1 INFLUENCE OF USERS’ PSYCHO-SOCIAL TRAITS TO FACEBOOK TRAVEL-

2 RELATED BEHAVIOR PATTERNS

3
4INTRODUCTION
5 The Internet has fundamentally reshaped the flow of tourism related information as well
6as the way the people plan and organize their travel (Buhalis & Law, 2008). This can be well
7described by the statement of Thomas Friedman (2006) that “the world is flat”, which in tourism
8context means that today, majority of people have the internet access and abundance of different
9travel information just a “click away” from them. In terms of searching and sharing tourism
10related information, social media websites, containing various forms of consumer-generated
11content (CGC) such as blogs, virtual communities, wikis, social networks, and media files shared
12on sites like YouTube and Flickr, have gained substantial popularity among travelers (Xiang and
13Gretzel, 2010; Pan, MacLaurin, & Crotts, 2007). Many of these social media websites provide
14consumers with an opportunity to post and share their travel-related comments, statuses,
15opinions, and experiences, as well as personal travel photos and videos which represent a useful
16travel information for potential tourists. This also means that with social networking sites
17(SNSs), a great deal of tourists post and share real-time feelings and impressions (Gretzel, 2006;
18Pan, MacLaurin, & Crotts, 2007). Marketing researchers often use the label “electronic word-of
19mouth”(eWOM) to describe the impact of such media content (Litvin et al., 2008). According to
20Luo & Zhong (2015) and Rojas Mendez & Hine (2017) such travel-related eWOM on SNSs may
21significantly affect the behavior of potential tourists. According to the research done by Pabel &
22Prideaux (2016) on the sample of 986 tourists, social media was important for 27.9% of
23respondents when searching for information about their upcoming trip. It is also important to
24note that without understanding of the role of social media in online travel information sharing
25and search, tourism marketers’ ability to benefit from this phenomenon is quite limited
26(Blackshaw & Nazzaro, 2006).
27 In travel and tourism, past research has focused attention on the psycho-social aspects of
28social media use, especially in terms of user characteristics and motivations for sharing. Huang,
29Basu, & Hsu (2010) identified three most important motives for sharing travel-related
30information via SNSs namely, obtaining travel information, disseminating information, and
31documenting personal experiences where obtaining travel information showed to be the most
32important. This indicates that travel-related content shared on social networks can have an
33important influence on our travel decision-making.
34 Interestingly, sharing photos, videos, and other contents on social networks, especially
35those related to travel, have become a way of self-expression and self-image construction among
36younger generations (Lo et al., 2011).The social networks such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram,
37are platforms on which users can post, share, and discuss interests with other interested users
38(Jansen et al., 2009), and as such they become a tool for self-presentation. However, not all
39people are using social networks for the same reason and with the same intensity. Thus, such
40type of self-expression through social networks varies among people, and it is assumed that their
41travel related behavior on social networks also differs in connection to this. A recent research of
42psycho-social aspects of FB use showed that FB users’ behaviors can be observed not just as a
43number of post, shares, and/or FB friends, but also as the complex set of emotions, motives and
44thoughts that users experience while using FB or as a consequence of FB use (Bodroža &
45Jovanović, 2016). In this research the authors were interested in examining FB users’ tourist-
46related behavior in the context of these aspects of FB experiences, starting with the assumption
47that different forms of psycho-social aspects of FB use will result in different travel related
48behaviors on FB.
49 This study focuses on FB, as the world’s largest social network by the number of users
50(Arno, 2012). Facebook, as the largest social network, has become a very important marketing
51tool for travel destinations (Mariani et al., 2016; Stankov et al., 2010). According to the new
52Facebook statistics (May, 2017), 42% of marketers report that Facebook is critical or important
53to their business. Also, to communicate with others about their trip, 74% of the travelers choose
54Facebook (Prabu, 2013). Worldwide, there are over 1.94 billion monthly active Facebook users,
55and every 60 seconds on Facebook 510 comments are posted, 293,000 statuses are updated, and
56136,000 photos are uploaded (Facebook statistics, 2017). Currently, Facebook has more monthly
57active users than WhatsApp (500 million), Twitter (284 million) and Instagram (600 million)
58combined. Thus, it is of particular interest for destination marketing to study FB use in tourism
59purposes.
60 The main aim of the paper is to explore psychological aspects of FB users’ travel related
61behavior on FB. This especially refers to the time they post their travel related information, the
62type of information they post (photos, videos, comments, etc.), when they watch the photos of
63other people, are they keen to post the information when their impressions are positive or
64negative, and what level of privacy they keep (with whom they are sharing travel-related
65information). Analysis of the relationship between travel related behavior on FB and different
66psycho-social aspects of FB use can be of great importance when planning and managing the
67electronic word-of-mouth on FB. This could help in identifying patterns of tourists FB behavior
68that result in sharing their travel experiences via electronic word-of-mouth as well as in
69predicting FB behavior of future tourists.
70
71LITERATURE REVIEW
72
73The role of social media in tourism
74
75 The use of social media for tourism purposes, such as posting videos, photo sharing and
76podcasting from the trip, became a trend among travelers who increasingly use this tool to depict
77their tourism experiences (Tussyadiah & Fesenmaier, 2009, Xie & Liew, 2008; Park, Seo &
78Kandampully, 2016). A report by Tnooz (2010) found that social networks technology is one of
79the most widely used technologies during travel (38% in the U.S. and 64% outside of the U.S.).
