StatementoftheProblem
SincethedevelopmentoftheInternet,socialnetworkingsites (SNS) havegrownrapidlyinpopularity.ModernSNSa r e i n c r e a s i n g l y usedi n b u s i n e s s , cre atingn e w channelsfor
,consumerst o c o n n e c t w i t h c o m p a n i e s a n d o t h e r c u s t o m e r s Y o u n g p e o p l e a r e t h e m o s t popularu s e r o f S N S Theyc a n f i n d o r s h a re i n fo rm a t i o n o f somede s t i n a t i o n s t h e y h a d visitedo n theSN S Andt h e y a re alsoanimportant m a r k e t s e g m e n t o f thetourism.T h i s studyaimstoexploretouristdestination i n f o r m a t i o n s e e k i n g a nddisseminationb e h a v i o r withregardtoinformationaboutSNStohelpmarketersandresearchersunderstandyoungc onsumersandsocialmediamarketingmoreclearly.
Thetrendofusingsocialnetworksites(SNS)isagloballywidespreadphe no me no n S N
.m i l l i o n globalusersrespectively( W o n getat.,2010).TheReportbyComScoreshowst hatmorethan770millionusersvisitedSNSin
0 ) InUSA,7 3 % ofwiredAmerican t e e n s a n d 47%ofonlineadultsuseSNS(Lenhartet at.,2010).Approximately2 4 % oftheMalaysiapopulationu s e F a c e b o o k ( W o n g e / a t , 2 0 1 0 ) M e d i a M e t r i x R e p o r t s t a t e d t h a t 6 7 % o f MalaysianInternetusersareS NSu s e r s (Nguyen,2010).Accordingtoa n e w surveyconductedbytheUKOnlineMeasureme ntCompany(UKOM),theBritishspendmoretime
SNSare web- baseds e r v i c e s p r o v i d i n g t h e f u n c t i o n s o f c r e a t i n g a publico r s e m i - p u b l i c profilet h a t d i s p l a y s a listofother userswithw h o m t h e y a r e linkedt o (Boyd
& Ellison,2008).SNSconsistofvariousfeaturessuch asaprofilepage,whichcontainstheindividualuser’spersonalinformationlike location,educationbackground,s t a t u s , b i r t h d a y information,a n d i n t e r e s t s a m o n g o t h e r t h i n g s O t h e r f e a t u r e s a v a i l a b l e o n S N S i n c l u d e
Tourismdestinationseekingandsharingbehaviorsonsocialnetworkingsites photographorimagealbums,listofconnectionsthattheyhaveapprovedof,wallforpostingcomments,i n s t a n t a n d e m a i l m e s s a g i n g o p t i o n s U s e r s a r e a l s o a b l e t o c r e a t e a n d jo ingroups,aswellas organizeeventsandmakeannouncementso n SNS.
Sincetheintroductiono f SNSin2004,therehasbeena rapida n d dramatic growthof it susage,w h i c h h a s c h a n g e d t h e p u r p o s e , a n d f u n c t i o n a l i t y o f theI n t e r n e t ( K e l l y , K e r r & Drennan,2 0 1 0 ) S N S providea n engaging,i n t e r a c t i v e p l a t f o r m w i t h a greaterco nt ro l o f
'i n f o r m a t i o n f l o w fortheirusers.S N S areusedfor developingrelationships, d i s s e m i n a t i n g information,expandingsocialnetworks,entertainment,etc.PreviousresearchsuggestedthatSN
Sm a i n l y supportp r e - e x i s t i n g socialr e l a t i o n s (Boyd& E l l i s o n , 2007).I n a d d i t i o n , researchf o u n d t h a t S N S are more l i k e l y t o be u s e d b y y o u t h a s a n a v e n u e f o r communicationa n d ha ngingo u t withf r i e n d s (Hempel, 2005).S i m i l a r l y , connectingwithfriendswasfoun dtobethemainreasonofSNSusageamong91%oftheAmericanteens(Lenhart& M a d d e n , 2 0 0 7 , c i t e d i n B o y d & E l l i s o n , 2 0 0 7 ) T h e r e f o r e , S N S n o w s e r v e extensive lya s a l a r g e n e t w o r k f o r d e v e l o p i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s a n d p e e r - t o - p e e r
TheuseofSNSamongyouthisrelatedtotheattitudetowardsSNS Althoughpaststudieshave showna negativeattitudetowardsS N S , t h e majorityviewedS N S favorably(Hirste/at.,2012).Recently,t h o s e whoseeitasagold eno p p o r t u n i t y t o reachtheirtargetmarkethavea d o p t e d SNSa s a n e w m e d i u m fo ra d v e r t i s i n g Althoughpasts t u d i e s g e n e r a l l y indicatedanegativea t t i t u d e towa rdsadvertising (Wangetat.,2002),theattitudetowardsadvertisingonSNSshouldbere- evaluatedsinceitisanewmediumconsistingofnoveland
“i n t e r a c t i v e applications EunandKim(2009)arguedthatconsumers’attitude towardW ebadvertisingm a y n o t b e t h e s a m e a s t h e i r a t t i t u d e t o w a r d t h e W e b a s a m e d i u m i t s e l f Ducoffe( 1 9 9 6 , citedinEun&Kim,2009)claimedthatmedia context hav easignificantinfluenceo n t h e a d v e r t i s i n g v a l u e T h e f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g a t t i t u d e t o w a r d a d v e r t i s i n g a r e “Entertainment”,“ I n f o r m a t i v e n e s s ” , “ I n t e r a c t i v i t y ” , “ I r r i t a t i o n ” , “ C r e d i b i l i t y ” , a n d “Demographic”(Wange i ml.,2002).
