hrcak mascot   Srce   HID

Izvorni znanstveni članak
https://doi.org/10.20867/thm.25.2.5

What motivates posting online travel reviews? Integrating gratifications with technological acceptance factors

Shuchita Bakshi ; University of Jammu School of Hospitality and Tourism Management University of Jammu, Jammu, India
Nikita Dogra ; University of Jammu School of Hospitality and Tourism Management University of Jammu, Jammu, India
Anil Gupta   ORCID icon orcid.org/0000-0002-9804-0398 ; University of Jammu School of Hospitality and Tourism Management & The Business School University of Jammu, Jammu, India

Puni tekst: engleski, pdf (558 KB) str. 335-354 preuzimanja: 371* citiraj
APA 6th Edition
Bakshi, S., Dogra, N. i Gupta, A. (2019). What motivates posting online travel reviews? Integrating gratifications with technological acceptance factors. Tourism and hospitality management, 25 (2), 335-354. https://doi.org/10.20867/thm.25.2.5
MLA 8th Edition
Bakshi, Shuchita, et al. "What motivates posting online travel reviews? Integrating gratifications with technological acceptance factors." Tourism and hospitality management, vol. 25, br. 2, 2019, str. 335-354. https://doi.org/10.20867/thm.25.2.5. Citirano 19.09.2021.
Chicago 17th Edition
Bakshi, Shuchita, Nikita Dogra i Anil Gupta. "What motivates posting online travel reviews? Integrating gratifications with technological acceptance factors." Tourism and hospitality management 25, br. 2 (2019): 335-354. https://doi.org/10.20867/thm.25.2.5
Harvard
Bakshi, S., Dogra, N., i Gupta, A. (2019). 'What motivates posting online travel reviews? Integrating gratifications with technological acceptance factors', Tourism and hospitality management, 25(2), str. 335-354. https://doi.org/10.20867/thm.25.2.5
Vancouver
Bakshi S, Dogra N, Gupta A. What motivates posting online travel reviews? Integrating gratifications with technological acceptance factors. Tourism and hospitality management [Internet]. 2019 [pristupljeno 19.09.2021.];25(2):335-354. https://doi.org/10.20867/thm.25.2.5
IEEE
S. Bakshi, N. Dogra i A. Gupta, "What motivates posting online travel reviews? Integrating gratifications with technological acceptance factors", Tourism and hospitality management, vol.25, br. 2, str. 335-354, 2019. [Online]. https://doi.org/10.20867/thm.25.2.5

Rad u XML formatu

Sažetak
Purpose –The aim of the present study is to understand the effect of travelers’ motivations and technological acceptance factors on intentions to post online reviews.
Design- Uses and gratification and the extended unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT2) were applied as the basis of the present study.
Methodology – A structured questionnaire was designed on the basis of the previous literature. 600 questionnaires were distributed out of which 273 valid responses were considered for statistical analysis.
Findings – The results reveal that altruism, reciprocity, effort expectancy, habit and hedonic motivations have positive influence, whereas economic rewards negatively influence the intentions of travelers to post online reviews. However, there is no significant relationship between social influence and review posting intentions of travelers. Moreover, a significant relationship was observed between altruism and effort expectancy; reciprocity and effort expectancy and habit and
effort expectancy. Further, both behavioural intentions and habit were significant predictors of actual usage.
Originality/ Value – The present study is among the few studies which investigate the effect of motivational factors in conjunction with technological acceptance factors on travel review posting intentions.

Ključne riječi
Online reviews; Uses and Gratification; Extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology; Motivations

Hrčak ID: 227726

URI
https://hrcak.srce.hr/227726

▼ Article Information



1. INTRODUCTION

Emergence of social media has transformed and revolutionized the functioning of travel and tourism industry, which is experience-oriented in nature (Wang, Kirillova and Lehto 2017). Social networking sites provide easy and hassle-free platform for travelers to post and share their travel experience (Wang, Huang, Li and Peng 2016), information (Rode 2016), pictures (Sung, Ah Lee, Kim and Choi 2016), stories (Munar and Jacobsen 2014) and simultaneously receive suggestions and recommendations from other travelers (Lee, Reid and Kim 2014; Wang, Kirillova and Lehto 2017). The most significant impact of social media platforms on the travel business is the democratization of online reviews, which have emerged as powerful marketing and service information channel that influences customers purchase decisions (Crespo, Gutiérrez and Mogollón 2015; Neirotti, Raguseo and Paolucci 2016). Amaro and Duarte (2015) observed that reviews posted by travelers are perceived to be more reliable and trustworthy as compared to direct communication by the marketers. Recently, Yan and Wang (2018) observed that online reviews have potential to create referral value, knowledge value and influential value.

According to industry estimates, 89% of millennials finalize their travel plan based on online travel reviews posted by fellow travelers (Carnoy 2017) and 76% travelers believe that online travel reviews give them information and knowledge which is not available anywhere else (Deloitte Consulting LLP 2015). Recent report by Trip Advisor, indicates that 83% of travelers actively read reviews before booking a hotel and 53% of travelers will not book a hotel that is without reviews; 60% of people read review about restaurant or café before visiting them; 68% of travelers refer to online reviews before selecting an attraction ("How Reviews Help Your Business | TripAdvisor Insights" 2018), ("How Reviews Help Your Business | TripAdvisor Insights" 2018),

Lee et al. (2014) in their study observed that many online communities fail to grow beyond a certain limit because only 10-20% of its members share their knowledge on these platforms. Barreda, Okumus, Nusair and Bilgihan (2016) also examined the knowledge sharing behaviour on online social networks and observed that the biggest challenge for tourism firms is to convince people to share their experiences on various online social networks. Posting content on social media is an integrative process which constitutes of three fundamental elements: experience, motivation and technological acceptance factors. Experience, either good or bad about a destination or service, acts as stimulus and encourages consumers to contribute content on social media; consumer’s motivation (internal or external) further activates this process and technology facilitates posting intentions and technological acceptance factors moderate the relationship between satisfaction and eWOM intentions (Yang 2013). Riege (2005) noted that technological barriers influence the knowledge sharing activities and hence should be examined while studying intentions to share knowledge (Hsu and Lin 2008).

