Content uploaded by Judith Mair
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Judith Mair on Jun 19, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
SOCIAL MEDIA INFLUENCE ON DESTINATION CHOICE: IMPORTANCE OF
CONTEXT
A. THAM, J. MAIR & G. CROY
ABSTRACT
While social media receives considerable scholarly attention, studies reveal mixed outcomes in
relation to its influence on destination choices. There is nonetheless a persistent perception that
social media has a strong influence on destination choice. However, even those studies that do
find a social media influence are in contexts where individuals are predisposed to be influenced
(the contexts were selected due to social media presence or influence). These studies also have
limitations in terms of social media types, tourists and destinations. This research responds to the
challenges and explores social media influence across diverse destination choice contexts.
Through face to face interviews conducted with 39 Australian travel decision-makers, the
findings reveal that social media influence is only apparent when specific context-conditions are
co-present. Instead, most destination choice contexts are likely to result in low levels of social
media influence. The findings advance theory by identifying three contextual dimensions for
social media influence: level of social media engagement; destination novelty or familiarity; and
complexity of the planning decision. This research importantly demonstrates the need to
illuminate destination choice contexts when conceptualising social media influence. Practically,
destinations should utilise social media to increase destination familiarity and decrease planning
complexity.
KEYWORDS: tourist decision-making; electronic word-of-mouth; planning complexity;
destination novelty; social media engagement
INTRODUCTION
Social media have attracted significant tourism scholarly attention over the last decade, as
exemplified by a number of special issues (Backer & Hay, 2013; Law, Fong, Koo & Ye, 2017;
2
Law & Xiang, 2013; Ozturk, 2017). A common narrative through the studies is that social media
have had a fundamental or transformative effect on tourists’ information sourcing and
consequent decision-making (Dickinger & Mazanec, 2015; Jacobsen & Munar, 2012;
Mehraliyev, Choi & Koseoglu, online). In practice too, destination marketing has also used
social media sites such as Facebook, Weibo, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube to influence
destination choices within online communities, and the use is increasing (Bakr & Ali, 2013;
Tussyadiah, Park & Fesenmaier, 2011). Whilst it has been demonstrated that social media are
increasingly being used for onsite, micro-level decisions within a destination, such as which
restaurant to eat at, or which hotel to stay at (de Lima, Mainardes & Cavalcanti, 2019; Varkaris
& Neuhofer, 2017), scholars are beginning to question the previously taken-for-granted notion
that social media is highly influential in destination choice (Magno & Cassia, 2018; Tsiakali,
2018; Tussyadiah, Kausar & Soesilo, 2018; Xu & Pratt, 2018). We aim to interrogate the
influence of social media on destination choice to gain insight as to how influential it is, and
under what circumstances. In completing the aim, two contributions are proposed. First, to
highlight specific contexts and/or the co-presence of specific conditions for social media to be
influential in tourist destination choices. Second, to distinguish contexts and conditions that
would lead to social media being much less influential in tourist destination choice. In doing so,
a more nuanced understanding of social media’s influence in destination choice will be realised.
To achieve the aim, the article is divided into four parts. First, destination choice literature,
the importance of travel contexts and the roles of social media are reviewed showing different
approaches to understanding choice outcomes, and to derive specific research questions. Second,
the research method adopted, and data analysis are discussed. Third, findings are presented and
discussed to answer the research questions. Finally, the paper concludes by highlighting
contributions and delineating the scope of future research.
3
LITERATURE REVIEW
Destination Choice
Destination choice has been a mainstay in tourism scholarship over the past three decades
(inter alia Decrop, 2010; Karl, Reintinger & Schmude, 2015; Moscardo et al., 1996). Interest has
been piqued due to attempts to influence tourist preferences amidst increasing destination
competition. Early scholars proposed rational destination decision-making processes and
understanding the various influences on destination choice (Crompton, 1992; Woodside &
Lysonski, 1989). Much of the rational processes have centred on the notion of choice sets
(Decrop, 2010; Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005). Those focusing on choice sets conclude that
destination decision-makers undergo a cognitive and emotional appraisal of destinations in
accordance with the purpose or motive for travel (Woodside & Lysonski, 1989). Destination
choice sets are conceptualised as a process of moving from destinations a decision-maker is
aware of, termed an awareness set, before eliminating destinations to a few remaining
alternatives in an evoked set, where these locations are perceived to be highly suitable for the
decision-maker’s purpose (Crompton, 1992). Then, from among the evoked set’s few
alternatives, a decision-maker selects the final destination for travel (Karl et al., 2015).
Throughout this process, decision-makers work with information at their disposal to eliminate
destinations and select the best-fit to achieve their desired end destination choice (Mohsin &
Ryan, 2004; Nyman, Westin & Carson, 2018).
However, more recently, other studies have paid greater attention to the constructive nature
of decision-making (Keshavarzian & Wu, 2017; McCabe, Li & Chen, 2016; Qiu, Masiero & Li,
2018). This reframing of perspectives emphasises the intrinsic role of contexts when
understanding destination choice outcomes. Contexts are the circumstances that warrant unique
considerations involving destination attributes, tourist characteristics and travel purpose
(Lamsfus, Wang, Alzua-Sorzabal & Xiang, 2015). According the Lamsfus et al. (2015), contexts
4
reflect an interplay between internal tourist motivations and external destination characteristics
and result in the decision to visit. As destination choice decisions are prompted by various
motivations, which differ each time a decision is made, context is integral to appreciate what
influences decision-making (McCabe et al., 2016). Importantly, context constrains or enables
destination choice decisions (Lee, Song, Lee & Petrick, 2018; Marder, Archer-Brown, Colliander
& Lambert, online; Marcevova, Coles & Shaw, 2010). What is evident is that, whilst it is
possible to theorise destination choice as a rational process, this process is also moderated by
contextual considerations (Beritelli, Reinhold & Luo, 2019). Therefore, we need to appreciate
that social media’s influence will be within the predisposed limits of a decision-maker’s context,
and it is the context that will provide the boundaries of allowable influence. However, as
literature to date has yet to adequately pay attention to the role of social media influence in terms
of different travel contexts, it is important to examine the essence of what social media
contributes to tourism in terms of decision-maker’s goals and relevance to choice outcomes
(Singh & Srivastava, 2019).
Social Media in Tourism
Broadly defined, social media are web-based applications disseminating user-generated
contents (Tussyadiah et al., 2011). Different types of social media exist, such as forums (e.g.
Lonely Planet Thorn Tree), video-dissemination (e.g. YouTube), photography archives (e.g.
Flickr), and social networking sites (e.g. Facebook). These social media vary in terms of their
forms of communication (one-to-many, or many-to-many), and usage patterns (Fotis, Buhalis &
Rossides, 2011). Moreover, social media engagement also varies by country, age and gender
(Albarq, 2014; Cox, Burgess, Sellitto & Buultjens, 2009; Dionysopoulou & Mylonakis, 2013).
Altogether, the copious amounts of social media contents (otherwise known as electronic word-
of-mouth (eWOM)), disseminated across different sites provide opportunities for greater
5
personalisation of information. The ability to personalise information and vast reach of social
media have enabled greater tourist engagement with social media.
Social media facilitate travel and the implementation of destination choices (Bakr & Ali,
2013). Social media are utilised in the pre-travel, during travel and post-travel stages, illustrating
the temporal roles across the tourist journey (Book, Tanford, Montgomery & Love, 2018).