Theextensiveu s e ofSNS isnoto n l y a trenda m o n g consumers.L i k e w i s e , t h e incre asedusageo f S NS c a n beo b s e r v e d i n manyo r g a n i z a t i o n s M a n y f i r m s s u c h as WholeF o o d Market,J o h n s o n & J o h n s o n , a n d M c D o n a l d ’ s areu s i n g SNSt o i n c r e a s e b r a n d image
(Draggere tat.,2010).P r o f e s s i o n a l s e r v i c e f i r m s alsoutilize S N S asamarketingt o o l t o executesocialmedia m a r k e t i n g plani n ordertoac hie ve thef i r m s ’ g o a l s ( D r a g g e rc t at.,2010).Thus,advertisersadoptingSNSshouldproviderelevantandaddedvaluecommercial , messagetotheiradvertisements(Kelly,Kerr&Drennan,2010).
Themostv i s i t e d o n l i n e s o c i a l networki s Facebook,f o u n d e d i n 2004an d witho v e r 6 00 millionusersandpresenceinover70countries(Carlson,2011).Facebookallowsus erstocreateaprofileo f themandexploretheprofileso f others,gaining aninsighti n t o o thers’ lifestyleandinterests(Acar&Polonsky,2007).InVietnam,according toVinalin kMediaCompany( 2 0 1 1 ) , a b o u t 5 3 % I n t e r n e t u s e r s ( 1 5 m i l l i o n p e o p l e ) w e r e u s i n g a t l e a s t o n e socialn e t w o r k M a n y F a c e b o o k u s e r s s u g g e s t e d t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n s h a r e d o n S N S w e r e
' alwaysc a r e d a n d a t t r ac t e d, e s p e c i a l l y p h o t o s f r o m a j o u r n e y t h e y h a d pa s se d F o r these reasons,youngpeoplearethefocusofthisstudy.
SNSaremostlyf o r youngc o n s u m e r s ( C h a , 2009) Th is isachannelf o r themt o inter actwithothers.IntheUS,collegestudentsbrowseFacebookanaverageof10—30minutesdaily(Ellisone/ at.,2007),responsiblef o r $200billiona n n u a l l y inexpenditures,orasmuchas“halfthesp endingin theeconomy”(Djamasbictat.,2010).Itwouldbeagreatchannelforthetourismeconomytoinv est.Inthecontextof TourismMalaysia,thelaunchofthelatestTourism
MalaysiaInternetadvertisingwasclaimedtoreflect thesignificance oftheinternetasthemostpreferred m e d i a platformf r o m which t r a ve l e r s c a n obtaintr aveli n f o r m a t i o n
Brown,2 0 1 3 ) P r e v i o u s s t u d i e s a l s o h i g h l i g h t t h e i m p o r t a n t o f theInternetasa marketingtooltoadvancetourism(Wue/.at.,2008;Millsct.at.,2007).
Dundes,2008).GenderdifferenceswereinvestigatedinvariouscontextsinInformationSy stemsliteraturesuchascomputer-relatedattitudesandbehaviors(Whitley,1997); useofe- mail(Gefen&Straub,1 9 9 7 ) ; v i d e o games(Bilgihane/a t , 2 0 1 3 ) ;ande-learning
' (Gonzalez-Gomez e/a t , 2 0 1 2 ) A l t h o u g h t h e r e w e r e n o s t u d i e s h a v e i n v e s t i g a t e d suchbeh aviorsa c r o s s g e n d e r s i n r e l a t i o n t o t o u r i s m , b u t p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s r e v e a l t h a t g e n d e r differencese x i s t i n theus e o f S N S (Lu & Hs i a o , 2 0 0 9 ; S c h l e r e / at.,2005;T r a m m e l & Keshelashvili,2 00 5) Toexamineconsumercharacteristics,theth eoreticalfoundations forthisstudyderivefrommarketingliterature:consumeropinionl eadership(COL)andconsumersusceptibilitytointerpersonalinfluence(CSII).Thesetraitslikelyarei mportantin
,SNS,b e c a u s e c o n s u m e r s c a n i n f l u e n c e o n e a n o t h e r i n v a r i o u s w a y s : a s r o l e m o d e l s , a s imitatorsofpurchaseandconsumptionbehavior,asspreadersofmessagethroughword -of-mouth, andasadvisorstootherconsumerswithlessknowledgeorexperiencewithshopping(Flynnctat.,1996).
ObjectivesoftheStudy
Thiss t u d y a i m s t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n y o u n g p e o p l e ’ s b e h a v i o r s a n d exploreswhata r e theantecedents o f tourismd e s t i n a t i o n s i n f o r m a t i o n s e e k i n g a n d disseminationb e h a v i o r s o f themwithinthe context o f SNS. Toconformtothoseg e n e r a l goals,thestudyaimstoanswerthefollowingresearchquestions:
2 Doesconsumer susceptibilitytointerpersonalinfluence(CSII)affectyoungpeople’stourismdestinationsinfo rmationseekinganddisseminationbehavioronSNS?
ScopeoftheStudy
Thestudywillbeconductedb a s e o naself- administereds u r v e y con du cte d a m o n g youngpeople,from18toearly35, whousuallyuseSNSinVietnam.Atotalof350questionnaireformsweresenttorespondentsby emailanddirectlyontheSNSwebsites.
ResearchContributions
Thiss t u d y a i m s t o e x p l o r e t o u r i s m destinationinformationseekinga n d d i s s e m i n a t i o n behaviorsw i t h regardtoinformationa b o u t SNStohelpmarketersa n d resea rchersunderstandyoungc o n s u m e r s a n d s o c i a l m e d i a m a r k e t i n g m o r e c l e a r l y t h r o u g h h a v i n g deeplyawareness a b o u t themainf a c t o r s affecttoinformatio ns e e k i n g anddissemination behaviorsonSNS.Thestudyalsocanbeusedtobeareferenceforn ewinvestorswhowanttoinvestintouristsectorinVietnaman d todevelopVietnam’stouri stsectorinparticularandeconomicdevelopmentingeneral.
ResearchStructure
Thischapterincludesresearchstatement;problemoutlines,researchobjectivesandscopeofresearch andespeciallyitwilloutlinethestudyprocess,whichquiteimportantforthestudyasitshedalightfort hesuccessfulofmaterthesis.