In context of online travel reviews, there is no study that combines motivational factors and technology acceptance factors in a single framework. To address this gap, the present study combines technological acceptance factors and travelers’ motivations and examine their role in influencing the behavioural intentions and actual behaviour to post travel reviews on social media platforms. In this study, we use the Uses and Gratification theory (U&G) to derive travelers’ motivation and the Extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT2) to derive the technology acceptance factors. As UTAUT2 has a better predictive validity and examines technology acceptance from consumers’ perspective (Venkatesh et al. 2012), we deviate from the existing studies that have used Technology Acceptance Model (Hsu and Lin 2008; Yang 2013). The paper intends to contribute to academic literature by examining the role of technological factors in intention to post online travel reviews and also, we hope that our findings will of use to travel firms and destination marketers who intend to encourage travelers to share their travel experiences on various social media platforms. This paper is structured as follows: Section two explains the theoretical background. Section three describes the research model and hypotheses, section four put forward the research methodology, section five explains the data analysis & results and section six concludes the paper by discussion, major research implication and limitations.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Uses and Gratification

Uses and Gratification theory has been widely used to understand the psychological needs of a consumers and their motives to use a particular media (Katz, Blumler and Gurevitch 1974). Uses refer to the selection of particular media by the users to satisfy their needs or desires; Gratifications refer to the level of satisfaction obtained from using the media and motivation refers to the stimulation which facilitates the use of particular media (Alremeithi and Faisal 2017). Although, Uses and Gratification framework is deeply rooted in mass communication literature (Blumler and Katz 1974) and traditional form of media such as radio (Herzog 1944), newspaper (Elliott and Rosenberg 1987), television (Rubin 1983) but with the evolution of ICT’s this theoretical perspective has proved to be an effective approach to investigate consumers’ media usage (Ruggiero 2000), and one of the key motivations to study social media usage (Chiang 2013; Krause, North and Heritage 2014 and Quan-Haase and Young 2010). U&G theory has been empirically validated by various researchers in context of virtual community participation (Dholakia et al.2004); blogs (Liu, Cheung and Lee 2015); Social networking sites (Chiang 2013). Prior literature has identified different user-oriented gratifications attained from using different type of media such as information, entertainment, remunerative and relational (Dolan, Conduit, Fahy and Goodman 2015); content, process and social (Stafford and Gillenson 2004); social/affection, venting negative feelings, reorganization needs, entertainment and cognitive needs (Leung 2013); belongings, hedonism, Self - esteem, reciprocity (Pai and Arnott 2013); altruistic, personal, hedonic and social (Ab Rahman 2017); information, entertainment, social interaction, self-expression and impression management (Gao and Feng 2016).

In order to understand the role of technological acceptance factors extended unified theory of acceptance and use of technology is applied.

2.2. Extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology

Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology is an amalgamation of different theories/ models i.e: theory of reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975), the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 1991), the technology acceptance model (Davis 1989), the motivational model (Vallerand 1997), the model of PC utilization (Thompson, Higgins and Howell 1991), the innovation diffusion theory (Rogers 1995) and the social cognitive theory (Bandura 1986) which has identified four key factors: performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence and facilitating conditions as predictors of behavioural intentions to use a technology (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis and Davis 2003). To overcome the limitations of UTAUT, an extended version of UTAUT was developed by Venkatesh et al. (2012) which mainly focused on the consumers rather than organization. In order to be consumer centric UTAUT 2 comprises of three additional constructs i.e. hedonic motivations, habit, price value in comparison to UTAUT model. UTAUT2 has been empirically validated in various contexts such as mobile banking (Alalwan, Dwivedi and Rana 2017), mobile apps (Antunes and Amaro 2016), education (Escobar-Rodríguez and Carvajal-Trujillo 2014), social media (Herrero, San Martín and García De los Salmones 2017) and tourism industry (Morosan and DeFranco 2016).

The proposed model includes three gratifications which are relevant to the context of the study: a) altruism-which is one of the most important motivating factor which reduces communication barriers and promote participation and contribution on online communities (Yoo and Gretzel 2008; Cheung and Lee 2012; Magno et al. 2018) b) economic rewards-according to social exchange theory, individual always weigh cost (efforts) and benefits (rewards) before indulging in an activity. Rewards have been studied as an important extrinsic motivator for contributing content on virtual communities (Muntinga et al. 2011;Goes et al. 2016) and c) reciprocity which is regarded as important facilitator for knowledge sharing in online communities (Wasko and Faraj 2005; Happ et al. 2016; Belanche et al. 2018).

Further, four technological factors derived from UTAUT2 have been included in the proposed model which includes a) effort expectancy- a prospective contributor will participate more on online platforms if the given technology is user friendly and involves minimum physical and cognitive efforts (Ayeh et al. 2013); b) social influence- It is believed that in a social setting people tend to behave in a manner which is acceptable in their social circle, thus influence of important others play a vital role in participating in online communities (Hsu and Lin 2008); c) hedonic motivation – previous studies suggest that individual attributes like social status, entertainment needs etc. have a significant impact on the willingness to contribute on social networking platforms (Lee and Ma 2012) ; and d) habit- Shah (2006), observed that the motivation of regular contributors to post frequently on e-platforms is not limited to extrinsic factors like economic rewards or social influence but is often a result of routinised behaviour i.e. habit. The constructs excluded in the model include – performance expectancy, price value and facilitating condition. As the benefits or expected utility of posting online reviews is captured through the three gratifications, we dropped performance expectancy to avoid confounding effects. As there is no monetary cost involved in posting online reviews, price value was irrelevant to the context and hence was not considered in the proposed model. Finally, this study included only those people, who had an experience of posting online reviews, and have easy access to internet thereby making facilitating condition irrelevant to the context of the study. The next section will discuss the proposed hypotheses based on U&G and UTAUT-2 theories in context of online review posting intentions.

3. HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT

3.1. Altruism

Altruism is defined as a virtue of selfless and unconditional kindness towards others without any expectation of return (Cheung and Lee 2012). Altruism is an intrinsic motivation through which an individual feel contented by helping others. In travel and tourism industry travelers often share their experiences and knowledge with others in order to help or warn them, to appreciate or give feedback to the service providers. The online content contributors who feel good while helping other consumers are more likely to engage in reviews posting behavior (Bronner and de Hoog 2011; Tong et al. 2013). Altruism has been considered as an important factor to motivate consumers to engage in WOM (Sundaram et al. 1998), eWOM (Bronner and de Hoog 2011; Tong et al. 2013; Wang and Fesenmaier 2013) and online travel reviews (Parikh et al. 2015). Previous studies have established a positive effect of altruism on individual’s intentions to post content (Alexandrov et al. 2013; Wang and Fesenmaier 2013; Yoo et al. 2013). Individuals with higher altruistic motivations are eager to spend more time and energy on online communities, further leading to adopt technology more readily and easily (Hsu and Lin 2008; Hung, Lai and Chang 2011).

Based on the above findings, the first hypothesis is:

H1a: Altruism positively influences the travelers’ intentions to post online reviews.

H1b: Altruism positively influences effort expectancy of travelers to post online reviews.

