Tourism Recreation Research

ISSN: 0250-8281 (Print) 2320-0308 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtrr20

Social media influence on tourists’ destination

choice: importance of context

A. Tham, J. Mair & G. Croy

To cite this article: A. Tham, J. Mair & G. Croy (2019): Social media influence on
tourists’ destination choice: importance of context, Tourism Recreation Research, DOI:
10.1080/02508281.2019.1700655

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2019.1700655

Published online: 18 Dec 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtrr20
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2019.1700655

Social media influence on tourists’ destination choice: importance of context

a b c
A. Tham , J. Mair and G. Croy
a
USC Business School, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, Australia; bUQ Business School, University of Queensland, Brisbane,
Australia; cMonash Business School, Monash University, Caulfield East, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

While social media receive considerable scholarly attention, studies reveal mixed outcomes in Received 18 August 2019
relation to its influence on tourists’ destination choices. There is nonetheless a persistent Accepted 2 December 2019
perception that social media has a fundamental influence on destination choice. However, those
KEYWORDS
studies that do find a social media influence are in contexts where tourists are predisposed to be Tourist decision-making;
influenced (the contexts were selected due to social media presence or influence). These studies electronic word-of-mouth;
also have limitations in terms of social media types, tourists and destinations. This research planning complexity;
responds to the challenges and explores social media influence across diverse destination choice destination novelty; social
contexts. Through face-to-face interviews conducted with 39 Australian tourist decision-makers, media engagement
the findings reveal that social media influence is only apparent when specific context-conditions
are co-present. Instead, most destination choice contexts are likely to result in low levels of social
media influence. The findings advance theory by identifying three contextual dimensions for
social media influence: level of social media engagement; destination novelty or familiarity; and
complexity of the planning decision. This research importantly demonstrates the need to
illuminate context when conceptualising social media influence on tourists’ destination choices.
Practically, destinations should utilise social media to demonstrate ease of visit planning.

Introduction the influence of social media on tourists’ destination

Social media have attracted significant tourism scholarly
attention over the last decade, as exemplified by a
number of special issues (Backer & Hay, 2013; Law &
Xiang, 2013; Law, Fong, Koo, & Ye, 2017; Ozturk,
2017). A common narrative through the studies is that
social media have had a fundamental or transformative
effect on tourists’ information sourcing and consequent
decision-making (Dickinger & Mazanec, 2015; Jacobsen
& Munar, 2012; Mehraliyev, Choi, & Koseoglu, 2019). In
practice too, destination marketing has also used
social media sites such as Facebook, Weibo, Twitter,
Instagram and YouTube to influence destination
choices within online communities, and the use is
increasing (Bakr & Ali, 2013; Tussyadiah, Park, & Fesen-
maier, 2011). Whilst it has been demonstrated that
social media are increasingly being used for onsite,
micro-level decisions within a destination, such as
which restaurant to eat at, or which hotel to stay at
(de Lima, Mainardes, & Cavalcanti, 2019; Varkaris & Neu-
hofer, 2017), scholars are beginning to question the
previously taken-for-granted notion that social media
is highly influential in destination choice (Magno &
Cassia, 2018; Tsiakali, 2018; Tussyadiah, Kausar, &
Soesilo, 2018; Xu & Pratt, 2018). We aim to interrogate
choices to gain insight as to how influential it is, and
under what circumstances. In completing the aim, two
contributions are proposed. First, to highlight specific
contexts and/or the co-presence of specific conditions
for social media to be influential in tourist destination
choices. Second, to distinguish contexts and conditions
that would lead to social media being much less influ-
ential in tourist destination choice. Importantly for this
research, context reflects an interplay between internal
tourist motivations and external destination decision
characteristics that result in destination choice (or not)
(Lamsfus, Wang, Alzua-Sorzabal, & Xiang, 2015). In
doing so, a more nuanced understanding of social
media’s influence in destination choice will be realised.
To achieve the aim, the article is divided into four
parts. First, destination choice literature, the importance
of travel contexts and the roles of social media are
reviewed showing different approaches to understand-
ing choice outcomes, and to derive specific research
questions. Second, the research method adopted, and
data analysis are discussed. Third, findings are presented
and discussed to answer the research questions. Finally,
the paper concludes by highlighting contributions and
delineating the scope of future research.

CONTACT A. Tham mtham@usc.edu.au

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 A. THAM ET AL.
Literature review
Destination choice
Tourists’ destination choice has been a mainstay in
tourism scholarship over the past three decades (inter
alia Decrop, 2010; Karl, Reintinger, & Schmude, 2015;
Moscardo, Morrison, Pearce, Lang, & O’Leary, 1996). Inter-
est has been piqued to influence tourist preferences
amidst increasing destination competition. Early scholars
proposed rational destination decision-making pro-
cesses and understanding the various influences on des-
tination choice (Crompton, 1992; Woodside & Lysonski,
1989). Much of the rational processes have centred on
the notion of choice sets (Decrop, 2010; Sirakaya &
Woodside, 2005). Scholars focusing on choice sets con-
clude that destination decision-makers undergo a cogni-
tive and emotional appraisal of destinations in
accordance with the purpose or motive for travel (Wood-
side & Lysonski, 1989). Destination choice sets are con-
ceptualised as a process of moving from destinations a
decision-maker is aware of, termed an awareness set,
before eliminating destinations to a few remaining
alternatives in an evoked set, where these locations are
perceived to be highly suitable for the tourist’s purpose
(Crompton, 1992). Then, from among the evoked set’s
few alternatives, a tourist selects the final destination
for travel (Karl et al., 2015). Throughout this process, tour-
ists work with information at their disposal to eliminate
destinations and select the best-fit to achieve their
desired end destination choice (Mohsin & Ryan, 2004;
Nyman, Westin, & Carson, 2018).
However, more recently, other studies have paid
greater attention to the constructive nature of
decision-making (Keshavarzian & Wu, 2017; McCabe, Li,
& Chen, 2016; Qiu, Masiero, & Li, 2018). This reframing
of perspectives emphasises the intrinsic role of contexts
when understanding destination choice outcomes. Con-
texts are the circumstances that warrant unique con-
siderations involving destination attributes, tourist
characteristics and travel purpose (Lamsfus et al., 2015).
As destination choice decisions are prompted by
various motivations, which differ each time a decision
is made, context is integral to appreciate what influences
decision-making (McCabe et al., 2016). Importantly,
context constrains or enables destination choice
decisions (Lee, Song, Lee, & Petrick, 2018; Marcevova,
Coles, & Shaw, 2010; Marder, Archer-Brown, Colliander,
& Lambert, 2019). What is evident is that, whilst it is poss-
ible to theorise destination choice as a rational process,
this process is also moderated by contextual consider-
ations (Beritelli, Reinhold, & Luo, 2019). Therefore, we
need to appreciate that social media’s influence will be
within the predisposed limits of a tourist’s context, and
it is the context that will provide the boundaries of allow-
able influence. However, as literature to date has paid
insufficient attention to the role of social media
influence in terms of different travel contexts, it is impor-
tant to examine what social media contributes to tour-
ists’ destination choice outcomes (Singh & Srivastava,
2019).
Social media in tourism
Broadly defined, social media are web-based appli-
cations disseminating user-generated contents (Tussya-
diah et al., 2011). Different types of social media exist,
such as forums (e.g. Lonely Planet Thorn Tree), video-dis-
semination (e.g. YouTube), photography archives (e.g.
Flickr), and social networking sites (e.g. Facebook).
These social media vary in terms of their forms of com-
munication (one-to-many, or many-to-many), and
usage patterns (Fotis, Buhalis, & Rossides, 2011). More-
over, social media engagement also varies by country,
age and gender (Albarq, 2014; Cox, Burgess, Sellitto, &
Buultjens, 2009; Dionysopoulou & Mylonakis, 2013).
Altogether, the copious amounts of social media con-
tents (otherwise known as electronic word-of-mouth
(eWOM)), disseminated across different sites provide
opportunities for greater personalisation of information.
The ability to personalise information and vast reach of
social media have enabled greater tourist engagement
with social media.
Social media facilitate travel and the implementation
of destination choices (Bakr & Ali, 2013). Social media
are utilised in the pre-travel, during travel and post-
travel stages, illustrating the temporal roles across the
tourist journey (Book, Tanford, Montgomery, & Love,
2018). Across these three stages, social media appear to
be both relevant and instrumental in shaping tourist pre-
ferences and decision-making. First, in the pre-travel
stage, tourists use social media as tools to solicit
tourism-related information, and expedite the infor-
mation search process (Liu, Norman, & Pennington-Gray,
2013). Engagement with social media can also help tour-
ists justify their choices and reduce post-purchase disso-
nance, including their destination choice (Tussyadiah
et al., 2018). Destination choices are particularly prone
to dissonance for two key reasons. One, consumption
does not immediately follow the purchase decision (Jalil-
vand, Samiei, Dini, & Manzari, 2012). Two, destination
choices are often made sight unseen, without the ability
to ‘pre-test’ the experience (Rathonyi, 2013).
In the second stage, during the travel experience,
tourists use social media to disseminate their travel