Thischapterwillpresentrecentdefinitionsrelatedtoconsumeropinionleadership(COL) ,consumersusceptibilitytointerpersonalinfluence(CSII).Baseonthepreviousstudies,thissec tiona l s o i d e n t i f y t h e f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g t o d e s t i n a t i o n s i n f o r m a t i o n seekin ga n d disseminationbehavioronSNS,statesthe
Thisc h a p t e r p r e s e n t s t h e r e s e a r c h p r o c e s s andt h e m e t h o d o l o g y thatw i l l b e u s e d f o r empiricaltestingoftheresearchmodel,whichhasbeendevelopedinchapter2.
Thischapterpresentsthedataanalysisresult, thisisthemostsignificantpartofthestudyasitw i l l c o n t a i n t h e d a t a a n a l y s i s including ofS a m p l e D e s c r i p t i v e Statistics,R e l i a b i l i t y Analysis,E x p l o r a t o r y Factor Analysis,RegressionAnalysisandA N O V A Analysistoprovide av e r y c o m p r e h e n s i v e p i c t u r e a b o u t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g t o t h e fluctuationoflaborproductivityinconstructionprojectinVietnam.
Chapter2willdiscussand reviewabouttheoriesofweb2.0,social networkingsites(SNS),touristd e s t i n a t i o n , f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g o n youngp e o p l e ’ s t o u r i s m d e s t i n a t i o n s i n f o r m a t i o n seekinganddisseminationbehavioronSNS:consu meropinionleadership(COL),consumersusceptibilitytointerpersonalinfluence(CSII)alsoasge nderdifferenceintheuseofSNS,
Web2.0
ThetermWeb2.0orsocialmediawasofficiallydefinedbyO’Reilly(2005)as“thenetworkasplatform, s p a n n i n g allconnectedd e v i c e s ” anditsapplicationsa r e “thosethatmakethemosto f th ei n t r i n s i ca d v a n t a ge s o f thatplatform“ ( O ’ r e i l l y , 2 0 0 5 ) Basedo n theoriginald efinitionofO’Reilly,severaldefinitionshavebeenproposed.HoeggeIat.(2006)defined
Web 2.0 is defined as a philosophy focused on maximizing collective intelligence and adding value for participants through formalized and dynamic information sharing and creation According to Andersen (2007), this term encompasses a range of technologies, including blogs, wikis, podcasts, and RSS feeds, which contribute to a more socially connected web where users can add and edit content The broader definition also incorporates aspects of economics, technology, and new concepts of a connected society (Constantinides, Romero & Boria, 2009) Nielsen (2008) identifies four key elements that define Web 2.0: rich internet applications (RIA), community features and social networks, user-generated content, and mashups that utilize services from other sites as a development platform, along with advertising.
ApplicationTypes Social Effects Enabling Technologies
TheabovefigureshowedthatsocialnetworkisoneofimportanttoolsofWeb2.0.StudyofQuarterly (2007b) statedthat61%ofcompaniessurveyedengagingWeb2.0applicationsand3
SocialNetworkingSites(SNS)
BoydandEllison(2008),SNSare“webbasedservicesthatallowindividualstoc o n s t r u c t a pu blico r s e m i - p u b l i c p ro fi le w i t h i n a boundeds y s t e m , a r t i c u l a t e a listo f otheruserswithwhomt heyshareaconnection,andviewandtraversetheirlistofconnectionsandthosemadebyothers withinthesystem”.Thus,theyemphasizedbuilding
Tourismdestination seekingandsharingbehaviorsonsocialnetworkingsites onlineconnectionsa m o n g peoplewhoshareinterestsan d activitiesan dprovideways foruserstointeractonline(Uhrige/at.,2010).
LikeWeb2.0,SNS,whichisoneofWeb2.0’stools,alsohasmanydefinitions.Thesearethr eeviewpointsfromtheperspectiveofstrategy,researchandtechnologycompanies.
Socialnetworkingreferstosystemsthatallowmembersofaspecificsit etolearnaboutothermembers’s k i l l s, talents,knowledge o r prefere nces.
Asocialnetworks e r v i c e focusesonthebuildinga n d verification o f onlinesocialnetworksforcommunitiesofpeoplewhoshare interestsanda c t i v i t i e s , o r w h o a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n e x p l o r i n g t h e i n t e r e s t s a n d activitieso f o t h e r s I t p r o v i d e s v a r i o u s w a y s f o r u s e r s t o i n t e r a c t - chat,messaging,e m a i l , video,f i l e sharing, blogginga n d discu ssiongroups.
Originally,m o s t SNSw e r e m e m b e r - b a s e d , Internetc o m m u n i t i e s t h a t a l l o w e d u s e r s t o communicateininnovative ways(Pempekefat.,2009).Nowtheyareincreasinglyusedinbusiness,creatingnewchannelsf or consumerstoconnectwithcompaniesandothercustomers.C o m p a n i e s c a n easilyi d e n t i f y t h e i r t a r g e t c u s t o m e r s , t h e n c o m m u n i c a t e a n d
Tourismdestinationseekingandsharingbehaviorsonsocialnetworkingsites distributeinformation tothemonSNS.Ontheotherhand,consumerscanclick“follow
”,postcomments,discusstootherconsumersonSNS,andsoon.Thesocialcommunicatio nservicesprovidedbyS N S inturnaffectthecompany customerr e l a t i o n s h i p , i n c l u d i n g brandimage andbrandawareness(JanseneIat.,
(2011),oneo f m a i n r e a s o n s m a k i n g F a c e b o o k , a n t o p u s e d S N S , b e c o m e a n e f f e c t i v e t o o l f o r marketersisthat“itdevelopedseveralmarketinginstrumentsthatcandirectl ybeemployedbyc o m p a n i e s , includingb a n n e r a d v e r t i s e m e n t s , groups,a n d f a n p a g e s ” F o r e x a m p l e , Facebooka l l o w e d Amazon,a n Americani n t e r n a t i o n a l e l e c t r o n i c commerce c o m p a n y ; t o createa n a p p l i c a t i o n t h a t F a c e b o o k u s e r c a n w r i t e r e v i e w s , s h a r e w i t h t h e i r f r i e n d s o n Facebooka n d e v e n b u y b o o k s f r o m A m a z o n E B a y i s t a l k i n g w i t h b o t h F a c e b o o k a n d MySpaceaboutmakingit easierfortheirmemberstoaccesstheauctionsite(Stroud, 2008).