3.2. Reciprocity

Online knowledge communities are embedded in social exchange process and therefore, for the sustainability and survival of these communities the exchange must be equitable (Lai and Chen 2014). Reciprocity can be defined as an individual’s obligation to pay back the favour received from online communities (Bjørndalen 2014). People generally have limited time, energy and knowledge, therefore, they often expect benefits from sharing these restricted resources (Lai and Chen 2014). Reciprocity is a form of negotiated exchange in which contributors assume future benefits for their present behaviour (Yiu and Law 2012). Previous literature has suggested reciprocity as an important extrinsic factor which motivates the individual to contribute on social media platforms (Feng and Ye 2016; Moghavvemi, Sharabati, Paramanathan and Rahin 2017). Reciprocity has two main principles a) people should return favor to those who have helped them b) people should not harm those who have helped them. Various researchers have established that reciprocity positively affect the intentions of individuals to post content online (Hew and Hara 2007; Oh 2011). People who have higher reciprocity motivations exhibit more efforts on social media platforms, thus, overcoming the resistance to use technology (Hsu and Lin 2008; Hung, Lai and Chang 2011).

Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:

H2a: Reciprocity positively influences travelers’ intentions to post online reviews.

H2b: Reciprocity positively influences effort expectancy of travelers to post online reviews.

3.3. Economic Rewards

In accordance with Economic Exchange Theory, people expect economic rewards in exchange of their knowledge (Bock and Kim 2002). Economic rewards in the form of incentives, bonus points, monetary benefits, discounts, giveaways and prize distribution are extrinsic factors that motivate the individuals to post online reviews (Krasonikolakis et al. 2014; Tong et al. 2013). Yang and Lai (2010) in their study also found similar results that individuals who receive economic rewards in exchange of their participation are keener to post content online. Economic rewards are considered as an expression of acknowledgement to the contributors in order to appreciate their decision of posting reviews on these communities (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004). Previous literature has established positive relationship between economic rewards and intentions to contribute on social media platforms (Barreda, Okumus, Nusair and Bilgihan 2016; Yang and Lai 2010).

Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:

H3: Economic rewards positively influence travelers’ intentions to post online reviews.

3.4. Effort Expectancy

Effort expectancy is one of the most important predictors of behavioural intention and can be defined as the degree of ease associated with the use of particular technology (Venkatesh et al. 2003). Venkatesh (2003) adapted this variable from the preexisting constructs, i.e. perceived ease of use of TAM/ TAM 2; Complexity of The Model of PC Utilization and ease of use of The Innovation Diffusion Theory. In the context of social media, effort expectancy is the level of exertion, individual associates with the use of social media. While using social media individual might experience a component of complication which is related to their cognitive abilities. Therefore, in our study effort expectancy is the degree of effort exerted by a traveler to post reviews on social media platforms (Davis 1989). Consumers who perceive social media platforms easy to use and operate are motivated to post content online. Extant literature has established a positive relationship between effort expectancy and consumers’ adoption of social media platforms (Al-Busaidi and Olfman 2014; Kwon, Park, and Kim 2014; Hsu and Lin 2008). Previous literature has also argued that user friendly technology results to a stronger habit formation (Herrero et al. 2017). Pillet and Carillo (2016), in their study revealed a significant and positive relationship between effort expectancy and habit of using that particular technology.

Therefore, we posit that:

H4a: Effort Expectancy positively influences the travelers’ intentions to post online reviews.

H4b: Effort Expectancy positively influences habit of travelers to post online reviews.

3.5. Social Influence

Social influence is described as the level to which consumers perceive the opinion of the people (family and friends) important for them to adopt a particular technology (Venkatesh et al. 2003). It is originated from three constructs of existing models, i.e. subjective standards in Theory of Reasoned Action, The Technology Acceptance Model 2, The Theory of Planned Behavior; social factors in The Model of PC Utilization and ease of use and image in The Innovation Diffusion Theory. Previous literature has proved that social influence is an important predictor of behavioural intentions in various context, for example m- commerce (Chong 2013), education (Lewis et al. 2013), online music services (Martins 2013) and social networking sites (Nikou and Bouwman 2013).

In our study social influence is about whether a traveler believes his/her social circle will appreciate them for contributing in online communities or not.

Therefore, we hypothesize:

H5: Social Influence positively influences travelers’ intentions to post online reviews.

3.6. Hedonic Motivation

Hedonic motivation refers to the fun and pleasure associated with the use of particular technology (Venkatesh et al. 2012). It is an intrinsic motivation and is considered similar to the perceived enjoyment of Technology Acceptance Model (Venkatesh et al. 2012). Hedonic motivation is viewed as a key predictor of behavioural intention for the adoption of technology (Brown and Venkatesh 2005; Venkatesh et al. 2012). Various researches have established a positive relationship between hedonic motivation and behavioural intentions (Alalwan, Dwivedi and Williams 2014; Herrero, San Martín and García de los Salmones 2017). In our study, hedonic motivation can be defined as fun, entertainment or pleasure, travelers derive from posting a review on social media platforms. Greater the fun and pleasure travelers derive by posting an online review, the stronger will be their intentions to post online travel reviews.

In consequence, we propose the following research hypothesis:

H6: Hedonic motivation positively influences travelers’ intentions to post online reviews.

3.7. Habit

Habit can be defined as an extent to which an individual performs certain behaviour subconsciously because of learning (Alazzam, Basari and Sibghatullah 2015; Venkatesh et al. 2012). This construct not only reflect the results of past experiences but also predicts the present and future behaviour of individuals (Ajzen 2002; Venkatesh et al. 2012). Prior research found a significant influence of habit on behavioural intention and adoption of technology (Lewis, Fretwell, Ryan and Parham 2013; Venkatesh et al. 2012; Wong, Tan, Loke and Ooi 2014). For a non- user of social media platforms, it is impossible to form a habit therefore, In the context of present study, frequent and repetitive use of social media (social networking sites, blogs, Instagram) by the consumers for travel planning and information searching will positively influence their intentions to post online travel reviews and actual usage (Escobar-Rodriguez and Carvajal-Trujillo 2014; Hsiao et al. 2016; Järvinen, Ohtonen and Karjaluoto 2016).

Therefore, we hypothesize:

H7a: Habit positively influences travelers’ intentions to post online reviews.

H7b: Habit positively influences travelers’ usage behaviour to post online reviews.

3.8. Behavioural Intentions

Behavioural Intentions is defined as strength of an individual to perform a particular behaviour (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). Social media provide a platform for travelers to express their opinion and share their knowledge with other travelers. Prior studies have established that behavioural intentions have a significant impact on actual usage (Ajzen 1991; Escobar-Rodríguez and Carvajal-Trujillo 2014; Venkatesh et al.2003, 2012). In knowledge sharing literature it is established that higher the intentions to post content online, more will be the actual participation in online communities (Wang, Huang, Li and Peng 2016).

Therefore, this study proposes that:

H8: Behavioural intentions positively influence the usage behaviour of travelers to post online reviews.

