THE ROLE OF TRUST IN SOCIAL MEDIA

INFLUENCER'S ON CONSUMER TRAVEL

DECISION MAKING
GROUP # IV
Gautham Prabhakar ( EPSM/01/20) 9884084124
Geetha M ( EPSM/01/21) 9789962591
Gaurav Choudhary (EPSM/01/19) 9810132301
Panakala Ganesh Babu ( EPSM/01/43) 9701011878
Himanshu Bajpai ( EPSM/01/22) 9819491290
Kailash Masiwal (EPSM/01/23) 9161544446
Karan D Lakhwani (EPSM/01/24) 7204363194
Sushant Jaiswal (EPSM/01/)

Final Report Submission

GRAND PROJECT

Executive Programme in Marketing & Sales

Management

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT LUCKNOW

Table of Contents
Part -1- Literature Review
1.1 Social Network Sites(SNSS)
1.2 Destination Marketing In SNSS
1.3 SNSSA As A Marketing Tool
1.4 Frame of reference
1.5 Introduction Social Media influencer's ......................................................3
1.6 Significance of the topic

Part – 2- Tabulation of collected data

2.1 Research methodology
2.2 Research Purpose: Descriptive
2.3 Research Approach: Quantitative
2.4 Research Strategy
2.5 Data Collection
2.6 Research Instrument
Research Questionnaire........................................................................................3
Reliability Statistics..............................................................................................4
Research Model....................................................................................................4
Descriptive Statistics.........................................................................................5-6
Demographics....................................................................................................6-8
Gender
Age Group
Marital Status
Designation
Annual Income
Analysis of Questionnaires
Frequency.............................................................................................8-12
Necessity............................................................................................12-15
Method of Payment.............................................................................15-17
Price.....................................................................................................17-20
Availability of Product/Service….......................................................21-23
Correlation..........................................................................................................24
Model Summary..................................................................................................25
ANOVA..............................................................................................................25
Coefficient Table................................................................................................25
Part – 3
Discussion (Findings need to be discussed)--followed by executive implications

Part- 4- Comparative Analysis

Comparative analysis of the literature review with your findings--followed by conclusion
Abstract of Survey..............................................................................................26

Part 2- Data analysis

Tabulation of collected data-Data analysis-Findings
Research Questionnaire
In our new research, we asked respondents to fill out to provide valuable feedback and insights on the role
of trust in social media influencer's on consumer travel decision making.

Questionnaire

1 Number of social media Influencers followed in travel

2 My desire to travel a destination recommended by Social media influencers (SMIs):
Aspiration to visit a destination
3 My desire to travel a destination recommended by Social media influencers (SMIs):
Advertised by SMI.
4 My desire to travel a destination recommended by Social media influencers (SMIs):
Willingness to buy the tourist
5 My desire to travel a destination recommended by Social media influencers (SMIs):
Product recommended by SMI.
6 My desire to travel a destination recommended by Social media influencers (SMIs):
Desire to visit the destination
7 My desire to travel a destination recommended by Social media influencers (SMIs):
Recommended by SMI.
8 My information search on Social media (SM): I use Social media to search for information
about my next travel destination
9 My information search on Social media (SM): I research online by reading about Social
media influencer traveller’s experiences via Social media
10 Evaluating Alternatives: Likely to consider SMI’s travel experiences when making my
travel decisions.
11 Evaluating Alternatives: When I have to make travel-related decisions, I will take
suggestions from digital influencers
12 Purchase Decision: Final decision relating to booking a trip or tourist products because of
the Social media influencer.
13 Purchase Decision: Change existing travel plans because of the Social media influencer
14 Satisfaction: Comfortable with one’s own purchasing decision.
15 Satisfaction: Wise choice to buy this tourist product
16 Satisfaction: Satisfaction with own travel experience based on Social media influencer's
recommendation
17 Satisfaction: Once I make up my mind, I will not look back again
18 Experience Share: Sharing own trip experience to create a good impression about myself