80This is mainly because social networks provide an opportunity for travelers to share their travel
81experiences but also to search for tourist information when they need it. The social networking
82sites (SNS) such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc., have an enormous number of users and
83people often use them for sharing and searching for travel related information.
84 Social media as an information tool is even more important in decision-making phase, as
85people cannot consume tourism product before traveling, thus the experience created by other
86travelers is the closest one can get to tourism product before travelling. Travelers rely on other
87travelers’ advice and experiences for their travel planning but they also tend to share their travel
88experience (Cox, Burgess, Sellitto & Buultjens, 2009). Generally, travelers place a high degree
89of trust in their social media networks as they believe that that information represents a realistic
90experience of other travelers (Lange-Faria & Elliot, 2012). This indicates that this kind of
91eWOM is very influential on consumer purchasing behavior (Guernsey, 2000). In connection
92with this, Xiang et al. (2015) states that online travel planning serves as a window through which
93it is possible to understand how IT has changed travel and tourism.
 94 Understanding the use of social media during travel planning and during travel itself
95could help the tourism industry to better understand the stages at which tourists seek travel-
96related information via social media. MacKay and Vogt (2012) argue that how we use internet in
97everyday life influences the way we use it at the destination and also, that general information
98search behaviors influence information search behaviors at the destination. Moreover, our
99understanding of general users’ behavior on social media can help us predict how they will use
100this media for searching and sharing travel-related content. While current findings provide some
101important insights for understanding social media in tourism, there are not many studies that tend
102to explain tourist behaviors while using a specific social media application. Understanding
103tourists’ behavior in use of social media for tourism can serve as a basis for businesses to
104identify and develop effective marketing communication strategies and control the electronic
105word-of-mouth.
106
107Travel-related behavior of Facebook users’ – implications for marketing
108
109 Facebook, as the largest social network, is of great importance in terms of studying online
110travel related behavior. This social network is most commonly used by travelers to share travel
111experiences, photos, videos and other information. Every year, there is a growth in the amount of
112travel related content on FB (www.thinkdigital.travel.com). Moreover, FB users often tend to get
113away from their daily lives thus, sharing travel photos and posts about travel attractions
114worldwide became very common and popular and many users are increasingly sharing their
115travel related information with others. This certainly influences people who see, comment or like
116this content to think about going to the same destination. Aforementioned emphasizes the
117important role of Facebook as a marketing tool and that electronic word-of-mouth on Facebook
118influences peoples’ decision to travel and where to travel, where to stay, and what to visit.
119 Study by Lo et al. (2011) reveals that some 89% of pleasure travelers take photographs
120and that 41% of them posted their photographs online. SNS, such as Facebook, have made
121personal travel photos visible to the public (Boyd, 2008; Miller & Edwards, 2007; Qian & Scott,
1222007) expanding the potential audience beyond family and friends to new, people living
123worldwide (Goodman, 2007; Schmallegger, Carson & Jacobsen, 2010). These results in a larger
124number of people who see personal travel photos or videos, and read personal posts and statuses
125about travel destination. It is also important to point out that travel photos are often used by
126travelers to present their life in a better light (e.g. as more exciting, funny) than it actually is in
127reality. When travel photos are being posted, a user often selects the best ones that illustrate the
128holiday in the best way. This tendency is also very beneficial for tourist destinations which are in
129this way shown at their best light. Destination photography communicates images that shape and
130reshape tourists' destination perceptions and, consequently, influence their decision-making
131process. In the online communication process, tourist photographs project organic destination
132images which are interpreted by potential tourists, influencing their tourism-related attitudes and
133affecting behavior (Kim & Stepchenkova, 2015). The sharing of experiences includes not only
134cognitive aspects such as facts about destination characteristics (e.g. prices, weather conditions,
135beaches and other attractions) but also emotions, impressions and fantasies about features of a
136destination, for instance through photographs, videos, statuses, emoticons, and other linguistic
137markers in online communication (Baym, 2015).
138 While behavior of FB users has been a subject of many studies (Bodroža & Jovanović,
1392016; Kunz & Seshadri, 2015; Aladwani, 2014; Carpenter, Green, & LaFlam, 2011; Ellison,
140Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007; McCord et al., 2014; Muscanell & Guadagno, 2012; Park, Lee, &
141Kim, 2012; Ross et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2012), none of these studies focused on actual travel
142related behavior of FB users and its relationship with general users’ behavioral patterns on
143Facebook. Research of Bodroža & Jovanović (2016) has provided a comprehensive scale of
144psycho-social aspects of FB use which will be used as the bases for this study. The scale
145measures five distinctive dimensions: Compensatory use of FB (FB as a mean of compensation
146of personal insecurities and feelings of inadequacy), Self-presentation on FB (the choice of
147personal photos and timeline posts made to present one’s ideal self or to make desired
148impression on others), Socializing and seeking sexual partners through FB (active strivings to
149acquaint new friends, intimate and/or sexual partners through FB), FB addiction (prolonged time
150spent on FB and inability to control it despite all the efforts, losing sleep, and procrastination of
151important tasks and responsibilities) and FB profile as the virtual self (realistic representation of
152one's personality through FB profile, which is experiences as a reliable source of information
153about oneself).