4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4.1. Questionnaire Design and Construct Measurement

To test the proposed research model, a structured questionnaire was used. Questionnaire was divided into two sections. Section 1 of the questionnaire focused on the demographic profiles of the respondents along with the questions about the online travel site usage behaviour and frequency. Section 2 of the questionnaire consisted of items related to constructs of Uses and Gratification (Altruism, Reciprocity, and Economic Rewards) and Extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (Effort Expectancy, Social Influence, Hedonic motivation and Habit) along with behavioural intentions of consumers. The study derived three items related to altruism from Bronner and Hoog 2011; Chang and Chuang 2011 and Wetzer, Zeelenberg, and Pieters 2007; three items of reciprocity from Hung, Durcikova, Lai and Lin 2011 and Yoo and Gretzel 2011; three items related to Economic Rewards were adapted from Bronner and De Hoog 2011; Liou, Chih, Yuan and Lin 2016 and Yoo and Gretzel 2011; three items relating to effort expectancy from Herrero, San Martín and García de los Salmones 2017; three items to measure social influence were derived from Oliveira et al. 2016; three items describing Hedonic Motivation from Baptista and Oliveira 2015; three items relating to Habit from Hew, Lee, Ooi and Wei 2015 and Three items to measure Behavioural Intentions were adapted from Venkatesh et al. 2012. Each statement was measured using five-point Likert Scale where 1 denoted strongly Disagree and 5 denoted strongly agree whereas, actual usage was adopted from Venkatesh et al. 2012 and was measured using five-point Likert Scale where 1 denoted Never and 5 denoted always.

In order to evaluate the construct validity of initial instrument two academicians and one industry expert who are the member of different virtual communities were consulted. To simplify the questionnaire, items were revised based on the comments and suggestions of the reviewers. Moreover, to ensure a degree of randomness and to reduce the monotonous/ repetitive responses obtained from measuring the same construct the sequence of items was changed.

4.2. Data Collection

After finalizing the questionnaire, data was collected from June 2016 to November 2016 from major airports of north India. Data collection was carried on different days of month, mixing different days of the week in order to reduce the biasness, sampling error and to increase the heterogeneity of data (Rideng and Christensen 2004). The sample frame was Indian domestic tourists who had experience of posting reviews on any Social Media platforms in past six months. 600 questionnaires were distributed and a response rate of 45.5% was achieved which is considered satisfactory for airport surveys (Rideng and Christensen 2004). The effective sample size was 273. Table 1 displays the demographic profile of the respondents which shows out of 273, 131 were male and 142 were Female. It was also observed that largest proportion of respondents were between the age group 20 to 30 years and lowest were below 20 years.

Table 1: Gender and Age characteristics of the respondents
CharacteristicsFrequency%
GenderMale13148
Female14252
Total273100
AgeBelow 20186.6
20-3012445.4
30-408932.6
40-504215.4
Total273100
5. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

To test our hypotheses, Partial Least Square (PLS) method with SmartPLS software, version 3.0 was adopted (Ringle et al. 2015). It is a variance based structured equation modelling technique and is appropriate and suitable for the present study because it places less confinements on measurement scale, sample size and residual distribution (Chin and Todd 1995; Wasko and Faraj 2005). PLS is considered as one of the most powerful statistical tools for studying research model with several constructs and is widely accepted in Information sharing and marketing research over the past decade (Hulland 1999).

The data was analyzed and interpreted in two stages using PLS: a) In first stage the quality of measurements (measurement model) i.e. reliability and validity was assessed and b) In second stage the hypothesized relationship was developed (structural model).

5.1. Measurement Model

In the first stage, the measurement model was assessed through various quality criteria like factor loadings, Cronbach’s alpha, average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability. Indicator reliability was tested using factor loadings, the value of which should be above 0.7 (Hair et al. 2010). Table 2 shows factor loadings of each item which is greater than 0.70, with the lowest loading being 0.701 hence, it was found that all the items were statistically significant (Fornell and Larcker 1981) and no item was dropped.

Table 2: Item Loadings
Scale ItemLoadings
AL-1 Posting online travel reviews would enable other travellers to make a good decision0.711

AL-2 Posting online travel reviews can prevent others from making the same mistake I did.

0.782
AL-3 I enjoy helping others through posting online travel reviews0.853
RE-1 Posting online travel reviews would enable me to contribute to the existing pool of information0.751
RE-2 Posting online travel reviews would enable me to return the favour to other travelers0.701
RE-3 I believe my queries will be answered in future if I Post online travel reviews0.807
RW-1 Posting online travel reviews help to receive monetary rewards0.727
RW-2 Posting online travel reviews would help me to receive bonus points (like cashbacks)0.905
RW-3 Posting online travel reviews would help me to receive incentives0.802
EE-1 Posting online travel reviews is simple for me0.878
EE-2 It is effortless for me to post online travel reviews0.701
EE-3 Posting online travel reviews is clear and understandable0.830
SI- 1 People who are important to me think that I should post online travel reviews.0.704
SI-2 People who influence my behavior think that I should post online travel reviews0.896
SI-3 People whose opinions that I value prefer that I post online travel reviews.0.871
HM-1 Posting online travel reviews is fun0.852
HM-2 Posting online travel reviews is enjoyable0.891
HM-3 Posting online travel reviews is very entertaining0.859
HT-1 Posting online travel reviews has become a habit for me0.868
HT-2 Posting online travel reviews has become an addiction for me0.772
HT-3 Posting online travel reviews is something that I do after every trip0.833
INT-1 I intend to continue to post online travel reviews0.855
INT-2 I will always try to post online travel reviews whenever I travel0.809
INT-3 I plan to continue to post online travel reviews frequently0.889
AU-1 How often do you post online travel reviews1.000

Cronbach alpha and composite reliability were adopted to measure construct reliability, based on criteria that cronbach alpha values should be above 0.7 and composite reliability should be above 0.6 ( Liébana-Cabanillas et al. 2017). Table 3 shows Cronbach alpha values of all the items ranged from 0.700 to 1.000 while values of composited reliability ranged from 0.800 to 1.000 thus, satisfying the criteria for construct reliability.

Construct validity was tested through AVE scores which should be above 0.50, indicating that construct is able to explain atleast 50% of variance of its indicators (Hair et al. 2010; Oliveira et al. 2016). Table 3 also shows AVE scores of all the items ranging from 0.619 to 1.000. These results verify the convergent validity and indicate that measurement model has high internal consistency (Yoo et al. 2013).

Table 3: Composite Reliability, AVE and Cronbach alpha coefficient
Construct

Cronbach's

Alpha

Composite Reliability

Average Variance

Extracted (AVE)

Altruism (AL)0.7000.8280.619
Use Behaviour (AU)1.0001.0001.000
Behavioural Intention (BI)0.8120.8890.727
Effort Expectancy (EE)0.7270.8460.648
Hedonic Motivation (HM)0.8390.9020.755
Habit (HT)0.7680.8660.683
Reciprocity (RE)0.7390.8000.573
Economic Rewards (RW)0.7610.8600.674
Social Influence (SI)0.7400.8440.649

The discriminant validity of the constructs is established when the square root of AVE of each construct is greater than level of correlation between them (Fornell and Larcker 1981). The results are shown in table 4. All AVE values in this study are the highest squared correlation in the corresponding rows and columns which suggest satisfactory discriminant validity of the all constructs. Hence, discriminant validity is accepted.