experience. Some postulate that this is to enable other
users to vicariously share the tourist’s destination experi-
ence (Wu & Pearce, 2017). Others posit that social media
have become an extension of the ideal social self-image,
and the presented tourism experience repositions how
an individual is portrayed (Osei, Mensah, & Amenumey,
2018). It is also suggested that, given the heightened
importance of safety and security, social media are
being used to keep others aware of the tourist’s where-
abouts while travelling (Hernandez-Mendez, Munoz-
Leiva, & Sanchez-Fernandez, 2015).
Third, tourists use social media in the post-travel stage
as a repository of tourism experiences. Often, forums and
photography archival sites are a compilation of different
tourists’ submissions, narrating what they liked or dis-
liked about various experiences (Fakharyan, Jalilvand,
Elyasi, & Mohammadi, 2012). Some tourists do this for
altruistic reasons, to help others plan their journeys by
providing insightful tips (Lee, Reid, & Kim, 2014). Other
tourists though, may engage with social media at the
post-travel stage to reflect on their own experiences.
Obviously, there are different ways and times that
tourists engage with social media across their tourism
journey. Given that any destination’s success hinges on
their ability to influence tourist arrivals and thereafter
stimulate repeat visits, social media may be an effective
way to raise awareness, and interest towards the destina-
tion (Zhang, Wu, Morrison, Tseng, & Chen, 2018). Collec-
tively, while there are many studies on social media in
tourism, not all are related to decision-making, and
even in this space these studies have only superficially
discussed the contexts in which the decisions were
made.
Social media influence in tourist destination
choice
Few studies have specifically examined social media’s
influence in tourists’ destination choice (most social
media-tourism studies focus on micro-level decisions).
Table 1 shows 16 studies that have examined social
media influence on destination choice. These studies
provide valuable insights into the role of social media
influence on destination choice. The studies evidence
that social media are used in destination choices across
a variety of countries and cultures. Indeed, not only is
social media used, it has also been demonstrated to be
influential in the choice of shortlisted destinations in
tourists’ evaluation sets. However, when identified, the
level of influence was mostly low to very low. Accounting
for the lack of social media influence, these studies
offered a lack of source credibility as a partial explanation
(also see Filieri, Alguezaui, & McLeay, 2015; Tham, Croy, &
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 3
Mair, 2013). Additionally, in some studies at least, social
media’s role appeared to validate tourists’ decisions,
reducing dissonance, rather than influencing outright
choices (Bakr & Ali, 2013; Cox et al., 2009; Fotis et al.,
2011).
However, these studies have either only used one, or a
few of social media sites, and/or one market segment
and/or one destination (Simms, 2012). That is, the
insights of into social media influence on tourists’ desti-
nation choice have been very contained, restricting
transferability to other contexts. As destination choices
are made for a variety of reasons and contexts, it is
important to explore the circumstances in which social
media are more influential in some cases, as compared
to others (Lim, Ramayah, Teoh, & Cheah, 2017). As
such, key questions emerge. First, does the focus on a
specific destination (evident in most of the studies exam-
ined) limit the opportunity to identify and understand
influence? That is, some respondents might have a pre-
existing relationship with the destination negating the
influence social media (or any channel) could have had
(Kang & Namkung, 2016). Second, does the focus on
specific social media in most studies limit the potentially
influential role other social media (or other channels)
might have played? That is, tourists’ destination
decisions have been found to be informed and
influenced by a range of sources and channels (Book
et al., 2018), and so focusing upon just one or two
would likely underplay the important and cumulative
influence of a range of interactions. The consideration
of context is especially important given the purported
role of social media in tourists’ destination choice (Lee
et al., 2018; Marder et al., 2019).
In summary, tourists commonly use social media to
seek information and to reduce post-purchase disso-
nance. However, the context of the tourist’s destination
choice has largely been ignored, or even purposefully
minimised. As per destination choice studies, it is likely
that social media influence will vary depending on the
decision-making context (as also argued by Lee et al.,
2018; Marder et al., 2019; McCabe et al., 2016). As such,
this research, responding to these identified gaps, will
empirically locate what, when and why specific contex-
tual characteristics enable or constrain social media
influence in tourists’ destination choice.
Method
To best address the research aim, and to examine con-
textual differences related to social media influence on
tourists’ destination choice, in-depth interviews were
selected for the flexibility to illuminate the areas under
investigation. The research consisted of 39 face-to-face
 4
A. THAM ET AL.
Table 1. Studies of social media influence on destination choice.
Fakharyan et al.
(2012); Jalilvand et al. Jacobsen and Munar Davies and Cairncross
Cox et al. (2009) Fotis et al. (2011) (2012) (2012) Simms (2012) Bakr and Ali (2013) (2013)
Geographical context Australia Russia and former Soviet countries Iran Denmark and Norway USA Egypt Australia
Sample Tourists Tourists Tourists Tourists Tourists Tourists Students
Destinations No indication No indication Isfahan, Iran Mallorca, Spain No indication Egypt No indication
Types of social media Forums, blogs, social No indication Forums Facebook, blogs Photo and video-centric Facebook Forums, Facebook
networking sites sites
Social media influence in ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Not investigated ✓
the evaluation set (22%) (24%) (Very low) (For unfamiliar and (Very low)
international
destinations)
Social media influence to ✓ ✓ ✓ Not investigated Not investigated ✓ Not investigated
validate destination (15%) (30.9%) (86.7%)
choice
Source credibility DMO and tourism providers WOM more credible than social Not investigated WOM most influential on Not investigated Organic experiences were WOM most influential
were more credible than media a familiar and mature most influential on due to known
social media Social media more credible than destination destination image and authors
Social media were more DMO sites choice
credible than unsolicited
advertising
Dionysopoulou and Hernandez-Mendez et al. Kavoura and
Mylonakis (2013) Liu et al. (2013) Rathonyi (2013) Albarq (2014) (2015) Stavrianeas (2015) Lim et al. (2017) Osei et al. (2018)
Greece Global Hungary Jordan Spain Greece Malaysia Ghana
Young tourists Culinary tourists Students Tourists Tourists Tourists Tourists Tourists
No indication No indication No indication Amman, Jordan No indication Athens, Greece No indication Central Ghana
Facebook, video/photo-
Forums, Facebook, YouTube, Blogs, social networking sharing sites and Facebook, YouTube,
Facebook Flickr Flickr, blogs No indication sites blogs No indication TripAdvisor, Blogs
✓
(WOM most influential, followed ✓
✓ by social media sites of known (Social media influence
(20%) Not investigated sources, then DMO sites) Not investigated not as high as WOM) Not investigated Not investigated Not investigated
Not investigated ✓ Not investigated ✓ Not investigated Not investigated Not investigated Not investigated
WOM and DMO sites most
Not investigated Not investigated trustworthy Not investigated Not investigated Not investigated Not investigated Not investigated