19 Experience Share: Sharing trip experience to receive positive feedback from other
20 Experience Share: Sharing own trip with SM showing similarity with SMIs
21 SMIs (Social Media Influencers) trust: SMI is trustworthy.
22 SMIs (Social Media Influencers) trust: SMI is reliable
23 SMIs (Social Media Influencers) trust: SMI is honest
24 SMIs (Social Media Influencers) trust: SMI is dependable
25 SMIs (Social Media Influencers) trust: SMI is believable
26 SMIs (Social Media Influencers) trust: I trust the information about travel provided by
Influencers
27 SMIs (Social Media Influencers) trust: SMI is more trustworthy than mass media
28 SMIs (Social Media Influencers) trust: SMI is more trustworthy than travel agents.
29 SMIs (Social Media Influencers) trust: SMI is more trustworthy than official tourist sites
We have used online tool to create a survey. The questionnaire used in this study was forwarded to the
respondents via email and created using Google Docs. Google Docs provides the researchers with the certain level
of automation, as all of the answers are automatically written down in the spreadsheet which can be downloaded
and analyzed. While creating the questionnaire it is possible to put some restrictions on the field for answers. The
authors restricted those fields as numeric values, and as a result, all of the data collected was in the numeric
format .All of the questions in the questionnaire were obligatory, so there weren’t missing values Survey
Instrument and Data collection.

A total of 333 respondents were surveyed via questionnaire, the same were completely filled without errors and so
were included in the study. While selecting the respondents for survey we have ensured they belong to executives,
working and Entrepreneur. The diversity of the sample is presented in the following section.

Reliability Statistics
In our new research, we have monitored Desire to travel, Information search, Evaluating Alternatives, Purchase
Decision, Satisfaction and Experience Share towards role of trust in social media influencer's. In order to get better
outcome we addressed 35 questionnaires with 333 responses of different -different demographics, by this way we
found SPSS summary with 95 % of reliability which shows the more significance of data and survey outcome.

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.950 35

Sample Demographics: -
Sample Demographics – Summary

Age Group Frequency Percent

25-34 years 176 52.9
35-44 years 121 36.3
45-54 years 24 7.2
55-64 years 11 3.3
Above 65 years 1 0.3
Total 333 100.0
Marital Status Frequency Percent
Married 123 36.9
Married with children 126 37.8
Unmarried/Single 83 24.9
Others 1 0.3
Total 333 100.0
Designation Frequency Percent
Lower level 42 12.6
Middle level 244 73.3
Upper level 47 14.1
Total 333 100.0
Annual Income Frequency Percent
6 lac – 15 lac 222 66.7
16 lac – 25 lac 61 18.3
26 lac – 35 lac 23 6.9
36 lac – 45 lac 14 4.2
46 lac and above 13 3.9
 Total 333 100.0

Descriptive Statistics
It is important to conduct the descriptive analysis. The 333 participants shared their views and information
provided was analyzed for accessing the views. The Skewness and kurtosis should be in the range of +2 to around
-2 as that was insured it confirms that the data is normal. Mean and standard deviation of the data was also checked
for ensuring the normality and to avoid any discrepancy.

Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Skewness   Kurtosis  
Deviation
Data
Std. Std.
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
Error Error
Age Group 333.00 1.00 5.00 1.62 0.78 1.35 0.13 1.82 0.27
Gender 333.00 1.00 2.00 1.31 0.46 0.84 0.13 -1.30 0.27
Marital Status 333.00 1.00 4.00 1.89 0.79 0.24 0.13 -1.24 0.27
Designation 333.00 1.00 3.00 2.02 0.52 0.02 0.13 0.77 0.27
Annual Income 333.00 1.00 5.00 1.60 1.05 1.89 0.13 2.81 0.27
Daily time spent on Social
333.00 1.00 4.00 2.02 0.77 0.45 0.13 -0.08 0.27
media
Number of social media
Influencers followed in 333.00 1.00 4.00 1.33 0.67 2.26 0.13 4.97 0.27
travel
My desire to travel a
destination recommended
by Social media
333.00 1.00 7.00 2.32 1.31 1.16 0.13 1.48 0.27
influencers (SMIs):
Aspiration to visit a
destination
My desire to travel a
destination recommended
by Social media 333.00 1.00 7.00 2.83 1.36 0.90 0.13 0.96 0.27
influencers (SMIs):
Advertised by SMI.
My desire to travel a
destination recommended
by Social media
333.00 1.00 7.00 3.10 1.50 0.56 0.13 -0.15 0.27
influencers (SMIs):
Willingness to buy the
tourist
My desire to travel a
destination recommended
by Social media
333.00 1.00 7.00 3.11 1.50 0.70 0.13 0.02 0.27
influencers (SMIs):
Product recommended by
SMI.