154 This study tends to analyze how these psycho-social characteristics of FB users influence
155their travel-related behavior patterns on FB, underlining the benefits of these results for
156destination marketing. Since there is no available theoretical framework which can be used to
157analyze travel related behavior on FB and no comprehensive categorization and/or list of travel
158related behaviors on FB, we tried to include everything we believe is theoretically and practically
159relevant. We can hypothesize that tendency toward self-presentation on FB will lead to frequent
160travel post (including photos, statuses, etc.) and posting more photos showing person on the
161tourist destinations, with the aim to attract attention of others. It is also assumed that FB self-
162presenters would post positive information in order to show themselves in a better light.
163Individuals who compensate their insecurities through FB use can be motivated to post more
164content from their trips in order to affirm and enhance their insecure self-image. Due to their
165insecurities, they can also be expected to post photos which show destination, but not
166themselves. Addictive FB users spend a lot of time on FB which might include browsing other
167peoples’ travel photos, even the photos of people whom they don’t know well. On the other
168hand, they also might spend a lot of time choosing and posting travel-related contents in all
169phases of their trip, as they constantly use FB when traveling. Since dimension Virtual self
170describes realistic self-presentation through FB and preference for communication with offline
171friends, individuals with high scores on this dimension can be expected to restrict the travel-
172related online contents only to “real world” friends. Finally, FB socializers can be prone to often
173checking-ins on travelling destination, as well as posting travel content during their trip, in order
174to establish and maintain new friendships formed during their journeys. Also, it is expected that
175they share information that depicts them as friendly and funny (i.e. sharing statuses about
176nightlife).
177
178
179METHODOLOGY
180
1811. Study sample
182 Sample included 804 Serbian citizens who participated in the online survey. The
183respondents were invited to participate in the study through FB page dedicated to research on FB
184behavior and to share the survey with others. Since snowball technique was used to gather
185participants, the sample is convenient. There was a significantly higher number of female
186respondents (79.5%) and the average age of the entire sample was 24 years. Majority of
187respondents finished high school and are currently students at the university. Moreover, they
188mainly live in cities and most frequently their monthly income is below 150 € 1 (see Table 1). The
189reason for the very low monthly income is the fact that majority of respondents are currently
190students, who don't earn a lot. Also, when traveling, they mainly depend on their parents’ budget.
191When it comes to travelling, respondents prefer to organize their trip on their own. They travel
192once (44.3%) or several times per year (25.7%). The sum of money they spend on travelling
193varies from 0 to 6000 € annually, with an average of 543 €. Socio-demographic characteristics of
194respondents are presented in Table 1.
195 Table 1. Sample characteristics (N=804)
Gender Monthly income
Without Income 5.3%
Below 150 € 31.7%
Male 20.4% From 150-300€ 28.4%
Female 79.6% From 300-500€ 16%
From 500-800€ 11.9%
Over 800€ 0.5 %
Age Place of residence
≤20 26.7%
21-30 60% Village 14.7%
31-40 11.4% Town 21.5%
41-50 1.1% City 63.8%
>50 0.5%
Highest level of completed
Marital Status
education
Single 40%
Primary School 1.3%
Occupied 43.3%
High School 59.6%
Extramarital community 5.7%
Higher school/Faculty 26.4%
Married 9.9%
Master, PhD 12.6%
Divorced 0.8%
Widowed 0.4%
Employment Travel organization
Pupil 1.6%
Student 64.8% Travel agency 38.6%
Unemployed 9% Their own arrangement 61.4%
Employed 24.1%
Retired 0.5%

11 The average salary in Serbia is 49 635 Serbian dinars (around 400 €)

196
1972. Procedure
198 The research was conducted by using an online survey (Google Docs). The respondents
199were informed of the general purpose of the study and that participation is voluntary and
200anonymous. At first, about 840 respondents completed the survey, but after eliminating the
201incomplete surveys, the authors obtained the sample of 804 respondents. SPSS 17.0 was used for
202data analysis.
203
2043. Instruments
205 The questionnaire consisted of three parts. The first part involved items related to the
206socio-demographic profile of the respondents (gender, age, education, employment, monthly
207income, place of residence and marital status) as well as the way they prefer to organize their trip
208(by travel agency or on their own).
209 The second part of the questionnaire involved nine questions related to respondents’ use
210of FB in tourism. Questions intended to obtain the answers about:
211 a) how often the respondents post their travel related information on FB (before, during, and
212 after trip),
213 b) how frequent they post their travel-related information,
214 c) how often their comments or statuses on FB refer to specific categories (such as destination,
215 hotels and restaurants, nightlife, activities on destination) and
216 d) how frequent they post information when their impressions are positive and when they are
217 negative.