Table 4: Discriminant Validity
ALAUBIEEHMHTRERWSI
AL0.787
AU0.5111.000
BI0.6820.5950.853
EE0.5870.4290.6490.805
HM0.5080.4890.6920.6620.869
HT0.4040.5570.6690.5370.6700.827
RE0.7550.5070.6560.5350.5310.4630.757
RW0.3360.2120.3470.4300.3970.4980.3800.821
SI0.5140.2250.5240.4060.4940.5050.5030.3670.806

5.2. Structural Model

SmartPLS 3 was used to test the structural model and proposed hypotheses. Figure 1 shows the research model whereas results from the hypotheses tests are shown in Table 5. A bootstrapping procedure with 1000 iterations was performed on a sample of 273 to determine the level of significance of each indicator. Results in figure1 reveal that Altruism, Reciprocity, Reward, Effort Expectancy, Habit and Hedonic Motivations explain 70.6% of travelers’ intentions to post online reviews. Further, Habit and Behavioural intentions contributed in explaining 40% variance in Actual usage. Out of 7 proposed variables for predicting behavioural intentions 6 variables, Altruism (β = 0.291, p <0.000), Reciprocity (β = 0.137, p <0.025), Effort Expectancy (β = 0.139, p <0.029), Habit (β = 0.327, p <0.000) and Hedonic Motivations (β =0.189, p <0.004) were significant hence, hypotheses H1a, H2a, H4a, H6 & H7 were accepted, while social influence (β = 0.032, p <0.571) was not significant therefore, H5 was rejected. However, Economic reward (β = -0.112, p <0.027), was found to have a significant but negative impact on behavioural intentions, Hence, H3 was not accepted. Further, a significant relationship was observed between Altruism and Effort expectancy (β = 0.426, p <0.000); Reciprocity and Effort Expectancy (β = 0.213, p <0.035) and Habit and Effort Expectancy (β = 0.537, p <0.000). Therefore, H1b, H2b, H4b were accepted.

In case of Actual usage both Behavioural intentions (β = 0.403, p <0.000) and Habit (β = 0.287, p <0.000) were significant. Hence, H7b & H8 were accepted.

Figure 1: Results of the Structural Model
THM-25-335-g1.jpg

6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

In order to enhance our understanding on how traveler motivations and technological acceptance factors affect the review posting behavior on Social media platforms, present study developed and tested a model based on Uses and Gratification and UTAUT-2 theories. This study also argued that review posting motivations such as altruism and reciprocity and technological acceptance factor (habit) can affect effort expectancy of travelers to post online reviews. Numerous interesting findings were emerged from this study.

Firstly, altruism and reciprocity were found to have an influential effect on review posting behaviour on Social media platforms which is consistent with the previous research (Alexandrov et al. 2013; Wang and Fesenmaier 2013; Yoo et al. 2013; Feng and Ye 2016; Moghavvemi, Sharabati, Paramanathan and Rahin 2017). Altruism and reciprocity also have significant impact on effort expectancy, which facilitates travelers to contribute on social media. Whenever a traveler develops an altruistic and reciprocity motivation, he or she will voluntary share their knowledge with others thus reducing the efforts and difficulties associated with posting online travel reviews.

Secondly, economic rewards surprisingly have a negative relationship with travelers’ intentions to post reviews on social media. This could be because rewards exhibit outer control and those with high intrinsic motivations assume it as an obligation and eventually lose interest in doing such activities (Bock and Kim 2002).

Thirdly, the technological acceptance factors Effort expectancy, habit and hedonic motivations have a significant effect on travelers’ intentions to post online reviews which is consistent with previous literature (Al-Busaidi and Olfman 2014; Alalwan, Dwivedi and Williams 2014; Escobar-Rodriguez and Carvajal-Trujillo 2014; Kwon, Park, and Kim 2014; Chen et al. 2015; Hsiaoa et al. 2016; Järvinen, Ohtonen and Karjaluoto 2016; Herrero, San Martín and García de los Salmones 2017). Among these factors habit is the strongest determinant of behavioural intentions. Further, the findings also revealed that there is no significant relationship between social influence and review posting behaviour of travelers. Overall, the proposed model achieves acceptable fit and explained 70.6% of variation in behavioural intentions and 40% in use behaviour.

6.1. Theoretical Implications

The findings of the present study expand our understanding of the individual and technological factors which motivate travelers to post reviews on social media. Although the number of studies on online knowledge sharing is increasing, but studies on traveler’s review posting intentions and actual usage are still controversial and scarce. Prior researches have shown a direct effect of individual motivations on behavioural intentions. In this study, we have added technological factors (Habit, Hedonic motivations, effort expectancy and social influence) from the UTAUT-2 Framework and also examined the relationship between effect of effort expectancy and altruism, reciprocity and habit. In particular, key findings of the study have highlighted the role of individual motivations and technological factors in review posting intentions and actual use behaviour of travelers. Thus, the study contributes to the fragmented and intermittent literature on review posting intentions of travelers and actual use behaviour.

6.2. Practical Implications

This study also provides meaningful implications for the managers and practitioners. Firstly, altruism and reciprocity are the two important factors which motivate the travelers to post online reviews. Therefore, in order to enhance the number of reviews and to create consumer generated content, web developers should provide platforms which enhance interaction among the consumers and improve trusts among them. Managers should also provide feedback and regularly appreciate those consumers who have posted reviews in order to encourage altruistic and reciprocity needs of the contributors. Secondly, the results of the study also revealed that rewards do not facilitate review posting intentions, therefore, managers should re-examine the reward system and should focus on rewards which enhance their self-reputation and self-image for example creating a category of contributors and including them in various decision making or panel of advisors which further would boost their voluntary behaviour and will increase their review posting intentions and behaviour. Thirdly, technological acceptance factors like habit, hedonic motivation and effort expectancy also encourage review posting intentions and behaviour, therefore, practitioners should make review sites more entertaining, attractive, simple and easy to use. They should keep on innovating and improvising the websites to enhance user- friendliness, trust and accessibility.

6.3. Limitations and Future Research

Although present study provides significant insights into various individual and technological factors which determine review posting intentions of travelers and actual use behaviour, several limitations should also be noted. Firstly, the model incorporated three individual motivations (Altruism, Reciprocity and Economic Rewards) and four constructs from UTAUT-2 (Hedonic Motivations, Habit, Effort expectancy and Social Influence) more determinants such as perceived usefulness, venting negative feelings, reputation and privacy concerns could also be studied. The moderation effect of age and gender could be studied in future researches. The sample for the present study was comprised of Indian domestic tourists therefore, findings were limited to Indian culture. Motivations may vary across different cultures and lifestyles. Lastly, the study only focused on factors motivating the travelers to post online reviews, thus, future researches could consider factors which inhibit review posting intentions and behaviour.

