Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology

Social media in the airline industry: acceptance of social seating

Stefan Koch, Franziska Tritscher,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Stefan Koch, Franziska Tritscher, "Social media in the airline industry: acceptance of social seating", Journal of Hospitality
and Tourism Technology, https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTT-11-2016-0078
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTT-11-2016-0078
Downloaded on: 23 July 2017, At: 03:25 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3 times since 2017*
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:25 23 July 2017 (PT)

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:401304 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE AIRLINE INDUSTRY: ACCEPTANCE OF SOCIAL

SEATING

ABSTRACT

Purpose. This paper analyzes influences on the adoption of an application launched by some airlines and

independent providers, called ‘social seating’, which is based on user profiles from or similar to social networks.

These applications have not been widely successful, and therefore constitute an interesting exception within the

area of social networking, warranting further investigation.

Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:25 23 July 2017 (PT)

Design/methodology/approach. An empirical study based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and

using survey methodology has been undertaken to understand antecedents of adoption and use of such

applications.

Findings. Results show a consistent influence of perceived ease of use on perceived usefulness, as well as a

strong role of privacy and data security.

Research limitations/implications. Due to the limited adoption, the actual use could only be investigated using

a small data set, while the majority of results rely on stated intentions.

Originality/value. This is one of a few studies that focuses on a social networking application that both crosses

into the physical world, and that has been very limited in adoption and success.

Keywords: Social Media; Technology Acceptance Model; Airline Industry.

1. Introduction
Social media, especially shared over social networks, has become increasingly important in peoples’ lives,

and therefore also for the business world. Companies in more and more sectors try to connect via social media

channels with their customers, be it for service or product marketing purposes. Also the airline industry

increasingly uses social media, and most airlines are active in networks like Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.

Leung et al. (2013) as well as Zeng and Gerritsen (2014) provide a literature review on social media for tourism,

concluding that research on social media in tourism is still in its infancy, while Tham et al. (2013) discuss the

effect of electronic word of mouth on destination image and choice, Munar and Jacobsen (2014) motivations for

sharing experiences through social media, and Hudson and Thal (2013) describe the overall impact. Kim and

Page 1
 Tussyadiah (2013) focus on the social support through the networks and the relationship to tourism experience

moderated by tourists’ self-presentation strategies.

In an industry where the competition increased significantly with the market entry of low cost carriers,

airlines are consistently looking for new services to differentiate and attract customers. Besides customer service

applications and fan pages, an additional service innovation relying on social networking was introduced by

some airlines, as well as several independent providers during the last years: being social in the air, or most

often referred to as social seating (Neuhofer, 2016; Daum and Wittmer 2016). Such services try to facilitate that

consumers connect, meet and can have an enhanced in-flight experience through choosing a neighbor for an

upcoming flight, as well as possible additional positive outcomes like business opportunities beyond the flight
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:25 23 July 2017 (PT)

itself. Neuhofer (2016) lists this as a form of customer-to-customer co-creation through social media. For this

purpose airlines or focused online start-ups either make use of already existing customer profiles in other social

networks or allow users to create new ones.

The aim of this study is to investigate these applications, called social seating tools throughout the paper,

with respect to their acceptance by customers, and factors influencing this acceptance. While this innovation

was introduced a few years ago, the uptake turned out to be quite limited, and several initiatives have been

discontinued. This makes social seating an interesting example of a social networking application that did not

receive wide-spread adoption to date, and therefore warrants further investigation regarding the underlying

reasons. Additionally, these services cross from the virtual domain into the real world, which contributes to the

relevance of this example. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is used as a framework for the analysis,

and a survey was conducted to test the acceptance and the main influence factors on the adoption intention and

use decision. While a lot of research exists on social media, factors affecting the adoption of particular

applications built on top of social networking are less researched. With this paper, we aim to use social seating

as an example, and to clarify whether the acceptance for social networking-based applications differs from more

general models, respectively how the apparent non-adoption can be explained in a generally successful area.

This is especially important as new applications spawn regularly, and their adoption is of paramount success for

established businesses and start-ups.

2. Literature Review and Research Model

2.1. Social Networks and Social Media

Page 2
 The beginnings of any social form of interaction in the Internet can be dated to the 1980’s, and are

sometimes traced back to USENET, and first weblogs or blogs updated by hand using HTML (Zarrella, 2010).

With technological innovations, including increased availability of high speed Internet, as well as social changes

such as differing attitudes towards privacy as well as information sharing, social networks like Facebook

emerged at the beginning of the 21st century (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010), with astonishing growth in some

networks. For example, Facebook, founded in 2004, counted 58 million users by the end of 2007, 2 years later

already 360 million users and hit the one billion monthly active users’ benchmark in October 2012.

Ellison (2007) defines social network sites as web-based services that allow individuals to construct a

public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, articulate a list of other users with whom they share a
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:25 23 July 2017 (PT)

connection, and view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The

OECD (2007) describes social networks as sites that enable users to connect to friends and colleagues, to send

mails and instant messages, to blog, to meet new people and to post personal information profiles, which include

photos, video, images, audio, and blogs. According to Zarrella (2009), nine characteristics that all social

networks have in common in one or another way are profiles, the possibility to connect, private and public

messaging features, groups, upload of photos, events, status updates and applications, i.e. features to be attached

to profiles via so called application programming interfaces (APIs). Social seating applications, which will be

discussed in the following, are in most cases to be categorized here, and nearly all of them take advantages of

already existing profiles within social networks or at least use the idea behind these networks. The application

industry for social networks develops fast: Mark Nowotarski, a patent agent in the U.S., states that in a time

span of only 7 years social network applications published grew from far less than 50 in 2003 to more than 1200

in 2010, from which patents were given to about 200 in 2010 (Nowotarski, 2011).

Social media on the other hand is defined by Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) as a group of Internet-based

applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation

and exchange of User Generated Content (UGC). The OECD (2007) provides three characteristics that have to

apply simultaneously to define User Created Content, another term often used for UGC, which are that the

content is made publicly available over the Internet, that it reflects a certain amount of creative effort, and that it

is created outside of professional routines and practices. This is also one of the main aspects usually highlighted

in the context of Web 2.0 as opposed to Web 1.0, that it encompasses “people starting to take part in what

happened on the Internet, rather than absorbing it passively” (Clapperton, 2009), for example through

developing content. Its impact can be seen by the numerous publications on social media, how to use it for
Page 3
 business purposes, and its impact on society, e.g. Weber (2009), Zarrella (2010), Weinberg (2009), Flynn

(2012), Evans (2012), or Clapperton (2009). Probably the most recent approach for a definition is provided by

Obar and Wildman (2015), who identify as commonalities among current social media services that they are

Web 2.0 Internet-based applications, that UGC constitutes their lifeblood, that individuals and groups create

user-specific profiles for a site or app designed and maintained by a social media service, and that social media

services facilitate the development of social networks online by connecting a profile with those of other

individuals and/or groups. This actually brings elements of both definitions together, as due to social media and

UGC growth, websites focused on media sharing began implementing social networking features and became

social networking services themselves, a trend also Ellison (2007) mentioned.

Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:25 23 July 2017 (PT)

2.2. Social Media Use in the Airline Business

The emergence of Internet, Web 2.0, and new forms of communication and customer integration changed

and continues to change many industries, including tourism and hospitality (Kasavana et al., 2010). Products

have to be adapted as market conditions change, consumers can now book flights from home, can compare

prices online, read recommendations and travel reports, and even discuss future trips in social networks or create

negative publicity due to a certain event. These developments have empowered consumers while formerly

communication used to be in the hands of companies (Agresta et al., 2010), and turned them into co-innovators

and -creators (Neuhofer, 2016). In 2009, for example, United Airlines refused compensation asked for via

traditional complaint management after the damage of a country music singer’s guitar. The customer then

produced and published a song on YouTube about this event which was viewed over 4 million times in less than

a month (Clark, 2009). Most research also centers on social media as a communication tool, or on sharing by

consumers (Leung et al., 2013; Zeng and Gerritsen, 2014; Tham et al., 2013; Munar and Jacobsen, 2014; Di

Pietro et al., 2012).

While customers can indeed raise their voices publicly now, airlines can also take great advantage of the

new tools to spread facts and news quickly as well as to improve and intensify customer relationships (Clark,

2009; Hudson and Thal, 2013). Airlines, especially in North America, quickly adopted social media

management, such as Southwest Airlines and JetBlue with Twitter and Facebook accounts, Youtube channels

and blogs. Airlines’ social media activities are often undertaken to increase customer reach as well as to better

understand foreign markets. One example is Air New Zealand’s ‘share and earn’ action from the year 2012,

rewarding every UK customer monetarily if a recommendation via Facebook, Twitter, blog or email led to a

Premium Economy booking. KLM launched a campaign in the UK in 2012 where users could win a holiday by
Page 4
 posting their favorite destination (Joseph, 2012). By following airlines on different social media platforms, users

can immediately be updated and save money through special social media campaigns. Germanwings for

example started to include Facebook and Twitter in its marketing campaign in 2009. In particular, they enjoyed

great success with their ‘Lucky Tuesday’ activity, when followers on Twitter answering a certain question could

win vouchers. Moreover, under certain circumstances social media can now improve the travel experience for

customers: during heavy irregularities disrupting flight schedules, e.g. during winter, strikes or special weather

events, customers can receive instant information to better plan ahead.

2.3. Social Seating Applications

In general, most of the airlines active in social networks or media enable their customers to connect with
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:25 23 July 2017 (PT)

each other, share their experiences and help each other plan their journeys (Entertainment Close – Up, 2011).

Social seating applications, a relatively new service, are instruments that enable travelers to connect virtually to

later meet in real life on an airplane. Choosing the neighbor on a flight in advance, meeting new people with

similar interests during the journeys, or making new business contacts while flying to a meeting are the

advertised advantages of such new applications introduced by some airlines or focused start-ups. In the end, this

enables some form of co-creation (Neuhofer, 2016), and is seen by Daum and Wittmer (2016) as the optimum

configuration concerning well-being because it allows passengers to positively influence their social

environment.

One of the first airlines to offer such a service was KLM. The service, launched in January 2012, is called

Meet & Seat and is an opt-in solution (KLM, 2013; Trejos, 2012). After a regular booking has been performed,

the passenger can log in to the booking details via a “My Trip” link on KLM’s homepage. There, he or she has

the possibility to activate the Meet & Seat application under the seating options and can then connect with

Facebook or LinkedIn by logging in with the respective account. Then, details of the profile to be shared with

other Meet & Seat users can be selected. On the airplane’s seating map the traveler is afterwards able to see the

profiles of other Meet & Seat users on their respective seats to choose one owns seat according accordingly.

This seat selection can be changed or deleted at any time as can the profile information that is shared via Meet &

Seat. If another passenger selects the Meet & Seat service after one has already connected and chosen a seat,

KLM sends a notification email. The service is provided by KLM until 48 hours prior to departure and only for

flights to and from Amsterdam (KLM, 2013; Schaal, 2012).

Even prior to KLM’s Meet & Seat, Malaysia Airlines introduced MHbuddy in the beginning of 2011.

Unlike KLM’s system, MHbuddy is a Facebook application, and is not based on the integration of profiles into
Page 5
 the airline’s seating system, and also allows booking and check-in via Facebook. A user can discover whether

Facebook friends are traveling on the same flight or are at the travel destination one is flying to. However, it is

more restricted than KLM’s service in the sense that it only shows Facebook friends, and amongst them only the

ones using the MHbuddy application (China Weekly News, 2011; Malaysia Airlines, 2013).

A similar social application was introduced by Alaska Airlines in August 2011. It is called FlyingSocial and

like MHbuddy takes the form of a Facebook application. However, the difference lies in the purpose of using

this app: By using this application the user allows Alaska Airlines access to names, hometowns and location

information of all Facebook friends. With this data, Alaska Airlines displays all Alaska Airlines destinations

and, if applicable, the friends’ profile picture with the flight ticket price below it on the North America map.
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:25 23 July 2017 (PT)

Hence, the purpose of this application is to offer the cheapest flights to the destinations friends are living or

staying, not to connect the people directly on the flights (Alaska Airlines, 2011; 2012).

SeatBuddy is airBaltic’s approach to integrating social aspects into the seating system. This is neither a

social network application nor a customized system making use of social network profiles, but a collaboration

with one of the first start-ups related to social flying, a company called Satisfly. Satisfly enables airlines to offer

their passengers a social seating experience, and airBaltic was the first airline to use it. The two main differences

are the possibility to use the social flying system without having a social network account, and that it can be

applied to any airline, so that the travelers are not bound to a specific airline when flying socially, provided the

airline takes part in the system. For a passenger to use the system, he or she has to establish an account with

Satisfly by creating a profile, selecting one out of four flight moods, namely Business Talk, Easy Chat, Work

and Relax, establishing a neighbor profile (choosing characteristics preferred for the neighbor-to-be e.g. age,

language, hobbies etc.), and providing membership information (e.g. frequent flyer numbers, hotel chain

membership numbers). The aim of Satisfly is to provide the service not only to airlines but also to other

transportation providers or tourism industry players. There is also the option to connect with social network

profiles. With this information Satisfly matches the passengers on the flights of their customer airlines (Satisfly,

2012; SimpliFlying, 2012).

Another start-up that emerged as reaction to this trend is SeatID. Similar to Satisfly, it constitutes a solution

to integrate airlines and actually any other organization that deals with seating systems (e.g. cinemas, buses,

opera houses). The company had not announced an airline as partner. Bookings are directly made at

www.SeatID.com, by either logging in through one of three accounts - Twitter, LinkedIn or Facebook - or

without login (in that case, the social seating function would not work and only a booking would be made). If
Page 6
 logged in with an account, SeatID displays friends on all flights (of airlines SeatID has partnered with), not only

a currently planned flight. Therefore, unlike Satisfly, SeatID’s social seating system relies on existing social

networks profiles. However, it shares the advantage of seeing which friends are going on which flight to which

destination before choosing a flight. Furthermore, SeatID will record the choices of users on flights and will

suggest seat neighbors with similar characteristics as the neighbors chosen before next time (Durston, 2012;

Ayala, 2012; SeatID, 2013). Two additional solutions are Planely, which works similar to SeatID (Planely,

2013), and Hungary-based start-up FaceBelt (FaceBelt, 2012), which failed to launch after being founded in

2011. An additional app called here on biz aimed to allow business professionals to connect during a flight or on

the ground.
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:25 23 July 2017 (PT)

As of the writing of this paper, the success of most of these initiatives is very limited. MHbuddy,

SeatBuddy, SeatID, Planely and here on biz do not operate in this area or exist anymore, while KLM and South

Africa Airways still provide such a service. This makes social seating an interesting case of a less successful

social media application. It also inherently crosses from the virtual domain into the real world, as the result of

the service is spending potentially several hours in close physical proximity to a particular profile owner.