218 These questions were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 – never, 2 – rarely, 3 –
219sometimes, 4 – often, 5 – very often). Also, the second part included several additional
220questions:
221 e) what are their travel related photographs showing (themselves and/or themselves with other
222 people; the destination) measured by the number of photos (1 – only one photo, 2 – couple
223 of photos, 3 – majority of photos, 4 – almost all photos),
224 f) when they post the photographs, to which extent are some people (close friends, family,
225 and/or romantic partner; acquaintances; people they know predominately from FB) allowed
226 to see them (1 – they cannot see anything, 2 – they can see some photos, 3 – they can see
227 everything),
228 g) whose travel-related photos they watch on FB (close friends’, relatives’ and/or partner’s;
229 acquaintances’; photos of people they know predominately from FB), which is measured on
230 the 3-point scale (1 – never, 2 – sometimes, 3 – always),
231 h) the reason they watch travel-related photos of other people on FB (because that person is
232 important and dear to me; because destination is interesting; because I enjoy beautiful
233 photos; because I feel bored), measured on the 5-point Likert scale (1 – I totally disagree, 2
234 – I disagree, 3 – neither agree nor disagree, 4 – I agree, 5 – I totally agree).
235 Finally, the third part of the questionnaire referred to the behavior of FB users, and for this
236purpose the 43-item PSAFU scale (Psycho-Social Aspects of Facebook Use; Bodroža &
237Jovanović, 2016) was used. PSAFU scale measures five aspects of FB use: Compensation
238(α=0.89), Self-presentation (α=0.89), Socialization (α=0.81), Addiction (α=0.79), and Virtual
239Self (α=0.60).
240
241RESULTS

242 To analyze the influence of different aspects of psycho-social FB use on their travel
243related behavior on FB, linear regression analyses were applied. Dependent variables in this case
244were items measuring respondents’ tourism-related behavior on FB, while independent variables
245were psycho-social dimensions of FB behavior. The results of the analyses are shown in Table 2.
246
247 Table 2. The influence of PSAFU dimensions on travel-related behavior on FB


Dependent
R2 F p
Variable
Self- Socializa- FB Virtual
Compensation
presentation tion addiction self
4.2) Posting travel-
related information .027 .119** .107* .113* .093* .099 16.545 .000
before the trip
4.2) Posting travel-
related information .024 .143* .046 .138* .110** .105 17.495 .000
during the trip
4.2) Posting travel-
related information -.044 .167* .055 .103* .184* .117 19.480 .000
after the trip
4.3) Frequency of -.032 .136* .113** .119** .168* .137 23.311 .000
posting travel-
related information
on FB
4.4) Posting travel-
related comments
-.032 .039 .076 .065 .213* .077 12.446 .000
and statuses related
to destination
4.4) Posting travel-
related comments
and statuses related -.022 .123** .201* .056 .121* .117 19.701 .000
to going out and
nightlife
4.4) Posting travel-
related comments
and statuses related .068 .040 .099* -.026 .115** .046 7.178 .000
to hotels and
restaurants
4.4) Posting travel-
related comments
and statuses related -.051 .138* .164* .026 .138* .094 15.402 .000
to activities on
destination
4.5) Posting on FB
when impressions -.016 .104* .045 .103* .179* .090 14.198 .000
are positive
4.5) Posting on FB
when impressions .006 -.004 .109** .046 .113** .039 5.965 .000
are negative
4.6) My travel-
related photos show
-.073 .078 .042 .122** .099** .044 6.718 .000
me or/and me with
others.
4.6) My travel-
related photos show -.024 .030 .066 -.015 .120** .023 3.399 .005
destination.
4.7) Allowing
partner / family or
relatives / close -.133** .047 .012 .010 .087** .019 2.869 .002
friends to see my
travel-related photos
4.7) Allowing
acquaintances to
-.054 .135** .078 .031 -.050 .023 3.418 .005
see my travel-
related photos
4.7) Allowing
people I
predominately
-.048 .136* .160* .082** -.043 .060 9.410 .000
know from FB to
see my travel-
related photos
4.8) Watching -.185* .004 -.009 .104* .149* .046 7.758 .000
others’ travel-related
photos because that
person is
important and
 dear to me
4.8) Watching
others’ travel-related
photos because -.124** .071 -.028 .030 .032 .014 2.275 .000
tourist destination
is interesting
4.8) Watching
others’ travel-related
photos because I -.038 .018 -.036 .038 .049 .005 .831 .528
enjoy beautiful
photos
4.8) Watching
others’ travel-related
.015 .193* .034 .183* -.064 .095 16.627 .000
photos because I
feel bored
248
249 To present results in a comprehensive way, the description of the results is organized by
250the predictor variable (PSAFU dimension).Five PSAFU dimensions together explained from
2511.9% to 13.7% of different travel-related FB behaviors.
252 Dimension FB profile as virtual self showed the most consistent relationship to travel-
253related FB behaviors. People who score high on this dimension tend to post travel information
254frequently and in all phases of their trip. Their statuses and comments refer to all aspect of
255destination, they post information both in case when impressions are positive or negative, and
256they post photos showing both destination and themselves. They are primarily interested in
257sharing their travel-related posts and photos with people with whom they are close, and vice
258versa, they usually watch travel-related photos of their close friends, family and partners.