My desire to travel a
destination recommended
by Social media 333.00 1.00 7.00 2.46 1.34 1.03 0.13 0.99 0.27
influencers (SMIs): Desire
to visit the destination

My desire to travel a
destination recommended
by Social media 333.00 1.00 7.00 2.94 1.38 0.86 0.13 0.57 0.27
influencers (SMIs):
Recommended by SMI.
My information search on
Social media (SM): I use
Social media to search for 333.00 1.00 6.00 2.66 1.49 0.82 0.13 -0.19 0.27
information about my next
travel destination
My information search on
Social media (SM): I
research online by
reading about Social 333.00 1.00 6.00 2.73 1.44 0.79 0.13 -0.15 0.27
media influencer
traveler's experiences via
Social media

Evaluating Alternatives:
Likely to consider SMI’s
travel experiences when 333.00 1.00 7.00 2.82 1.46 1.12 0.13 1.08 0.27
making my travel
decisions.
 Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Skewness   Kurtosis  
Deviation
Std. Std.
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
Error Error
Evaluating Alternatives:
When I have to make
travel-related decisions, I 333.00 1.00 7.00 3.14 1.63 0.65 0.13 -0.38 0.27
will take suggestions from
digital influencers
Purchase Decision: Final
decision relating to
booking a trip or tourist 333.00 1.00 7.00 3.43 1.67 0.57 0.13 -0.49 0.27
products because of the
Social media influencer.
Purchase Decision:
Change existing travel
333.00 1.00 7.00 3.67 1.84 0.38 0.13 -0.91 0.27
plans because of the
Social media influencer
Satisfaction: Comfortable
with one’s own 333.00 1.00 7.00 2.12 1.13 1.49 0.13 3.31 0.27
purchasing decision.
Satisfaction: Wise choice
333.00 1.00 7.00 2.76 1.29 0.87 0.13 1.09 0.27
to buy this tourist product
Satisfaction: Satisfaction
with own travel
experience based on 333.00 1.00 7.00 2.74 1.29 0.81 0.13 0.67 0.27
Social media influencer's
recommendation
Satisfaction: Once I make
up my mind, I will not look 333.00 1.00 7.00 2.73 1.54 0.73 0.13 -0.18 0.27
back again
Experience
Share:Sharing own trip
experience to create a 333.00 1.00 7.00 2.86 1.59 0.97 0.13 0.46 0.27
good impression about
myself
Experience Share:
Sharing trip experience to
333.00 1.00 7.00 3.00 1.62 0.85 0.13 0.04 0.27
receive positive feedback
from other
Experience Share:
Sharing own trip with SM
333.00 1.00 7.00 3.38 1.68 0.54 0.13 -0.50 0.27
showing similarity with
SMIs
SMIs (Social Media
Influencers) trust: SMI is 333.00 1.00 7.00 3.12 1.34 0.58 0.13 0.26 0.27
trustworthy.
SMIs (Social Media
Influencers) trust: SMI is 333.00 1.00 7.00 3.07 1.35 0.53 0.13 0.08 0.27
reliable
SMIs (Social Media
Influencers) trust: SMI is 333.00 1.00 7.00 3.26 1.38 0.37 0.13 0.01 0.27
honest
SMIs (Social Media
Influencers) trust: SMI is 333.00 1.00 7.00 3.22 1.41 0.29 0.13 -0.30 0.27
dependable
SMIs (Social Media
Influencers) trust: SMI is 333.00 1.00 7.00 3.17 1.30 0.34 0.13 -0.06 0.27
believable
SMIs (Social Media
Influencers) trust: I trust
the information about 333.00 1.00 7.00 3.16 1.36 0.47 0.13 0.06 0.27
travel provided by
Influencers
SMIs (Social Media
Influencers) trust: SMI is
333.00 1.00 7.00 3.23 1.47 0.54 0.13 -0.09 0.27
more trustworthy than
mass media
SMIs (Social Media
Influencers) trust: SMI is
333.00 1.00 7.00 3.05 1.43 0.54 0.13 -0.09 0.27
more trustworthy than
travel agents.
SMIs (Social Media
Influencers) trust: SMI is
333.00 1.00 7.00 3.28 1.54 0.52 0.13 -0.23 0.27
more trustworthy than
official tourist sites
Valid N (list wise) 333.00                
 Demographics:
It is a well-known fact that Consumer behavior is vibrant and changes from time to time. There are factors which
affects consumer behavior. As the change comes in these factors, consumer behavior also changes. Some of the
Demographic factors we have accounted for which affect consumer behavior for our case are:

1. Gender
2. Age Group
3. Marital Status
4. Designation
5. Annual Income

Gender:
To identify the gender wise classification of the respondents, data were tabulated in table and diagram as
under:
Gender Frequency Percent

Male 231 69.4

Female 102 30.6
Total 333 100.0

Gender
69.4

30.6

Mal e F em al e

Observation: Male respondents account for over 69% and 31% are female respondents for our project.

Age:
As has been stated above that the sample was diverse in many respects so was in age. The sample consists of
varied age groups which have been presented in the form of a table. The age wise classification has been
presented in table and diagram as under.
Age Group Frequency Percent
25-34 years 176 52.9
35-44 years 121 36.3
45-54 years 24 7.2
55-64 years 11 3.3
Above 65 years 1 0.3
Total 333 100.0
 Age Group
60.0

50.0 52.9

40.0
36.3
30.0

20.0

10.0
7.2
0.0 3.3
25-34 years 35-44 years 45-54 years 55-64 years Above0.3
65 years

Observation: Around 53% of the respondents are in age group of 25-34 Yrs and 36% of the respondents
are in the age group of 35-44 Yrs. Just 7 % are in the age category of 45-54 and 3% account for 55-64
Yrs. A very small % age of less than 1% is in above 65 Yrs.

Inference: It is very clear that from our sample distribution, majority of the population is in young
youthful 20’s to Mid 30’s and Mid 40’s which is a perfect category for testing a topic like trust in social
media Influencers.

Marital Status
To identify the Marital Status of the respondents, data were tabulated in table and diagram as under.

Marital Status Frequency Percent

Married 123 36.9
Married with children 126 37.8
Unmarried/Single 83 24.9
Others 1 0.3
Total 333 100.0

Marital Status
37.8
36.9

24.9

0.3

Mar r i ed Mar r i ed w i t h U n m ar r i ed /S i n g l e Ot h er s
c h i l d r en

Observation: Almost 75% of the respondents are married, out of the set 38 % are married with children. There is
good no. of respondents accounting 25 % who are singe or un married.

Inference: Travel creates a great bonding experience for the family due to the fact that when you take a vacation
together, you become a team. Travelling with the family is a very good way to create lasting memories that will
linger and cherished for a very long time. However, those single prefer to travel with friends. Traveling with
friends is a good way to actually have fun without any form of distractions.
Designation
While selecting the respondents for survey we have ensured they belong to executives, working and
Entrepreneur. Further we have classified respondents on their designation, the data were tabulated in table
and diagram as under.

Designation Frequency Percent

Lower level 42 12.6
Middle level 244 73.3
Upper level 47 14.1
Total 333 100.0

Observation: Almost 73% of the respondents pertains to middle level. 13 % belongs to lower level and 14% are
having Upper designation.

Inference: The age of the respondents lies between 25-44 years and it is evident that they fall mostly in middle
designation.

Annual Income
Respondents have shown the diversity in annual income level as they have shown diversity in different other
demographic factors. The respondents belong to different annual income bracket hence have different need satisfying
habits and behavior.
The diversity of annual income has been presented in the form of a table. The Income wise classification of the
customers is presented in table and diagram as follows:-

Annual Income Frequency Percent

6 lac – 15 lac 222 66.7
16 lac – 25 lac 61 18.3
26 lac – 35 lac 23 6.9
36 lac – 45 lac 14 4.2
46 lac and above 13 3.9
Total 333 100.0

Annual Income
66.7

18.3

6.9

4.2

6 l ac – 1 5 l ac 1 6 l ac – 2 5 l ac 2 6 l ac – 3 5 l ac 3 6 l ac – 4 5 l ac

Observation: Almost 67% of the respondents pertains have annual income of 6 Lac -15 Lac. 18 % belongs to
income group of 16Lac -25 lacs and 11% are having higher income above 26 Lac.

