Microsoft Word 2007 ichrie conference Proceedings Final-Final 06-06-07. doc

Table 3 
Regression Analysis Results for Hypotheses Tested
 
β
 for each dependent BPI 
Personality Dimension 
Sincerity Excitement 
Competence Sophistication Ruggedness 
Group 1 (N = 68) 
0.153 
0.207 
0.155 
0.113 
0.145 
Group 2 (N = 53) 
* 
* 
* 
0.296 
* 
* not significant 
For testing hypothesis H1a, all BPI dimensions were regressed against PPI dimensions for respondents 
from Group 1 to demonstrate any significant influence of the personality preference of the respondents on the 
perceived destination brand personality of their preferred brand. The dimensions of “sincerity” (
β
= 0.153, 
t 
= 1.577, 
p = 
0.001), “excitement” (
β
= 0.207, 
t 
= 1.462, 
p = 
0.001), “competence” (
β
= 0.155, 
t 
= 1.412, 
p = 
0.001), 
“sophistication” (
β
= 0.113, 
t 
= 1.069, 
p
= 0.001) and “ruggedness” (
β
= 0.145, 
t 
= 1.373, 
p = 
0.001) for the 
personality preference of the respondents demonstrated an influence on all perceived destination brand personality 
dimensions. This supports the hypothesis that the personality preference of the respondents in Group 1 has a positive 
influence on the perceived destination brand personality of a preferred tourism destination. 
To test hypothesis H1b, a similar regression analysis on Group 2 was conducted. The preferred personality 
dimensions of “sincerity”, “excitement”, “competence” and “ruggedness” for the respondents from this group 
showed no significant influence on the perceived personality of the destination brand. This demonstrates the contrast 
between the influence of the PPI on the BPI for Groups 1 and 2. However, an unexpected result was obtained for the 
dimension of ‘sophistication’ (
β
= 0.296, 
t 
= 2.305, 
p = 
0.001). The significant beta value indicates that there is an 
influence from the preferred personality in this dimension on respondents’ perceived personality of a destination 
brand for which they had no preference. 

---