in-depth, semi-structured interviews conducted with
destination decision-makers who live in Melbourne, Aus-
tralia. Participants were selected on their ability to meet
two criteria: (i) they should be a destination decision-
maker; (ii) who had made a destination decision within
six months prior to the interview. Participants included
first-time and repeat tourists, single and group travellers,
and those visiting domestic and/or international desti-
nations. The broadly inclusive sample was prompted by
the lack of investigation into social media influence
across a multiplicity of travel contexts, as highlighted
by several other scholars (Bi & Lehto, 2018; Fabricius &
Eriksson, 2017). The interview protocol purposefully
probed the largely subconscious destination decision-
making process, including the range of potential infor-
mation sources (presented in Appendix A), as guided
by existing studies dedicated to destination choice, and
locating influence on outcomes (e.g. Chen, 1998; Kesha-
varzian & Wu, 2017; Woodside, MacDonald, & Burford,
2004). Interviews were on average one-hour in length
indicating the deeper insights into the subconscious
decision-making process. The interviews were audio-
recorded with permission. Interviews were conducted
until no new themes emerged (Guest, Bunce, &
Johnson, 2006). Each interview was transcribed and ana-
lysed with the assistance of NVivo (Leech & Onwuegbu-
zie, 2011).
This research applied two levels of coding to the data
set (Miles & Huberman, 1994). First, open coding
reviewed the transcripts for themes raised during the
interviews. Second, selective coding was applied. Selec-
tive coding integrates themes into related concepts
(Spiggle, 1994). Selective coding was to facilitate the
analysis of data in making inferences and to provide
further elaboration about the phenomenon (Westbrook,
1994).
Trustworthiness, concerned with managing the
research in a manner that enhances quality (Anney,
2015), is demonstrated using four criteria: credibility,
transferability, dependability, and confirmability
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Credibility assesses the ability
of the researcher to present findings that best represent
the data collected (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In this
research, all interviews were subject to member checks,
where each participant was provided with their verbatim
transcript to be assessed for accuracy. Once the tran-
scripts were confirmed as accurate, they were included
in the analysis. Whilst it is not the primary aim of this
research to produce generalisable results, it is nonethe-
less important to acknowledge transferability. Transfer-
ability, in qualitative terms, is the extent to which the
research findings may be applied to a different context
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In this research, participants
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 5
were recruited across a range of tourist segments, visit-
ing a range of destinations and for a range of purposes.
Dependability refers to the researchers’ level of consist-
ency in interpreting across the range of data sources
(Bradley, 1993). In this research, the processes of data col-
lection and analysis have been carefully documented so
that other researchers can follow similar processes
should they wish. Finally, confirmability refers to the
process of evaluating whether the researcher has taken
reasonable steps to evaluate the data (Lincoln & Guba,
1985). This research incorporated the use of an indepen-
dent coder to calibrate how thematic analysis was
approached (Carlson, 2010). Coders individually coded
a list of forty quotes from the first six interview transcripts
into pre-defined themes. Codes were calibrated towards
consensus before they were subsequently adopted for
the remaining interviews. An overview of the 39 partici-
pants and their destination decisions is presented in
Table 2.
Findings and discussion
Preliminary findings and discussions are presented by
dividing participants into those not using, and those
using social media. This presents insights into the
context for knowing how and why some participants’
have decided to omit social media from their destination
choices. Note, participants are tourist destination
decision-makers.
Social media non-use
Four of the 39 participants stated that they did not use
social media for their destination choice. For one par-
ticipant, social media were simply not relevant to the
destination choice process. As Colleen recalls: ‘It
wouldn’t have been necessary to go on social media as
I had decided to visit Israel with a religious group so
absolutely everything, even water, was paid for’. She
further elaborated that travelling to Israel was organ-
ised through a travel agent specialising in religious
tours, which reduced her need to seek social media
to make the destination decision.
However, the other three non-using participants held
negative attitudes to the internet, where social media are
located. Gary mentioned that: ‘I don’t go on the internet at
all. I don’t like social media’. George noted he was techno-
logically saturated: ‘I don’t like spending a lot of time on
computers as I used to work in IT, so I’ve had enough of
sitting in front of computers and I try to minimise what I
do with the internet’. Margaret provided further insights
of why she turns away from social media:
6 A. THAM ET AL.

Table 2. Participants’ context for destination choice.

Age Marital First/repeat Travelling
Pseudonym Gender group Occupation status Destination choice visit companions
Joseph Male 31–40 Sales manager Married Phuket (Thailand) First Family
Iris Female 41–50 Music teacher Married Warrnambool (Australia) First Family
Eric Male 61–70 Self employed Married New Zealand First Family
Gordon Male 31–40 Software engineer Married Gold Coast (Australia) First Family
Andy Male 41–50 Project manager Married Singapore First Family
Linda Female 31–40 Housewife Married Lorne (Australia) First Family
Peter Male 41–50 Research analyst Married Ballarat (Australia) First Family
Kylie Female 31–40 Self employed Separated Cambodia and Vietnam First Friend
Melissa Female 51–60 Senior manager in Married Vietnam First Friends
telecommunications Morocco and Tanzania First Family
Mark Male 21–30 IT consultant Not Canberra and Queensland (Australia) First Friends
married Vietnam First Friends
New Zealand First Friends
Eliza Female 21–30 Actress Not Round the world trip First Friends but
married occasionally alone
Martha Female 41–50 Waste management Married Bright (Australia) First Husband
supervisor
Priscilla Female 51–60 Housewife Married New South Wales (Australia) First Husband
Dorothy Female 21–30 Unemployed Married Adelaide (Australia) First Husband
Grace Female 61–70 Housewife Married Eastern Europe First Husband
Colleen Female 31–40 Finance Officer Married Israel First Husband
Evangeline Female 21–30 Social media analyst Married USA First Husband
Alastair Male 21–30 Food consultant Not Apollo Bay (Australia) First None
married
Donna Female 51–60 Healthcare professional Not Tanzania First None
married
Keith Male 51–60 IT professional Not Balearic Islands (Spain) First None
married
Margaret Female 61–70 Retired Married USA First None
Eddie Male 21–30 Dental assistant Not Ballarat (Australia) First Partner
married
Esther Female 21–30 Administrative officer Not Botswana, Namibia, Qatar, South First Partner
married Africa, Tanzania and Zambia
Gary Male 51–60 Self employed Married Norfolk Island (Australia) First Wife
Norman Male 31–40 Unemployed Married New Zealand First Wife
Phil Male 61–70 Self-employed Married Round the world trip First Wife
Kristie Female 31–40 Social media analyst Not Hobart (Australia) Repeat Friend
married Jervis Bay (Australia) First Partner
Anthony Male 51–60 Market consultant Not England Repeat None
married Dubai (United Arab Emirates) and First None
Turkey First Friends, but
Cambodia and Vietnam occasionally alone
Suzie Female 51–60 Housewife Widowed Fiji Repeat Daughter
Thomas Male 51–60 Retiree Married Singapore Repeat Family
Moses Male 41–50 IT programmer Married Sri Lanka and Singapore Repeat Family
Terry Male 41–50 Engineer Married Kota Kinabalu (Malaysia) Repeat Family
Lionel Male 41–50 Unemployed Married Gold Coast (Australia) and Taiwan Repeat Family
Jonah Male 31–40 Self employed Married Sydney (Australia) Repeat Family
Claudia Female 41–50 Educator Divorced South Africa Repeat Family
Lynn Female 31–40 Housewife Married Fiji Repeat Family
Jemima Female 21–30 Researcher Not Adelaide (Australia) Repeat Family
married
George Male 51–60 Self-employed Not South Korea Repeat Friend
married
Jacob Male 41–50 Unemployed Married Netherlands Repeat Wife

