., 2011: 105).

In philosophy, for example, where the roots of the interest in the process of image formation could be traced back to the Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle, image is a reflection of the relationship between reality and individual’s perception of it (Rodrigues et al., 2011: 105). Plato describes this process in a metaphorical way by comparing it to “an artist painting pictures in the soul” (Philebus 39c, cited in Thomas, 2009, c). Plato's successor Aristotle, on the other hand, suggests that mental images take an important place in our memory and thoughts: people’s minds use their memory to recall images of past events (Thomas, 2011) and describes images as basic elements of thought which are based on an initial perception through senses

(Rodrigues et al., 2011) and could arise emotions and efforts in people (Thomas, 2009b).

The existence and nature of the relationship between objects and their images in people’s minds has been also investigated and explained from psychological perspective where mental imagery is generally delineated as:

quasi-perceptual experience: that is, experience that subjectively resembles perceptual experience, but which occurs in the absence of the relevant perceptual stimuli. It is generally acknowledged that imagery may occur in any sense mode or even in several simultaneously.

(Thomas, 2009a: 457)

Visual mental imagery is an ordinary, everyday experience for human beings. We have the skills to evoke past experience, or to visualize possible situations by forming mental images. The main difference between image and perception is the fact that while images can take place in the absence of the object, perceptions cannot. Images, therefore, function as mental representations, supporting human beings to evoke memories, to make plans for the future and to speculate about the unknown (Thomas, 2009a).

Geographers, on the other hand, see place images in a more holistic way associated with the place impressions, knowledge, emotions, values and beliefs, whereas marketers relate image to consumer behaviour and travellers’ decision making process (Jenkins, 1999).

In the field of tourism, destination image, however, has spawned a diversity of definitions and conceptualizations. A substantial number of tourism destination image definitions exist in the literature, which would indicate that either there is a substantial level of uncertainty towards what constitutes tourism destination image and how it is formed amongst the researchers fascinated by this topic, or that tourism destination image is

“multidimensional and complex” (Gallarza et al., 2002: 56) construct that can be explained by all these competing definitions. Indeed, defining tourism destination image is still not well understood and is still considered as a challenging task that was firstly recognized as such by Mazanec and Schweiger (1981). These researchers describe image as a widely employed,

yet ambiguous construct whose ambiguity lies in the use of the term image in two different ways: firstly, as the advertised and promoted image of a product or destination and secondly, as the beliefs and expectations of consumers. In fact, it is these two facets of the construct – the destination marketer’s and the visitor’s – that serve as inputs to its creation.

Echtner and Ritchie (1991) found in a comprehensive analysis of tourism destination image studies that definitions of tourism destination image are often missing or fairly blurred, if mentioned. Their point of view was supported by other researchers (Fakeye and Crompton, 1991, Gartner, 1993 and Kim and Richardson, 2003; Rodrigues et al., 2011) who also point out that while the term “image” is widely used in the literature and practice, it is lacking a theoretical and conceptual structure, thus confirming the elusiveness of this complex concept mentioned by Mazanec and Schweiger (1981).

In fact, as the table in appendix 7 suggests, substantial number of definitions exists in the literature regarding tourism destination image – some of them are complementary to each other, while others are fully contradictory. The definitions provided by Oxenfeldt (1974), Dichter (1985) and Mazursky and Jacoby (1986) do not represent the image of a destination, but are frequently borrowed by tourism researchers to define and explain tourism destination images (Baloglu and McCleary, 1999, Hahm, 2004). Definitions of “store images” were also used by Echtner and Ritchie (1991) to describe the three-dimensional structure of tourism destination image.

Ko and Park (2000) recognised three major research streams in the definition of tourism destination image. By defining destination image, some researchers emphasise on its composite structure and suggest that it is “the sum of beliefs, ideas and impressions that a person has of a destination”

Crompton, (1979: 18), or use cognitive and affective elements to portray the concept of image (see for example Mazursky and Jakoby’s definition, 1986).

Tourism destination image can be also perceived as an overall impression of a place, a product or experience (Milman and Pizam, 1995; Fridgen, 1987).

Reynolds (1965: 69), in a similar way describes an image as a “mental construct developed by the consumer on the basis of a few selected

impressions among the flood of total impressions; it comes into being through a creative process in which these selected impressions are elaborated, embellished and ordered”.

By analysing existing definitions of tourism destination image (see appendix 7) three noteworthy issues emerged. Firstly, the majority of the researchers define image as a static construct (Hunt, 1975; Chen and Tsai, 2007; Bigne et al., 2001), while just a few embrace in their definitions the dynamic structure (i.e. “over time”) of tourism destination image (Kim and Richardson, 2003 and Assael, 1984).