Across these three stages, social media appear to be both relevant and instrumental in shaping
tourist preferences and decision-making. First, in the pre-travel stage, social media are used as
tools to solicit tourism-related information, and expedite the information search process (Liu,
Norman & Pennington-Gray, 2013). Engagement with social media can also help tourists justify
their choices and reduce post-purchase dissonance, including their destination choice
(Tussyadiah et al., 2018). Destination choices are particularly prone to dissonance for two key
reasons. One, consumption does not immediately follow the purchase decision (Jalilvand,
Samiei, Dini & Manzari, 2012). Two, destination choices are often made sight unseen, without
the ability to ‘pre-test’ the experience (Rathonyi, 2013).
In the second stage, during the travel experience, social media are being used to
disseminate users’ travel experience. Some postulate that this is to enable other users to
vicariously share the tourist’s destination experience (Wu & Pearce, 2017). Others posit that
social media have become an extension of the ideal social self-image, and the presented tourism
experience repositions how an individual is portrayed (Osei, Mensah & Amenumey, 2018). It is
also suggested that, given the heightened importance of safety and security, social media are
being used to keep others aware of tourists’ whereabouts while travelling (Hernandez-Mendez,
Munoz-Leiva & Sanchez-Fernandez, 2015).
Third, social media in the post-travel stage acts as a repository of tourism experiences.
Often, forums and photography archival sites are a compilation of different tourists’ submissions,
6
narrating what they liked or disliked about various experiences (Fakharyan, Jalilvand, Elyasi &
Mohammadi, 2012). Some tourists do this for altruistic reasons, to help others plan their journeys
by providing insightful tips (Lee, Reid & Kim, 2014). Other tourists though, may engage with
social media at the post-travel stage to reflect on their own experiences.
Obviously, there are different ways and times that tourists engage with social media across
their tourism journey. Given that any destination’s success hinges on their ability to influence
tourist arrivals and thereafter stimulate repeat visits, social media may be an effective way to
raise awareness, and interest towards the destination (Zhang et al., 2018). Collectively, while
there are many studies on social media in tourism, not all are related to decision-making, and
even in this space these studies have only superficially discussed the contexts in which the
decisions were made.
Social Media Influence in Destination Choice
Few studies have specifically examined social media’s influence in destination choice
(most social media-tourism studies focus on micro-level decisions). Table 1 shows 16 studies
that have examined social media influence on destination choice. These studies provide valuable
insights into the role of social media influence on destination choice. The studies evidence that
social media are used in destination choices across a variety of countries and cultures. Indeed,
not only is social media used, it has also been demonstrated to be influential in the choice of
shortlisted destinations in tourists’ evaluation sets. However, when identified, the level of
influence was mostly low to very low. Accounting for the lack of social media influence, these
studies offered a lack of source credibility as an at least a partial explanation (also see Filieri,
Alguezaui & McLeay, 2015; Tham et al., 2013). Additionally, in some studies at least, social
media’s role appeared to validate decisions, reducing dissonance, rather than influencing outright
choices (Bakr & Ali, 2013; Cox et al., 2009; Fotis et al., 2011).
7
<Insert Table 1 here>
However, these studies have either only used one, or a few of social media sites, and/or one
market segment and/or one destination (Simms, 2012). That is, the insights of into social media
influence on destination choice have been very contained, restricting transferability to other
contexts. As destination choices are made for a variety of reasons and contexts, it is important to
explore the circumstances in which social media are more influential in some of these cases, as
compared to others (Lim, Ramayah, Teoh & Cheah, 2017). As such, key questions emerge. First,
does the focus on a specific destination (evident in most of the studies examined) limit the
opportunity to identify and understand influence? That is, some respondents might have a pre-
existing relationship with the destination negating the influence social media (or any channel)
could have had (Kang & Namkung, 2016). Second, does the focus on specific social media in
most studies limit the potentially influential role other social media (or other channels) might
have played? That is, destination decisions have been found to be informed and influenced by a
range of sources and channels (Book et al., 2018), and so focusing upon just one or two would
likely underplay the important and cumulative influence of a range of interactions. The
consideration of context is especially important given the purported role of social media in
destination choice (Lee et al., 2018; Marder et al., online).
In summary, social media are commonly used to seek information and to reduce post-
purchase dissonance. However, the context of the destination choice has largely been ignored, or
even purposefully minimised. As per destination choice studies, it is likely that social media
influence will vary depending on the decision-making context (as also argued by Lee et al.,
2018; Marder et al., online; McCabe et al., 2016). As such, this research, responding to these
identified gaps, will empirically locate what, when and why specific contextual characteristics
constrain and enable social media influence in destination choice.
8
METHOD
To best address the research aim, and to examine contextual differences related to social
media influence on destination choice, in-depth interviews were selected for the flexibility to
illuminate the areas under investigation. The research consisted of 39 face-to-face in-depth,
semi-structured interviews conducted with destination decision-makers based in Melbourne,
Australia. Participants were selected on their ability to meet two criteria: (i) they should be a
destination decision-maker; (ii) who had made a destination decision within six months prior to
the interview. Participants included first-time and repeat tourists, single and group travellers, and
those visiting domestic and/or international destinations. The broadly inclusive sample was
prompted by the lack of investigation into social media influence across a multiplicity of travel
contexts, as highlighted by several other scholars (Bi & Lehto, 2018; Fabricius & Eriksson,
2017). The interview protocol (presented in Appendix A), was guided by existing studies
dedicated to destination choice, and locating influence on outcomes (e.g. Chen, 1998;
Keshavarzian & Wu, 2017; Woodside, MacDonald & Burford, 2004). Interviews were on
average one-hour in length and were audio-recorded with permission. Interviews were conducted
until no new themes emerged (Guest, Bunce & Johnson, 2006). Each interview was transcribed
and analysed with the assistance of NVivo (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2011).
This research applied two levels of coding to the data set (Miles & Huberman, 1994). First,
open coding reviewed the transcripts for themes raised during the interviews. Second, selective
coding was applied. Selective coding integrates themes into related concepts (Spiggle, 1994).
Selective coding was to facilitate the analysis of data in making inferences and to provide further
elaboration about the phenomenon (Westbrook, 1994).
Trustworthiness, concerned with managing the research in a manner that enhances quality
(Anney, 2015), is demonstrated using four criteria: credibility, transferability, dependability, and
9
confirmability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Credibility assesses the ability of the researcher to
present findings that best represent the data collected (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In this research,
all interviews were subject to member checks, where each participant was provided with their
verbatim transcript to be assessed for accuracy. Once the transcripts were confirmed as accurate,
they were included in the analysis. Whilst it is not the primary aim of this research to produce
generalisable results, it is nonetheless important to acknowledge transferability. Transferability,
in qualitative terms, is the extent to which the research findings may be applied to a different
context (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In this research, participants were recruited across a range of
tourist segments, visiting a range of destinations and for a range of purposes. Dependability
refers to the researchers’ level of consistency in interpreting across the range of data sources
(Bradley, 1993). In this research, the processes of data collection and analysis have been
carefully documented so that other researchers can follow similar processes should they wish.
Finally, confirmability refers to the process of evaluating whether the researcher has taken
reasonable steps to evaluate the data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This research incorporated the use
of an independent coder to calibrate how thematic analysis was approached (Carlson, 2010).
Coders individually coded a list of forty quotes from the first six interview transcripts into pre-
defined themes. Codes were calibrated towards consensus before they were subsequently
adopted for the remaining interviews. An overview of the 39 participants and their destination
decisions is presented in Table 2.