InordertointegrateSNS intothemarketingstrategies, weshouldunderstandits effectsontheconsumer’sd e c i s i o n - m a k i n g process, a n d thecustomer m o t i v e s f o r usingS N S Accordingt o C o ns t a n t i n i d e se t at.( 2 0 0 9 ) ,c u s t o m e r p r e f e r e n c e s a n d d e c i s i o n s a r e
, increasinglyb a s e d o n inputsprovidedb y partiesbeyondt h e controlofonlinemarket ers:peerreviews,referrals,blogs,tagging,socialnetworks,onlineforums,andsoon.
Product,BrandC hoice,D e a l e r ch oice,P u r c ha s e Timing
Demographic,P e r s o n a l ,Cultural,A t t i t u d i n a l , Perceptual,Sociolog ical,Economic,L e g a l , Environmentaletc.
D.WEB2.0 Experience:Online UncontrollableMar ketingFactors
WebSiteUsability,Inte ractivity,Trust,Aesth etics,OnlineMarketin gM i x
Weblogs,S o c i a lN etworks,Podcasts,C ommunities,Tagging, Forums, BulletingB o a r d s etc.
2.0anditstoolsareanewmarketingcomponent.Controllablestimuli(A) anduncontrollables t i m u l i (B)aret r a d i t i o n a l inf luencersofc o n s u m e r behavior.W iththedevelopmentoftheInternet,twomorevariableswereaddedtothemodel:O n l i n e c o n t r o l l a b l e m a r k e t i n g f a c t o r s ( u s a b i l i t y , i n t e r a c t i v i t y , t r u s t , a e s t h e t i c s andonlinemark etingmix)
(C)andOnlineuncontrollablemarketingfactors(weblogs,socialnetworks,podcastsands o o n ) ( D ) I n g e n e r a l , w i t h the developmentofi n t e r n e t and
,a d v a n t a g e s ofSNS,marketerscanuseSNSasanewadvertisingtool,achanneltomanagecust omerrelationship,a n d empowercustomerstoparticipatei n theirmarketingactivities: brandingreview,productdevelopment,productevaluation,andcustomerservice.Thisisthebasisofatr ansparentandpleasantimage(Moral,2007).
(2014),consumershaveinformations e e k i n g andinformationsharingbehaviors.Howe ver,informationsharingbehaviorinBilgihaneIml.'s(2014)scalecorrespondst o i n f o r m a t i o n d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f W a l s h e / a t 's(2014)v i e w o n i n f o r m a t i o n sharing.Therefore,t he twodimensionsused inthis studyarenowl a b e l e d asinformation
The goal of this approach is to engage the source of social network service (SNS) user influence as a tool for customer influence The objective is to attract users who can be recognized as Consumer Opinion Leaders (COL) aware of the firm, brand, or market offerings These users will then review, discuss, comment on, or recommend the firm’s products According to Gillin (2007), these SNS users can be seen as the "new influencers." Overall, this approach positions SNS as an ideal tool for electronic word of mouth (eWOM), allowing consumers to freely create and disseminate brand-related information within their established social networks of friends, classmates, and acquaintances (Vollmer & Precourt, 2008).
Facebookcommunitieswhereusersarem e m b e r s aret h e m o s t r e l e v a n t form a r k e t e r s (Casteleyn,Mottart,&Rutten,2009).AccordingtoRamsaran-
Facebookprofile:A strongprofileo f theorganizationc a n beestablishedo n Face bookwithitsvisionandmissionstatementstatedandclearlydefined.
Facebookgroups:Thefollowingarethemostimportantaspectsthatcanbeusedtoa ttractconsumers:thenameofthegroup,thegrouptopicandimageofthegroup.
Business/Fan pages:Fanswillreceiveupdatesfromthecompanyasnewinformationisposted.Theorganiz ationcanregularlypostinformationonthebusiness/ fanpage onupcomingevents,articles,games,blogs,podcasts,videosandlinks.
Socialadsandpolls:SocialadscanbeplacedonFacebookaccordingtotheage,sex,location, workplacesandeducationleveloftheusers.PollscanalsobeorganizedonFacebooktoobtai nvaluablefeedbackfromusers.
TourismD e s t i n a t i o n
Therehave beenmanystudiesandmodelsofdevelopmentbasedaroundwhatisreferredtoasthetourismd e s t i n a t i o n ( G u n n , 1 9 9 3 ; Laws,1 9 9 5 ) Theses t u d i e s tendt o perceivet h e
- tourismd e s t i n a t i o n a s a s y s t e m c o n t a i n i n g a numbero f components s u c h a s att ractions, accommodation,t r a n s p o r t , andotherservicesandinfrastructure(Tinsley& Lynch,2001).Determininga d e f i n i t i o n o f t o u r i s m i t s e l f i s a c o m p l e x a n d u n r e s o l v e d issuea s P e a r c e (1989)illustratedinhisattempt:
“Tourismh a s be en d e f i n e d i n variousw a y s b u t m a y b e t h o u g h t o f a s therelati onshipsandp h e n o m e n a arisingo u t o f t h e journeysandt e m p o r a r y s t a y s o f peopletravellingprimarilyf o r leisureorrecreationalp ur po ses Whilewritersdiff eron thedegreetow h i c h otherformsoft r a v e l (e.g.forb u s i n e s s , for h e a l t h ore ducationalp u r p o s e s ) s h o u l d b e i n c l u d e d u n d e r t o u r i s m t h e r e i s a g ro wi n grecognitionthattourismconstitutesoneendofabroadleisurespectrum”.
Baggio,ScottandCooper(2010)definedtourismdestinations“wereconsideredascomplexsystems, representeda s anetworkb y e n u m e r a t i n g t h e stakeholdersc o m p o s i n g i t andthelin kagesthatconnectthem”.