Inference: Designation reflects the spending capacity of the traveler, people chose their Social media influencers
depending on their spending capacity .Also people decide on the travel days or choice of travel destination based on
their travelling budget.
Daily time spent on Social media:
Respondents are diverse not only in demographics they are diverse while surfing in social media. Some of
them are frequent users of social media and remain active online.
To determine their usage rate and the diversity in the usage, the researcher asked questions from the
information. Based on the responses given to the researchers the frequency of Daily time spent on Social
media among the respondents has been analyzed and the frequency of usage has been presented as below:-

Daily time spent on Social media Frequency Percent

Less than 1 hour 83 25

1-2 hrs. 173 52
3-5 hrs. 65 20
More than 5 hrs 12 4
Total 333.0 100

Daily ti me spent on social media

52
25

20

L ess t h an 1 h o u r 1 -2 h r s. 3 -5 h r s. Mo r e t h an 5 h r s

Observation: As can see from the above table that Almost 52 % of the respondents daily spent 1-2 Hrs in social
media, 20% sent 3-5 Hrs, 4% more than 5 hrs. and only 25 % sent less than 1 hrs in social media.
Almost 75 % of the respondent’s surf social media for more than an hour which is appropriate for our research topic
analyzing the role of trust in social media influencers on consumer travel decision making.

Inference: The global average daily social media usage of internet users worldwide amounted to 145 minutes ~ 2.4
Hrs. and the same is being comprehended from our survey data.

Number of social media Influencers followed in travel:

In the survey we have asked the specific question on the number of social media influencers each
respondent follow in social media.

Based on the responses given to the researchers the number of social media influencers followed among
the respondents has been analyzed and the frequency of usage has been presented as below:-

Number of social media Influencers followed in

Frequency Percent
travel
1-3 253 76
4-6 58 17
6-8 14 4
>8 8 2
Total 333.0 100
 Number of social media Infl uencers followed in
travel
76

17

2
1 -3 4 -6 6 -8 > 8

Observation: As can be seen from above data almost 76% of the respondents follow 1-3 numbers of social
medial influences. 17 % follow 4-6 SMI’s, 4 % follow 6-8 SMI’s and 2% follow more than 8 SMI’s

Inference:

Questions related to my desire to travel a destination recommended by

Social media influencers (SMIs):

With social media becoming the primary channel for travelers to acquire travel-related information,
tourism service providers are increasingly partnering with social media influencers (SMIs) as part of their
digital marketing strategy.

Here the travelers will look at the various destinations the influencers have been to and are writing about. It
will show what destinations in the moment are most interesting for travelers and are most being written
about. Further, it will show if there is a tendency for a destination at all places across the world.

This generation is always online not only for travel recommendation but always looking for the best
possible travel deal. It is important for them to have a good deal and they will check various travel sites
before deciding (Price).

Scale Reliability

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha Based on

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
Standardized Items

.911 .911 6
 Inter-Item Correlation Matrix
My desire to
travel a
destination
Aspiration Willingness Product Desire to
recommended Advertised
to visit a to buy the recommend visit the Recommend
by Social by SMI.
destination tourist ed by SMI. destination ed by SMI.
media
influencers
(SMIs):
Aspiration to
visit a 1.000 0.558 0.483 0.462 0.669 0.549
destination
Advertised by
0.558 1.000 0.670 0.778 0.550 0.719
SMI.
Willingness to
buy the tourist 0.483 0.670 1.000 0.766 0.566 0.654
Product
recommended 0.462 0.778 0.766 1.000 0.573 0.762
by SMI.
Desire to visit
the destination 0.669 0.550 0.566 0.573 1.000 0.694
Recommended
by SMI. 0.549 0.719 0.654 0.762 0.694 1.000

Item-Total Statistics
 My desire to travel a destination Scale Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach's
recommended by Social media Mean if Variance if Item-Total Multiple Alpha if
influencers (SMIs): Item Item Correlation Correlation Item
Deleted Deleted Deleted
Aspiration to visit a destination 14.44 37.218 0.629 0.509 0.912