<Insert Table 2 here>
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Preliminary findings and discussions are presented by dividing participants into those not
using, and those using social media. This presents insights into the context for knowing how and
why some participants’ have decided to omit social media from their destination choices.
10
Social Media Non-Use
Four out of the 39 participants stated that they did not use social media for their destination
choice. For one participant, social media were simply not relevant to the destination choice
process. As Colleen recalls: “It wouldn’t have been necessary to go on social media as I had
decided to visit Israel with a religious group so absolutely everything, even water, was paid for”.
She further elaborated that travelling to Israel was organised through a travel agent specialising
in religious tours, which reduced her need to seek social media to make the destination decision.
However, the other three non-using participants held negative attitudes to the internet,
where social media are located. Gary mentioned that: “I don’t go on the internet at all. I don’t
like social media”. George noted he was technologically saturated: “I don’t like spending a lot of
time on computers as I used to work in IT, so I’ve had enough of sitting in front of computers
and I try to minimise what I do with the internet”. Margaret provided further insights of why she
turns away from social media:
“I don’t look at them [social media]. There are two reasons. One, my computer is too
slow and doesn’t upload the contents quickly. And two, I am paranoid that any
YouTube video will have a virus that I don’t like. So, I steer away from such things.”
Previous tourism studies have identified social media non-use due to lack of time, potential
privacy risks, lack of credibility and lack of knowledge (Davies & Cairncross, 2013; Rathonyi,
2013). In addition to these reasons, the findings allude to low travel involvement, technological
saturation and dislike or fear of computers as other contributing factors. Clearly, a decision not to
use social media for a destination decision will eliminate it from being an influence, and the
context insights for non-use serve to clarify social media’s influence in this regard.
11
Social Media Use
We will now focus on the remaining 35 participants who have used social media. First,
destination choice contexts illuminating high social media influence. Second, destination choice
contexts highlighting low to moderate social media influence. In each of these we will pay
particular attention to the contextual determinants of social media influence.
Contexts of high social media influence
In this research, ‘high’ influence occurred where social media were identified to be the key
influence on the destination choice. Eight of the 39 participants self-reported that social media
were highly influential in their destination choice. For example, Phil noted that “TripAdvisor
absolutely shapes my choice of a destination”. Table 3 illustrates further representative
participant quotes.
<Insert Table 3 here>
Three context characteristics emerged in high social media influence destination choices.
These were high social media engagement, novel destinations, and high level of planning
complexity associated with the destination choice. Moreover, each of these were co-present
when participants articulated the reasons for social media exhibiting high influence on their
destination choice.
High social media engagement: Existing social media engagement was common to the
eight participants who reported high social media influence, as Mark explains “I use social
media to communicate with people and promote things I am doing on Twitter and Facebook.”
Phil also commented “For this trip, I spend probably 20 hours a week on social media… I also
use Urbanspoon for food matters and I post reviews”. These participants had been using social
media for some time, with Eric noting that he had been active in forums such as Whirlpool for
over five years. It seems that their experience in using social media for different purchase
12
decisions increased their confidence in employing social media for destination choices. This
finding shed new light on the transfer of social media engagement from non-tourism to tourism
related purposes, rather than the sole use of social media use within tourism (Kavoura &
Stavrianeas, 2015; Lee et al., 2014). The prominence of social media in these participants’
everyday lives appears to translate into a higher level of influence in their destination choices.
Other studies have likewise hypothesised that increased use of social media would result in
greater influences on tourism behaviour (Osei et al., 2018; Tussyadiah et al., 2018).
Novel destinations: Novel destinations emerged as another key characteristic to explain
high social media influence. For example, Mark explained that social media influenced his
choice because it highlighted “something that I haven’t done before, like somewhere new.
Because I like to experience new things and that is where social media fuels my curiosity.” Eddie
agreed, stating “I think there is a possibility that social media will reveal new tourism
experiences that we can then discover ourselves.” In fact, several highly influenced participants
highlighted the link between social media and a propensity to visit new destinations and
experiences. For example, an Instagram photo prompted Kristie’s visit to Jervis Bay, and she
elaborated:
“Instagram is what I would use to find and discover places like Go See Australia and
having seen it there I feel like I really want to go there. Over Easter, we drove to
Jervis Bay and that was purely based on an Instagram photo that I saw, and I
wanted to go there.”
Evangeline highlighted the importance of Facebook in her decision to visit Croatia:
“Croatia was somewhere that I never thought of travelling to at all until a friend put
his photos of his trip on Facebook… So, suddenly Croatia is on the agenda as a
13
potential travel destination because we want to experience something not done
before”.
This emergent connection between social media and novel destinations highlights the
potential effect not only on generating destination awareness (Simms, 2012), but also influencing
destination choice. The related influence might also be due to novel destinations requiring
greater engagement with information sources, which can be located conveniently on social media
(Hernandez-Mendez et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2018). Nevertheless, it is worth noting that this
may be the exception rather than the rule; as Kirstie’s notes in relation to her social media
prompted trip to Jervis Bay, “this is not normally what triggers my holiday plans”.
). Unlike marketing organisations that may represent the destination through pre-
determined images, the value of social media to decision-makers is that it shows user-generated
contents, and novel ways of experiencing a destination, thereby arguably creating stronger visit
intentions (Llodra-Riera, Martinez-Ruiz, Jimenez-Zarco & Izquierdo-Yusta, 2015; Sugathan &
Ranjan, 2019).
High planning complexity: A third characteristic co-present amongst the high influence
participant findings was the high planning complexity associated with the destination decision
(with the exception of Kristie’s visit to Jarvis Bay). Planning complexity can be understood as
the level of intensity involved in relation to organising vacations (Dellaert, Arentze & Horeni,
2013). For instance, a complex trip might include (as well as transport, accommodation and
activities) the need to arrange visas, undertake health assessments and demonstrate evidence of
funds. In contrast, straightforward travel arrangements may consist of merely a mode of transport
and some suitable accommodation.
14
The findings revealed more insights about the characteristics of high planning complexity.
These trips require a greater intensity of time and effort to coordinate more decision points, as
Phil’s quote best exemplifies:
“For this round the world trip, I spend probably 20 hours a week… The planning
has been around what the weather will be like in those countries when we are going
so we don’t get there when it is too hot and rainy… I looked over a number of years
with TripAdvisor reviews for a period of time to see how bad it was. There were
consistent reports that you’re not going to be spending two weeks where it’ll be
bucketing down rain.”
For other highly influenced participants, the influence of social media was to ensure that
vacation plans were practical and achievable (Jalilvand et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2013). Social
media can be used to increase confidence about accessing a destination, as Anthony highlights:
“The reason I went to Konya is because of my fascination with the Rumi, whirling
dervishes.... When I was contemplating to go there, yet not knowing how I was to
get there, I found out that I can get the high-speed train to get out to Konya from
Istanbul by talking to people on TripAdvisor.”
Increasing levels of planning complexity further fuels some participants’ engagement with
social media, which in turn elevates social media’s role in a destination choice (Albarq, 2014;
Fakharyan et al., 2012). The co-presence of novel destinations and greater travel planning
complexities serves to better conceptualise social media influence in destination choice. In other
words, these destinations appeared to be in participants’ consideration sets, and then through the
engagement with social media, progressed to be part of their evoked sets before being the
outright destination (Kavoura & Stavrianeas, 2015; Lim et al., 2017). This finding shows the
effect social media can have on influencing destination choice. Such outcomes extend the work
15
of Karl et al. (2015) in arguing that social media are catalysts to shift destinations to top of mind
considerations by providing an immersive landscape to contemplate destination decisions.