I don’t look at them [social media]. There are two reasons.
One, my computer is too slow and doesn’t upload the
contents quickly. And two, I am paranoid that any
YouTube video will have a virus that I don’t like. So, I
steer away from such things.
Previous tourism studies have identified social media
non-use due to lack of time, potential privacy risks, lack
of credibility and lack of knowledge (Davies & Cairncross,
2013; Rathonyi, 2013). In addition to these reasons, the
findings allude to low travel involvement, technological
saturation and dislike or fear of computers as other con-
tributing factors. Clearly, a decision not to use social
media for a destination decision will eliminate it from
being an influence, and the context insights for non-
use serve to clarify social media’s influence in this regard.
Social media use
We will now focus on the remaining 35 participants who
have used social media. First, destination choice contexts

illuminating high social media influence. Second, desti-
nation choice contexts highlighting low to moderate
social media influence. In each of these we will pay par-
ticular attention to the contextual determinants of social
media influence.
Contexts of high social media influence
In this research, ‘high’ influence occurred where social
media were identified to be the key influence on the des-
tination choice. Eight of the 39 participants self-reported
that social media were highly influential in their destina-
tion choice. For example, Phil noted that ‘TripAdvisor
absolutely shapes my choice of a destination’. Table 3 illus-
trates further representative participant quotes.
Three context characteristics emerged in high social
media influence destination choices. These were high
social media engagement, novel destinations, and high
level of planning complexity associated with the destina-
tion choice. Moreover, each of these were co-present
when participants articulated the reasons for social
media exhibiting high influence on their destination
choice.
High social media engagement. Existing social media
engagement was common to the eight participants
who reported high social media influence, as Mark
explains ‘I use social media to communicate with people
and promote things I am doing on Twitter and Facebook’.
Phil also commented ‘For this trip, I spend probably 20
hours a week on social media … I also use Urbanspoon
for food matters and I post reviews’. These participants
had been using social media for some time, with Eric
noting that he had been active in forums such as Whirl-
pool for over five years. It seems that their experience in
using social media for different purchase decisions
increased their confidence in employing social media
for destination choices. This finding shed new light on
the transfer of social media engagement from non-
tourism to tourism related purposes, rather than the
sole use of social media use within tourism (Kavoura &
Stavrianeas, 2015; Lee et al., 2014). The prominence of
social media in these participants’ everyday lives
appears to translate into a higher level of influence in
their destination choices. Other studies have likewise
Table 3. Exemplars of high social media influence.
Social media were the key determinant of the destination decision
‘We didn’t know any friends who had been to Vietnam and TripAdvisor was the
main influence for us.’ (Mark)
‘Forums really helped shaped the itinerary to confirm which states we would
visit and how long we would stay there.’ (Evangeline)
‘Over Easter, we drove to Jervis Bay and that was purely based on an Instagram
photo that I saw.’ (Kristie)
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 7
hypothesised that increased use of social media would
result in greater influences on tourism behaviour (Osei
et al., 2018; Tussyadiah et al., 2018).
Novel destinations. Novel destinations emerged as
another key context-characteristic to explain high social
media influence. For example, Mark explained that
social media influenced his choice because it highlighted
‘something that I haven’t done before, like somewhere new.
Because I like to experience new things and that is where
social media fuels my curiosity’. Eddie agreed, stating
‘I think there is a possibility that social media will reveal
new tourism experiences that we can then discover our-
selves’. In fact, several highly influenced participants
highlighted the link between social media and a propen-
sity to visit new destinations and experiences. For
example, an Instagram photo prompted Kristie’s visit to
Jervis Bay, and she elaborated:
Instagram is what I would use to find and discover places
like Go See Australia and having seen it there I feel like I
really want to go there. Over Easter, we drove to Jervis
Bay and that was purely based on an Instagram photo
that I saw, and I wanted to go there.
Evangeline highlighted the importance of Facebook in
her decision to visit Croatia:
Croatia was somewhere that I never thought of travelling
to at all until a friend put his photos of his trip on Face-
book … So, suddenly Croatia is on the agenda as a
potential travel destination because we want to experi-
ence something not done before.
This emergent connection between social media and
novel destinations highlights the potential effect not
only on generating destination awareness (Simms,
2012), but also influencing destination choice. The
related influence might also be due to novel destinations
requiring greater engagement with information sources,
which can be located conveniently on social media (Her-
nandez-Mendez et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2018). Never-
theless, it is worth noting that this may be the
exception rather than the rule; as Kirstie’s notes in
relation to her social media prompted trip to Jervis Bay,
‘this is not normally what triggers my holiday plans’.
Unlike marketing organisations that may represent
the destination through pre-determined images, the
value of social media to tourists is that it shows user-gen-
erated contents, and ways of experiencing a destination,
thereby arguably creating stronger visit intentions
(Llodra-Riera, Martinez-Ruiz, Jimenez-Zarco, &
Izquierdo-Yusta, 2015; Sugathan & Ranjan, 2019).
High planning complexity. A third context-characteristic
co-present amongst the high influence participant
8 A. THAM ET AL.
findings was the high planning complexity associated
with the destination decision (with the exception of Kris-
tie’s visit to Jarvis Bay). Planning complexity can be
understood as the level of intensity involved in relation
to organising vacations (Dellaert, Arentze, & Horeni,
2013). For instance, a complex trip might include (as
well as transport, accommodation and activities) the
need to arrange visas, undertake health assessments
and demonstrate evidence of funds. In contrast, straight-
forward travel arrangements may consist of merely a
mode of transport and some suitable accommodation.
The findings revealed more insights about the charac-
teristics of high planning complexity. These trips require
a greater intensity of time and effort to coordinate more
decision points, as Phil’s quote best exemplifies:
For this round the world trip, I spend probably 20 hours a
week … The planning has been around what the
weather will be like in those countries when we are
going so we don’t get there when it is too hot and
rainy … I looked over a number of years with TripAdvisor
reviews for a period of time to see how bad it was. There
were consistent reports that you’re not going to be
spending two weeks where it’ll be bucketing down rain.
For other highly influenced participants, the influence of
social media was to ensure that vacation plans were
practical and achievable (Jalilvand et al., 2012; Liu et al.,
2013). Social media can be used to increase confidence
about accessing a destination, as Anthony highlights:
The reason I went to Konya is because of my fascination
with the Rumi, whirling dervishes … . When I was con-
templating to go there, yet not knowing how I was to
get there, I found out that I can get the high-speed
train to get out to Konya from Istanbul by talking to
people on TripAdvisor.
Increasing levels of planning complexity further fuels
some participants’ engagement with social media,
which in turn elevates social media’s role in a destination
choice (Albarq, 2014; Fakharyan et al., 2012). The co-pres-
ence of novel destinations and greater travel planning
complexities serves to better conceptualise social
media influence in destination choice. In other words,
these destinations appeared to be in participants’ con-
sideration sets, and then through the engagement with
social media, progressed to be part of their evoked sets
before being the outright destination (Kavoura & Stavria-
neas, 2015; Lim et al., 2017). This finding shows the effect
social media can have on influencing destination choice.
Such outcomes extend the work of Karl et al. (2015) in
arguing that social media are catalysts to shift desti-
nations to top of mind considerations by providing an
immersive landscape to contemplate destination
decisions.
However, it must be emphasised that whilst the illumi-
nation of these three co-present context-characteristics
have advanced the understanding of high social media
influence in destination choice, these nonetheless are
reflective of only eight out of the 39 participants. In com-
parison, more than three quarters of the participants
reported only low to moderate levels of social media
influence. As such, attention will next turn as to why
social media may not be a high influence in destination
choice.
Contexts of low to moderate social media influence
Given that the vast majority of the participants reported
low to moderate social media influence, it is important to
locate the contextual factors of social media influence on
destination choice as to why this appeared to be the
case. Examples of how low to moderate social media
influence are coded have been presented in Table 4.
Low to moderate social media engagement. Most par-
ticipants who reported low to moderate social media
influence reflected upon their passive forms of social
media engagement. Keith, who considered himself as
someone moderately active on social media sites, com-
mented that: ‘I have posted one or two questions on it
but not highly interacting on it. I am more an observer,
or what I call a “lurker”, someone who reads what’s
there’. When probed as to why social media do not
feature prominently in influencing his destination
choices, Keith explained that this was because he con-
sidered himself an experienced traveller, and therefore
social media were perceived to be of only some value:
‘ … because I have been travelling before the internet
was in existence, so social media is only a slightly valuable
addition to travel planning’.
Table 4. Exemplars of moderate and low social media influence.
Moderate influence Low influence
Social media informed and were a Social media were used, but were
secondary influence on the only slightly influential on the
destination decision destination decision
‘We decided on Phuket eventually ‘I don’t think I am influenced so much
because of the food and just value by others’ comments on social
for money. Forums did help media, especially to the major
somewhat’ (Joseph) decisions as to where to visit.’
(Moses)
‘Basically, I think about where I want to ‘For choice of destination, social
go … influenced by how far I can media are maybe very slightly
drive in a day and where I would stay influential.’ (Jemima)
for the night. Then I base it on
TripAdvisor to make my final decision
as to where these stops are.’ (Jonah)
‘Because I use the internet a lot so if ‘Social media have a little bit of
people are talking about something influence. I am lucky that I do know
in social media then it will pick my the area and I have people who
interest to visit the destination.’ have probably been there before
(Dorothy) that I can actually ask.’ (Claudia)