References

1 

Ab Rahman N.A.F.W. (2017), "Why we blog? The Malaysian travel blogger and tourist perspective", Journal of Tourism, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 12-28.

2 

Ajzen I. (1991), "The theory of planned behavior", Organizational behavior and human decision processes, Vol. 50, No. 2, pp. 179-211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

3 

Ajzen I. (2002), "Perceived behavioral control, self‐efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior", Journal of applied social psychology, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 65-683. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x

4 

Al-Busaidi K.; Olfman L. (2014), April. "Knowledge Workers' Attitude Toward Inter-Organizational Knowledge Sharing System In The Education Sector", In UKAIS, pp. 13.

5 

Alalwan A.A.; Dwivedi Y.K.; Rana N.P. (2017), "Factors influencing adoption of mobile banking by Jordanian bank customers: Extending UTAUT2 with trust", International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 99-110. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.01.002

6 

Alazzam M.B.; Basari A.S.H.; Sibghatullah A.S.; Doheir M.; Enaizan O.M.; Mamra A.H.K. (2015), "Ehrs acceptance in Jordan hospitals by Utaut2 Model: preliminary result", Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, Vol. 78, No. 3, pp. 473.

7 

Alremeithi A.; Faisal S. (2017), The Effect of Using Social Media Marketing on Customer Engagement in the Public Sector: The Case of the Zakat Fund.

8 

Alexandrov A.; Lilly B.; Babakus E. (2013), "The effects of social-and self-motives on the intentions to share positive and negative word of mouth", Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 41, No. 5, pp. 531-546. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-012-0323-4

9 

Amaro S.; Duarte P. (2015), "An integrative model of consumers' intentions to purchase travel online", Tourism management, Vol. 46, pp. 64-79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.06.006

10 

Antunes A.; Amaro S. (2016), "Pilgrims’ acceptance of a mobile app for the Camino de Santiago", In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2016, Springer, Cham. pp. 509-521. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 319-28231-2_37

11 

Ayeh J.K.; Au N.; Law R. (2013), "Do we believe in TripAdvisor?” Examining credibility perceptions and online travelers’ attitude toward using user-generated content", Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 52, No. 4, pp. 437-452. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287512475217

12 

Bandura A. (1986), "The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory", Journal of social and clinical psychology, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 359-373. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.359

13 

Baptista G.; Oliveira T. (2015), "Understanding mobile banking: The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology combined with cultural moderators", Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 50, pp. 418-430. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.024

14 

Barreda A.; Okumus F.; Nusair K.K.; Bilgihan A. (2016), "The Mediating Effect of Virtual Interactivity in Travel-Related Online Social Network Websites", International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 147-178. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15256480.2015.1130669

15 

Belanche D.; Casaló L.V.; Flavián C.; Guinalíu M. (2019), "Reciprocity and commitment in online travel communities", Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 119, No. 2, pp. 397-411. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-03-2018-0098

16 

Bjørndalen S.S. (2014), “What influences people's willingness to share their customer experiences (word of mouth) via social media? (Master's thesis, UniversitetiAgder/University of Agder) http://hdl.handle.net/11250/219222

17 

Blumler J.G.; Katz E. (1974), “The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research", Sage Annual Reviews of Communication Research Volume III.

18 

Bock G.W.; Kim Y.G. (2002), "Breaking the myths of rewards: An exploratory study of attitudes about knowledge sharing", Information Resources Management Journal (IRMJ), Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 14-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/irmj.2002040102

19 

Bronner F.; De Hoog R. (2011), "Vacationers and eWOM: Who posts, and why, where, and what?", Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 15-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287509355324

20 

Brown S.A.; Venkatesh V. (2005), "Model of adoption of technology in households: A baseline model test and extension incorporating household life cycle", MIS quarterly, pp. 399-426. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/25148690

21 

Carnoy J. (2017), 5 Ways Social Media Has Transformed Tourism Marketing. [Online] Entrpreneur. Available at: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/286408 (18 May 2018).

22 

Chang H.H.; Chuang S.S. (2011), "Social capital and individual motivations on knowledge sharing: Participant involvement as a moderator", Information & management, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 9-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2010.11.001

23 

Chen C.P.; Lai H.M.; Ho C.Y. (2015), "Why do teachers continue to use teaching blogs? The roles of perceived voluntariness and habit", Computers & Education, Vol. 82, pp. 236-249. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.017

24 

Cheung C.M.; Lee M.K. (2012), "What drives consumers to spread electronic word of mouth in online consumer-opinion platforms", Decision support systems, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 218-225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.01.015

25 

Chiang H.S. (2013), "Continuous usage of social networking sites: The effect of innovation and gratification attributes", Online Information Review, Vol. 37, No. 6, pp. 851-871.

26 

Chin W.W.; Todd P.A. (1995), "On the use, usefulness, and ease of use of structural equation modeling in MIS research: a note of caution", MIS quarterly, pp. 237-246. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/249690

27 

Chong A.Y.L. (2013), "Predicting m-commerce adoption determinants: A neural network approach", Expert Systems with Applicationsw, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 523-530. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.07.068

28 

Crespo Á.H.; Gutiérrez H.S.M.; Mogollón J.H. (2015), "Perceived influence on behavior of user-generated content on social network sites: An empirical application in the hotel sector", Revista Española de Investigación de Marketing ESIC, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 12-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reimke.2014.09.001

29 

Davis F.D. (1989), "Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology", MIS quarterly, pp. 319-340. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

30 

Deloitte Consulting LLP. (2015), Social? That’s for consumers. For travel companies, socialmedia means business. As digital channels mature in scope and power, the industry needs to catch up., Expedia says [Online]. Available at: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/Consumer-Business/gx-cb-thl-facebook-digital-channels-travel.pdf (22 May 2018).

31 

Dholakia U.M.; Bagozzi R.P.; Pearo L.K. (2004), "A social influence model of consumer participation in network-and small-group-based virtual communities", International journal of research in marketing, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 241-263. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2003.12.004

32 

Dolan R.; Conduit J.; Fahy J.; Goodman S. (2015), "Big social data and social media analytics: tools for exploring social media engagement behaviour", In 2015 ANZMAC Conference: Innovation and Growth Strategies in Marketing. ANZMAC c/o School of Marketing, UNSW Business School, UNSW Australia. DOI: http://hdl.handle.net/2292/28321.

33 

Elliott W.R.; Rosenberg W.L. (1987), "The 1985 Philadelphia newspaper strike: A uses and gratifications study", Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 64, No. 4, pp. 679-687. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908706400401

34 

Escobar-Rodríguez T.; Carvajal-Trujillo E. (2014), "Online purchasing tickets for low cost carriers: An application of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) model", Tourism Management, Vol. 43, pp. 70-88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.01.017

35 

Feng Y.; Ye H.J. (2016), "Why do you return the favor in online knowledge communities? A study of the motivations of reciprocity", Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 63, pp. 342-349. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.007

36 

Fishbein M.; Ajzen I. (1975), Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research.