However, it must be emphasised that whilst the illumination of these three co-present
context-characteristics have advanced the understanding of high social media influence in
destination choice, these nonetheless are reflective of only eight out of the 39 participants. In
comparison, more than three quarters of the participants reported only no to moderate levels of
social media influence. As such, attention will next turn as to why social media may not be as
high influence in destination choice.
Contexts of low to moderate social media influence
Given that the vast majority of the participants reported low to moderate social media
influence, it is important to locate the contextual factors of social media influence on destination
choice as to why this appeared to be the case. Examples of how low to moderate social media
influence are coded is presented in Table 4.
<Insert Table 4 here>
Low to moderate social media engagement: Most participants who reported low to
moderate social media influence reflected upon their passive forms of social media engagement.
Keith, who considered himself as someone moderately active on social media sites, commented
that: “I have posted one or two questions on it but not highly interacting on it. I am more an
observer, or what I call a ‘lurker’, someone who reads what’s there.” When probed as to why
social media do not feature prominently in influencing his destination choices, Keith explained
that this was because he considered himself an experienced traveller, and therefore social media
were perceived to be of only some value: “…because I have been travelling before the internet
was in existence, so social media is only a slightly valuable addition to travel planning.”
16
Keith’s comments pay greater attention to the introduction of social media to an already
established tourism planning decision framework. As such, while social media are used by the
participants, social media’s influence might just be accommodated within participants’ past
tourism planning processes. Indeed, existing literature has demonstrated that past destination
decision experience is highly influential because they exhibit highly credible cues (Bakr & Ali,
2013; Wu & Pearce, 2017).
Instead, for low to moderately influenced decision-makers, social media engagement
appeared to be devoted to micro-level options such as dining and accommodation (Cox et al.,
2009; Leung, Bai & Stahura, 2015). However, the macro-decision related to destination choice
were instead influenced by other factors such as word of mouth, which reduced the need for
social media engagement (Jacobsen & Munar, 2012; Rathonyi, 2013). This outcome thereby
limits social media’s influence on destination choice.
Low planning complexity and destination familiarity: Destination decisions featuring low
planning complexity could be undertaken using specific heuristics, such as cost and availability
of time outside of work commitments (Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005). For example, Linda, with
low levels of social media influence, made the decision to travel to the Great Ocean Road in
Victoria following an offer of discounted accommodation: “My husband got a call from an
agency saying that he had a discounted hotel rate and so that’s why we went”. For other
participants, a relatively inexpensive short break was perceived as posing few complications, and
so social media were not needed to confirm any decisions. For example, Jemima noted that “All I
had to do was to book my flights and there was nothing that I needed from social media”.
Familiarity reduced social media engagement, and therefore its role to collect information and
influence the decision.
17
Trip complexity was distinguished in some instances between domestic and international
destinations. One such participant, Peter, revealed that social media will likely feature when
contemplating international destinations that invoke greater consideration and cost:
“I think with a place like Ballarat [regional Australia], you wouldn’t worry so much
as it is within a day’s drive from Melbourne. It is not such an expensive holiday.
Probably I will think more carefully and consult social media when I pay for an
expensive overseas trip”.
Another type of destination decision that featured low planning complexity occurred where
the primary purpose was for Visiting Friends and Relatives (VFR) travel. Twelve of the 39
participants stated that their destination decision was somehow related to VFR travel. In this
vein, many of them stated that they hardly needed to engage with social media due to the low
planning complexity environment (Kang & Namkung, 2016), as Claudia revealed: “I would
probably consult with my family because they live there and know the area best”. Moses
concurred with such a view, stating that:
“Family and friends’ recommendations, oh definitely. When we get there, Sri
Lanka being a small, close community, everybody knows everyone. So, you can get
special prices for accommodation because of our contacts in Sri Lanka so I will
leave the trip planning to them.”
It is argued therefore that low planning complexity, in part driven by destination
familiarity, constrains the influence of social media on destination decisions (Davies &
Cairncross, 2013; Fotis et al., 2011). Relatively inexpensive short break decisions, as well as
VFR travel-related destination choices in this research appear to be less open to social media
influence and are instead triggered by a few heuristics such as price and time away from work
18
commitments. The revelation of these contexts lends greater knowledge where social media are
suggested to be constrained, and consequently have little influence on destination choice.
Low perceptions of social media credibility: Low to moderate social media influence was
also characterised by low perceptions of social media credibility. Credibility is an antecedent to
influence (Filieri et al., 2015; Tham et al., 2013), participants likewise raised points of
contention as to the authenticity of social media contents, which raise further questions of its
credibility to be used as an authoritative influence on destination choice, as Anthony’s quote
suggest:
“The Vietnam trip that I am planning for has been quite tricky to put things
together as there are an awful lot of scams… Some of the people on these forums
were supposedly giving independent advice but were actually people who were
trying to goad you to try and stay at a particular place or use a particular agent or
do a particular type of thing... I have decided to go with personal recommendations
from people who have been there and ask them who did they go and see, and which
agent did they use and contact these agents. Because there is so much rubbish on
TripAdvisor that while it’s helpful, you can’t rely on it entirely and need more
information from elsewhere to sort out the wheat from the chaff, sorting the good
from the bad.”
There is evidently some concern by participants where contents can be easily disseminated
in social media and masquerading as truths. To both Grace and Dorothy, the lack of social media
credibility may surface in relation to visual cues such as photographs. Grace opined that “It
could be the manager who posted a photo of a beautiful place. Who knows? You don’t know the
authenticity of those things.” Dorothy also highlighted: “You get to see pictures, not just by
tourism sites but also normal people, though these days photos can be photoshopped.” As these
19
examples raise doubt related to social media credibility, there is a greater reliance on other cues
to help compensate for eWOM concerns (Cox et al., 2009; Hernandez-Mendez et al. 2015). For
instance, source identity was instrumental for Moses to ascertain credibility of contents on social
media sites such as Facebook: “The reason that I trusted the advice is not because of Facebook
but because of my knowledge of who that person is.”
However, not all social media sites operate like Facebook where both content provider and
user are known to each other. Instead, other sites are likely to have lower levels of source
credibility due to the lack of established relationships. As such, many participants reiterated the
need to do further information search outside of social media, to help validate the claims
proposed by unknown strangers online. This view is best encapsulated by Eddie:
“I think you have got to read the comments at face value. You will get both pros
and cons, but you then need to do further research yourself by asking other people
and see if such comments are justified or meet your needs.”
Clearly, the contexts characterised by low perceptions of social media credibility have
corresponded with low to moderate levels of influence on participants’ destination choices. In
these cases, social media are used as a reference point, to help inform an existing perception.
However, the social media influence is now so constrained by the credibility context that they are
not able to influence participants’ destination choice. Instead, within this constrained context
social media is just a tool to confirm decision confidence. This finding not only reaffirms
literature that credibility is crucial to influencing destination choice, but also illuminates that low
perceptions of social media credibility characterises low to moderate influence.