Keith’s comments pay greater attention to the intro-
duction of social media to an already established
tourism planning decision framework. As such, while
social media are used by the participants, social
media’s influence might just be accommodated within
participants’ past tourism planning processes. Indeed,
existing literature has demonstrated that past destina-
tion decision experience is extremely influential
because they exhibit highly credible cues (Bakr & Ali,
2013; Wu & Pearce, 2017).
Instead, for low to moderately influenced decision-
makers, social media engagement appeared to be
devoted to micro-level options such as dining and
accommodation (Cox et al., 2009; Leung, Bai, & Stahura,
2015). However, the macro-decision related to destina-
tion choice were instead influenced by other factors
such as word of mouth, which reduced the need for
social media engagement (Jacobsen & Munar, 2012;
Rathonyi, 2013). This context-characteristic thereby
limits social media’s influence on destination choice.
Low planning complexity and destination familiarity.
Destination decisions featuring low planning complexity
could be undertaken using specific heuristics, such as
cost and availability of time outside of work commit-
ments (Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005). For example, Linda,
with low levels of social media influence, made the
decision to travel to the Great Ocean Road in Victoria fol-
lowing an offer of discounted accommodation: ‘My
husband got a call from an agency saying that he had a
discounted hotel rate and so that’s why we went’. For
other participants, a relatively inexpensive short break
was perceived as posing few complications, and so
social media were not needed to confirm any decisions.
For example, Jemima noted that ‘All I had to do was to
book my flights and there was nothing that I needed
from social media’. Familiarity was a context-character-
istic that reduced social media engagement, and there-
fore its crucial role to collect information and influence
the decision.
Trip complexity was distinguished in some instances
between domestic and international destinations. One
such participant, Peter, revealed that social media will
likely feature when contemplating international desti-
nations that invoke greater consideration and cost:
I think with a place like Ballarat [regional Australia], you
wouldn’t worry so much as it is within a day’s drive
from Melbourne. It is not such an expensive holiday.
Probably I will think more carefully and consult social
media when I pay for an expensive overseas trip.
Another type of destination decision that featured low
planning complexity occurred where the primary
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 9
purpose was for Visiting Friends and Relatives (VFR)
travel. Twelve of the 39 participants stated that their des-
tination decision was somehow related to VFR travel. In
this vein, many of them stated that they hardly needed
to engage with social media due to the low planning
complexity environment (Kang & Namkung, 2016), as
Claudia revealed: ‘I would probably consult with my
family because they live there and know the area best’.
Moses concurred with such a view, stating that:
Family and friends’ recommendations, oh definitely.
When we get there, Sri Lanka being a small, close com-
munity, everybody knows everyone. So, you can get
special prices for accommodation because of our con-
tacts in Sri Lanka so I will leave the trip planning to them.
It is argued therefore that low planning complexity is a
context-characteristic that, in part driven by destination
familiarity, constrains the influence of social media on
destination decisions (Davies & Cairncross, 2013; Fotis
et al., 2011). Relatively inexpensive short break decisions,
as well as VFR travel-related destination choices in this
research appear to be less open to social media
influence and are instead triggered by a few heuristics
such as price and time away from work commitments.
The revelation of these context-characteristics lends
greater knowledge where social media are suggested
to be constrained, and consequently have little
influence on destination choice.
Low perceptions of social media credibility. The
context of low to moderate social media influence was
also characterised by low perceptions of social media
credibility. Credibility is an antecedent to influence
(Filieri et al., 2015; Tham et al., 2013), participants likewise
raised points of contention as to the authenticity of social
media contents, which raise further questions of its credi-
bility to be used as an authoritative influence on destina-
tion choice, as Anthony’s quote suggest:
The Vietnam trip that I am planning for has been quite
tricky to put things together as there are an awful lot
of scams … Some of the people on these forums were
supposedly giving independent advice but were actually
people who were trying to goad you to try and stay at a
particular place or use a particular agent or do a particu-
lar type of thing … I have decided to go with personal
recommendations from people who have been there
and ask them who did they go and see, and which
agent did they use and contact these agents. Because
there is so much rubbish on TripAdvisor that while it’s
helpful, you can’t rely on it entirely and need more infor-
mation from elsewhere to sort out the wheat from the
chaff, sorting the good from the bad.
There is evidently some concern by participants where
contents can be easily disseminated in social media
10 A. THAM ET AL.
and masquerading as truths. To both Grace and Dorothy,
the lack of social media credibility may surface in relation
to visual cues such as photographs. Grace opined that ‘It
could be the manager who posted a photo of a beautiful
place. Who knows? You don’t know the authenticity of
those things’. Dorothy also highlighted: ‘You get to see pic-
tures, not just by tourism sites but also normal people,
though these days photos can be photoshopped’. As
these examples raise doubt related to social media credi-
bility, there is a greater reliance on other cues to help
compensate for eWOM concerns (Cox et al., 2009; Her-
nandez-Mendez et al., 2015). For instance, source identity
was instrumental for Moses to ascertain credibility of
contents on social media sites such as Facebook: ‘The
reason that I trusted the advice is not because of Facebook
but because of my knowledge of who that person is’.
However, not all social media sites operate like Face-
book where both content provider and user are known
to each other. Instead, other sites are likely to have
lower levels of source credibility due to the lack of estab-
lished relationships. As such, many participants reiter-
ated the need to do further information search outside
of social media, to help validate the claims proposed
by unknown strangers online. This view is best encapsu-
lated by Eddie:
I think you have got to read the comments at face value.
You will get both pros and cons, but you then need to do
further research yourself by asking other people and see
if such comments are justified or meet your needs.
Clearly, the contexts characterised by low perceptions of
social media credibility have corresponded with low to
moderate levels of influence on participants’ destination
choices. In these cases, social media are used as a refer-
ence point, to help inform an existing perception.
However, social media influence is now so constrained
by the credibility context that they are not able to
influence participants’ destination choice. Instead,
within this constrained context social media is just a
tool to confirm decision confidence. This finding not
only reaffirms literature that credibility is crucial to
influencing destination choice, but also illuminates that
low perceptions of social media credibility characterises
low to moderate influence.
In summary, the in-depth interviews provided valu-
able insights of social media influence on tourists
largely subconscious destination decision-making
process. Participants whose destination choice was
made within contexts characterised by lower social
media engagement and less complex destination
decisions had the potential influence of social media
constrained. Consequently, the context led to low
social media influence on destination choice. In the
case of those travelling for VFR purposes, the emotional
and social bonds attached to meeting loved ones would
likely trigger destination choice with or without any cor-
responding influence exerted by social media. Addition-
ally, if information was needed, then friends or family
were asked first. Other travel decisions, such as short get-
aways, are also prompted by available time away from
work and therefore, are influenced more by geographical
and temporal constraints than by social media. Neverthe-
less, social media can feature at a micro-level as a rec-
ommendation for accommodation, dining or attraction
types (Leung et al., 2015).
Overall, one antecedent condition and three contex-
tual dimensions emerged from the decisions. The ante-
cedent condition was unsurprisingly the use of social
media. Nonetheless, the three other dimensions pro-
vided the specific context to determine constraining or
enabling destination choice influence. These dimensions
were social media engagement, destination familiarity/
novelty, and planning complexity (Figure 1).
A context characterised by intense social media
engagement, novel destinations and planning complex-
ity relates to high propensity for social media to
influence destination choice. Contrastingly, a context
characterised by low levels of social media engagement,
familiar destinations, and simple planning processes
relates to constrained social media influence on destina-
tion choice. As such, this research exposes that context is
a precursor to influence, either enabling or constraining
social media’s influence. It is only in a minority of cases,
where a specifically enabling context exists that social
media influence is high. Though, in most cases, the
context constrained the possibility for social media to
influence decisions, reflecting that social media
influence on destination choice is exceptional.
Figure 2 provides an example demonstration of those
participants that had high and low social media influence
on their destination choice in the three-dimensional
space. Of note, the Black box demonstrates the co-exist-
ence of a highly influenced and a lowly influence partici-
pant (high social media engagement, moderate
destination novelty, and moderate planning complexity).
A potential explanation for the co-existence is that
Donna chose to rely on travel agencies to undertake
the travel planning on her behalf, while Eric was
adamant on making all travel arrangements on his
own. For the overall sample, the combined effect of
the three dimensions led to the rare contextual circum-
stances where social media had a high influence on des-
tination choice. In most cases however, these three
dimensions did not co-exist together, and as such,
influence of social media ranged from no, to low, to mod-
erate influence.
 TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 11