37 

Fornell C.; Larcker D.F. (1981), "Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics", Journal of marketing research, pp. 382-388. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3150980

38 

Gao Q.; Feng C. (2016), "Branding with social media: User gratifications, usage patterns, and brand message content strategies", Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 63, pp. 868-890. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.022

39 

Goes P.B.; Lin M.; Au Yeung C.M. (2014), "Popularity effect” in user-generated content: Evidence from online product reviews", Information Systems Research, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 222-238.

40 

Hair J.F.; Ringle C.M.; Sarstedt M. (2011), "PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet", Journal of Marketing theory and Practice, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 139-152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202

41 

Hennig-Thurau T.; Gwinner K.P.; Walsh G.; Gremler D.D. (2004), "Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet?", Journal of interactive marketing, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 38-52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.10073

42 

Happ C.; Melzer A.; Steffgen G. (2016), "Trick with treat–Reciprocity increases the willingness to communicate personal data", Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 61, pp. 372-377.

43 

Herrero Á.; San Martín H.; García De los Salmones M.M. (2017), "Explaining the adoption of social networks sites for sharing user-generated content: A revision of the UTAUT2", Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 71, pp. 209-217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.007

44 

Herzog Z. (1942). (1944), "What do we really know about daytime serial listeners?", In PF Lazarsfeld & FN Stanton (Eds.).

45 

Hew K.F.; Hara N. (2007), "Knowledge sharing in online environments: A qualitative case study", Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 58, No. 14, pp. 2310-2324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20698

46 

Hew J.J.; Lee V.H.; Ooi K.B.; Wei J. (2015), "What catalyses mobile apps usage intention: an empirical analysis", Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 115, No. 7, pp. 1269-1291. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-01-2015-0028

47 

Han J.J.; Lee V.H.; Ooi K.B.; Wei J. (2015), "What catalyses mobile apps usage intention: an empirical analysis", Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 115, No. 7, pp. 1269-1291. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-01-2015-0028

48 

Hsiao C.H.; Chang J.J.; Tang K.Y. (2016), "Exploring the influential factors in continuance usage of mobile social Apps: Satisfaction, habit, and customer value perspectives", Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 342-355.

49 

Hsu C.L.; Lin J.C.C. (2008), "Acceptance of blog usage: The roles of technology acceptance, social influence and knowledge sharing motivation", Information & management, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 65-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2007.11.001

50 

Hu Y.; Kim H.J. (2018), "Positive and negative eWOM motivations and hotel customers’ eWOM behavior: Does personality matter?", International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 75, pp. 27-37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.03.004

51 

Hulland J. (1999), "Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies", Strategic management journal, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 195-204. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199902)20:2<195::AID-SMJ13>3.0.CO;2-7

52 

Hung S.Y.; Durcikova A.; Lai H.M.; Lin W.M. (2011), "The influence of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on individuals' knowledge sharing behavior", International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 69, No. 6, pp. 415-427. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2011.02.004

53 

Hung S.Y.; Lin W.M.; Chang W.W. (2011), "Knowledge-sharing motivations affecting R&D employees' acceptance of electronic knowledge repository", International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 213-230. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2010.545146

54 

Järvinen J.; Ohtonen R.; Karjaluoto H. (2016), January, "Consumer acceptance and use of Instagram", In System Sciences (HICSS), 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on. pp. 2227-2236. IEEE DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2016.279

55 

Katz E.; Blumler J.G.; Gurevitch M. (1974), January, "The uses and gratifications approach to mass communication", Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Pubns.

56 

Krasonikolakis I.; Vrechopoulos A.; Pouloudi A. (2014), "Store selection criteria and sales prediction in virtual worlds", Information & Management, Vol. 51, No. 6, pp. 641-652. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.05.017

57 

Krause A.E.; North A.C.; Heritage B. (2014), "The uses and gratifications of using Facebook music listening applications", Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 39, pp. 71-77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.001

58 

Kwon S.J.; Park E.; Kim K.J. (2014), "What drives successful social networking services? A comparative analysis of user acceptance of Facebook and Twitter", The Social Science Journal, Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 534-544. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2014.04.005

59 

Lai H.M.; Chen T.T. (2014), "Knowledge sharing in interest online communities: A comparison of posters and lurkers", Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 35, pp. 295-306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.004

60 

Lee H.; Reid E.; Kim W.G. (2014), "Understanding knowledge sharing in online travel communities: antecedents and the moderating effects of interaction modes", Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 222-242. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348012451454

61 

Lee C.S.; Ma L. (2012), "News sharing in social media: The effect of gratifications and prior experience", Computers in human behavior, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 331-339. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.002

62 

Leung L. (2013), "Generational differences in content generation in social media: The roles of the gratifications sought and of narcissism", Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 997-1006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.028

63 

Lewis C.C.; Fretwell C.E.; Ryan J.; Parham J.B. (2013), "Faculty use of established and emerging technologies in higher education: A unified theory of acceptance and use of technology perspective", International Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v2n2p22

64 

Liébana-Cabanillas F.; Marinković V.; Kalinić Z. (2017), "A SEM-neural network approach for predicting antecedents of m-commerce acceptance", International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 14-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.10.008

65 

Liou D.K.; Chih W.H.; Yuan C.Y.; Lin C.Y. (2016), "The study of the antecedents of knowledge sharing behavior: The empirical study of Yambol online test community", Internet Research, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 845-868. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-10-2014-0256

66 

Liu I.L.; Cheung C.M.; Lee M.K. (2015), "User satisfaction with microblogging: Information dissemination versus social networking", Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 67, No. 1, pp. 56-70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23371

67 

Magno F.; Cassia F.; Bonfanti A.; Vigolo V. (2018), "The Effects of Altruistic and Egoistic Motivations on Online Reviews Writing Frequency", In Excellence in Services International Conference. (pp. 447-455).

68 

Martins C.I. (2013), Exploring digital music online: user acceptance and adoption of online music services . (Doctoral dissertation, Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestão) http://hdl.handle.net/10400.5/5910

69 

Moghavvemi S.; Sharabati M.; Paramanathan T.; Rahin N.M. (2017), "The impact of perceived enjoyment, perceived reciprocal benefits and knowledge power on students' knowledge sharing through Facebook", The International Journal of Management Education, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 1-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2016.11.002

70 

Morosan C.; DeFranco A. (2016), "It's about time: Revisiting UTAUT2 to examine consumers’ intentions to use NFC mobile payments in hotels", International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 53, pp. 17-29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.11.003

71 

Munar A.M.; Jacobsen J.K.S. (2014), "Motivations for sharing tourism experiences through social media", Tourism management, Vol. 43, pp. 46-54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.01.012

72 

Muntinga D.G.; Moorman M.; Smit E.G. (2011), "Introducing COBRAs: Exploring motivations for brand-related social media use", International Journal of advertising, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 13-46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2501/IJA-30-1-013-046