259 Self-presentation on FB is related to quite active travel-related behavior on FB. Active
260FB self-presenters tend to post travel-related information frequently and they post it in all phases
261of the trip. They frequently post comments and statuses about nightlife and going out, as well as
262about their activities on the destination, and they usually post travel-related information on FB
263when their impressions are positive. A need to present oneself in a positive light on FB is related
264to grated tendency to share personal tourist photos with acquaintances and FB friends (whom
265they did not meet in person).At the same time, these individuals are interested in other people’s
266travel-related photos when they feel bored.
267 FB addiction is positively related with frequency of posting travel-related information on
268FB, as well as posting information in all phases of the trip. Individuals with more pronounced
269addictive tendencies tend to post information when their impressions are positive, and photos
270they post usually show themselves or themselves with others. They allow FB friends (people
271they predominately know from FB) to see their photos and tend to watch photos of people with
272whom they’re close and when they are bored.
273 Socializing and seeking sexual partners on FB is also related to numerous touristic
274behaviors on FB. Active socialization on FB is related to more frequent posting of travel-related
275contents, especially before the trip. These individuals tend to post comments and statuses related
276to going out and nightlife, hotels and restaurants and activities on tourist destination. They, also
277frequently post about negative experiences on the tourist destination. Active FB socializers allow
278people they know predominately from FB to see their travel-related photos.
279 When it comes to Compensatory use of FB, the analyses showed it has statistically
280significant relationship with only several categories of travel-related behavior on FB (see Table
2812).Although high compensation through FB use in not related to frequency of travel-related FB
282posts, such individuals less frequently allow close partner, family and relatives to see their
283photos. Moreover, these individuals are less prone to watching travel-related photos of other
284people, even in case of important and dear persons, or when tourist destination might be
285interesting.
286
287
288DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
289
290 The main goal of the study was to explore how different psycho-social patterns of FB
291behavior influence users’ travel related behavior on FB. The study revealed that all analyzed
292dimensions of psycho-social aspects of FB use are related to certain travel-related behavior on
293FB, explain from 1.9-13.7% of these behaviors.
294 The strongest and most consistent predictor of travel-related FB behaviors was the
295dimension that depicts experience of FB as the realistic representation of one’s personality,
296including preference for online communication with friends from “real life”, i.e. offline friends
297(Bodroža & Jovanović, 2016). Being surrounded by persons they really know and trust, these
298individuals feel free to openly share on FB a lot of their travel experiences, such as information
299about the destination, activities, nightlife, restaurants, as well as the photos of themselves or the
300destination. They also share their travel experiences in all phases of their trip – from the time
301when they start preparing for trip to the time when they come back from it. This is in the line
302with previously made hypothesis that individuals who score high on virtual self (who prefer to
303communicate on FB with offline friends), will probably restrict the travel-related online contents
304only to “real world” friends. Perception that FB profile is the representation of person's real self
305on FB and an important aspect of one's personality, leads to posting real travel experience, both
306positive and negative, and expressing them in different ways depending on one’s personality,
307interests, and the way of life. This seems quite encouraging, as the research shows that the
308majority of people on SNS tend to present their real selves (Back et al., 2010). Although such
309individuals might seem as a perfect WoM marketers’ tool, the information they share might have
310limited reach, since they prefer FB communication with restricted circle of offline friends.
311Moreover, they also prefer to watch travel photos of significant others over photos of strangers
312and acquaintances, which makes them less exposed to wide range of possible tourist information
313on FB. However, the fact that these people consider their FB profiles as through representations
314of themselves might mean that they will also feel they can trust other people’s travel-related
315information presented on FB. In other word, this suggests that they could be more susceptible to
316WoM on FB, because it’s coming from the circle of trusted people.
317 Tendency toward self-presentation on FB seem to have the most potential for destination
318marketing. The results of this study show that online self-presenters – individuals motivated to
319present themselves in idealistic light on FB, tend to post travel-related information in all phases
320of their trip, they post information about their trips frequently and they post their impressions
321more often when they are positive. This supports the initial assumption that they would post
322positive information in order to show themselves in a better light. Their tendency toward posting
323information referring to nightlife, going out, and activities on destination serves as a way to
324present themselves as people with good taste and adventurous life. This is also in the line with
325hypothesis that tendency toward self-presentation on FB will lead to frequent travel post
326(including photos, statuses, etc.) and posting more photos of themselves on the tourist
327destinations, with the aim to attract attention of others. These findings support the conclusion of
328Lo et al. (2011) that sharing information related to travel has become a way of self-expression
329and self-image construction among younger generations. Active FB self-presenters allow their
330acquaintances and their FB friends (i.e. people they know almost exclusively from FB) to see
331their travelling photos. Since those individuals are not familiar with the real life of self-presenter,
332it makes them susceptible to impression management and identity experimentation of self-
333presenter. Their need for presenting themselves in the unrealistically positive light on FB
334explains why they allow only acquaintances and FB friends to see their private photos. On the
335other hand, they are not so interested in other people and their travelling photos, and they have
336tendency to watch others’ travel-related content only when they feel bored. This shows their
337focus mainly on themselves and self-presentation. In the light of tourism marketing, this kind of
338FB users may be the most beneficial for destination promotion as they have a tendency to share
339positive information about destination and their FB posts have the wide reach, while they might
340not be so susceptible to influence of others.