2.4. Technology Acceptance

The original Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) was established by Davis in 1989 to solve the problem

of using unproved measurement methods of testing and explaining why certain information technologies are

adopted. The two crucial determinants of accepting and using technology are perceived usefulness (PU) - the

extent to which users believe the technology will help them perform their job better - and perceived ease of use

(PEOU) – the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free from effort (Davis,

1989). As PU dominates over the PEOU determinant in Davis' study (1989), he concludes that PEOU may not

be a direct determinant to usage but rather a predecessor to PU.

Over the last two decades this model was widely used by researchers as well as refined by the author itself:

In 2000, Davis and Venkatesh provided TAM 2 as a new iteration, where they focused on antecedents to the

major determinant PU (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000). The factors found were social influence processes, such as

image, as well as cognitive instrumental processes, e.g. whether this technology is relevant to ones job

(Venkatesh and Davis, 2000). The authors also introduced experience and voluntariness as mediators.

Venkatesh (2000) also published an article that focused on the different determinants of PEOU, which he

divides into anchors - general beliefs about the ease of use of computers - and adjustments - factors that shape

Page 7
 the perception of PEOU over time with more experience (Venkatesh, 2000). The main constructs added are

computer self-efficacy, perceptions of external control, computer anxiety, and perceived enjoyment.

Finally, Venkatesh and Bala (2008) developed the TAM 3 model by combining the TAM 2 model with the

theoretical extensions by Venkatesh and, supplementary, adding three more relationships that indicate the

influence of experience, which reduces the influence of computer anxiety on PEOU as system specific beliefs

become stronger antecedents of PEOU, gives the user more knowledge about the ease of use, thus increasing the

effect of PEOU on PU, and reduces the effect of PEOU on the intention to use a new system as PEOU becomes

less important to the decision whether or not to use a new system with familiarization.

TAM in its original form as well as with various extensions and adoptions according to particular contexts
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:25 23 July 2017 (PT)

enjoys a tremendous number of applications in research studies because of its a highly reliable measures as also

shown by King and He (2006) in their statistical meta-analysis study. Lederer et al. (2000) for example used

TAM in their research about the usage of the World Wide Web at work. Agarwal and Prasad (1997) investigated

the different characteristics of technological innovations and how these affect the acceptance behavior of users

together with external forces to use the system. An application of TAM with the extension of ‘emotional

attachment to paper books’ by Read et al. (2011) looked at the acceptance of e-reader tools. Koufaris (2002)

combined TAM with theories from marketing and psychology to test factors influencing online consumer

behavior. While TAM has been used in many different areas of information systems and technologies, and not

only for studies about new systems in work environments as initially intended, social media and networking is

not yet widely covered in literature. Hossain and de Silva (2009) examined how different social ties affect the

acceptance of virtual communities using TAM, and Wang et al. (2012) made use of the model to understand

why people become members of social communities. Pikkarainen et al. (2004) investigated the acceptance of

online banking systems in Finland, and lastly research was done in Korea about the acceptance of social

software being influenced by intrinsic motivation, communication, and knowledge sharing (Kim, 2012).

2.5. Research Model and Hypotheses

As a relatively new development, social seating applications are not as widely known as other social

applications: 2,200 customers had signed in to the KLM Meet & Seat system about 5 month after the launch and

after more than one year in operation 30,000 people used MHbuddy on a monthly basis according to a CNN

report (Durston, 2012). In comparison to the monthly total passengers of Malaysia Airlines of about 1.4 million

(Malaysian Airlines, 2012), 30,000 MHbuddy users represent only about 2 % of passengers per month. Note

that this number is an estimate because the numbers available are on a yearly basis, and seasonality is therefore
Page 8
 disregarded. Moreover, the total passenger number of 17,046,000 carried passengers refers to the year 2011, not

2012, as the annual report 2012 was not available. The chance to find another user on the same airplane is

therefore small, as overall awareness seems to still be limited. Also, many of the services are not operational

anymore at the time of this research as detailed above.

Due to this fact, two slightly different research models were chosen: the first one uses intention of users to

adopt a social seating tool as dependent variable, in the second model the dependent variable is the actual use of

such applications. The second model is only applicable for people who had the chance to use such a system

before, thus having actively made an adoption decision. Based on the Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen and

Fishbein, 1980), attitude and intention form a precursor of future action, in this case adoption, as also used in the
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:25 23 July 2017 (PT)

TAM. In the current study, this link was not included for the second model, as the further intention to use will

have been influenced in addition by the actual use experience the respondents had, as also continuance models

include in the form of satisfaction constructs (Bhattacherjee, 2001). Many prior TAM studies have investigated

only intention as the final outcome variable (Gefen et al., 2003; Lee et al., 2012), often due to experimental set-

ups or considering future, not yet implemented, information systems. We also therefore adopt this approach for

people not previously aware of the existence of social seating services.

Four independent variables are assumed to influence the dependent variable in both models (see Figure 1

for the resulting research models), based on prior TAM studies and the specific context of social seating. In

addition, we perform post-hoc tests regarding the influence of some demographic characteristics especially age

and plane travel frequency on these antecedents. Perceived usefulness (PU) is one of the main determining

factors of technology acceptance in general, and is used in all variations of TAM. It is postulated that customers

intend to use social seating tools if they perceive the respective system useful to them. While there have been

discussions on the applicability of TAM in hedonic contexts in general (Hess et al., 2014), social seating has

potential usefulness also for finding business contacts, or for receiving other forms of assistance or help during

or after the flight. We therefore posit that the relationship is valid in this context as well.

H1: PU has a positive effect on people’s intention to use (H1a) / actual use of a social seating tool (H1b).

The second antecedent from the original model by Davis (1989) is the perceived ease of use (PEOU). Thus,

it is stated that customers intend to use social seating tools if they perceive their use as effortless, therefore the

usability is presumed to be a major factor in adoption also in this context. Klein et al. (2004) have also included

usability, although combining usefulness and ease of use into that construct in their experiments for online

booking of airlines.
Page 9
 H2: PEOU has a positive effect on people’s intention to use (H2a) / actual use of a social seating tool

(H2b).

Various studies have questioned whether PEOU has a direct impact on the intention of usage, or whether

PU is dominating and the impact of PEOU has more of an indirect influence on technology acceptance via

influencing PU (Yousafzai et al., 2007). In this study, however, TAM in its original form (Davis, 1989) is used

as the basis for both research models, in which PEOU has an impact on the intention to use specific technology

(as stated in H2) as well as on PU. Therefore, it is posited as an additional hypothesis that PEOU of a social

seating tool positively influences the tool’s PU, thus making a more usable tool being perceived as more useful.

H3: PEOU has a positive effect on PU.

Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:25 23 July 2017 (PT)

Since the majority of the social seating tools introduced rely on already existing customer profiles in social

networks, social network involvement as a prerequisite is apparent. Therefore using such a service is easier and

less effort-intensive for people already involved in social networks, e.g. because of familiarity and the lack of a

need to create a new profile. Additionally, the fundamental idea of virtual social networks - connecting people

with shared interests or backgrounds with each other - is transposed to the airline industry to link people

virtually first, known or unknown beforehand, in order to meet them in reality on an airplane. People more

involved in virtual social networks can be assumed to be more predisposed towards making connections and

sharing, thus also more likely to use social seating.

H4: The degree of involvement in social networks has a positive effect on people’s intention to use (H4a) /

actual use of a social seating tool (H4b).

With the development of social networks and their vastly increased popularity, discussions about data

protection and privacy issues emerged. People share a large amount of private information such as pictures,

marital status or employer name. Social network providers can use this data for directed advertising or other

analyses. When Facebook changed the privacy settings in 2009, users reacted negatively since they were not

able to choose a privacy setting anymore that allowed for a hidden account not searchable by the public (Kabay,

2010). At the same time McGrath (2011) discovered that not even 50% of the respondents to a survey have read

the privacy policies of social networks they are active in, but more than 80% considered them important.

Clearly, there are discrepancies between the attitude of users towards privacy issues and their actual behavior.

Since social seating systems are based on social network or equivalent profiles, the cautious attitude towards the

data used and maybe also the understanding (or missing comprehension) about technical backgrounds of data

protection and usage might hinder the intention of consumers to use and accept these tools. One extreme
Page 10
 example can be found in a USA TODAY article where a Facebook user is cited posting on KLM’s Facebook

page about the new Meet & Seat system: "I totally vote on the creepy. Is the default to opt in or opt out? If I was

traveling with my kids/teens or traveling on my own — all I think of is the creeps that would use this to stalk. I

would hope they remind passengers each time to opt out if they don't want to be stalked on a flight" (Schaal,

2012). Whether wrong information, mistrust, misunderstanding or simply prudent behavior is the reason for

people’s concerns related to privacy issues and data protection, they can be problematic for their acceptance,

thus they are assumed to be a determinant of user acceptance in this study. Similar perceptions of risk

respectively perceptions of mechanisms employed to mitigate those have been found to be a relevant factor in

many TAM-based studies in an online context (Gefen et al., 2003). Lee et al. (2012) have used technological
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:25 23 July 2017 (PT)

readiness to explain the attitude towards airline self-service check-in kiosks, and found a clear positive

relationship. For social seating, which involves actual physical meetings and interactions, privacy concerns

could also be heightened due to the fact that there is no technological intermediary or available means of

protecting privacy like encryption. For a real-world interaction, some aspects especially of outward appearance

can not be kept private or misrepresented. We therefore propose the following hypothesis:

H5: Perceived privacy and data protection issues and risks have a negative effect on people’s intention to

use (H5a) / actual use of a social seating tool (H5b).

Figure 1: Research Model 1 and 2

3. Methodology

Page 11
 To test the hypotheses outlined above, an online survey was deemed appropriate. The potential consumer

base for airplane travel and thus social seating is very broad, and Internet usage and access are widespread, thus

online distribution was considered not to introduce a bias. Three face-to-face interviews were held to pre-test the

questionnaire, leading to some minor revisions in wording of items. The survey was then published online on

15th February 2013 through Facebook and e-mails, using convenience and snowball sampling, starting with

connections of the study authors. After four weeks of promoting the survey the system closed on 15th March

2013 with 194 responses.

The survey instrument was developed based on the research model as presented above and a literature

review. Where possible, the items were adopted from prior TAM-based studies as noted below, with slight
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:25 23 July 2017 (PT)

changes in wording to adopt them to the setting of social seating (Hess et al., 2014). A 5-point Likert scale

anchored to “Strongly Agree” respectively “Strongly Disagree” was used for PU, PEOU, as well as “Perceived

Privacy and Data Protection Issues”. Besides demographic questions and an introductory explanation about

social seating the questionnaire consists of the following sections (the full questionnaire with all items can be

found in the appendix, with respective question numbers provided below):

- Perceived Usefulness: Five items (Q6-Q10) were used to measure the usefulness of a social seating tool

as perceived by the interviewees. They included items like “To use a social seating tool would improve the

flight experience because I can choose my neighbor”, and were adopted with wording changes from Davis

(1989), Venkatesh (2000) and Gefen et al. (2003).

- Perceived Ease of Use: Three items (Q11-Q13) were employed based on Davis (1989), Venkatesh

(2000) and Gefen et al. (2003) to measure the ease of use of a social seating tool as perceived by the

respondents, for example “I think it is clear to me how to use a social seating tool”.

- Social Network Involvement: Five items (Q14-18) were used to measure the respondents’ social

network usage. This construct was measured through the use of questions that ask for frequencies of activities

such as logging-in, uploading pictures, writing messages and updating status information.

- Perceived Privacy and Data Protection Issues: Five items (Q19-Q23) were used to measure perceived

problems and risks related to privacy and data protection, and mitigating mechanisms including “I would trust

the airline/company offering a social seating service to protect my privacy and data”. These items were mostly

based on Gefen et al. (2003), as well as the insecurity component from Lee et al. (2012).

Page 12
 One screening question (Q4) was asked to relate to former familiarity with social seating tools before the

survey to divide between the two different groups of respondents. Only for those participants, actual use was

inquired (Q4a). Behavioral intention to use social seating was measured with one item (Q24, “Overall, I intend

to use a social seating tool when available”) adapted from prior TAM-based studies (Hess et al., 2014).

4. Results and Analysis

Out of the 194 respondents, 82 were male (42 %) and 112 female (58 %). The age group 25-34 year-old

was represented most with 107 interviewees (55 %), followed by 18-24 year-old with 46 responses (24 %); 35-

44 year-old respondents numbered 17 (9 %), 55-64 year-old numbered 13 (7 %) and 45-54 year-old
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:25 23 July 2017 (PT)

interviewees numbered 10 (5 %). No respondents were older or younger than these brackets (one non-

respondent). For model 2 it was asked whether any type of a social seating tool had been used before, and as

supposed beforehand, only a small number of respondents had actually used it, accounting for 8.8 % of all

respondents (17 people) from 31 person that reported to have had prior knowledge of such a service and that

therefore constitute the sample for this further analysis.

4.1. Factor Analysis

We first performed an exploratory factor analysis to check whether the constructs “PU”, PEOU”, “Social

Network Involvement” and “Perceived Privacy and Data Protection Issues” indeed result from the different

survey items, as not all constructs have been used and validated in literature before. First analysis showed that

there are indeed four factors with an Eigenvalue greater 1. Varimax rotation method was used to extract the

factors and the analysis underlined the correctness of the model: Barlett’s test of sphericity showed a high

significance with .000 and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure (KMO) of sampling adequacy gave a value of

0.842. Hence, the four factors are valid constructs for the research. 64.5% of total variance of variables was

explained by the four factors. Cronbach’s alpha of all factors is sufficiently high with > 0.75. Table 1 shows

results and summary statistics of the factor analysis.