In summary, participants whose destination choice was made within contexts characterised
by lower social media engagement and less complex destination decisions had the potential
influence of social media constrained. Consequently, the context led to low social media
20
influence on destination choice. In the case of those travelling for VFR purposes, the emotional
and social bonds attached to meeting loved ones would likely trigger destination choice with or
without any corresponding influence exerted by social media. Additionally, if information was
needed, then friends or family were asked first. Other travel decisions, such as short getaways,
are also prompted by available time away from work and therefore, are influenced more by
geographical and temporal constraints than by social media. Nevertheless, social media can
feature at a micro-level as a recommendation for accommodation, dining or attraction types
(Leung et al., 2015).
Overall, one antecedent condition and three contextual dimensions emerged from the
decisions. The antecedent condition was unsurprisingly the use of social media. Nonetheless, the
three other dimensions provided the specific context to determine constraining or enabling
destination choice influence. These dimensions were social media engagement, destination
familiarity/novelty, and planning complexity (Figure 1).
<Insert Figure 1 here>
A context characterised by intense social media engagement, novel destinations and
planning complexity relates to high propensity for social media to influence destination choice.
Contrastingly, a context characterised by low levels of social media engagement, familiar
destinations, and simple planning processes relates to constrained social media influence on
destination choice. As such, this research exposes that context is a precursor to influence, either
enabling or constraining social media’s influence. It is only in a minority of cases, where a
specifically enabling context exists that social media influence is high. Though, in most cases,
the context constrained the possibility for social media to influence decisions, reflecting that
social media influence on destination choice is exceptional.
21
Figure 2 provides an example demonstration of those participants that had high and low
social media influence on their destination choice in the three-dimensional space. Of note, the
Black box demonstrates the co-existence of a highly influenced and a lowly influence participant
(high social media engagement, moderate destination novelty, and moderate planning
complexity). A potential explanation for the co-existence is that Donna chose to rely on travel
agencies to undertake the travel planning on her behalf, while Eric was adamant on making all
travel arrangements on his own. For the overall sample, the combined effect of the three
dimensions led to the rare contextual circumstances where social media had a high influence on
destination choice. In most cases however, these three dimensions did not co-exist together, and
as such, influence of social media ranged from no, to low, to moderate influence.
<Insert Figure 2 here>
Derived from the findings is a three-dimensional conceptualisation of social media
influence in destination choice, as evidenced in Figures 1 and 2. These models have advanced
the previous linear ways of characterising social media influence. By demarcating three context-
conditions of social media high engagement, destination novelty and complex travel planning we
have responded to the under-studied nature of contexts in tourism, as alluded to by other scholars
(Beritelli et al., 2019; Lamsfus et al., 2015).
CONCLUSION
For destination choice, social media may not be as influential as once thought. While social
media continues to be widely used by both marketers and consumers and remains an important
tool for onsite and micro-level decisions within the destination, such as choice of restaurant, or
visitor attraction, social media appears to be influential on destination choice only where three
context-characteristics co-exist. These context-characteristics are when a potential tourist already
has a high level of engagement with social media, where the proposed destination is unfamiliar
22
and where there is a significant level of planning complexity associated with the proposed trip.
Otherwise social media’s role appears to be constrained, and only has a moderate-low influence
on destination choice.
We have empirically evidenced that social media, in most cases, has low to moderate
influence, in contrast to claims by previous scholars that social media is highly influential (see
for instance Leung, Sun & Bai, 2019). The contribution of this research, therefore, lies in
challenging the generalised belief that social media are influential in destination choice and
providing a more cautious and nuanced understanding of contextual characteristics. The diversity
of destination decisions in this research illustrates the importance of considering three key
contextual dimensions of social media engagement, destination novelty/familiarity and planning
complexity. This contribution extends the findings of previous studies that have only
investigated social media influence on homogenous segments or in narrowly defined
destinations. For example, recent studies continue to postulate that social media enhances the
destination image and attractiveness of different cities, yet remain silent as to the types of tourists
that would be susceptible to be influenced based on their decision-making contexts (see for
example Giglio, Bertacchini, Bilotta & Pantano, 2019; Wong, Lai & Tao, in press).
For destinations using social media, most evidently, social media are used to inform micro-
level decisions. For destination choice, implications from this research include that the contexts
enabling social media influence are those unfamiliar with the destination and undertaking
complex decisions. As such, to most influence these potential tourists, destinations should focus
on awareness raising efforts and supporting or demonstrating ease of decision-making and visit
planning. The rise of social media sites such as Instagram can be leveraged for their potential to
present vicarious tourism experiences in an unmoderated manner, thereby activating awareness
and subsequent interest to particular destinations (McCreary, Seekamp, Davenport & Smith, in
23
press). After all, interest is a precursor to choice outcomes, so the ability to modify destination
preferences through social media is advantageous to attracting current and new visitors (Bigne,
Ruiz & Curras-Perez, 2019; Villamediana, Kuster & Vila, 2019).
Naturally, the paper is not without its limitations. As exploratory research, the sample for
this study came from a specific region of Australia and therefore, future studies should attempt to
replicate the research in other geographic areas. Also, subsequent investigations should assess
additional context-characteristics that may be relevant, such as multi-destination trips, and trips
featuring niche markets. In addition, longitudinal studies of social media influence would also be
an interesting perspective for future investigation. Longitudinal studies could be undertaken to
investigate a tourist’s pre-, during and post-destination encounters, and provide real-time insights
as to how social media use and engagement has shaped destination preferences over the
consumer journey (Provenzano, Hawelka & Baggio, 2018). Finally, there is an emerging body of
work which uses experimental designs and new technology such as eye-tracking and
neuroscience equipment to investigate the psychological processes of tourists – such methods
could also be used to further illuminate the role of social media in tourist decision-making
behaviour (see for instance Hernandez-Mendez & Munoz-Leiva, 2015; Ramsoy, Michael &
Michael, 2019). These limitations notwithstanding, the research has contributed to a more
refined understanding of social media influence on destination choice. This presents a valuable
starting point for academic scholars and destination practitioners to re-assess their social media
engagements in a fast-evolving tourism environment.
In conclusion, social media have been argued to have transformed the tourism landscape,
although studies investigating their influence are showing mixed effects. Whilst we know that
both practitioners and tourists are embracing social media, the context of use and consequent
influence has been less well understood. Nonetheless, social media appear to be utilised for
24
tourism decisions, including destination choice. Importantly, identification of the contextual
dimensions characterising various levels of social media influence has shown the needed nuance
in understanding, highlighting the needed caution for those studying social media influence, and
those implementing social media strategies.
The key finding is the demonstrated specific context-conditions where social media are
most likely to influence destination choices. A context characterised by co-existing complex trip
to a novel destination, and the decision-maker already has extensive experience with social
media, would enable high-levels of social media influence on destination choice. However, when
a context is characterised by a short, inexpensive trip, or one to a destination that is already
familiar, this would constrain potential social media influence. Further, there are some cases (for
example, where the decision-maker simply does not use the internet) where social media are
unable to exert any influence at all. Overall, in most cases social media influence on destination
choice will only be moderate at most, and high influence will only exist in exceptional specific
contexts.
REFERENCES
Albarq, A. N. (2014). Measuring the impacts of online word-of-mouth on tourists’ attitude and
intentions to visit Jordan: An empirical study. International Business Research, 7(1), 14-
22.
Anney, V. N. (2015). Ensuring the quality of the findings of qualitative research: Looking at
trustworthiness criteria. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy
Studies, 5(2), 272-281.
Backer, E., & Hay, B. (2013). Introduction: Social media special issue. Tourism, Culture and
Communication, 13(1), 1-4.
25
Bakr, G. M. W. A., & Ali, I. E. H. (2013). The role of social networking sites in promoting
Egypt as an international tourist destination. South Asian Journal of Tourism and Heritage,
6(1), 169-183.