73 

Neirotti P.; Raguseo E.; Paolucci E. (2016), "Are customers’ reviews creating value in the hospitality industry? Exploring the moderating effects of market positioning", International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 36, No. 6, pp. 1133-1143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.02.010

74 

Nikou S.; Bouwman H. (2013), January, "The diffusion of mobile social network service in China: The role of habit and social influence", In System Sciences (HICSS), 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on. pp. 1073-1081. IEEE DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2013.514

75 

Oh S. (2011), "The relationships between motivations and answering strategies: An exploratory review of health answerers' behaviors in Yahoo! Answers", Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 1-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.2011.14504801136

76 

Oliveira T.; Thomas M.; Baptista G.; Campos F. (2016), "Mobile payment: Understanding the determinants of customer adoption and intention to recommend the technology", Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 61, pp. 404-414. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.030

77 

Pai P.; Arnott D.C. (2013), "User adoption of social networking sites: Eliciting uses and gratifications through a means–end approach", Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 1039-1053. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.025

78 

Parikh A.A.; Behnke C.; Nelson D.; Vorvoreanu M.; Almanza B. (2015), "A qualitative assessment of Yelp. Com users’ motivations to submit and read restaurant reviews", Journal of culinary science & technology, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 1-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15428052.2014.952474

79 

Pillet J.C.; Carillo K.D.A. (2016), "Email-free collaboration: An exploratory study on the formation of new work habits among knowledge workers", International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 113-125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.11.001

80 

Quan-Haase A.; Young A.L. (2010), "Uses and gratifications of social media: A comparison of Facebook and instant messaging", Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 350-361.

81 

Rideng A.; Christensen P. (2004), "En route surveys–some methodological issues", Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 242-258. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250410003807

82 

Riege A. (2005), "Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider", Journal of knowledge management, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 18-35.

83 

Ringle C.M.; Wende S.; Becker J.M. (2015), SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH, http://www.smartpls.com

84 

Rode H. (2016), "To share or not to share: the effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivations on knowledge-sharing in enterprise social media platforms", Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 152-165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2016.8

85 

Rogers E.M. (1995), "Lessons for guidelines from the diffusion of innovations", Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, Vol. 21, No. 7, pp. 324-328. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1070-3241(16)30155-9

86 

Rubin A.M. (1983), "Television uses and gratifications: The interactions of viewing patterns and motivations", Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 37-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08838158309386471

87 

Ruggiero T.E. (2000), "Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century", Mass communication & society, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 3-37.

88 

Shah S.K. (2006), "Motivation, governance, and the viability of hybrid forms in open source software development", Management science, Vol. 52, No. 7, pp. 1000-1014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0553

89 

Stafford T.F.; Gillenson M.L. (2004), "Motivations for mobile devices: Uses and gratifications for m-commerce", in SIGHCI 2004 Proceedings, pp. 7.

90 

Sundaram D.S.; Mitra K.; Webster C. (1998), "Word-of-mouth communications: A motivational analysis", ACR North American Advances. http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/8208/volumes/v25/NA-25

91 

Sung Y.; Lee J.A.; Kim E.; Choi S.M. (2016), "Why we post selfies: Understanding motivations for posting pictures of oneself", Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 97, pp. 260-265. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.032

92 

Thompson R.L.; Higgins C.A.; Howell J.M. (1991), "Personal computing: toward a conceptual model of utilization", MIS quarterly, pp. 125-143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/249443

93 

Tong Y.; Wang X.; Tan C.H.; Teo H.H. (2013), "An empirical study of information contribution to online feedback systems: A motivation perspective", Information & Management, Vol. 50, No. 7, pp. 562-570. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2013.02.009

94 

TripAdvisor Insights . (2018), How Reviews Help Your Business | TripAdvisor Insights. [online]. Available at: https://www.tripadvisor.com/TripAdvisorInsights/w733 [29 Apr. 2018].

95 

Vallerand R.J. (1997), "Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation", In Advances in experimental social psychology, Academic Press. Vol. 29, pp. 271-360. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60019-2

96 

Venkatesh V.; Morris M.G.; Davis G.B.; Davis F.D. (2003), "User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view", MIS quarterly, pp. 425-478. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

97 

Venkatesh V.; Thong J.Y.; Xu X. (2012), "Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology", MIS quarterly, pp. 157-178. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412

98 

Wang D.; Fesenmaier D.R. (2013), "Transforming the travel experience: The use of smartphones for travel", In Information and communication technologies in tourism 2013, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 58-69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36309-2_6

99 

Wang X.; Huang Y.; Li X.; Peng L. (2016), "A moderated mediation model of sharing travel experience on social media: Motivations and face orientations in Chinese culture", Journal of China Tourism Research, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 42-64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19388160.2016.1151850

100 

Wang S.; Kirillova K.; Lehto X. (2017), "Reconciling unsatisfying tourism experiences: Message type effectiveness and the role of counterfactual thinking", Tourism Management, Vol. 60, pp. 233-243. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.12.008

101 

Wasko M.M.; Faraj S. (2005), "Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice", MIS quarterly, pp. 35-57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/25148667

102 

Wetzer I.M.; Zeelenberg M.; Pieters R. (2007), "Never eat in that restaurant, I did!”: Exploring why people engage in negative word‐of‐mouth communication", Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 24, No. 8, pp. 661-680. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20178

103 

Wong C.H.; Wei-Han Tan G.; Loke S.P.; Ooi K.B. (2014), "Mobile TV: a new form of entertainment?", Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 114, No. 7, pp. 1050-1067. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-05-2014-0146

104 

Yan L.; Wang X. (2018), "Why posters contribute different content in their positive online reviews: A social information-processing perspective", Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 82, pp. 199-216. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.009

105 

Yang F.X. (2013), "Effects of restaurant satisfaction and knowledge sharing motivation on eWOM intentions: the moderating role of technology acceptance factors", Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 93-127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348013515918

106 

Yang H.L.; Lai C.Y. (2010), "Motivations of Wikipedia content contributors", Computers in human behavior, Vol. 26, No. 6, pp. 1377-1383. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.04.011

107 

Yiu M.; Law R. (2012), "A review of hospitality internship: Different perspectives of students, employers, and educators", Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 377-402. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15313220.2012.729459

108 

Yoo K.H.; Gretzel U. (2008), "What moti Yoo ates consumers to write online travel reviews?", Information Technology & Tourism, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 283-295. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3727/109830508788403114

109 

Yoo K.H.; Gretzel U. (2011), "Influence of personality on travel-related consumer-generated media creation", Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 609-621. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.002

110 

Yoo C.W.; Sanders G.L.; Moon J. (2013), "Exploring the effect of e-WOM participation on e-Loyalty in e-commerce", Decision Support Systems, Vol. 55, No. 3, pp. 669-678. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2013.02.001


This display is generated from NISO JATS XML with jats-html.xsl. The XSLT engine is libxslt.

Posjeta: 866 *