Secondly, some of the definitions express individual’s image of a place or product (Baloglu and McCleary, 1999), whereas others deal with stereotype

“images” shared by a large group of individuals (Milman and Pizam, 1995).

There are also definitions that do not specify which point of view is represented – the one of the general public or of the individuals (Gartner, 1989; Calantone et al., 1989).

Thirdly, in many studies impressions and perceptions of a place are used interchangeably (Phelps, 1986; Tapachai and Waryszak, 2000) or complementary to each other (Baloglu and McCleary, 1999; Echtner and Ritchie, 1991). Moreover, perception, impression and attitudes are used synonymously in a considerable amount of tourism destination image studies, which calls for clarification between these different concepts. This issue has attracted the attention of Tasci et al., (2007) and White (2004).

White (2004), for instance, points out that it is of vital importance for managers and researchers to understand how these two concepts differentiate from each other in order to get better knowledge on customers’

buying behaviour and levels of satisfaction. He gives (2004:309) the following examples to illustrate his point of view - do questions such as,

“what is your perception of London as a tourist destination? What is your attitude towards London as a tourist destination? and what image comes to mind when you think of London as a tourist destination? provide different insights into London as a tourist destination?”.

Hume (2010) posits that impressions and ideas are derivatives of perceptions and differ from each other based on:

...the degree of betwixt these consists in the degrees of force and liveliness, with which they strike upon the mind, and make their way into our thought or consciousness. Those perceptions, which enter with most force and violence, we may name impressions...by ideas I mean the faint images of these in thinking and reasoning.

Hume (2010:19)

Under the category of impressions he includes “sensations, passions and emotions” (Hume, 2010:19) as they get formed in our “souls”. Golledge and Stimson (1987: 12), in a similar vein, argue that “information signals are filtered through perception, then further filtered through the cognitive representation given to these in relation to previous cognitive structure in the brain”.

Fridgen (1987:102), on the other hand, in his definition of image as “a mental representation of an object, person, place or event which is not physically before the observer” also points out to the distinction between image and perception – environmental stimuli are required for perceptions to take place, whereas this is not a prerequisite for an image to exist (Fridgen, 1987;

Thomas, 2009a). Moreover, image does not necessarily include perceptions.

Therefore, the use of perceptions to understand tourism destination images is theoretically incorrect for studies where the participants have not experienced the destination (Tasci et al., 2007). The current study allies with the psychological point of view that despite the fact that perceptions and images are different concepts they can be used synonymously since people psychologically cannot make the difference between these two concepts (Golledge and Stimson 1987, cited in Baloglu, 1997).

There is also a need to draw attention to the use of the term “attitude” in definitions of tourism destination image. Even though a variety of definitions of attitudes exists in the surrounding body of literature, there is an agreement that “person’s attitude represents his or her evaluation of the entity in question” (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1977: 889). This evaluation of people, objects, event, activities and ideas can be positive or negative (Zimbardo et

al., 1999: 745). Attitudes have one fundamental attribute – they are subjective because they reflect how a person sees an object and not necessarily how the object actually looks like in reality (Olson and Maio, 2004). Consequently, attitudes should be considered a part of subjective self, which is the stream of thoughts, feelings, and actions that govern how someone lives (James, 1890, cited in Olson and Maio, 2004).

The following diagram is based on the reviewed literature on attitudes, perceptions, impressions, ideas and images and shows how they differ, but still influence each other.

Figure 1: Differences between attitudes, perceptions, image, impressions and ideas.

Source: the author

From the above figure it can be seen that perceptions formed in the presence of environmental stimuli (e.g. information sources, experience) are in a direct relationship with attitudes, whereas perceptions are not a necessity for an image to exist. Perceptions, on the other hand, form impressions and ideas, where the former includes sensations, passions and emotions individuals feel about objects and the latter is a “faint reproduction”

of them. Impressions and ideas as derivatives of perceptions also require environmental stimuli to get formed, which contrasts with the concept of image where no environmental stimuli are needed. Thus, what emerged as a source of dilemma with tourism destination image definitions has its roots in

the interchangeable use of attitudes, perceptions, ideas and impressions to define it. Throughout the course of this critical evaluation of tourism destination image definitions, it was unveiled that these related, but still different concepts cannot be used synonymously in order to define tourism destination images as they represent different stages in the process of its formation.