Figure 1. Three contextual dimensions of social media influence on destination choice.

Figure 2. Low and high social media influence on destination choice in the three contextual dimensions. Low Influence: Red box:
Andy, Claudia, Jacob, Jemima, Gordon, Linda, Lionel, Lynn, Moses, Terry, Thomas; Blue box: Martha, Peter; Purple Box: Suzie. Black
box: Donna (low influence), Eric (high influence). High Influence: Light Blue box: Iris; Orange Box: Alastair, Kristie; Yellow Box: Evange-
line; Green box: Eliza, Mark, Phil.

Derived from the findings is a three-dimensional con-
ceptualisation of social media influence in destination
choice, as evidenced in Figures 1 and 2. These models
have advanced the previous linear ways of characterising
social media influence. By demarcating three context-
conditions of social media high engagement, destination
novelty and complex travel planning, we have
responded to the under-studied nature of contexts in
tourism, as alluded to by other scholars (Beritelli et al.,
2019; Lamsfus et al., 2015).
Conclusion
For tourists’ destination choice, social media may not be
as fundamental, transformative and influential as pre-
viously suggested (Dickinger & Mazanec, 2015; Jacobsen
12 A. THAM ET AL.
& Munar, 2012; Mehraliyev et al., 2019). While social
media continues to be widely used by both tourists
and marketers, and remain important tools for onsite
and micro-level decisions within the destination, such
as choice of restaurant, or visitor attraction, social
media appear to be influential on destination choice
only when three context-characteristics co-exist. These
context-characteristics are when a potential tourist
already has a high level of engagement with social
media, where the proposed destination is unfamiliar
and where there is a significant level of planning com-
plexity associated with the proposed trip. Otherwise
social media’s role appears to be constrained, and only
has a moderate-low influence on destination choice.
We have found that context not only enables or con-
straints destination choices (Lee et al., 2018; Marder
et al., online; Marcevova et al., 2010), context also con-
strains or enables the potential influences on these
decisions.
We have empirically evidenced that social media, in
most cases, have low to moderate influence on tourists’
destination decisions. This is similar to studies of social
media influence specifically on destination choice (e.g.
Davies & Cairncross, 2013; Jacobsen & Munar, 2012),
though in contrast to the continuing claims that social
media is highly influential (see for instance Leung, Sun,
& Bai, 2019). The contribution of this research, therefore,
lies in reinforcing the empirical demonstrations and
challenging the generalised belief that social media are
influential in tourists’ destination choice and providing
a more cautious and nuanced understanding of contex-
tual characteristics. We propose that the three identified
dimensions might explain the varied and limited
influence social media was found to have on destination
decisions in previous studies (e.g. Cox et al., 2009; Davies
& Cairncross, 2013; Hernandez-Mendez et al., 2015),
additionally providing nuanced predictors of social
media influence. The diversity of tourists’ destination
decisions in this research illustrates the importance of
considering three key contextual dimensions of social
media engagement, destination novelty/familiarity and
planning complexity. This contribution extends the
findings of previous studies that have only investigated
social media influence on homogenous segments or in
narrowly defined destinations (e.g. Dionysopoulou &
Mylonakis, 2013; Fakharyan et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2013;
Osei et al., 2018). Still, recent studies continue to postu-
late that social media enhances the destination image
and attractiveness of different destinations, yet remain
silent as to the types of tourists whose decision-
making would be susceptible to influenced (Giglio, Ber-
tacchini, Bilotta, & Pantano, 2019; Wong, Lai, & Tao,
2019).
The potential underlying reason for social media
influence on tourists’ destination decisions is decision-
making confidence (McCabe et al., 2016; Qiu et al.,
2018). When tourists have higher degrees of confidence
(or perceive lower levels of risk) they might rely more on
heuristics (Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005), as demonstrated
by some only lowly or moderately influenced. However,
where tourists have less confidence they rely more on
contextual cues, which then provides greater opportu-
nities for influence (Beritelli et al., 2019; Lamsfus et al.,
2015; Marcevova et al., 2010). Lower levels of confidence
could likely be triggered by novel destination and
complex planning processes, as demonstrated in the
high social media influence cases.
For destinations using social media, most evidently,
social media are used to inform tourists’ micro-level
decisions. More specific implications from this research
are two-fold. First, social media are not universally influ-
ential on tourists’ destination decisions and are only
likely to have a substantial influence when the destina-
tion is novel for the tourist in circumstances of undertak-
ing complex decisions. As there is a general distrust of
destinations promoting themselves, destination man-
agers should focus their social media efforts on support-
ing or demonstrating ease of decision-making and visit
planning. Relatedly, second, destination managers
should facilitate current tourists’ social media posting
to raise awareness (Bigne, Ruiz, & Curras-Perez, 2019;
McCreary, Seekamp, Davenport, & Smith, 2019; Villa-
mediana, Kuster, & Vila, 2019), and importantly to also
disseminate their visit planning processes.
Naturally, the paper is not without its limitations. As
exploratory research, the sample for this study came
from a specific region of Australia and therefore, future
studies should attempt to replicate the research in
other geographic areas. Also, subsequent investigations
should assess additional context-characteristics that
may be relevant, such as multi-destination trips, and
trips featuring niche markets, such as post-disaster
tourism (Fukui & Ohe, 2019). In addition, longitudinal
studies of social media influence would also be an inter-
esting perspective for future investigation. Longitudinal
studies could be undertaken to investigate a tourist’s
pre-, during- and post-destination encounters, and
provide real-time insights as to how social media use
and engagement influences destination preferences
over the tourist experience (Provenzano, Hawelka, &
Baggio, 2018). Finally, there is an emerging body of
work which uses experimental designs and new technol-
ogy such as eye-tracking and neuroscience equipment to
investigate the psychological processes of tourists – such
methods could also be used to further illuminate the role
of social media in tourist decision-making behaviour (e.g.