Whilethereisasignificant literatureontheimportanceoftherelationshipsbetweentouristsandserviceorganizationsandc onnectingtourismc o m p a n i e s (Lazzeretti&Petrillo,2006;Morrison,Lynch&Johns,2 004;Pavlovich,2003;Tinsley&Lynch,2001),fewworksare
• availablewhichexamineatourismdestinationfromanetworkpointofthemeasurementoftourism destinationimagehasb e e n importantfor bothr e s e a r c h e r s andp r a c t i t i o n e r s Anaccurateassessmentofimage willhelpdestinationmarketersdesignan effectivemarketingstrategy(Baloglu&Mangaloglu,2001).
Onlines o c i a l traveln e t w o r k i n g i s a l s o changingt h e way t o u r i s t s p l a n t h e i r t r i p s T h e s e websitesallowuserstointeractandprovidereviewsonhotelsoronlocaltouristattractions. SomeexamplesofthesewebsitesareTravBuddy.com,T r a v e l l e r s p o i n t , W A Y N , Woo phy,Passportstamp,andTripAdvisor.com Thelatterisprobablythelargesttravelcommunityon
- theWeb.Itw a s foundedin2000andcurrentlycovers212000h o t e l s , over30,000destinati ons,and74000attractionsworldwide(Miguéns,Baggio&Costa,2008).
ConsumerOpinionLeadership(COL)
COLh a s be e n o f interestt o marketers f o r alongtimea n d h a s b e e n d e f i n e d i n diffe rentways.O r i g i n a l l y , Iti s b a s e d ont h e i d e a t h a t t h e r e are" c e r t a i n p e o p l e w h o a r e m o s t concernedab o u t theissuesandaswellasmosta r t i c u l a t e " (Lazarsfel de t at.,1948).They
' referredtothesepeopleasopinionleaders,andtheyexertinterpersonalinfluence.KatzandLazars feld(1955)definedopinionleadersas“individualswhoarelikelytoinfluenceotherpersonsin theirimmediateenvironment”.Itcanalsoberegardedassocialcommunicationbetweeno p i n i o n g i v e r s a n d o p i n i o n s e e k e r s asinterpersonalc o m m u n i c a t i o n r e f e r s t o an exchangeofinformationbetweenindividuals(King&Summers,1970).
Merton(1957)madeadistinctionbetweenthoseopinionleadersthatinfluenceopinionsinli miteds p h e r e s a n d t h o s e o p i n i o n l e a d e r s w h o e x e r t i n t e r p e r s o n a l influencei n s e v e r a l differentspheres.Previous studieshavealsoexaminedthecharacteristicsofopinionleadersandaddressedtheirinfluenceonother consumers’purchasingbehaviorsinvariousshoppingcontexts.Inastudyofopinionleadersinthewom en’sfashionsegment,KingandSummers(1970)foundsubstantialdifferencesbetweenfashionopi nionleadersandnon- leaders,usingdemographic,sociological,attitudinal,communication,andfashioninvolveme ntmeasures.CoreyandE r i c k s o n (1971)p o s i t e d thatt h e y w e r e “ m o d e l s o f o p i n i o n who couldbeinf luencersonmarketingeffortsbywordofmouth communicationtopeoplearoundtheiri”.
,Andmostof theliteratureonopinionleadershiprelatestointerpersonalc o m m u n i c a t i o n i n ano f f l i n e sphere(Bloch,1986;C o r e y , 1971;F l y n n eia t , 1996),w i t h af e w s t u d i e s investigatingopinionleadershipina n o n l i n e s p h e r e ( E a s t m a n e / a t , 2 0 0 2 ;O'Cass&Fenech,2003;Bailey,2005).
(1996).Nextt h e y c o m p a r e d t h e s e s c o r e s toattitudes t o w a r d t h e I n t e r n e t , a n d f o u n d thatagentswithahigherlevelofsubjectiveknowledgeabouttheInternet weremorelikelytobeopinionleadersabouttheInternet.Inaddition,opinionleadersandagentswithhig herlevelsofsubjectiveknowledgehadam o r e favorableattitudeabouttheInternet.Howev er,
,accordingtoBailey( 2 0 0 5 ) , theyf o u n d si gn if ic anc e o n l y f o r therelationshipw i t h o p i n i o n leadership.S a l e s agentswhowereyoungert h a n themeanage of46yearsoldweremor e
Tourismdestinationseekingandsharingbehaviorsonsocialnetworkingsites likelyt o beo p i n i o n l e a d e r s , a n d th ey h a d a higherl e v e l o f su bj ect iv e k n o w l e d g e o f theInternet.F l y n n e /at.
( 1 9 9 6 )c o n c l u d e d t h a t perceived k n o w l e d g e a n d thewillingness t o discussthe Internetwithothersimpactedtheagents’attitudetowardtheInternet.Theyalsoconcludedthatyo ungeragentswouldplayamajorroleinhowtheInternetwouldbeused.
TheTechnologyA c c e p t a n c e M o d e l ( T A M ) wasuseda n d appliedbyO ' C a s s a n d F enech(2003)toassesstheadoption o f Internetf o r retailusage a m o n g aconveniences a m p l e ofAustralianw e b us ers A m o n g t h e c o n s t r u c t s i n whicht h e y w e r e i n t e r e s t e d w e r e o p i n i o n leadershipandits roleinimpactingwebusage.Theyfoundthatitwasoneoftheantecedentsthatimpacteduser s’perceptionso f theusefulnessa n d easeofuseoftheWebforretailpurchases.
Theabove s t u d i e s s h o w e d t h a t o p i n i o n l e a d e r s h i p h a v e a n i mp act o n co n s u m e r s ’ u s e of productreview websites.Bailey(2005)alsomadeanewdefinitionforopinionleadershipin
• theo n l i n e d o m a i n a s “ E - o p i n i o n leadership”anda d a p t e d t h e o f f l i n e d e f i n i t i o n oft h e constructforthe online domain:C ons ume rs ’ a b i l i t y toinfluenceotheronlineconsumers’opinions( Flynnctat.,1996;Reynolds&Darden,1 9 7 1 ) E-opinionleadersare morelikelythannon-E- opinionleaderstogivetheiropinionsandtheInternetprovidesaforumforthemtodispensetheseopinion s(Bailey,2005).