Beritelli, P., Reinhold, S., & Luo, J. (2019). “How come you are here?” Considering the context
in research on travel decisions. Journal of Travel Research, 58(2), 333-337.
Bi, J., & Lehto, X. Y. (2018). Impact of cultural distance on international destination choices:
The case of Chinese outbound travelers. International Journal of Tourism Research, 20(1),
50-59.
Bigne, E., Ruiz, C., & Curras-Perez, R. (2019). Destination appeal through digitalized
comments. Journal of Business Research, 101(Aug), 447-453.
Book, L. A., Tanford, S., Montgomery, R., & Love, C. (2018). Online traveler reviews as social
influence: Price is no longer king. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 42(3), 445-
475.
Bradley, J. (1993). Methodological issues and practices in qualitative research. Library
Quarterly, 63(4), 431-449.
Bruwer, J., & Joy, A. (2017). Tourism destination image (TDI) perception of a Canadian
regional winescape: A free-text macro approach. Tourism Recreation Research, 42(3),
367-379.
Carlson, J. A. (2010). Avoiding traps in member checking. The Qualitative Report, 15(5), 1102-
1113.
Chen, J. S. (1998). The tourists’ cognitive decision making model. Tourism Review, 53(1), 4-9.
Cox, C., Burgess, S., Sellitto, C., & Buultjens, J. (2009). The role of user-generated content in
tourists' travel planning behaviour. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management,
18(8), 743-764.
26
Crompton, J. (1992). Structure of vacation destination choice sets. Annals of Tourism Research,
19(3), 420-434.
Darwish, A., & Burns, P. (2019). Tourist destination reputation: An empirical definition.
Tourism Recreation Research, 44(2), 153-162.
Davies, R., & Cairncross, G. (2013). Student tourism and destination choice: Exploring the
influence of traditional, new, and social media: An Australian case study. Tourism, Culture
& Communication, 13(1), 29-42.
de Lima, M. M., Mainardes, E., & Cavalcanti, A. L. (2019). Influence of social media on
restaurant consumers: A case study of Crab island restaurant. Journal of Foodservice
Business Research, 22(5), 413-432.
Decrop, A. (2010). Destination choice sets: An inductive longitudinal approach. Annals of
Tourism Research, 37(1), 93-115.
Dellaert, B. G. C., Arentze, T. A., & Horeni, O. (2013). Tourists’ mental representations of
complex travel decision problems. Journal of Travel Research, 53(1), 3-11.
Dickinger, A., & Mazanec, J. A. (2015). Significant word items in hotel guest reviews: A feature
extraction approach. Tourism Recreation Research, 40(3), 353-363.
Dionysopoulou, P., & Mylonakis, J. (2013). Youth tourists’ profile and their travel choices as
influenced by social media networks. European Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Research, 1(3), 22-35.
Fabricius, S., & Eriksson, N. (2017). Young-elderly individuals’ use of social media for travel
purpose. Tourism & Management Studies, 13(1), 27-32.
Fakharyan, M., Jalilvand, M. R., Elyasi, M., & Mohammadi, M. (2012). The influence of online
word of mouth communications on tourists’ attitudes toward Islamic destinations and
27
travel intention: Evidence from Iran. African Journal of Business Management, 6(33),
9533-9542.
Filieri, R., Alguezaui, S., & McLeay, F. (2015). Why do travelers trust TripAdvisor?
Antecedents of trust towards consumer-generated media and its influence on
recommendation adoption and word of mouth. Tourism Management, 51, 174-185.
Fotis, J., Buhalis, D., & Rossides, N. (2011). Social media impact on holiday travel planning:
The case of the Russian and the FSU markets. International Journal of Online Marketing,
1(4), 1-19.
Giglio, S., Bertacchini, F., Bilotta, E., & Pantano, P. (2019). Using social media to identify
tourism attractiveness in six Italian cities. Tourism Management, 72(Jun), 306-312.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment
with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59-82.
Hernandez-Mendez, J., & Munoz-Leiva, F. (2015). What type of online advertising is most
effective for eTourism 2.0? An eye tracking study based on the characteristics of tourists.
Computers in Human Behavior, 50(Sep), 618-625.
Hernandez-Mendez, J., Munoz-Leiva, F., & Sanchez-Fernandez, J. (2015). The influence of e-
word-of-mouth on travel decision-making: Consumer profiles. Current Issues in Tourism,
18(11), 1001-1021.
Jacobsen, J. K. S., & Munar, A. M. (2012). Tourist information search and destination choice in
a digital age. Tourism Management Perspectives, 1, 39-47.
Jalilvand, M. R., Samiei, N., Dini, B., & Manzari, P. Y. (2012). Examining the structural
relationships of electronic word of mouth, destination image, tourist attitude towards
destination and travel intention: An integrated approach. Journal of Destination Marketing
& Management, 1(1-2), 134-143.
28
Kang, J., & Namkung, Y. (2016). Restaurant information sharing on social networking sites: Do
network externalities matter? Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 40(6), 739-763.
Karl, M., Reintinger, C., & Schmude, J. (2015). Reject or select: Mapping destination choice.
Annals of Tourism Research, 54, 48-64.
Kavoura, A., & Stavrianeas, A. (2015). The importance of social media on holiday visitors’
choices: The case of Athens, Greece. EuroMed Journal of Business, 10(3), 360-374.
Keshavarzian, P., & Wu, C. (2017). A qualitative research on travellers’ destination choice.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 19(5), 546-556.
Lamsfus, C., Wang, D., Alzua-Sorzabal, A., & Xiang, Z. (2015). Going mobile: Defining context
for on-the-go travellers. Journal of Travel Research, 54(6), 691-701.
Law, R., Fong, L. H. N., Koo, C., & Ye, B. H. (2017). Guest editorial. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(2), 646-647.
Law, R., & Xiang, Z. (2013). Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing special issue on social
media-Preface. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 30(1-2), 1-2.
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, 38(2), 222-242.
Lee, S. J., Song, H. J., Lee, C., & Petrick, J. F. (2018). An integrated model of pop culture fans’
travel decision-making processes. Journal of Travel Research, 57(5), 687-701.
Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2011). Beyond constant comparison qualitative data
analysis: Using NVivo. School Psychology Quarterly, 26(1), 70-84.
Leung, X. Y., Bai, B., & Stahura, K. A. (2015). The marketing effectiveness of social media in
the hotel industry: A comparison of Facebook and Twitter. Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research, 39(2), 147-169.
29
Leung, X. Y., Sun, J., & Bai, B. (2019). Thematic framework of social media research: State of
the art. Tourism Review, 74(3), 517-531.
Lim, Y. H., Ramayah, T., Teoh, A. P., & Cheah, J. J. (2017). Social media as a tool to help select
tourism destinations: The case of Malaysia. Information Systems Management, 34(3), 265-
279.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Liu, B., Norman, W. C., & Pennington-Gray, L. (2013). A flash of culinary tourism:
Understanding the influences of online food photography on people’s travel planning
process on Flickr. Tourism, Culture & Communication, 13(1), 5-18.
Llodra-Riera, I., Martinez-Ruiz, M. P., Jimenez-Zarco, A. I., & Izquierdo-Yusta, A. (2015).
Assessing the influence of social media on tourists’ motivations and image formation of a
destination. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 7(4), 458-482.
Magno, F., & Cassia, F. (2018). The impact of social media influencers in tourism. Anatolia,
29(2), 288-290.