341 Another characteristic of FB use that seems beneficial for destination marketing is FB
342addiction. This dimension mainly refers to a prolonged time spent on FB and an inability to
343control it despite all the efforts, losing sleep due to long hours spent online, and procrastination
344of important tasks and responsibilities (e.g. studying, job, etc.) (Bodroža & Jovanović, 2016).
345The results showed that long hours spent on FB are also dedicated to travel-related activities,
346such as frequent posting about the trips in all travelling phases. Thus, it was hypothesized that
347addictive FB users spend a lot of time on FB which might include browsing other peoples’ travel
348photos, even the photos of people whom they don’t know well. They also might spend a lot of
349time choosing and posting travel-related contents in all phases of their trip, as they constantly use
350FB when traveling. As the current study revealed such results, it can be assumed that individuals
351with addictive tendencies in FB use, use the time before the trip to post comments, search
352through, and comment on the photos of others (although they often do it out of boredom, as the
353results have shown), and they continue with their excessive use of FB during and after the trip,
354probably for the purpose of sharing their photos, statuses, and comments about their travelling
355experiences. Frequent posting of travelling information in all travel phases may be very
356beneficial for destination promotion, especially because, as the results have shown, FB addicts
357tend to post information when their impressions are positive. Greater tendency to comment
358positively about their travel experiences could be the result of their fear of negative evaluation of
359others in offline setting, which they try to overcome in the online setting (Bodroža & Jovanović,
3602016). They also have a tendency to post travelling photos depicting them or/and themselves
361with others, which may be result of their need to share online everything they do, and as the
362results show, they share it with people they know only from FB. Public profiles of people who
363post travel information frequently may reach a wider audience and thus influence others’ desire
364to travel. Also, the prolonged time that individuals with addictive tendencies spend on FB may
365influence both sharing information about themselves, as well as watching photos of other people
366– whether because photos belong to significant others or because person feels bored. Based on all
367this, it can be concluded that addictive FB users can be important in sharing electronic WoM on
368FB.
369 The study showed that Compensatory use of FB is not related to travel-related behavior
370on FB to a great extent, thus it seems that this aspect of FB behavior is not of much interest to
371destination marketers. Our hypothesis that those who score high on this dimension would post
372content from their trips in order to enhance their insecure self-image was not supported. Instead,
373the study showed that individuals who compensate their insecurities through FB use don’t allow
374close people to see their photos. Also, they are less prone to watch travelling photos of important
375and dear persons or interesting tourist destination. This can indicate that on FB they tend to stay
376far away from their close friends and family, who are familiar with their real life, as they want to
377compensate their feelings of inadequacy on FB through communication with FB friends. This
378type of FB users is focused on themselves rather than on tourist content on FB, which is why
379using FB for informative purposes, such as watching travel photos of interesting destinations
380may not be in their focus. Based on this, it seems that individuals who use FB to compensate for
381own feelings of inadequacy may not be interesting to marketing managers as the travel related
382content on FB is less likely to attract them or create desire to travel.
383 Socializing and seeking sexual partners through FB influences several categories of
384travel related behavior on FB. As results showed, respondents with higher score on this
385dimension tend to post information before the trip and are prone to frequent posting of travel-
386related information, which may be because they tend to attract attention of other people by
387announcing that they are going to travel, which might be their way to start the communication.
388Their tendency to post on FB when they have negative impressions may be used to start
389discussion with others and get more interest from other people with similar experience (e.g. on
390travel forums). As results have shown, FB socializers, tend to post comments and statuses about
391going out and nightlife, hotels and restaurants and activities on destination, probably in an effort
392to present themselves as sociable and funny. This confirms the previously stated hypothesis that
393FB socializers can be prone to often checking-ins on travelling destination, as well as sharing
394information that depicts them as friendly and funny (i.e. sharing statuses about nightlife).
395 Since Socialization on FB is positively related to the number of friends on FB (in this
396research we obtained the correlation of r=.198, p<.05), destination marketers who deal with the
397promotion of nightlife, hotels, restaurants and activities should focus their promotion on these
398people. Bodroža & Jovanović (2016) suggest that this aspect of FB use is related to seeking new
399friends, intimate and/or sexual partners on FB, which may explain why they allow their
400travelling photos to be seen by people they know almost exclusively from FB.
401 Finally, it can be concluded that psycho-social aspects of FB use have an important
402influence on travel-related behavior on FB. The study showed that all PSAFU dimensions are
403predictors of some travel related behavior, except Compensatory use of FB which turned to be of
404less relevance for destination marketers. To summarize, destination marketers should focus their
405eWOM strategies on FB users prone to self-presentation, acquiring new friendships on FB and
406with somewhat addictive tendencies of FB use, since they have the widest reach with their FB
407posts and are the most motivated to share travel related information. On the other hand, although
408dimension of FB use Virtual Self was the most consistent determinant of the travel related
409behaviors, results suggest that users with such FB use pattern are focused on and are susceptible
410to their close friends from an offline setting. Therefore, they might not be very influential in
411sharing travel related information online.
