Andronikidis, Andreas

Bellou, Victoria

Stylos, Nikolaos

Vassiliadis, Chris A.

English

Explore Bristol Research

                          Andronikidis, A., Bellou, V., Stylos, N., & Vassiliadis, C. A. (2020).Delineating the Visiting Experience: Matching DestinationCharacteristics and Stakeholder Personalities. Frontiers inPsychology, 11, [1800]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01800Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordLicense (if available):CC BYLink to published version (if available):10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01800Link to publication record in Explore Bristol ResearchPDF-documentThis is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via Frontiers Media athttps://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01800/full. Please refer to any applicable terms of use ofthe publisher.University of Bristol - Explore Bristol ResearchGeneral rightsThis document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only thepublished version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available:http://www.bristol.ac.uk/pure/user-guides/explore-bristol-research/ebr-terms/EDITORIALpublished: 06 August 2020doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01800Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 August 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 1800Edited by:Paula Benevene,Libera Università Maria SS.Assunta, ItalyReviewed by:Amelia Manuti,University of Bari Aldo Moro, Italy*Correspondence:Nikolaos Stylosn.stylos@bristol.ac.ukSpecialty section:This article was submitted toOrganizational Psychology,a section of the journalFrontiers in PsychologyReceived: 28 May 2020Accepted: 30 June 2020Published: 06 August 2020Citation:Andronikidis A, Bellou V, Stylos N andVassiliadis CA (2020) Editorial:Delineating the Visiting Experience:Matching Destination and StakeholderPersonalities.Front. Psychol. 11:1800.doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01800Editorial: Delineating the VisitingExperience: Matching Destinationand Stakeholder PersonalitiesAndreas Andronikidis 1, Victoria Bellou 2, Nikolaos Stylos 3* and Chris A. Vassiliadis 11Department of Business Administration, School of Business Administration, University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece,2Department of Economics, University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece, 3 Faculty of Social Sciences and Law, School ofEconomics Finance and Management, University of Bristol, Bristol, United KingdomKeywords: visiting experiences, tourism destinations, destination characteristics, stakeholder personalities,tourism industryEditorial on the Research TopicDelineating the Visiting Experience: Matching Destination and Stakeholder PersonalitiesResearch in tourism management has focused a lot on unraveling the “ideal” or “perfect” visitingexperience, in order to support destination management organizations (DMOs), the hospitalityindustry and the local businesses decision-making process (Stylos and Vassiliadis, 2015; Stylos et al.,2016). This has been addressed from different viewpoints and across variousmanagerial disciplines,i.e., destination branding, service experience, business strategy, and communication technologies(e.g., Mainolfi and Marino, 2018). Yet, given the fact that both destinations and stakeholdershave their own personality, this “ideal” or “perfect” visiting experience, is rather utopian as itmay significantly vary among individuals. In fact, research about destinations and stakeholderssupports the idea that the “visiting experience” may vary, depending on the personality of each(Stienmetz, 2018). For this reason, this Research Topic seeks to delineate the role of personality ofboth destinations and stakeholders in achieving a match, which in turn would make the visitingexperience a win-win situation for stakeholders.Visitors are no longer prepared to do exactly what they are told and experience a destinationexactly as others want them to. Furthermore, evolutions that have recently taken place indestination branding and the relevant novel tools that are available to both DMOs and visitors forpromoting and exploring the destinations, respectively, have largely altered the relatingmatching ofdestination and stakeholders, as it was traditionally the case (Blazquez-Resino et al., 2016). In fact,listening to other visitors (with dissimilar profiles and personalities) could potentially improve theirown visiting experience and vice-versa, for example via peer-to-peer (P2P) online communications(Bigné and Decrop, 2019).Alternative matching mechanisms (e.g., p-e fit, push-pull, anticipation, place attachment amongothers) have been proposed to enlighten the decision-making process of stakeholders (e.g., visitors,DMOs) in a tourism destination context (Stylos et al., 2017; Bellou et al., 2018; Taylor and Norman,2019). However, this is only in its infancy as there are many factors and matching parametersthat could be included in relevant destination stakeholders’ decision-making processes (Botti andPeypoch, 2013).Thus, the editorial team put together a call for investigating innovative ways to delineatethe visiting experience, and researchers have made three original research contributions to thisResearch Topic, which exemplify the contribution of different factors to matching destination andtourism stakeholder personalities.Andronikidis et al. Delineating the Visiting ExperienceThe first study explores the extent to which individualpreferences can be classified into clusters, thus offering acontemporary way of matching preferences with destinationsand, subsequently, an optimal tourism destination planning. Indoing so, Øgaard et al. have shown that the preference clustersidentified, although offering useful insights, are non-sufficientwhen it comes to explaining the variability