Table 1: Factor Analysis

Item Factor
(see Appendix)
PU PEOU Social Network Perceived
Involvement Privacy & Data
Protection

Page 13
 Issues
Q8 0.62
Q10 0.62
Q9 0.55
Q6 0.52
Q7 0.51
Q13 0.68
Q12 0.59
Q11 0.52
Q18 0.93
Q16 0.89
Q15 0.84
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:25 23 July 2017 (PT)

Q14 0.67
Q17 0.53
Q20 0.90
Q19 0.80
Q22 0.79
Q23 0.75
Q21 0.69
% Total Variance 16.13 9.23 18.97 20.15
Explained
Cronbach's Alpha 0.80 0.78 0.83 0.88

Then, in order to confirm the dimensionality obtained by EFA and to assess reliability and validity,

confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using the sem package for the R statistical language. The

final CFA demonstrated good model fit meaning that there is no significant discrepancy between the

correlations proposed and the correlations observed (goodness of fit index of 0.845, RMSEA of 0.082). All

factors have AVE over 0.5 and CR over 0.7. Based on these results, Table 1 provides descriptive statistics on the

resulting variables including their correlations.

Table 2: Descriptive statistics for survey constructs (n=194)

Variable Mean Min. Max. Std. Correlation Coefficient

Dev.
PU PEOU SNI Privacy Intention Use
& Data to Use
Prot.

PU 3.52 1.0 5.0 0.73 -

PEOU 3.81 1.0 5.0 0.67 0.30 -
Page 14
 (p<0.01)

Social Network 2.24 1.0 5.0 0.79 0.26 0.14 -

Involvement (p<0.01) (p<0.1)

Perceived Privacy & 3.20 1.4 5.0 0.82 -0.44 -0.26 -0.17 -
Data Protection (p<0.01) (p<0.01) (p<0.05)
Issues
Intention to Use 3.18 1.0 5.0 1.06 0.72 0.31 0.21 -0.48 -
(p<0.01) (p<0.01) (p<0.01) (p<0.01)

Use of Social 0.09 0.0 1.0 0.28 n.s. n.s. 0.27 -0.15 n.s. -
Seating (binary) (p<0.01) (p<0.05)

4.2. Research Model 1 – Intention to Use as Dependent Variable

In research model 1, the answer to the question (measured with a Likert scale) whether the respondent
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:25 23 July 2017 (PT)

would use a social seating tool was used as dependent variable. First, regression analysis based on scale

averages was used to provide a first test of the separate hypotheses, in addition a structural equation model was

estimated to test the full model (Nusair and Hua, 2010). The complete dataset (N=194) was used in this analysis.

The regression analysis (see Table 3) showed that while H5a (negative effect of Perceived Data Protection

Issues on the intention of use) was supported (null hypothesis rejected with a significance of p < 0.05), H4a

(positive effect of Social Network Involvement) was rejected. H1a is supported with a high significance of p <

0.01, indicating that PU has a positive effect on the intention to use a social seating tool. Hypothesis 2a (positive

effect of PEOU on the intention of use) was rejected. The regression on PU as dependent variable and PEOU as

independent variable to test the hypothesis 3 on the other hand showed a high significance (p < 0.01), thus

lending support to hypothesis 3. The effect of PEOU on intention to use therefore acts through PU only.

Table 3: Regression Analysis for Model 1

2 2
Model R R Adjusted R Std. Error of
Summary the Estimate
0.73 0.54 0.53 0.73
ANOVA Sum of Df Mean Square F. Sig.
Squares
Regression 116.28 4 29.07 55.08 0.00
Residual 99.76 189 0.53
Total 216.04 193
Coefficients Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
Constant -1.08 0.36 -3.02 0.00

Page 15
 PU 0.91 0.08 0.63 10.98 0.00
PEOU 0.13 0.08 0.08 1.58 0.12
Social Network 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.36 0.72
Involvement
Data Protection -0.19 0.07 -0.15 2.65 0.01
& Privacy
Issues

In order to test the full research model, we also estimated a structural equation model using the sem

package for the R statistics language. The model achieves a goodness of fit index of 0.89 and an R2 of 0.49 for

the intention to use, as well as RMSEA of 0.238 and Tucker-Lewis NNFI of 0.508. The model confirms the
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:25 23 July 2017 (PT)

previous analyses and shows that the paths from PEOU to PU, as well as both from Data Protection & Privacy

Issues and PU to intention were significant. The other paths were not significant (see Fig. 2).

Figure 2: SEM results for research model 1 (weights show standardized coefficients, ** p < 0.01)

We further explored possible antecedents to our main constructs driving adoption (PU, PEOU, Social

Network Involvement and Perceived Data Protection Issues). In the demographics section of the survey,

respondents have been asked to specify how often they fly per year (answer options ranged from ‘1-2 round

trips’ to ‘7 or more round-trips’), and this information on service usage intensity was used to check whether it

had any impact on one of the these four independent variables. The four regression analyses did not show any

significant relationship. One reason might be an unequal distribution among the answers: The majority of people

(66 %) were not frequent flyer with only up to four flights (round-trip) per year. Only 22 % stated to fly seven or

more round-trips per year. A sample with more frequent flier might give other results.

Page 16
 Lastly, the same procedure was used to uncover whether the age of the respondents shows any significant

relation to the four constructs used to predict intention to use a social seating tool. The regression analysis for

the variable Social Network Involvement showed a high significance (p < 0.001) for age with a negative sign (-

0.26). This shows that the younger the users the more they are involved in social networks, which is not

surprising. There was no significant relation found with Perceived Data Protection Issues. The regression

analysis with PEOU as dependent variable was also significant for age, but only at p < 0.05, and with PU at p <

0.1 Also both of these relationships had a negative coefficient, indicating that a younger age group is more

likely to perceive social seating applications as easy to use as well as useful.

4.3. Research Model 2 – Use as Dependent Variable

Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:25 23 July 2017 (PT)

Model 2 employs actual use of social seating as a dependent variable. Although actual use is preferred over

intention as a final outcome variable, only a relatively small part of the dataset can be used. In total 31

respondents stated they knew such a tool before, with 17 actually having used it. As people that first were

confronted with social seating during the survey administration had not been able to make a conscious decision

on usage or non-usage before, they are excluded from the evaluation of this research model, therefore the usable

dataset is a relatively small subset (N=31) of the full dataset.

In order to test the hypotheses first a linear binomial regression analysis was used, the dependent variable

being whether the respondent had ever used a social seating tool or not. The results did not show any significant

relationships, probably due to low sample size. In order to test hypothesis 3, the positive influence of PEOU on

PU, a regression analysis was again conducted analogous to model 1. Only limited significance (p < 0.1) was

found and therefore, H3 is not be unconditionally supported.

Finally, we estimated a structural equation model for the full research model 2 again using the R language

sem package. The model achieves a goodness of fit index of 0.85 and an R2 of 0.21 for the use (RMSEA 0.239

and Tucker-Lewis NNFI of -0.353). The model shows three paths significant at p < 0.1, the link between PEOU

and PU, as well as influences of Data Protection & Privacy Issues and Social Network involvement on actual

use. The other paths were not significant, including the link from PU that was significant for intention (see Fig.

3). Therefore we find some weak support for H3, H4b and H5b. We finally checked whether including the

intention to use could enhance the results, but neither when added as antecedent of actual use, nor as

consequence any significant results were found.