412 The study also has certain limitations, which are related to the study sample. The sample
413was convenient, all respondents were from Serbia, and the sample included much more female
414than male respondents, which limits generalizability of the study findings. Although the subscale
415Virtual Self was the main determinant of the travel related behaviors on FB, due to its low
416internal consistency, the results obtained with this subscale should be further tested. The future
417research should focus on some other factors influencing different behavior in posting travel-
418related information. Besides psycho-social aspects of general FB use, which showed to have the
419substantial influence on the travel-related behavior on FB, the influence of personality or travel
420motivation should also be the subject of future inquiries. Finally, in order to verify the results of
421this study and acquire further knowledge, it would be useful to directly observe travel related FB
422behaviors on individual FB users rather than rely on self-report measures.
423
424
425REFERENCES
426
427Aladwani, A. M. (2014). Gravitating towards Facebook (GoToFB): what it is? And how can it be
428measured? Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 270-278
429Arno C. (2012). Worldwide Social Media Usage Trends in 2012. available at:
430http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2167518/Worldwide- Social-Media-Usage-Trends-in-2012.
431(accessed on 15 December 2014).
432Ayeh, J. K., N. Au, and R. Law. (2013). Do We Believe in TripAdvisor? Examining Credibility
433Perceptions and Online Travelers’ Attitude toward Using User-Generated Content. Journal of
434Travel Research, 52 (4), 437-52.
435Back, M. D., Stopfer, J. M., Vazire, S., Gaddis, S., Schmukle, S. C., Egloff, B., et al. (2010).
436Facebook profiles reflect actual personality, not self-idealization. Psychological Science, 21(3),
437372-374.
438Baym, N. K. (2015). Personal connections in the digital age. John Wiley & Sons.
439Berger, J., and Schwartz, E. (2011). What drives immediate and ongoing word of mouth?
440Journal of Marketing Research, 48(5), 869-880
441Bodroža, B. and Jovanović, T. (2016). Validation of the new scale for measuring behaviors of
442Facebook users: Psycho-Social Aspects of Facebook Use (PSAFU). Computers in Human
443Behavior, 54, 425–435.
444Boyd, D. (2008). Why youth (heart) social network sites: the role of networked publics in
445teenage social life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), Youth, identity, and digital media (pp. 119-142).
446Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
447Buhalis, D., and Law, R. (2008). Progress in information technology and tourism management:
44820 years on and 10 years after the Internet - the state of eTourism research. Tourism
449Management, 29(4), 609–623.
450Carpenter, J. M., Green, M. C., and LaFlam, J. (2011). People or profiles: individual differences
451in online social networking use. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(5), 538-541
452Cox, C., Burgess, S., Sellitto, C. and Buultjens, J. (2009). The role of user-generated content in
453tourists’ travel planning behavior. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 18 (8),
454743-764.
455Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., and Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “Friends”: social
456capital and college students' use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated
457Communication, 12(4), 1143-1168.
458Friedman, T. L. (2006). The world is flat. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
459Gretzel, U. (2006). Consumer generated content – trends and implications for branding. e-
460Review of Tourism Research, 4(3), 9–11.
461Goodman, E. (2007). Destination services: tourist media and networked places. UC Berkeley:
462School of Information Report 2007-004. <http://www.escholarship. org/uc/item/0919c6sv>
463Guernsey, L. (2000). Suddenly, Everybody's an Expert on Everything. The New York Times, 3
464February.
465Hays, S., Page, S., and Buhalis, D. (2013). Social media as a destination marketing tool: its use
466by national tourism organisations. Current Issues in Tourism, 16(3), 211-239.
467Huang, Y., Basu, C., and Hsu, M. K. (2010). Exploring motivations of travel knowledge sharing
468on social network sites: an empirical investigation of U.S. college students. Journal of
469Hospitality Marketing and Management, 19, 717-734.
470Kaplan, A. M., and Haenlein, M. (2009). Users of the world, unite! the challenges and
471opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53, 59-68.
472Kim and Stepchenkova (2015). Effect of tourist photographs on attitudes towards destination:
473Manifest and latent content. Tourism Management 49, 29-41.
474Kim, H., Xiang, Z., and Fesenmaier, D.R. (2015). Use of the internet for trip planning: a
475generational analysis. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 32(3), 276-289
476Kunz, W. and Seshadri, S. (2015). From virtual travelers to real friends: Relationship-building
477insights from an online travel community. Journal of Business Research, 68 (9) 1822–1828.
478Lange-Faria, W. and Elliot, S. (2012). Understanding the role of social media in Destination
479marketing, Tourismos: an international multidisciplinary journal of tourism, 7 (1), 193-211.
480Lee, K.H. and Hyun, S.S. (2015). A model of behavioral intentions to follow online travel advice
481based on social and emotional loneliness scales in the context of online travel communities: The
482moderating role of emotional expressivity. Tourism Management 48, 426-438
483Leung, D., Law, R., van Hoof, H., and Buhalis, D. (2013). Social media in tourism and
484hospitality: a literature review. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 30, 3-22.
485Litvin, S. W., Goldsmith, R. E., and Pan, B. (2008). Electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and
486tourism management. Tourism Management, 29(3), 458–468.
487Lo, S.T., McKercher, B., Lo, A., Cheung, C., and Law, R. (2011). Tourism and online
488photography. Tourism Management, 32, (4), 725–731.
489Jansen, B.J., Zhang, M., Sobel, K., and Chowdury, A. (2009). Twitter power: tweets as
490electronic word of mouth. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
491Technology, 60 (11), 2169-2188.