in certain aspectswhich are of primary interest during tourists’ vacations. In fact,the various preference tourist segments demonstrated differencesrelated to trip purchasing, or to the extent to which trip aspectswere offered at the destination.In the second study, Fotiadis et al. investigate a topicrelating to organizational behavior in hospitality and the effectof work-life balance on employees’ psychological well-being.The study indicates that psychological autonomy exerts positiveeffects on both psychological well-being and work-life balance,whereas psychological competence positively influences onlypsychological well-being. Nonetheless, psychological relatednessnegatively affects both psychological well-being and work-life balance of hospitality employees, with potentially negativerepercussions to the perceived experience in the eyes ofhotel guests.The third study examines the elements that make tourists’experiences interesting. Larsen et al. test two different theoreticalframeworks via three surveys. In these three studies, novelty andfamiliarity are fundamental for tourists’ experience, with touristsassessing the degree of interestingness of familiar and unfamiliarattractions, in surroundings they were familiar sand unfamiliarwith, for themselves and other tourists. The authors conclude thattourists’ experiences depend on a combination of familiarity andnovelty, with findings suggesting this for both familiarity-, as wellas for novelty-seekers.Finally, the editorial team of this Research Topic offersa commentary on Blazquez-Resino et al. (2016) work, whoempirically examined how the information posted by DMOswebsites shape an individual’s perceived destination image(PDI). The authors choose to focus on the cognitive andaffective dimensions of image, positing that these two accountfor the tangible physical elements of the destinations underinvestigation, and the feelings aroused in visitors in responseto internal or external stimuli by these destinations that can berather easily be generated by the online context.AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONSAA: conceptualization and draft write-up. VB: research approachand draft write-up. NS: conceptualization, draft write-up,and correspondence. CV: conceptualization and final review.All authors contributed to the article and approved thesubmitted version.REFERENCESBellou, V., Stylos, N., and Rahimi, R. (2018). Predicting hotel attractivenessvia personality traits of applicants: the moderating role of self-esteemand work experience. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 30, 3135–3155.doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-06-2017-0369Bigné, E., and Decrop, A. (2019). “Paradoxes of postmodern tourists andinnovation in tourism marketing,” in The Future of Tourism, eds E. Fayos-Solàand C. Cooper (Cham: Springer), 131–154. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-89941-1_7Blazquez-Resino, J. J., Muro-Rodriguez, A. I., and Perez-Jimenez, I. R.(2016). Differences of perceived image generated through the web site:empirical evidence obtained in spanish destinations. Front. Psychol. 7:1861.doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01861Botti, L., and Peypoch, N. (2013). Multi-criteria ELECTRE methodand destination competitiveness. Tour. Manage. Perspect. 6, 108–113.doi: 10.1016/j.tmp.2013.01.001Mainolfi, G., and Marino, V. (2018). Destination beliefs, event satisfactionand post-visit product receptivity in event marketing. Results from atourism experience. J. Bus. Res. 116, 699–710. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.03.001Stienmetz, J. L. (2018). “Deconstructing visitor experiences: structure andsentiment,” in Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism, edsB. Stangl and J. Pesonen (Cham: Springer), 489–500.Stylos, N., Bellou, V., Andronikidis, A., and Vassiliadis, C. A. (2017). Linkingthe dots among destination images, place attachment, and revisit intentions:a study among British and Russian tourists. Tour. Manage. 60, 15–29.doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2016.11.006Stylos, N., and Vassiliadis, C. (2015). Differences in sustainable managementbetween four-and five-star hotels regarding the perceptions ofthree-pillar sustainability. J. Hosp. Market. Manage. 24, 791–825.doi: 10.1080/19368623.2015.955622Stylos, N., Vassiliadis, C. A., Bellou, V., and Andronikidis, A. (2016).Destination images, holistic images and personal normative beliefs:predictors of intention to revisit a destination. Tour. Manage. 53, 40–60.doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2015.09.006Taylor, L. L., and Norman, W. C. (2019). The influence of mindfulnessduring the travel anticipation phase. Tour. Recreat. Res. 44, 76–90.doi: 10.1080/02508281.2018.1513627Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in theabsence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as apotential conflict of interest.Copyright © 2020 Andronikidis, Bellou, Stylos and Vassiliadis. This is an open-accessarticle distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCBY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, providedthe original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the originalpublication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice.No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with theseterms.Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2 August 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 1800

Editorial: Delineating the Visiting Experience:Matching Destination and Stakeholder Personalities

https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/ws/files/247409457/fpsyg_11_01800.pdf

Editorial: Delineating the Visiting Experience:Matching Destination and Stakeholder Personalities

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Explore Bristol Research