Advertised by SMI. 13.94 34.487 0.790 0.677 0.890

Willingness to buy the tourist 13.67 33.638 0.752 0.621 0.896

Product recommended by SMI. 13.65 32.776 0.810 0.756 0.887

Desire to visit the destination 14.30 35.652 0.720 0.611 0.900

Recommended by SMI. 13.82 33.893 0.817 0.700 0.886

Observation:
The table presents reliability of scales measured in Cronbach’s alphas. The Cronbach’s alpha covering the overall
responses has exceeded the reliability estimates (>= 0.70) recommended by Nunnally (1967), which is considered
a good sign of reliability of the questionnaire. This table describes the reliability analysis of the scale corresponds
to each variable, which is also showing good statistics.

Questions related to SMIs (Social Media Influencers) Trust:

A SMI has access to a large audience and can persuade others by virtue of their authenticity and reach. In an SMI we
look for high level engagement, activeness in the online portals and ways and means by which they win trust of their
followers. Later the quality of content plays a crucial role in creating trust for an SMI.

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
Standardized Items

.964 .965 9
 Inter-Item Correlation Matrix
I trust the SMI is
SMI is SMI is
information more
SMIs (Social more more
SMI is SMI is about trustwort
SMI is SMI is SMI is trustwort trustwort
Media trustwort depend travel hy than
reliable honest believable hy than hy than
hy. able provided official
Influencers) trust: mass travel
by tourist
media agents.
Influencers sites

SMI is trustworthy. 1.00 0.90 0.86 0.76 0.79 0.73 0.69 0.65 0.62
SMI is reliable 0.90 1.00 0.85 0.80 0.80 0.75 0.68 0.70 0.65
SMI is honest 0.86 0.85 1.00 0.83 0.83 0.77 0.74 0.67 0.67
SMI is dependable 0.76 0.80 0.83 1.00 0.84 0.82 0.73 0.71 0.68
SMI is believable 0.79 0.80 0.83 0.84 1.00 0.83 0.77 0.71 0.72
I trust the
information about
0.73 0.75 0.77 0.82 0.83 1.00 0.82 0.75 0.76
travel provided by
Influencers
SMI is more
trustworthy than 0.69 0.68 0.74 0.73 0.77 0.82 1.00 0.79 0.76
mass media
SMI is more
trustworthy than 0.65 0.70 0.67 0.71 0.71 0.75 0.79 1.00 0.78
travel agents.
SMI is more
trustworthy than 0.62 0.65 0.67 0.68 0.72 0.76 0.76 0.78 1.00
official tourist sites

Item-Total Statistics
Scale Scale Cronbach's
Corrected Squared
Mean if Variance Alpha if
SMIs (Social Media Influencers) trust: Item-Total Multiple
Item if Item Item
Correlation Correlation
Deleted Deleted Deleted
SMI is trustworthy. 25.44 99.05 0.84 0.84 0.96
SMI is reliable 25.49 98.49 0.86 0.86 0.96
SMI is honest 25.30 97.58 0.88 0.83 0.96
SMI is dependable 25.35 97.22 0.87 0.80 0.96
SMI is believable 25.39 98.73 0.89 0.81 0.96

I trust the information about travel provided

25.40 97.78 0.88 0.81 0.96
by Influencers

SMI is more trustworthy than mass media 25.33 96.92 0.84 0.77 0.96

SMI is more trustworthy than travel agents. 25.51 98.46 0.81 0.73 0.96

SMI is more trustworthy than official tourist

25.28 97.06 0.79 0.69 0.96
sites

Observation:
The table presents reliability of scales measured in Cronbach’s alphas. The Cronbach’s alpha covering the overall
responses has exceeded the reliability estimates (>= 0.70) recommended by Nunnally (1967), which is considered
a good sign of reliability of the questionnaire. This table describes the reliability analysis of the scale corresponds
to each variable, which is also showing good statistics.