Page 17
 Figure 3: SEM results for research model 2 (weights show standardized coefficients, * p < 0.1)
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:25 23 July 2017 (PT)

5. Discussion and Conclusions

5.1. Conclusions

The aim of the study was to understand which factors contribute to the intention to adopt respectively actual

use of a social media application, using the area of social seating as context. Insights into this issue can impact

companies' decisions on whether or how to develop such services in the future, and which factors to focus on or

highlight in for example their marketing efforts. With this, resources can be adequately used, and should not be

squandered on initiatives that have a low probability of being successful. The setting is also interesting because

most such initiatives of social seating services failed or at least are not widely adopted. Daum and Wittmer

(2016) also found that free seat selection seems to be preferred over social seating. Two research models based

on TAM were used to measure the influence of four factors on the actual use on the one hand and on the

intention to use social seating on the other hand. While it is preferable to study actual adoption rather than

intention, the low penetration of such applications to date made it necessary to use both approaches, with sample

size for the second group unfortunately being relatively low. Data was gathered through a survey among 194

participants. Table 4 provides an overview of hypotheses and results.

Table 4: Overview of results

Hypothesis Model 1 (Intention Model 2 (Use as

as dependent dependent
variable) variable)
H1: Perceived usefulness has a positive effect on the H1a: Supported (p < H1b: Rejected
dependent variable 0.01)
H2: Perceived ease of use has a positive effect on the H2a: Rejected H2b: Rejected

Page 18
 dependent variable
H3: Perceived ease of use has a positive effect on H3: Supported (p < H3: Weakly
perceived usefulness 0.01) supported (p < 0.1)
H4: Degree of involvement in social networks has a positive H4a: Rejected H4b: Weakly
effect on the dependent variable supported (p < 0.1)
H5: Perceived privacy and data protection issues and risks H5a: Supported (p < H5b: Weakly
have a negative effect on the dependent variable 0.05) supported (p < 0.1)

In the first model, explaining adoption intention, data protection issues had a significant impact on the

intention of the participants, as well as perceived usefulness. This supports hypotheses H1a and H5a, but no

support was found for H2a and H4a. The actual use was positively influenced by the degree of involvement in
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:25 23 July 2017 (PT)

social networks and negatively affected by the perception of data protection and privacy issues and risks, but as

the results are based on a smaller dataset only weak support for H4b and H5b resulted. Perceived usefulness and

perceived ease of use did not show any impact on the actual use of social seating, therefore H1b and H2b were

rejected. In neither of the two models perceived ease of use had a direct influence on the dependent variable of

use respectively adoption intention, but on the factor perceived usefulness and thus an indirect effect on the final

outcome variable, supporting H3. Besides this impact of PEOU on PU, the only path that is confirmed in both

models is the negative impact of data security and privacy concerns.

5.2. Theoretical Implications

From a theoretical viewpoint, we first confirm other TAM studies (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000) pointing

out that perceived ease of use does not have a direct influence on the dependent variable of use respectively

adoption intention, but on perceived usefulness and thus an indirect effect on the final outcome variable.

Interestingly, King and He (2006) listed Internet applications as one area where this would not be the case, but

where a direct effect can be found. This could mean that the link to the real world exhibited by social seating

applications overshadows this effect, respectively that a more fine-grained differentiation is needed.

Secondly, clear support was found for the the negative impact of security and privacy concerns. This

underlines the importance of this factor for both use and adoption of social seating, and might call for additional

work on including this antecedent in other similar contexts as well.

Finally, the differences between the two models used yield some important insights. It is an interesting

result that for actual use, perceived usefulness does not come out as a significant factor, while social network

involvement does, and the situation is reversed for intention. One possible explanation could be found in the

innovativeness of the social seating service. The minority of participants who knew about such a service before

Page 19
 the survey might constitute technology enthusiasts and early adopters, which are prone to try new services or

products with less consideration for the actual usefulness, especially if highly interested and involved in social

networks in general already. In the larger population where other characteristics dominate, perceived usefulness

becomes the main driver of adoption. This could mean that more differentiation with regard to adoption between

groups of users is necessary. It is also noteworthy that social network involvement did not affect the intention to

use, although it seemed straightforward to assume that people using more social networking tools already, as

well as use them more intensely, would be more likely to adopt such a new, similar application. An explanation

could be found in the fact that this application involves not only the virtual domain, but very clearly also the real

world, and interactions there. This additional component, which also might aggravate privacy concerns, as some
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:25 23 July 2017 (PT)

aspects can no longer be misrepresented as in the virtual space and profile, seems to play a more major role than

anticipated, and needs to be further researched.

5.3. Practical Implications

From a managerial perspective, the results show on that social seating could indeed be successful, since

46 % of the respondents of the survey answered that they perceive such a tool as useful when flying, by

choosing “agree” or even “strongly agree”, whereas only 25 % disagreed or strongly disagreed (29 % were

undecided). However, the major barrier seems to be concerns about data protection and privacy. For such a

service or similar applications, providers clearly have to address this issue, for example by signaling use of

appropriate technology or by related certifications. Further research should be conducted to discover in-depth

knowledge about the causes of the concerns as this study cannot explain why people see these problems in

social seating applications. One possible reason could be the link of social networks to the airline ticket booking

process during which sensitive data such as credit card information might have to be provided. In that case, a

solution like Satisfly might be more readily accepted because social network profiles need not be shared.

In addition, the relatively weak link from social network involvement to intention and use provides

important insights for marketing social seating or similar applications. While targeting heavy social network

users might seem a logical step, the results of this study do not fully support this strategy.

5.4. Limitations and Future Research

A limitation of this work lies in the selection of factors impacting the intention and use. Other aspects might

also influence the acceptance such as the travel purpose (e.g. business or leisure). This could be investigated not

only as antecedent, but also as having a moderating effect on any of the relationships between other independent

variables and the outcome. In addition, the aspect of nationality and culture might also have an effect on the
Page 20
 acceptance of social seating which was not included in the study. While participants came from a total of 26

countries, there was a skewed distribution: 49 % stated Germany as country of origin and 28 % Turkey. All

other nationalities represent less than 6 % each. Key demographic and response characteristics were tested for

differences between the two most represented countries and the others present in the sample, with no significant

differences showing up. Furthermore, while the total sample of 194 respondents was large enough to arrive at

reliable results, the dataset for understanding actual use was relatively limited, and prevented highly significant

results. Finally, all measurements were taken together using a single method, so common method bias might be

an issue.

This study is one of the first empirical studies on the acceptance of a novel application built on social
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:25 23 July 2017 (PT)

networking platforms, and the first application of the TAM in the airline business. We therefore contribute to

theory in this field both by highlighting the aspects of TAM that hold valid in this context, as well as by

introducing two new factors, social media involvement and privacy concerns, that possibly extend beyond the

application at hand. The outcomes forecast a possibility of success for new social seating applications under the

precondition of solving the problem related to fears regarding privacy or data protection violations. The

limitations of the study outlined above point to possible approaches for future research, e.g. investigations into

underlying reasons for data protection concerns, including the purpose of air travel as antecedent or moderating

factor, or incorporating nationality and culture as an additional aspect.

REFERENCES

Agarwal, R. and Prasad, J. (1997). “The Role of Innovation Characteristics and Perceived Voluntariness in the

Acceptance of Information Technologies?” Decision Sciences, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 557-582.

Agresta, S., Bough, B. and Miletsky, J. (2010). Perspectives on Social Media Marketing. Course Technology.

Boston.

Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs.

NJ.

Alaska Airlines (2011). “Alaska Airlines Launches Travel Planning Facebook Application”, available at:

http://splash.alaskasworld.com/Newsroom/ASNews/ASstories/AS_20110922_075504.asp (accessed 4

September 2014).