Hernandez-Mendez & Munoz-Leiva, 2015; Ramsoy,
Michael, & Michael, 2019). These limitations notwith-
standing, the research has contributed to a more
refined understanding of social media influence on des-
tination choice. This presents a valuable starting point for
academic scholars and destination practitioners to re-
assess their social media engagements in a fast-evolving
tourism environment.
In conclusion, social media have been argued to have
transformed the tourism landscape, although studies
investigating their influence on tourists are showing
mixed effects. Whilst both practitioners and tourists are
embracing social media, the context of use and conse-
quent influence has been less well understood. Nonethe-
less, tourists use social media applications for tourism
decisions, including destination choice. Importantly,
identification of the contextual dimensions characteris-
ing various levels of social media influence has shown
the needed nuance in understanding, highlighting the
cautionary note for those studying social media
influence and implementing social media strategies.
The key finding is the demonstrated specific context-
conditions where social media are most likely to
influence tourists’ destination choices. A context charac-
terised by co-existing complex trip to a novel destination,
and the tourist possessing extensive experience with
social media, would enable high-levels of social media
influence on destination choice. However, when a
context is characterised by a short, inexpensive trip, or
one to a destination that is already familiar, this would
constrain potential social media influence. Further,
there are some cases (for example, where the tourist
simply does not use the internet) where social media
are unable to exert any influence at all. Overall, in most
cases social media influence on tourists’ destination
choice will only be moderate at most, and high
influence will only exist in exceptional specific contexts.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Aaron Tham is Lecturer in Tourism, Leisure and Events Manage-
ment within the Business School at the University of the Sun-
shine Coast. Aaron’s research areas include social media and
its impact towards tourism consumer behaviour. His other
research interests are in the areas of medical tourism, disruptive
innovation and culture and heritage branding.
Judith Mair is an Associate Professor in the Tourism Cluster,
Business School of University of Queensland, Australia. Her
research interests include pro-environmental behaviour and
resilience both in tourism and events; the impacts of events
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 13
on community and society; consumer behaviour in events
and tourism; the relationship between events and climate
change; and business and major events. Judith is working on
a number of projects including investigating the potential for
events to act as a catalyst for encouraging pro-environmental
behaviour change; researching the links between events and
social capital; and assessing the potential impacts of climate
change on the tourism and events sector.
Glen Croy is an Associate Professor in the Department of Man-
agement at Monash University, Australia. His research achieve-
ments are within the broader context of enhancing community
experiences, and most focused on the interrelationship
between tourism and the media. Glen has achieved an Austra-
lasian discipline award for his research contributions (CAUTHE
Fellows Award). In particular his research has questioned the
readily-assumed direct effect of film on tourism, instead stres-
sing the more subtle influences media has.
ORCID
A. Tham http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1408-392X
J. Mair http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2447-3377
G. Croy http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8650-1647
References
Albarq, A. N. (2014). Measuring the impacts of online word-of-
mouth on tourists’ attitude and intentions to visit Jordan:
An empirical study. International Business Research, 7(1), 14–22.
Anney, V. N. (2015). Ensuring the quality of the findings of quali-
tative research: Looking at trustworthiness criteria. Journal of
Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 5
(2), 272–281.
Backer, E., & Hay, B. (2013). Introduction: Social media special
issue. Tourism, Culture and Communication, 13(1), 1–4.
Bakr, G. M. W. A., & Ali, I. E. H. (2013). The role of social network-
ing sites in promoting Egypt as an international tourist des-
tination. South Asian Journal of Tourism and Heritage, 6(1),
169–183.
Beritelli, P., Reinhold, S., & Luo, J. (2019). “How come you are
here?” considering the context in research on travel
decisions. Journal of Travel Research, 58(2), 333–337.
Bi, J., & Lehto, X. Y. (2018). Impact of cultural distance on inter-
national destination choices: The case of Chinese outbound tra-
velers. International Journal of Tourism Research, 20(1), 50–59.
Bigne, E., Ruiz, C., & Curras-Perez, R. (2019). Destination appeal
through digitalized comments. Journal of Business Research,
101(Aug), 447–453.
Book, L. A., Tanford, S., Montgomery, R., & Love, C. (2018). Online
traveler reviews as social influence: Price is no longer king.
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 42(3), 445–475.
Bradley, J. (1993). Methodological issues and practices in quali-
tative research. Library Quarterly, 63(4), 431–449.
Carlson, J. A. (2010). Avoiding traps in member checking. The
Qualitative Report, 15(5), 1102–1113.
Chen, J. S. (1998). The tourists’ cognitive decision making
model. Tourism Review, 53(1), 4–9.
Cox, C., Burgess, S., Sellitto, C., & Buultjens, J. (2009). The role of
user-generated content in tourists’ travel planning behav-
iour. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 18
(8), 743–764.
14 A. THAM ET AL.
Crompton, J. (1992). Structure of vacation destination choice
sets. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(3), 420–434.
Davies, R., & Cairncross, G. (2013). Student tourism and destina-
tion choice: Exploring the influence of traditional, new, and
social media: An Australian case study. Tourism, Culture &
Communication, 13(1), 29–42.
Decrop, A. (2010). Destination choice sets: An inductive longi-
tudinal approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(1), 93–115.
de Lima, M. M., Mainardes, E., & Cavalcanti, A. L. (2019).
Influence of social media on restaurant consumers: A case
study of Crab island restaurant. Journal of Foodservice
Business Research, 22(5), 413–432.
Dellaert, B. G. C., Arentze, T. A., & Horeni, O. (2013). Tourists’
mental representations of complex travel decision problems.
Journal of Travel Research, 53(1), 3–11.
Dickinger, A., & Mazanec, J. A. (2015). Significant word items in
hotel guest reviews: A feature extraction approach. Tourism
Recreation Research, 40(3), 353–363.
Dionysopoulou, P., & Mylonakis, J. (2013). Youth tourists’ profile
and their travel choices as influenced by social media net-
works. European Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Research, 1(3), 22–35.
Fabricius, S., & Eriksson, N. (2017). Young-elderly individuals’ use
of social media for travel purpose. Tourism & Management
Studies, 13(1), 27–32.
Fakharyan, M., Jalilvand, M. R., Elyasi, M., & Mohammadi, M.
(2012). The influence of online word of mouth communi-
cations on tourists’ attitudes toward Islamic destinations
and travel intention: Evidence from Iran. African Journal of
Business Management, 6(33), 9533–9542.
Filieri, R., Alguezaui, S., & McLeay, F. (2015). Why do travelers trust
TripAdvisor? Antecedents of trust towards consumer-gener-
ated media and its influence on recommendation adoption
and word of mouth. Tourism Management, 51, 174–185.
Fotis, J., Buhalis, D., & Rossides, N. (2011). Social media impact on
holiday travel planning: The case of the Russian and the FSU
markets. International Journal of Online Marketing, 1(4), 1–19.
Fukui, M., & Ohe, Y. (2019). Assessing the role of social media in
tourism recovery in tsunami-hit coastal areas in Tohoku,
Japan. Tourism Economics. doi:10.1177%2F1354816618825014
Giglio, S., Bertacchini, F., Bilotta, E., & Pantano, P. (2019). Using
social media to identify tourism attractiveness in six Italian
cities. Tourism Management, 72(Jun), 306–312.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews
are enough? An experiment with data saturation and varia-
bility. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82.
Hernandez-Mendez, J., & Munoz-Leiva, F. (2015). What type of
online advertising is most effective for eTourism 2.0? An
eye tracking study based on the characteristics of tourists.
Computers in Human Behavior, 50(Sep), 618–625.
Hernandez-Mendez, J., Munoz-Leiva, F., & Sanchez-Fernandez,
J. (2015). The influence of e-word-of-mouth on travel
decision-making: Consumer profiles. Current Issues in
Tourism, 18(11), 1001–1021.
Jacobsen, J. K. S., & Munar, A. M. (2012). Tourist information
search and destination choice in a digital age. Tourism
Management Perspectives, 1, 39–47.
Jalilvand, M. R., Samiei, N., Dini, B., & Manzari, P. Y. (2012).
Examining the structural relationships of electronic word of
mouth, destination image, tourist attitude towards destina-
tion and travel intention: An integrated approach. Journal
of Destination Marketing & Management, 1(1–2), 134–143.
Kang, J., & Namkung, Y. (2016). Restaurant information sharing
on social networking sites: Do network externalities matter?
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 40(6), 739–763.
Karl, M., Reintinger, C., & Schmude, J. (2015). Reject or select:
Mapping destination choice. Annals of Tourism Research,
54, 48–64.
Kavoura, A., & Stavrianeas, A. (2015). The importance of social
media on holiday visitors’ choices: The case of Athens,
Greece. EuroMed Journal of Business, 10(3), 360–374.
Keshavarzian, P., & Wu, C. (2017). A qualitative research on tra-
vellers’ destination choice. International Journal of Tourism
Research, 19(5), 546–556.
Lamsfus, C., Wang, D., Alzua-Sorzabal, A., & Xiang, Z. (2015).
Going mobile: Defining context for on-the-go travellers.
Journal of Travel Research, 54(6), 691–701.
Law, R., Fong, L. H. N., Koo, C., & Ye, B. H. (2017). Guest editorial.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 29(2), 646–647.
Law, R., & Xiang, Z. (2013). Journal of travel & tourism marketing
special issue on social media-preface. Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing, 30(1–2), 1–2.
Lee, H., Reid, E., & Kim, W. G. (2014). Understanding knowledge
sharing in online travel communities: Antecedents and the
moderating effects of interaction modes. Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Research, 38(2), 222–242.
Lee, S. J., Song, H. J., Lee, C., & Petrick, J. F. (2018). An integrated
model of pop culture fans’ travel decision-making processes.
Journal of Travel Research, 57(5), 687–701.
Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2011). Beyond constant com-
parison qualitative data analysis: Using NVivo. School
Psychology Quarterly, 26(1), 70–84.
Leung, X. Y., Bai, B., & Stahura, K. A. (2015). The marketing effec-
tiveness of social media in the hotel industry: A comparison
of Facebook and Twitter. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, 39(2), 147–169.
Leung, X. Y., Sun, J., & Bai, B. (2019). Thematic framework of
social media research: State of the art. Tourism Review, 74
(3), 517–531.
Lim, Y. H., Ramayah, T., Teoh, A. P., & Cheah, J. J. (2017). Social
media as a tool to help select tourism destinations: The case
of Malaysia. Information Systems Management, 34(3), 265–279.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Liu, B., Norman, W. C., & Pennington-Gray, L. (2013). A flash of
culinary tourism: Understanding the influences of online
food photography on people’s travel planning process on
Flickr. Tourism, Culture & Communication, 13(1), 5–18.
Llodra-Riera, I., Martinez-Ruiz, M. P., Jimenez-Zarco, A. I., &
Izquierdo-Yusta, A. (2015). Assessing the influence of social
media on tourists’ motivations and image formation of a des-
tination. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences,
7(4), 458–482.
Magno, F., & Cassia, F. (2018). The impact of social media
influencers in tourism. Anatolia, 29(2), 288–290.
Marcevova, K., Coles, T., & Shaw, G. (2010). Young holiday-
makers in groups: Insights on decision-making and tourist
behaviour among university students. Tourism Recreation
Research, 35(3), 259–268.
Marder, B., Archer-Brown, C., Colliander, J., & Lambert, A. (2019).
Vacation posts on Facebook: A model for incidental vicarious
travel consumption. Journal of Travel Research, 58(6), 1014–
1033.