492MacKay, K., and Vogt, C. (2012). Information Technology in Everyday and Vacation Contexts.
493Annals of Tourism Research, 39 (3), 1380-401.
494Mariani, M.M., Di Felice, M., and Mura, M. (2016). Facebook as a destination marketing tool:
495Evidence from Italian regional Destination Management Organizations. Tourism Management
49654, 321-343.
497McCord, B., Rodebaugh, T. L., & Levinson, C. A. (2014). Facebook: social uses and
498anxiety. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 23-27.
499Miller, A., & Edwards, W. (2007). Give and take: a study of consumer photo-sharing culture and
500practice. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. San
501Jose, California, USA.
502Munar, A.M., and Jacobsen, J.S. (2014). Motivations for sharing tourism experiences through
503social media. Tourism management, 43, 46-54.
504Munar, A. M., and Ooi, C.-S. (2012). The truth of the crowds: social media and the heritage
505experience. In L. Smith, E. Waterton, & S. Watson (Eds.), The cultural moment in tourism (pp.
506255-273). Abingdon: Routledge.
507Muscanell, N. L., & Guadagno, R. E. (2012). Make new friends or keep the old: gender
508and personality differences in social networking use. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 107-
509112.
510Pabel, A., & Prideaux, B. (2016). Social media use in pre-trip planning by tourists visiting a
511small regional leisure destination. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 22(4), 335-348.
512Pan, B., MacLaurin, T. and Crotts, J. C. (2007). Travel blogs and their implications for
513destination marketing. Journal of Travel Research, 46 (1), 35-45.
514Park, N., Lee, S., & Kim, J. H. (2012). Individuals' personal network characteristics and patterns
515of Facebook use: a social network approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1700-1707.
516Park, H., Seo, S., & Kandampully, J. (2016). Why post on social networking sites (SNS)?
517Examining motives for visiting and sharing pilgrimage experiences on SNS. Journal of Vacation
518Marketing, 22(4), 307-319.
519Pike, S., and Page, S. (2014). Destination marketing organizations and destination marketing: a
520narrative analysis of the literature. Tourism Management, 41, 202-227.
521Prabu, K. (2013). Indians fail to leave social networks at home when travelling, available at:
522(accessed January, 2017).
523Ross, C., Orr, E.S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J.M., Simmering, M.G., and Orr, R.R. (2009).
524Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior,
52525(2), 578-586
526Rojas-Méndez, J.I., & Hine, M.J. (2017). Countries’ positioning on personality traits: Analysis of
52710 South American national tourism websites. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 23 (3), 233-247.
528Qian, H., & Scott, C.R. (2007). Anonymity and self-disclosure on weblogs. Journal of
529Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4). article 14.
530Sigala, M., Christou, E., and Gretzel, U. (2012). Social media in travel, tourism and hospitality:
531Theory, practice and cases. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
532Schmallegger, D., Carson, D., & Jacobsen, D. (2010). The use of photographs of consumer
533generated content websites: practical implications for destination image analysis. In N. Sharda
534(Ed.), Tourism informatics (pp. 243e260). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
535Stankov, U., Lazic, L., & Dragicevic, V. (2010). The extent of use of basic Facebook user-
536generated content by the national tourism organizations in Europe. European Journal of Tourism
537Research, 3(2), 105.
538Tnooz (2010). How travellers use technology to search, book and play when away. Accessed
539online (Nov. 15, 2010) at http://www.tnooz.com/2010/08/12/news/survey-how-travellers-use-
540technology-to-search-book-and-play-when-away/.
541Tussyadiah, I.P. and Fesenmaier, D.R. (2008). Marketing Places through First-Person Stories:
542An Analysis of Pennsylvania Road tripper Blog. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 25(3-
5434): 299-311.
544The Top 20 Valuable Facebook Statistic, May, 2017: https://zephoria.com/top-15-valuable-
545facebook-statistics/
546Volo, S. (2010). Bloggers’ reported tourist experiences: their utility as a tourism data source and
547their effect on prospective tourists. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 16(4), 297.
548Wang, J.-L., Jackson, L. A., Zhang, D.-J., & Su, Z.-Q. (2012). The relationships among the Big
549Five personality factors, self-esteem, narcissism, and sensation-seeking to Chinese university
550students' uses of social networking sites (SNSs). Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2313-
5512319
552Xiang, Z. and Gretzel, U. (2010). Role of social media in online travel information search.
553Tourism Management, 31 (2), 179-188.
554Xiang, Z., Wang, D., O’Leary, J.T., and Fesenmaier, D.R. (2015). Adapting to the internet:
555trends in travelers’ use of the web for trip planning. Journal of Travel Research, 54(4), 511-527.
556Xiang, Z., Magnini, V.P., and Fesenmaier, D.R. (2015). Information technology and consumer
557behavior in travel and tourism: Insights from travel planning using the internet. Journal of
558Retailing and Consumer Services, 22, 244–249.
559Xie, F. and Liew, A.A. (2008). Podcasting and tourism: an exploratory study of types approaches
560and content. Journal of Information Technology & Tourism, 10(2), 173-180.
561Yoo, K.H., and Gretzel, U. (2011). Influence of personality on travel-related consumer generated
562media creation. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 609-621.