Page 21
 Alaska Airlines (2012). “FlyingSocial® - A New Way To Find Low Fares And Visit Your Facebook Friends”,

available at: http://www.alaskaair.com/content/gifts-and-products/flying-

social?lid=JennWindow::ResponseLink (accessed 24 January 2013).

Ayala, N. (2012). “Social Seating”, available at: http://www.jwtintelligence.com/2012/06/social-seating/

(accessed 25 January 2013).

Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). “Understanding Information Systems Continuance: An Expectation-Confirmation

Model”. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25, pp. 351-370.

China Weekly News (2011). “Airlines, aviation; Malaysia Airlines allows booking, check-in and sharing on

facebook platform”, March 15, p. 313.

Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:25 23 July 2017 (PT)

Clapperton, G., (2009). This is Social Media: Tweet, blog, link and post your way to business success. Capstone

Publishing Ltd. Chichester.

Clark, N. (2009). “Airlines Follow Passengers Onto Social Media Sites”, available at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/business/global/30tweetair.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2 (accessed 22

January 2013).

Davis, F.D. (1989). “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information

Technology”. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 319-340.

Daum, S. and Wittmer, A. (2016). “The Concept of Well-being and Its Effect on Airline Ticket Purchasing”.

20th Annual Air Transport Research Society World Conference, Rhodes, Greece.

Di Pietro, L., Di Virgilio, F. and Pantano, E. (2012). “Social network for the choice of tourist destination:

Attitude and behavioural intention”. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 60-

76.

Durston, J. (2012). “Social seating: First airlines, then everything else”. CNN Travel, available at:

http://travel.cnn.com/explorations/life/social-seating-airlines-163146 (accessed 25 January 2013).

Ellison, N. B. (2007). “Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship”. Journal of

Computer Mediated Communication, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 210-230.

Entertainment Close – Up (2011). “Cheapflights.co.uk: Airlines and Social Media - 5 Winning Trends.

Entertainment Close - Up”, March 16.

Evans, D. (2012). Social Media Marketing: An Hour a Day. 2nd edition, John Wiley & Sons. Indianapolis.

FaceBelt (2012). “Homepage”, available at: http://www.facebelt.com/ (accessed 25 January 2013).

Page 22
 Flynn, N. (2012). The Social Media Handbook: Policies and Best Practices to Effectively Manage Your

Organization's Social Media Presence, Posts, and Potential Risks. Pfeiffer. San Francisco.

Gefen, D., Karahanna, E. and Straub, D.W. (2003). “Trust and TAM in online

shopping: An integrated model”. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 51-90.

Hess, T.J., McNab, A.L. and Basoglu, K.A. (2014). “Reliability Generalization of Perceived Ease of Use,

Perceived Usefulness, and Behavioral Intentions”. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 51-28.

Hossain, L. and de Silva, A. (2009). “Exploring user acceptance of technology using social networks”. Journal

of High Technology Management Research, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 1-18.

Hudson, S., and Thal, K. (2013). “The impact of social media on the consumer decision process: implications
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:25 23 July 2017 (PT)

for tourism marketing”. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 30, No. 1-2, pp. 156-160.

Joseph, S. (2012). “Airlines ramp up social media efforts”. Marketing Week (Online), April 17, available at:

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/airlines-ramp-up-social-media-efforts/4001216.article (accessed 24

January 2013).

Kabay, M. (2010). “Privacy issues in social-networking sites”. Network World (Online), available at:

http://search.proquest.com/docview/755002674 (accessed 5 February 2013).

Kaplan, A.M. and Haenlein, M. (2010). “Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social

Media”. Business Horizons, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 59-68.

Kasavana, M. L., Nusair, K. and Teodosic, K. (2010). “Online social networking: redefining the human web”.

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 68-82.

Kim, S. (2012). “Factors affecting the use of social software: TAM perspectives”. The Electronic Library, Vol.

30, No. 5, pp. 690-706.

Kim, J. and Tussyadiah, I. P. (2013). “Social networking and social support in tourism experience: The

moderating role of online self-presentation strategies”. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 30,

No. 1-2, pp. 78-92.

King, W.R. and He, J. (2006). “A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model”. Information &

Management, Vol. 43, No. 6, pp. 740-755.

Klein, S., Köhne, F. and Öörni, A. (2005). “Barriers to online booking of scheduled airline tickets”. Journal of

Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 17, No. 2-3, pp. 27-39.

Page 23
 KLM (2013). “KLM Meet & Seat”, available at:

http://www.klm.com/travel/de_en/prepare_for_travel/on_board/your_seat_on_board/meet_and_seat.htm

(accessed 24 January 2013).

Koufaris, M. (2002). “Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online consumer

behavior”. Information Systems Research, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 205- 223.

Lederer, A.L., Maupin, D.J., Sena, M.P. and Zhuang, Y. (2000). “The technology acceptance model and the

World Wide Web”. Decision Support Systems, Vol. 29, pp. 269–282.

Lee, W., Castellanos, C. and Chris Choi, H. S. (2012). “The Effect of Technology Readiness on Customers'

Attitudes toward Self-Service Technology and Its Adoption; The Empirical Study of US Airline Self-
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:25 23 July 2017 (PT)

Service Check-In Kiosks”. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 29, No. 8, pp. 731-743.

Leung, D., Law, R., van Hoof, H. and Buhalis, D. (2013). “Social media in tourism and hospitality: A literature

review”. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 30, No. 1-2, pp. 3-22.

Malaysia Airlines (2012). “Annual Report 2011”, available at: http://ir.chartnexus.com/mas/doc/ar/ar2011.pdf

(accessed 5 February 2013).

Malaysia Airlines (2013). “Travelling with friends gets easier with Mhbuddy”, available at:

http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/in/en/book-and-plan/mhbuddy.html (accessed 24 January 2013).

McGrath, L.C. (2011). “Social Networking Privacy: Important or Not?” Interdisciplinary Journal of

Contemporary Research in Business, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 22-28.

Munar, A. M. and Jacobsen, J. K. S. (2014). “Motivations for sharing tourism experiences through social

media”. Tourism Management, Vol. 43, pp. 46-54.

Neuhofer, B. (2016). “Innovation through co-creation: Towards an understanding of technology-facilitated co-

creation processes in tourism”. In: Egger, R., Gula, I., Walch, D. (eds.) Open Tourism: Open Innovation,

Crowdsourcing and Collaborative Consumption challenging the tourism industry. Vienna, Springer, pp. 17-

33.

Nowotarski, M. (2011). “Don’t Steal My Avatar! Challenges of Social Networking Patents”, available at:

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/01/23/dont-steal-my-avatar-challenges-of-social-networking-

patents/id=14531/ (accessed 24 January 2013).

Nusair, K. and Hua, N. (2010). “Comparative assessment of structural equation modeling and multiple

regression research methodologies: E-commerce context”. Tourism Management, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 314-

324.
Page 24
 Obar, J.A. and Wildman, S. (2015). “Social media definition and the governance challenge: An introduction to

the special issue”. Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 39, No. 9, pp. 745-750.

OECD (2007). “Participative Web and User-created Content: Web 2.0, Wikis and Social Networking”, available

at: http://browse.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/pdfs/free/9307031e.pdf (accessed 18 January 2013).