Marcevova, K., Coles, T., & Shaw, G. (2010). Young holidaymakers in groups: Insights on
decision-making and tourist behaviour among university students. Tourism Recreation
Research, 35(3), 259-268.
Marder, B., Archer-Brown, C., Colliander, J., & Lambert, A. (online). Vacation posts on
Facebook: A model for incidental vicarious travel consumption. Journal of Travel
Research, doi: 10.1177/0047287518786465.
McCabe, S., Li, C., & Chen, Z. (2016). Time for a radical reappraisal of tourist decision making?
Toward a new conceptual model. Journal of Travel Research, 55(1), 3-15.
30
McCreary, A., Seekamp, E., Davenport, M., & Smith, J. W. (in press). Exploring qualitative
applications of social media data for place-based assessments in destination planning.
Current Issues in Tourism, doi: 10.1080/13683500.2019.1571023
Mehraliyev, F., Choi, Y., & Koseoglu, M. A. (online). Social structure of social media research
in tourism and hospitality. Tourism Recreation Research, doi:
10.1080/02508281.2019.1609229
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Mohsin, A., & Ryan, C. (2004). Determinants of destination choice: The role of socio-
demographic variables. Tourism Recreation Research, 29(3), 27-33.
Moscardo, G., A., Morrison, A. M., Pearce, P. L., Lang, C., & O’Leary, J. T. (1996).
Understanding vacation destination choice through travel motivation and activities.
Journal of Vacation Marketing, 2(2), 109-122.
Nyman, E., Westin, K., & Carson, D. (2018). Tourism destination choice sets for families with
wheelchair-bound children. Tourism Recreation Research, 43(1), 26-38.
Osei, B. A., Mensah, I., & Amenumey, E. K. (2018). Utilisation of social media by international
tourists to Ghana. Anatolia, 29(3), 411-421.
Ozturk, A. B. (2017). Guest editorial. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 8(1), 2-4.
Provenzano, D., Hawelka, B., & Baggio, R. (2018). The mobility network of European tourists:
A longitudinal study and a comparison with geo-located Twitter data. Tourism Review,
73(1), 28-43.
Qiu, R. T. R., Masiero, L., & Li, G. (2018). The psychological process of travel destination
choice. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 35(6), 691-705.
31
Ramsoy, T. Z., Michael, N., & Michael, I. (2019). A consumer neuroscience study of conscious
and subconscious destination preference. Scientific Reports, 9, 15102, doi:
10.1038/s41598-019-51567-1
Rathonyi, G. (2013). The influence of social media on tourism: Especially among students of the
University of Debrecen. Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce, 7(1), 105-112.
Simms, A. (2012). Online user-generated content for travel planning: Different for different
types of trips? e-Review of Tourism Research, 10(3), 76-85.
Singh, S., & Srivastava, P. (2019). Social media for outbound leisure travel: A framework model
based on technology acceptance model (TAM). Journal of Tourism Futures, 5(1), 43-61.
Sirakaya, E., & Woodside, A. G. (2005). Building and testing theories of decision making by
travelers. Tourism Management, 26(6), 815-832.
Spiggle, S. (1994). Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research. Journal
of Consumer Research, 21(3), 491-503.
Sugathan, P., & Ranjan, K. R. (2019). Co-creating the tourism experience. Journal of Business
Research, 100(Jul), 207-217.
Thai, N. T., & Yuksel, U. (2017). Choice overload in holiday destination choices. International
Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 11(1), 53-66.
Tham, A., Croy, G., & Mair, J. (2013). Social media in destination choice: Distinctive electronic
word-of-mouth dimensions. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 30(1-2), 144-155.
Tsiakali, K. (2018). User-generated-content versus marketing-generated-content: Personality and
content influence on traveler’s behaviour. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management, 27(8), 946-972.
32
Tussyadiah, I. P., Park, S., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2011). Assessing the effectiveness of consumer
narratives for destination marketing. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 35(1),
64-78.
Tussyadiah, I. S. P., Kausar, D. R., & Soesilo, P. K. M. (2018). The effect of engagement in
online social network on susceptibility to influence. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, 42(2), 201-223.
Varkaris, E., & Neuhofer, B. (2017). The influence of social media on the consumers’ hotel
decision journey. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 8(1), 101-118.
Villamediana, J., Kuster, I., & Vila, N. (2019). Destination engagement on Facebook: Time and
seasonality. Annals of Tourism Research, 79(Nov), 102747.
Westbrook, L. (1994). Qualitative research methods: A review of major stages, data analysis
techniques, and quality controls. Library & Information Science Research, 16(3), 241-254.
Wong, J. W. C., Lai, I. K. W., & Tao, Z. (in press). Sharing memorable tourism experiences on
mobile social media and how it influences further travel decisions. Current Issues in
Tourism, doi: 10.1080/13683500.2019.1649372
Woodside, A., & Lysonski, S. (1989). A general model of traveler destination choice. Journal of
Travel Research, 27(4), 8-14.
Woodside, A. G., MacDonald, R., & Burford, M. (2004). Grounded Theory of leisure travel.
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 17(1), 7-39.
Wu, M., & Pearce, P. (2017). Understanding Chinese overseas recreational vehicle tourists: A
netnographic and comparative approach. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,
41(6), 696-718.
33
Xu, X., & Pratt, S. (2018). Social media influencers as endorsers to promote travel destinations:
An application of self-congruence theory to the Chinese Generation Y. Journal of Travel
& Tourism Marketing, 35(7), 958-972.
Zhang, J., Wu, B., Morrison, A. M., Tseng, C., & Chen, Y. (2018). How country image affects
tourists’ destination evaluations: A moderated mediation approach. Journal of Hospitality
& Tourism Research, 42(6), 904-930.
34
Table 1: Studies of Social Media Influence on Destination Choice
Cox et al.
(2009)
Fotis et
al. (2011)
Fakharyan
et al.
(2012);
Jalilvand et
al. (2012)
Jacobsen
and Munar
(2012)
Simms
(2012)
Bakr and
Ali (2013)
Davies and
Cairncross
(2013)
Dionysopoulou
and Mylonakis
(2013)
Liu et al.
(2013)
Rathonyi
(2013)
Albarq
(2014)
Hernandez-
Mendez et
al. (2015)
Kavoura
and
Stavrianeas
(2015)
Lim et al.
(2017)
Osei et al.