(1996)appliedtheconcepttomarketingbystating:“opinionleadershipoccurswheni n d i v i d ua l s trytoinfluence the purchasingb e h a v i o r o f otherconsumers i n spec if ic prod uctfields”.Inthemarketingperspective,HazeldineandMiles(2010),appliedresearch
.designdevelopedbyVenkatraman( 1 9 8 9 ) , a lso statedthatopinionl e a d e r s weremotiv atedbyseekinganddisseminationi n f o r m a t i o n withothers,andtheytendedtobemore interconnectedwiththeirpeersthantheothersegments.Consequently,theycaninfluenc eotherpeoplethroughinterpersonalcommunicationmorefrequentlyandeffectively.
Asmentionedin abovechapter2.2.2,opinionleadersaream a j o r sourceo f e W O M communicationandr e g a r d e d asv a l u a b l e informationsourcesb e c a u s e theyfrequentlycommunicatewith others.Morethanthat,theyhaveknowledgeandexpertisethatwillguidethed e c i s i o n m a k i n g o f o p i n i o n s e e k e r s ( V e n k a t r a m a n , 1989;Bertrandias& G o l d s m i t h , 2006).Theyaretr ustedtobecredibleastheysharebothpositiveandnegativeinformation(Schiffman&Kanuk,1 991).Self- confidencehasalsobeenshownamongthecharacteristicsofopinionl e a d e r s becausew h e n a n in dividual h a s se l f - c o n f i d e n ce ; t h e r e i s lessneedf o r himorhertoseekinformationfromothers(Reynolds&Darden ,1971).
Therefore,t h e f i r s t hypothesisw h i c h i s l i n k i n g C O L w i t h y o u n g p e o p l e ’ t o u r i s m destinationsi n f o r m a t i o n s e e k i n g andinformation d i s s e m i n a t i o n o n S N S isfo rmulated a s below:
ConsumerSusceptibilitytoInterpersonalInfluence(CSII)
CSIIhaslongbeena sourceofinterestf o r marketersa n d consumer behavior r e s e a r c h e r s (Bailey,2 0 0 5 ) , u s u a l l y conceptualizedasa g e n e r a l p e r s o n a l i t y traitt h a t v a r i e s a c r o s s individualconsumersandrelatestootherconsumertraitsorb e h a v i o r s (Orth,2005).
( 1 9 8 9 )definedC S I I as“theneedtoidentify or enhanceone’simagewithsignificantot hersthroughtheacquisitionanduseofproductsandbrands,thewillingnesstoconformtotheexpectat ionsofothersregardingpurchasedecision,andthetendencytolearnaboutproductsandservicesbyobserv ingothersand/orseekinginformation fromothers.”
(1989)arguedthatCSIIconstitutesastabletraitthatvariesacrossindividualsandisrelatedtoothertr aitsandcharacteristics.In ordertomeasuretheseinter-individual
Tourismdestinationseekingandsharlngbehaviorsonsocialnetworkingsites differences,t h e y d e v e l o p e d a s c a l e t h a t c o n s i s t e d o f t w o s e p a r a t e d i m e n s i o n s , n a m e l y , susceptibilitytonormativeinfluence(SNI)andsusceptibilitytoinformativeinfluence( SII).
Individuals with a strong need for social connection tend to be less skeptical of advertising and are more likely to engage in protective self-presentation during consumption situations They do not view themselves as autonomous and independent; instead, they see themselves as individuals who seek respect and connection with others As a result, they are easily influenced by the opinions of persuasive others when making decisions and often comply with suggestions to avoid social disapproval.
• theirdisapproval(Beardene/ml.,1989).Seilere/ml.
(2013)alsostatedthatSNIisameasureofhoweasilyapersonc a n beswayedtochangehispositio no n acertaintopic.Themoreeasilyaperson'so p i n i o n canbechanged,thefasterthedise aseorcurecanspread.Thosewhohavelargersocialnetworksarebetterabletospreadthedisease orcuresimplybecausetheycomeincontactwithmorepeople.
( 1 9 8 9 )d e f i n e d S I I r e f e r s t o a n i n d i v i d u a l ’ s t e n d e n c y t o a s k f r i e n d s a n d r elativesforadviceandtoobservewhatbrandsandproductsotherpeopleareusingbeforemakin gapurchasedecision.Hofstede(1984)alsonotedthatrelationsandfriendsgetbetterdealsthanstra ngersandthisisthewayitshouldbe.Theseshowedthatoncearelationshipises tab li she d b e t w e e n a retailera n d a cu s t o m e r , t h e n t h e r e t a i l e r c o u l d e x p e c t a higherloyalty fromt h e c u s t o m e r S i m i l a r l y , t h e c u s t o m e r c a n e x p e c t t h e s e r v i c e a n d p r o d u c t qualityr e n d e r e d t o b e h i g h e r t h a n a t a n u n f a m i l i a r o u t l e t F u r t h e r , c o n s u m e r c o m p l a i n t behaviorsmightbeimpacted(Milner,Fodness&Speece,1993).
Consumer testimonials serve as important informational cues, as they reflect how others have evaluated a product (Shimp, Wood, & Smarandescu, 2005) Individuals who value the opinions and behaviors of others may find these testimonials particularly useful When testimonials come from similar and experienced endorsers, they can provide tangible evidence regarding a product's quality and characteristics (Lord, Lee, & Choong, 2001; Wooten & Reed, 1998) Consumers with high social influence inclination (SII) not only observe their friends and relatives for relevant consumption information but also monitor the experiences of those depicted in testimonial advertising Therefore, when these consumers encounter ads featuring both testimonial information and details about the product’s functional attributes, their evaluations are likely to be more strongly influenced by the testimonial content (Martine et al., 2007).
Previousresearchhasmainlylookedatthenatureandthetypeofendorsersthatshouldbe ,u s e d in testimoniala d v e r t i s i n g F o r example,Pricee/at.