Correlation
 Correlations
Informatio Evaluating Purchase Experience
    Desire Satisfaction Trust
n search Alternatives Decision Share

Pearson
1.00 .608** .661** .635** .491** .518** .530**
Correlation
Desire Sig. (2-
  0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
tailed)
N 333.00 333.00 333.00 333.00 333.00 333.00 333.00
Pearson
.608** 1.00 .676** .553** .403** .551** .518**
Correlation
Informatio
Sig. (2-
n search 0.00   0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
tailed)
N 333.00 333.00 333.00 333.00 333.00 333.00 333.00
Pearson
.661** .676** 1.00 .687** .475** .556** .630**
Evaluating Correlation
Alternativ Sig. (2-
0.00 0.00   0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
es tailed)
N 333.00 333.00 333.00 333.00 333.00 333.00 333.00
Pearson
.635** .553** .687** 1.00 .453** .578** .624**
Correlation
Purchase
Sig. (2-
Decision 0.00 0.00 0.00   0.00 0.00 0.00
tailed)
N 333.00 333.00 333.00 333.00 333.00 333.00 333.00
Pearson
.491** .403** .475** .453** 1.00 .457** .623**
Correlation
Satisfactio
Sig. (2-
n 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00   0.00 0.00
tailed)
N 333.00 333.00 333.00 333.00 333.00 333.00 333.00
Pearson
.518** .551** .556** .578** .457** 1.00 .612**
Correlation
Experienc
Sig. (2-
e Share 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00   0.00
tailed)
N 333.00 333.00 333.00 333.00 333.00 333.00 333.00
Pearson
.530** .518** .630** .624** .623** .612** 1.00
Correlation
Trust Sig. (2-
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00  
tailed)
N 333.00 333.00 333.00 333.00 333.00 333.00 333.00

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Observation and Inference:

 Desire to travel, Information search, Evaluating Alternatives, Purchase Decision, Satisfaction and
Experience Share towards role of trust in social media influencer's were checked for correlation
among all variables. It is important to confirm reliability, normality, and correlation as they all the
underlying assumptions for conducting regression analysis on the data.
 In this correlation tabular all factors are in significant level of 0.00, that means all the factors are very
much correlated, as significant level must be less than 0.01.
 In synopsis as Desire to travel is dependent factor for our analysis, which shows necessity is 53 %
correlated with Role of Trust of SMI in making travel decision, similarly Information search,
Evaluating Alternatives, Purchase Decision, Satisfaction and Experience Share are correlated with
Trust of SMI by 51.8% , 63%, ,62.4 %, 62.3% and 61.2% respectively.
Model Summary

Model Summary

Adjusted R Std. Error of

Model R R Square
Square the Estimate

1 .776a 0.60 0.59 0.79

a. Predictors: (Constant), Experience Share, Satisfaction, Information search, Purchase

Decision, Desire, Evaluating Alternatives

Observation:

R2 (R Sq.) : 60 % Taken as set the predictors - Experience Share, Satisfaction, Information search, Purchase
Decision, Desire, Evaluating Alternatives account for 60 % of the variance in role of trust in SMI for making travel
decision.

ANOVA

ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 304.316 6 50.7194 82.093 <.001b

1 Residual 201.412 326 0.61783    
Total 505.728 332      

a. Dependent Variable: Trust

b. Predictors: (Constant), Experience Share, Satisfaction, Information search, Purchase Decision,

Desire, Evaluating Alternatives

Observation:

The overall regression model is significant, F(6, 326) = 82.093, p= <.001, R Sq.= 0.60 Coefficients

Coefficient Table:
(Each test predictor at alpha = .05 )
 Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients
Model Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) .518 .134 3.871 <.001
Desire -.038 .055 -.036 -.684 .495
Information search .020 .047 .021 .419 .675

Evaluating Alternatives .185 .050 .212 3.677 <.001

1
Purchase Decision .151 .039 .205 3.867 <.001
Satisfaction .402 .051 .333 7.873 <.001
Experience Share .189 .039 .230 4.908 <.001
a. Dependent Variable: Trust

Desire Significant (p<.001)

Information search Not Significant (p=.495)
Evaluating Alternatives Not Significant (p=.675)
Purchase Decision Significant (p<.001)
Satisfaction Significant (p<.001)
Experience Share Significant (p<.001)

The predictors- Desire, Purchase Decision, and Experience Share have unique variance and
accounts for statistically significant ( p <.05 ) Role of trust in travel decision making.