Pikkarainen, T., K. Pikkarainen, H. Karjaluoto and Pahnila, S. (2004). “Consumer acceptance of online banking:

an extension of the Technology Acceptance Model”. Internet Research, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 224 – 235.

Planely (2013). “Homepage”, available at: http://www.planely.com/index/index/ (accessed 25 January 2013).

Read, W., Robertson, N. and McQuilken, L. (2011). “A novel romance: The Technology Acceptance Model

with emotional attachment”. Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 223-229.
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:25 23 July 2017 (PT)

Satisfly (2013). “FAQ”, available at: https://www.satisfly.com/docs/faq.html (accessed 24 January 2013).

Schaal, D. (2012). “Is this seat taken? Airlines add 'social seating' programs”, USA TODAY Travel, February

27, available at: http://travel.usatoday.com/digitaltraveler/story/2012-02-27/Is-this-seat-taken-Airlines-add-

social-seating-programs/53270826/1 (accessed 24 January 2013).

SeatID (2013). “About”, available at: http://www.seatid.com/about/ (accessed 25 January 2013).

SimpliFlying (2012). 2airBaltic introduces intelligent seating with SeatBuddy, powered by Satisfly – the cabin

gets social”, available at: http://simpliflying.com/2012/airbaltic-introduces-intelligent-seating-with-

seatbuddy-powered-by-satisfly-the-cabin-gets-social/ (accessed 24 January 2013).

Tham, A., Croy, G. and Mair, J. (2013). “Social media in destination choice: Distinctive electronic word-of-

mouth dimensions”. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 30, No. 1-2, pp. 144-155.

Trejos, N. (2012). “Social-media start-ups bring compatible travelers together”, USA TODAY Travel, May 28,

available at: http://travel.usatoday.com/news/story/2012-05-28/Socal-media-start-ups-bring-compatible-

travelers-together/55250688/1 (accessed 1 February 2013).

Venkatesh, V. (2000). “Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and

Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model”. Informations Systems Research, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 342-

365.

Venkatesh, V. and Bala, H. (2008). “Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on

Interventions”. Decision Sciences, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 273-315.

Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (2000). “A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four

Longitudinal Field Studies”. Management Science, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 186-204.

Page 25
 Wang, H., Chung, J.E., Park, N., McLaughlin, M.L. and Fulk, J. (2012). 2Understanding Online Community

Participation: A Technology Acceptance Perspective”. Communication Research, Vol. 39, No. 6, pp. 781-

801.

Weber, L. (2009). Marketing to the Social Web: How Digital Customer Communities Build Your Business. John

Wiley & Sons. New Jersey.

Weinberg, T. (2009). The New Community Rules: Marketing on the Social Web. O'Reilly. Sebastopol, Canada.

Yousafzai, S.Y., Foxall, G.R. and Pallister, J.G. (2007). “Technology acceptance: a meta-analysis of the TAM:

Part 1”. Journal of Modelling in Management, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 251-280.

Zarrella, D. (2010). The Social Media Marketing Book. O'Reilly. Sebastopol, Canada.
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:25 23 July 2017 (PT)

Zeng, B. and Gerritsen, R. (2014). “What do we know about social media in tourism? A review”. Tourism

Management Perspectives, Vol. 10, pp. 27-36.

Page 26
 Appendix: Social Seating Survey Instrument

This survey is conducted by <removed>. It will not take more than 10 minutes and all your answers will be

completely anonymous and kept confidential. Your effort and time to contribute to the success of this research

work is highly appreciated!

Topic explanation: The survey is about a new tool in the airline industry, which will be called “social seating

tool” throughout the survey. The purpose of these applications is to make flying more social by providing

information (e.g. interests, background) about passengers. With this information you can choose your seat
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:25 23 July 2017 (PT)

neighbor on your own. In order to offer this service, airlines make use of already existing profiles from social

networks, such as Facebook, LinkedIn or Twitter. This is one example to demonstrate how these applications

work: After a normal flight booking is done, you can log in to the booking details of the airline and activate the

social seating application under the seating options. You will have the chance to select which network to

connect with and which profile details you want to be shown to other application users. On the virtual seating

map of your flight the profiles of other users are shown. According to your own preferences a seat reservation

close or even next to the person of your choice is possible. This is the main intention of these tools: to offer new

opportunities such as meeting new people with similar interests or making new business contacts while on the

way to a meeting.

1. What is your gender?

Female

Male

2. What is your age?

3. What is your country of origin?

4. Do you know any social seating tool?

Yes

No

4a. If yes, have you ever used such a tool?

Yes

No

Page 27
 5. How often do you fly per year (round-trip = to a destination and back)?

1 - 2 round-trips

3 - 4 round-trips

5 - 6 round-trips

7 or more round-trips

6. To use a social seating tool can help me find new business contacts.

(Please answer this type of question according to your feeling about how much you agree or disagree to this

statement.)

Neither agree nor

Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:25 23 July 2017 (PT)

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

disagree

7. To use a social seating tool would increase the chance to meet interesting people.

Neither agree nor

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
disagree

8. To use a social seating tool would improve the flight experience because I can choose my neighbor.

Neither agree nor

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
disagree

9. To use a social seating tool can be useful for me because it improves the chance to fly with my friends

on the same airplane.

Neither agree nor

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
disagree

Page 28
 Neither agree nor
Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
disagree

10. To use a social seating tool would give me the opportunity to make new friends because I can choose

to sit next to people who share my interests and backgrounds.

Neither agree nor

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
disagree
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:25 23 July 2017 (PT)

11. I think learning to use a social seating tool will be easy.

Neither agree nor

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
disagree

12. I think it will be fast and effortless for me to become skillful in using a social seating tool.

Neither agree nor

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
disagree

13. I think it is clear to me how to use a social seating tool.

Neither agree nor

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
disagree

Page 29
 14. In how many social networks (examples: Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, MySpace, Foursquare) are you

an active member?

('active member' refers to not only having an account/profile there but logging in from time to time)

I am not registered in any social network

4 or more
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:25 23 July 2017 (PT)

15. In at least one of the social networks, how often do you log in?

I am not registered in any social network

once a month or less often

once a week

once a day

several times per day

16. In at least one of the social networks, how often do you write a comment or status notification?

I am not registered in any social network

once a month or less often

once a week

once a day

several times per day

17. In at least one of the social networks, how often do you upload a picture?

I am not registered in any social network

once a month or less often

once a week

once a day

several times per day

Page 30
 18. In at least one of the social networks, how often do you write a message to a person?

I am not registered in any social network

once a month or less often

once a week

once a day

several times per day

19. I doubt my data will be safe when using a social seating tool.

Neither agree nor

Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:25 23 July 2017 (PT)

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

disagree

20. I believe my data could be matched and used by the airline/company for other purposes when using a

social seating tool.

Neither agree nor

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
disagree

21. I trust in the technology the airlines /companies are using to offer a social seating service.

Neither agree nor

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
disagree

22. I would trust the airline/company offering a social seating service to protect my privacy and data.

Neither agree nor

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
disagree

Page 31
 Neither agree nor
Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
disagree

23. Overall, I don’t see any privacy or data protection issues when using a social seating tool.

Neither agree nor

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
disagree
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 03:25 23 July 2017 (PT)

24. Overall, I intend to use a social seating tool when available.

Neither agree nor

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
disagree

Page 32