Research indicates that endorsers who share similarities with the target audience can exert greater informational influence than dissimilar endorsers (1989) Additionally, endorsers with high levels of expertise, particularly those with product experience, are generally more persuasive than those with low expertise (Wu & Shaffer, 1987) Therefore, testimonials featuring consumers who are similar to the target audience and possess relevant product experience are likely to provide the most significant informational impact.
,a l s o influence theextenttowhicha n individuali s persuadedb y s u c h aconsumertestimonia l.
Fundamentally,h i g h s u s c e p t i b i l i t y i n d i c a t e s a tendencyt o bei n f l u e n c e d b y o t h e r s w h e n makingdecisions;lows u s c e p t i b i l i t y indicatesm o r e independenceinm a k i n g decision(Clark&Goldsmith,2 0 0 6 )
Tourismdestinationseekingandsharingbehaviorsonsocialnetworkingsites 20 ofmouth,informationseeking).Youngpeoplemayyieldto friends’influencebecausetheypossessrelevantinformation.Theyalsotendtoprovidenecessary informationtotheirpeersbecauses u c h b e h a v i o r h e l p s t h e m c o n s t r u c t p o s i t i v e self-identities( M a n g l e b u r g e /a t , 2004).The refore,weassumethat:
H2b.Consumersusceptibilitytointerpersonalintluence(CSII)haspositiveeffectonyoungpeop le’stourismdestinationsinformationdisseminationbehavioronSNS.
GenderD i f f e r e n c e s
PreviousstudiesrevealedthatgenderdifferencesexistintheuseofSNS(Lu&Hsiao,2009;Schlere/ at.,2005;Trammel & Keshelashvili,2 0 0 5 ) Gen de ris aninfluentialv a r i a b l e i n
(2005)stated thatf e ma l e bloggersusemorewordsthan males.NowsonandOberlander(2006)foundthat femalesputmoree f f o r t i n t o p o s t i n g o n l i n e c o n t e n t t h a n m a l e s F o r e x a m p l e , f e m a l e s t e n d t o s e l f - disclosem o r e t otheirg o o d f r i e n d s ( C a l d w e l l & Peplau,1 9 8 2 ) , changethe l e v e l o f self- disclosurem o r e d e p e n d i n g o n thei n t i m a c y o f relationships( D i n d i a & Allen,1 9 9 2 ) ,aremoresociableandsensitive,havemoreintimatesocialnetworks(Wheeler,Reis,&Nezlek,1 983),a r e m o r e activelyinvolvedini n t i m a t e conversation(Walker,1994),a r e m o r e motivatedtocreateandmaintainrelationshipsbytheavoidanceofisolation
(Tannen,1992),andtoformmoresocio-emotion- orienteds o c i a l networks( K a r we i t &Hansell,1 9 8 3 ) thanmales.Tannen(1990)expoundedi nherbook“YouJustDon’tUnderstand”thatwomenandmenfailtounderstandeachotherbecauseth eyspeakindifferentlanguagecodesandlistenwithdifferentpriorities.Shestressedthatthediff erencesneededtob e revealedandunderstoodsothatcommunicationbetweenthesexescouldbeimpr oved.
Research indicates that males are more likely to engage in common activities and communicate primarily to enhance their social standing, while they prefer task-oriented social networks In contrast, females tend to focus on personal and emotional communication, fostering more stable relationships Studies have shown that females often possess more extensive social networks, suggesting their friendship behaviors are generally more active compared to males Furthermore, recent findings highlight that gender influences information sharing and dissemination behaviors.
Suchgenderd if fe re nces h a v e a l r e a d y b e e n f o u n d i n computer- mediated c o m m u n i c a t i o n Forexample,femalesusePCe-mail tocommunicateaboutprivatemattersmorethanmales(Krautetat.,1998),andaremoresatisfiedwith communicationviaPCe- iriail,andaremorelikelyt o u t i l i z e i t t o b u i l d intimater e l a t i o n s h i p s (McKenna,G r e e n & G l e a s o n , 2 0 0 2 ) Therefore,wew o u l d expectt h a t femalesw i l l h a v e morep e r s o n a l , moreemotionally
, involved,and morestablefriendships,and expandtheirsocialn e t w o r k i n g sitew h e n comparedwithmales.Thehypothesisisformulated asbelow:
Figure 2.3: Research Model Consumer opinion leadership (COL)
Destinations information seeking behavior on SNS lb (+)
Consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence (CSII)
Destinations information dissemination behavior on SNS Tourismdestinationseekingandsharingbehaviorsonsocialnetworkingsites 22
Thischaptermentionsaboutdefinitionandtheoreticalbackgroundofeachconceptinthemodel.Fromprevio usstudies,youngpeople’stourismdestinationsinformationseekingand
• disseminationbehaviorsonSNSareimpactedbythreefactors:COL,CSIIandgender.Totally,we havethreehypothesesinthisstudy.
•Exploratory Factor Analysis test Total variance extracted test
OL,CSII and genderon destinationsinformationseeking and disseminationbehaviorsonSNS.T h e researchprocedurewasimplementedthroughac o m b i n a t i o n betweenqualitativer e s e a r c h andq u a n t i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h tof i n d t h e a n s w e r f o r r e s e a r c h questions,including:Researchprocedure,researchdesign,re searchscale,samplesize,datacollectionprocedureanddataanalysismethod.
ResearchProcedure
QualitativeResearchDeslgn
Inq u a l i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h , t h e p u r p o s e i s t o c l a r i f y t h e c o n c e p t s a n d i n t e r p r e t t h e i t e m s i n measurements c a l e s i n t o S N S u s e o f y o u n g p e o p l e i n V i e t n a m c o n t e x t T h e m o d e l a n d hypothesesw e r e testedf r o m a self- administereds u r v e y conducteda m o n g youngpeo pl e, fromteenstopeoplein theirearly35,whousuallyuseSNSinVietnam.Themainresearchisc o n d u c t e d b y q u a l i t a t i v e m e t h o d t h r o u g h q u e s t i o n n a i r e s A t o t a l o f 350q u e s t i o n n a i r e formswerese nttorespondentsbyemailanddirectlyon theSNSwebsites.The202usablequestionnaires collectedrepresentedaresponserateof57%.