McCabe, S., Li, C., & Chen, Z. (2016). Time for a radical reapprai-
sal of tourist decision making? Toward a new conceptual
model. Journal of Travel Research, 55(1), 3–15.
McCreary, A., Seekamp, E., Davenport, M., & Smith, J. W. (2019).
Exploring qualitative applications of social media data for
place-based assessments in destination planning. Current
Issues in Tourism. doi:10.1080/13683500.2019.1571023
Mehraliyev, F., Choi, Y., & Koseoglu, M. A. (2019). Social structure
of social media research in tourism and hospitality. Tourism
Recreation Research, 44(4), 451–465.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Mohsin, A., & Ryan, C. (2004). Determinants of destination
choice: The role of socio-demographic variables. Tourism
Recreation Research, 29(3), 27–33.
Moscardo, G., Morrison, A. M., Pearce, P. L., Lang, C., & O’Leary, J.
T. (1996). Understanding vacation destination choice
through travel motivation and activities. Journal of
Vacation Marketing, 2(2), 109–122.
Nyman, E., Westin, K., & Carson, D. (2018). Tourism destination
choice sets for families with wheelchair-bound children.
Tourism Recreation Research, 43(1), 26–38.
Osei, B. A., Mensah, I., & Amenumey, E. K. (2018). Utilisation of
social media by international tourists to Ghana. Anatolia, 29
(3), 411–421.
Ozturk, A. B. (2017). Guest editorial. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Technology, 8(1), 2–4.
Provenzano, D., Hawelka, B., & Baggio, R. (2018). The mobility
network of European tourists: A longitudinal study and a
comparison with geo-located Twitter data. Tourism Review,
73(1), 28–43.
Qiu, R. T. R., Masiero, L., & Li, G. (2018). The psychological
process of travel destination choice. Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing, 35(6), 691–705.
Ramsoy, T. Z., Michael, N., & Michael, I. (2019). A consumer
neuroscience study of conscious and subconscious destina-
tion preference. Scientific Reports, 9, 15102. doi:10.1038/
s41598-019-51567-1
Rathonyi, G. (2013). The influence of social media on
tourism: Especially among students of the University of
Debrecen. Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce, 7
(1), 105–112.
Simms, A. (2012). Online user-generated content for travel plan-
ning: Different for different types of trips? e-Review of
Tourism Research, 10(3), 76–85.
Singh, S., & Srivastava, P. (2019). Social media for outbound
leisure travel: A framework model based on technology
acceptance model (TAM). Journal of Tourism Futures, 5(1),
43–61.
Sirakaya, E., & Woodside, A. G. (2005). Building and testing the-
ories of decision making by travelers. Tourism Management,
26(6), 815–832.
Spiggle, S. (1994). Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data
in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3),
491–503.
Sugathan, P., & Ranjan, K. R. (2019). Co-creating the
tourism experience. Journal of Business Research, 100(Jul),
207–217.
Tham, A., Croy, G., & Mair, J. (2013). Social media in destination
choice: Distinctive electronic word-of-mouth dimensions.
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 30(1–2), 144–155.
TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH 15
Tsiakali, K. (2018). User-generated-content versus marketing-
generated-content: Personality and content influence on tra-
veler’s behaviour. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management, 27(8), 946–972.
Tussyadiah, I. P., Park, S., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2011). Assessing
the effectiveness of consumer narratives for destination mar-
keting. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 35(1), 64–78.
Tussyadiah, I. S. P., Kausar, D. R., & Soesilo, P. K. M. (2018). The
effect of engagement in online social network on suscepti-
bility to influence. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,
42(2), 201–223.
Varkaris, E., & Neuhofer, B. (2017). The influence of social media
on the consumers’ hotel decision journey. Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 8(1), 101–118.
Villamediana, J., Kuster, I., & Vila, N. (2019, November).
Destination engagement on Facebook: Time and seasonality.
Annals of Tourism Research, 79, 102747.
Westbrook, L. (1994). Qualitative research methods: A review of
major stages, data analysis techniques, and quality controls.
Library & Information Science Research, 16(3), 241–254.
Wong, J. W. C., Lai, I. K. W., & Tao, Z. (2019). Sharing memorable
tourism experiences on mobile social media and how it influ-
ences further travel decisions. Current Issues in Tourism.
doi:10.1080/13683500.2019.1649372
Woodside, A. G., MacDonald, R., & Burford, M. (2004). Grounded
theory of leisure travel. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing,
17(1), 7–39.
Woodside, A., & Lysonski, S. (1989). A general model of traveler
destination choice. Journal of Travel Research, 27(4), 8–14.
Wu, M., & Pearce, P. (2017). Understanding Chinese overseas
recreational vehicle tourists: A netnographic and compara-
tive approach. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 41
(6), 696–718.
Xu, X., & Pratt, S. (2018). Social media influencers as endorsers to
promote travel destinations: An application of self-congru-
ence theory to the Chinese Generation Y. Journal of Travel
& Tourism Marketing, 35(7), 958–972.
Zhang, J., Wu, B., Morrison, A. M., Tseng, C., & Chen, Y. (2018).
How country image affects tourists’ destination evaluations:
A moderated mediation approach. Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research, 42(6), 904–930.
Appendix A. Interview protocol
Preliminary Question
Please tell me more about the destination you chose
Destination Choice
1. Please further describe how you made the decision to
choose that destination
2. What were the influences on your choice of the destination?
3. Can you elaborate on the different influences on your
choice of destination?
4. How did the different sources influence your destination
choice?
5. In your opinion, which of these influences listed today was
the most significant on your destination choice?
6. Is there anything else that you would like to add to our
conversation?