(2018)
Geographical
context Australia
Russia
and
former
Soviet
countries
Iran
Denmark
and
Norway
USA Egypt Australia Greece Global Hungary Jordan Spain Greece Malaysia Ghana
Sample Tourists Tourists Tourists Tourists Tourists Tourists Students Young tourists Culinary
tourists Students Tourists Tourists Tourists Tourists Tourists
Destinations No
indication
No
indication
Isfahan,
Iran
Mallorca,
Spain
No
indication Egypt No
indication No indication No
indication
No
indication
Amman,
Jordan
No
indication
Athens,
Greece
No
indication
Central
Ghana
Types of
social media
Forums,
blogs,
social
networking
sites
No
indication Forums Facebook,
blogs
Photo and
video-
centric sites
Facebook Forums,
Facebook Facebook Flickr
Forums,
Facebook,
YouTube,
Flickr,
blogs
No
indication
Blogs,
social
networking
sites
Facebook,
video/photo-
sharing sites
and blogs
No
indication
Facebook,
YouTube,
TripAdvisor,
Blogs
Social media
influence in
the
evaluation
set
(22%)
(24%)
(Very low)
(For
unfamiliar
and
international
destinations)
Not
investigated
(Very low)
(20%)
Not
investigate
d
(WOM
most
influential,
followed by
social
media sites
of known
sources,
then DMO
sites)
Not
investigated
(Social
media
influence
not as high
as WOM)
Not
investigated
Not
investigated
Not
investigated
Social media
influence to
validate
destination
choice
(15%)
(30.9%)
Not
investigated
Not
investigated
(86.7%)
Not
investigated
Not
investigated
Not
investigated
Not
investigated
Not
investigated
Not
investigated
Not
investigated
Source
credibility
DMO and
tourism
providers
were more
credible
than social
media
Social
media
were more
credible
than
unsolicited
advertising
WOM
more
credible
than
social
media
Social
media
more
credible
than
DMO
sites
Not
investigated
WOM most
influential
on a
familiar
and mature
destination
Not
investigated
Organic
experiences
were most
influential
on
destination
image and
choice
WOM most
influential
due to
known
authors
Not
investigated
Not
investigate
d
WOM and
DMO sites
most
trustworthy
Not
investigated
Not
investigated
Not
investigated
Not
investigated
Not
investigated
35
Table 2: Participants’ Context for Destination Choice
36
Pseudony
m
Gender Age
group
Occupation Marital
status
Destination choice First/repeat
visit
Travelling
companions
Joseph Male 31-40 Sales manager Married Phuket (Thailand) First Family
Iris Female 41-50 Music teacher Married Warrnambool (Australia) First Family
Eric Male 61-70 Self employed Married New Zealand First Family
Gordon Male 31-40 Software engineer Married Gold Coast (Australia) First Family
Andy Male 41-50 Project manager Married Singapore First Family
Linda Female 31-40 Housewife Married Lorne (Australia) First Family
Peter Male 41-50 Research analyst Married Ballarat (Australia) First Family
Kylie Female 31-40 Self employed Separated Cambodia and Vietnam First Friend
Melissa Female 51-60 Senior manager in
telecommunications
Married Vietnam
Morocco and Tanzania
First
First
Friends
Family
Mark Male 21-30 IT consultant Not
married
Canberra and Queensland (Australia)
Vietnam
New Zealand
First
First
First
Friends
Friends
Friends
Eliza Female 21-30 Actress Not
married
Round the world trip First Friends but
occasionally alone
Martha Female 41-50 Waste management
supervisor
Married Bright (Australia) First Husband
Priscilla Female 51-60 Housewife Married New South Wales (Australia) First Husband
Dorothy Female 21-30 Unemployed Married Adelaide (Australia) First Husband
Grace Female 61-70 Housewife Married Eastern Europe First Husband
Colleen Female 31-40 Finance Officer Married Israel First Husband
Evangeline Female 21-30 Social media analyst Married USA First Husband
Alastair Male 21-30 Food consultant Not
married
Apollo Bay (Australia) First None
Donna Female 51-60 Healthcare professional Not
married
Tanzania First None
Keith Male 51-60 IT professional Not
married
Balearic Islands (Spain) First None
Margaret Female 61-70 Retired Married USA First None
Eddie Male 21-30 Dental assistant Not
married
Ballarat (Australia) First Partner
Esther Female 21-30 Administrative officer Not
married
Botswana, Namibia, Qatar, South
Africa, Tanzania and Zambia
First Partner
Gary Male 51-60 Self employed Married Norfolk Island (Australia) First Wife
Norman Male 31-40 Unemployed Married New Zealand First Wife
Phil Male 61-70 Self-employed Married Round the world trip First Wife
37
Kristie Female 31-40 Social media analyst Not
married
Hobart (Australia)
Jervis Bay (Australia)
Repeat
First
Friend
Partner
Anthony Male 51-60 Market consultant Not
married
England
Dubai (United Arab Emirates) and
Turkey
Cambodia and Vietnam
Repeat
First
First
None
None
Friends, but
occasionally alone
Suzie Female 51-60 Housewife Widowed Fiji Repeat Daughter
Thomas Male 51-60 Retiree Married Singapore Repeat Family
Moses Male 41-50 IT programmer Married Sri Lanka and Singapore Repeat Family
Terry Male 41-50 Engineer Married Kota Kinabalu (Malaysia) Repeat Family
Lionel Male 41-50 Unemployed Married Gold Coast (Australia) and Taiwan Repeat Family
Jonah Male 31-40 Self employed Married Sydney (Australia) Repeat Family
Claudia Female 41-50 Educator Divorced South Africa Repeat Family
Lynn Female 31-40 Housewife Married Fiji Repeat Family
Jemima Female 21-30 Researcher Not
married
Adelaide (Australia) Repeat Family
George Male 51-60 Self-employed Not
married
South Korea Repeat Friend
Jacob Male 41-50 Unemployed Married Netherlands Repeat Wife
38
Table 3: Exemplars of High Social Media Influence
Social media were the key determinant of the destination decision
“We didn’t know any friends who had been to Vietnam and TripAdvisor was the main influence for us.” (Mark)
“Forums really helped shaped the itinerary to confirm which states we would visit and how long we would stay
there.” (Evangeline)
“Over Easter, we drove to Jervis Bay and that was purely based on an Instagram photo that I saw.” (Kristie)
39
Table 4: Exemplars of Moderate and Low Social Media Influence
Moderate influence Low influence
Social media informed and were a secondary
influence on the destination decision
Social media were used, but were only slightly
influential on the destination decision
“We decided on Phuket eventually because of the food
and just value for money. Forums did help somewhat”
(Joseph)
“I don’t think I am influenced so much by others’
comments on social media, especially to the major
decisions as to where to visit.” (Moses)
“Basically, I think about where I want to go…influenced
by how far I can drive in a day and where I would stay
for the night. Then I base it on TripAdvisor to make my
final decision as to where these stops are.” (Jonah)
“For choice of destination, social media are maybe
very slightly influential.” (Jemima)
“Because I use the internet a lot so if people are talking
about something in social media then it will pick my
interest to visit the destination.” (Dorothy)
“Social media have a little bit of influence. I am lucky
that I do know the area and I have people who have
probably been there before that I can actually ask.”
(Claudia)
40
Figure 1: Three Contextual Dimensions of Social Media Influence on Destination Choice
Low Social
Media Inuence
High Social
Media Inuence
Planning Complexity
Desnaon Familiarity
Social Media Engagement
41
Low Influence: Red box: Andy, Claudia, Jacob, Jemima, Gordon, Linda, Lionel, Lynn, Moses, Terry, Thomas;
Blue box: Martha, Peter; Purple Box: Suzie
Black box: Donna (low influence), Eric (high influence)
High Influence: Light Blue box: Iris; Orange Box: Alastair, Kristie; Yellow Box: Evangeline; Green box: Eliza,
Mark, Phil
Figure 2: Low and High Social Media Influence on Destination Choice in the Three
Contextual Dimensions
Low Social
Media Inuence
High Social
Media Inuence
Planning Complexity
Desnaon Familiarity
Social Media Engagement
42
Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Preliminary Question
Please tell me more about the destination you chose
Destination Choice
1. Please further describe how you made the decision to choose that destination
2. What were the influences on your choice of the destination?
3. Can you elaborate on the different influences on your choice of destination?
4. How did the different sources influence your destination choice?
5. In your opinion, which of these influences listed today was the most significant on your
destination choice?
6. Is there anything else that you would like to add to our conversation?