Allth e variables w e r e m e a s u r e d u s i n g s c a l e s a d a p t e d f r o m p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s Athree- sectionq u e s t i o n n a i r e w a s developedt o detailtourismd e s t i n a t i o n s i n f o r m a t i o n seekinga n d d i s s e m i n a t i o n b e h a v i o r o n S N S o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s T h e f i r s t s e c t i o n a s k e d participantst o reportt he ir age, theirgenderan d whethert h e y u s e S N S or not,whatS N S
The article explores participants' use of Social Networking Sites (SNS) in seeking and disseminating information about tourism destinations It includes six questions focused on SNS usage and tourism-related behaviors Additionally, it features seven questions aimed at measuring Consumer Orientation Level (COL) and Consumer Social Influence Index (CSII), adapted from the work of Bilgihan, Peng, and Kandampully (2014) and informed by previous studies on SNS and information behaviors The study employs a scale developed by Reynolds & Darden (1971) for COL and utilizes a four-item measure on a seven-point scale, as established by Bailey (2005), to assess informational influence relevant to consumer behavior online Out of the four items, three were retained for their applicability to tourism information seeking, while one was omitted Participants rated their SNS usage frequency on a five-point Likert scale, and their agreement with CSII statements on a separate five-point scale.
Theoriginalq u e s t i o n n a i r e w a s i n English,a n d wastranslatedi n t o Vietnamesef o r respondentsunlikelytobesufficientfluentinEnglish.Double-translationtechnique(Marin
& Marin,1 9 9 1 ) a n d Back- translationt e c h n i q u e (Brislin,1 9 8 0 ) w e r e usedtoensureequivalenceo f m e a n i n g s
F i r s t l y , t h e E n g l i s h v e r s i o n o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e ( t h e O r i g i n a l Language)w a s t r a n s l a t e d i n t o V i e t n a m e s e (theT a r g e t L a n g u a g e ) b y t h e a u t h o r ’ s superviso r.TheauthorthentooktheVietnameseversion andtranslatedi t intotheEnglishversionwit houtconsultingwiththesupervisor.Next,theauthorcomparedthetwoEnglishversionstom akesurethatthereisnosignificantdifferencei n meaningf r o m theintendedgoalofthepr ojecta n d toidentifyproblems wi th thetranslations( o d d wording,i m p r o p e r meaning,a n d i n c o m p l e t e s e n t e n c e s ) F i n a l l y , t h e a u t h o r e n g a g e d t h e s u p e r v i s o r i n dis cussionsastowhathadbeendoneandhowtoresolvediscrepancies.
QuantitativeResearchDesign
WemeasureC O L througha four- items c a l e ofBilgihan,P e n g andKandampully ( 2 0 1 4 ) , whichwasadapted fromscaleofReynoldsandDarden(1971)
Myf r i e n d s andf a m i l y o f t e n askmya d v i c e aboutsometourismdes tination.
Myf r i e n d s com e tom e m o r e o f t e n thanI gotothemf o r information
WemeasureC S I I througha three- items c a l e ofBilgihan,PengandKandampully( 2 0 1 4 ) , whichwasadaptedfromfour- itemscaleofBailey(2005).
1 Doyou “becomeafan”ofor“like”sometourismpageson SNS?
(1998)s u g g e s t e d a m i n i m u m o f a t l e a s t f i v e r e s p o n d e n t s f o r e a c h e s t i m a t e d p arameter,w i t h a ratioo f 1 0 respondentsp e r parameterc o n s i d e r e d a s mosta p p r o p r i a t e Haire/at.
(1995)alsorecommendedthattheminimumsamplesizeshouldbebetween1 0 0 and150.Wehav e13parameter,sothe sample sizewhichislargerthannx10—1 3 0 isappropriateinthisstudy.
Thed a t a o f s t u d y w i l l b e c o l l e c t e d t h r o u g h q u e s t i o n n a i r e s thats e n t t o r e s p o n d e n t s b y Yahoo! email,GoogledocsanddirectlyonFacebook,themostpopularS NS websites.Bythisway,th eauthorsentthesurveylinktorespondentsandtheycananswerthesurveybyclickingonthelin k,keying theiranswersandsubmittingthelinktotheauthortomakesurerespondentsunderstandingclearlyatth ebeginningofinterviews.
C r o n b a c h ’ s a l p h a a n d exploratoryfactorA n a l y s i s w o u l d e v a l u a t e t h e r e l i a b i l i t y andv a l i d i t y o f m e a s u r e m e n t scales.Then,linearregressionwasconductedtotes ttherelationshipbetweenindependent variablesanddependentvariablesasproposedhypotheses. 3.3.4.1 DescriptiveStatistic
Aftercollectingdata frommainsurvey,theExplorationFactorAnalysismethodwo uldbe appliedt o e x a m i n e t h e f a c t o r i a l s t r u c t u r e o f t h e s c a l e s a n d t o e x p l o r e t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p betweenthevariables.Thedataweresubjectedtoexploratoryfactoranalysis usingprinciplecomponentanalysisandPromaxrotationin theconditionofKMOvaluemorethan0.7andfactorloadingare over0.5.Haire/ml. (2006)stateditemswithfactorloadinglessthan0.5andhadcommunalitiesl ess than0.6shou ldbeexcluded.Hutchesona n d Sofroniou(1999)alsoa r g u e d t h e K M O m e a s u r e o f s a m p l i n g a d e q u a c y t h a t w a s h i g h e r t h a n 0 7 w o u l d indicateagoodacceptance. 3.3.4.3.Reliability
Connely(2011)stated:“Cronbach’salphaisusedasonlyonecriterionf o r j u d g i n g instru mentsorscales.Itonlyindicatesiftheitems“hangtogether;”it doesnotdetermineiftheyaremeasuringtheattributetheyaresupposedtomeasure.
Table3.4:Cronbach’sAlphaReliabilityCoefficient(George&Malley,2003)Cronbach’s a l p h a Internalc o n s i s t e n c y o>0.9 0.8< o