The Impact of Social Media Influencers On Travel Decisions The Role of Trust in Consumer Decision Journey

Current Issues in Tourism
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcit20
The impact of social media influencers on travel

decisions: the role of trust in consumer decision
journey
Rebeka-Anna Pop, Zsuzsa Săplăcan, Dan-Cristian Dabija & Mónika-Anetta Alt
To cite this article: Rebeka-Anna Pop, Zsuzsa Săplăcan, Dan-Cristian Dabija & Mónika-Anetta
Alt (2022) The impact of social media influencers on travel decisions: the role of trust in consumer
decision journey, Current Issues in Tourism, 25:5, 823-843, DOI: 10.1080/13683500.2021.1895729
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1895729
Published online: 11 Mar 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 11780
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 63 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcit20
CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM
2022, VOL. 25, NO. 5, 823–843
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1895729
The impact of social media influencers on travel decisions: the

role of trust in consumer decision journey
Rebeka-Anna Popa, Zsuzsa Săplăcana, Dan-Cristian Dabija b
and Mónika-Anetta Alta
a
Department of Economics and Business Administration in Hungarian Language, Faculty of Economics and
Business Administration, Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania; bDepartment of Marketing, Faculty of
Economics and Business Administration, Babeş-Bolyai University
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The growing presence of social media influencers (SMIs) is increasingly Received 16 March 2020
modulating consumer behaviour in the travel industry. Trust is a vitally Accepted 22 February 2021
important topic in influencer and tourism marketing and is responsible
KEYWORDS
for creating and maintaining successful long-term relationships Social media (SM); social
between organizations and consumers. This study uses customer media influencer (SMI);
journey theory to explain the impact of SMI trust on customer travel influencer Marketing (IM);
decision-making and focuses on evaluating the role of customer trust; customer journey;
journey constructs (including desire, information search, evaluating travel decision; eWOM
alternatives, purchase decisions, satisfaction and experience sharing) in
mediating the interrelation between SMI trust and the dimensions of
customer journeys. Using Smart PLS to analyze the data collected, the
results indicate that consumer trust in SMIs has a positive effect on
each phase of travel decision-making. Moreover, each step of the
decision-making journey mediates the trust effect on the next step,
having a spillover effect on the whole journey, implying continuous SMI
input. Tourism marketers are advised to use SMIs to increase and
stimulate the desire to travel as clearly, a means by which consumers
search for information about their next journey. Besides SMIs as a
marketing tool, their trustworthiness serves as a highly important
aspect to successfully influence tourists’ destination decision making.
1. Introduction
Nowadays, the way through which tourist information is accessed and used has changed dramati-
cally, largely due to the influence of social media (SM) (Xiang et al., 2015). The main reason for
the spread of SM is that it has become a tool for shaping perceptions, feelings, and experiences
(Luo & Zhong, 2015), and is hence an important source of information in the process of travel-
making decisions (Lin & Huang, 2006; Usui et al., 2018). The spread of online social networks has trig-
gered the appearance of social media influencers (SMIs) (Cox et al., 2009). The unified definition of
SMI is ‘a new type of independent third-party endorser who shapes audience attitudes through
blogs, tweets, and the use of other social media’ (Freberg et al., 2011, p. 90). Trust is a key
concept for understanding consumers’ intention to buy tourist products and accept the content
generated by SMIs. The influence of trust in the tourism sector has been examined previously in
different contexts (Cohen et al., 2014), having a positive impact on the peer-to-peer market (Ert &
Fleischer, 2019) and the intention to purchase online tourism products (Kim et al., 2011; Ponte
et al., 2015), while eWOM (Abubakar & Ilkan, 2016) has similarly shown the positive effects of influen-
cer marketing (Hu et al., 2019a; Hu et al., 2019b; Lou & Yuan, 2018).
CONTACT Rebeka-Anna Pop [email protected]

© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
824 R.-A. POP ET AL.
The impact of SMIs on the purchasing decision process has been studied in the tourism sector and
is shown to influence the travel intentions of followers (Magno & Cassia, 2018), increasing the like-
lihood of visiting a particular destination (Rinka & Pratt, 2018). Information searching is mostly via SM
(Dabija et al., 2018; Fotis et al., 2012; Guerreiro et al., 2019; Hudson & Thal, 2013). Previous studies
have analyzed the influence of SMIs on tourist purchasing intentions through the variables of
trust (Chryssoula, 2017; Magno & Cassia, 2018), customer journey (Guerreiro et al., 2019), quality
of detected information on the tourist destination (Magno & Cassia, 2018) and attitudes towards
advertisements and destination (Rinka & Pratt, 2018). Moreover, previous studies have found that
SM can influence tourist’s attitudes (Chatzigeorgiou & Christou, 2020) and sharing tourism experi-
ences (Wong et al., 2020).
In the tourism research field, the clarification and differentiation of a destination and tourism
product is still controversial. Previous scholars define tourism products as a result of utilized travel
services during the trip, which lead to a complex experience (Gunn, 1988). Similarly, Murphy et al.
(2000) define a destination as an ‘amalgam of individual products and experience opportunities
that combine to form a total experience of the area visited’ (p.44). Therefore, the present study
focuses on destinations as a travel product.
However, little attention has been paid to the factors that determine consumer engagement
with the contents generated by SMIs for tourist destinations and how SMI-based trust influences
consumer travel decisions. Moreover, SM represents a primary digital touchpoint, which can
influence consumers’ decision process during the trip, especially the stages of the customer
journey (Hu & Olivieri, 2020). These aspects form a gap in the literature that needs further
investigation to understand how SMIs affect every stage of the customer journey. Hence, the
research purpose is to examine the effect of SMI trust - as an independent construct - on
each stage of the travelling customer journey: pre-purchase, purchase decision and post-pur-
chase (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016) - as a dependent constructs, and the mediating role between
each stage of the customer journey and SMI trust. The customer journey represents all touch-
points between the customer and brand, together with all customer experiences throughout the
decision-making journey (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016). The paper highlights the impact of SMI trust
on the whole travel customer journey.
In this study, we propose a model based on customer journey theory to analyze the direct effect
of SMI trust on each step of the travel decision-making journey (including desire, information search,
evaluating alternatives, purchase decision, satisfaction and experience sharing). We also examine
how each step of the journey mediate the effect of the SMI trust on the next phase. Understanding
this complex behavioural process (direct and indirect relations) may contribute to the customer
journey theory and practices of different Destination Marketing Organizations (DMOs).
Our study is organized as follows: Section 2 presents a review of the literature on customer
journey theory in tourism and the theoretical background of SMIs’ role in tourism and trust concepts.
Section 3 includes the research model and hypothesis development. Section 4 describes the research
methodology, and Section 5 presents the research results and discussion. Section 6 explains the
theoretical and managerial implications, together with the limitations and future research
perspectives.
2. Literature review
2.1. Customer journey in tourism
Customer journey can be defined as the overall customer experience, which includes multiple touch-
points: pre-purchase, purchase, and post-purchase behaviour (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016). Chen et al.
(2015) found that consumers’ online holiday decision-making processes comprise of three stages,
namely, information search, evaluation, and purchase. The pre-purchase phase includes the custo-
mer’s experience before a purchase transaction (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016). Due to the intangible
CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM 825
nature of the tourism products, the evaluation of direct experience often remains after consumption
(Schmallegger & Carson, 2008), therefore the information, opinions, and recommendations obtained
through SM becomes more important for potential travelers. In the first phase of the process, the
consumer’s desire to visit a destination is highly influenced by online communication. Videos can
increase travelers’ interest to visit a destination (Tussyadiah & Fesenmaier, 2009). Because of social
media activity, the searching, reading, and trustworthy behaviours of the consumers have
changed (Sigala et al., 2012). During the search for information, the consumer develops an expec-
tation about the destination, which is further enhanced by the trust they feel towards the SMI
(Hudson & Thal, 2013). When evaluating alternatives, consumers rely on social networking (Chen
et al., 2015) and hear about previous tourist experiences. The purchase stage comprises a complete
interaction with the brand (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016), as consumers select and purchase their ideal
tourist package. In exhibiting post-purchase behaviour, travelers internally compare their actual
travel experiences with their expectations. Subsequently, a positive or negative attitude develops,
being very often shared on social media (Kang & Schuett, 2013), which can influence the decision
of another potential traveler. Lemon and Verhoef (2016) affirm that trust can influence customer
experience and that a good experience might build trust.
2.2. The Role of SMIs in tourism

With the appearance of SM, the travel decision-making process has radically changed. Consumers
often search for information about their next travel on SM (Dabija et al., 2018; Lin & Huang, 2006),
moreover, SM is a powerful platform to share their experiences during and after the trip. The expo-
nential growth of online networking sites led to the appearance of SMIs (Cox et al., 2009). Recognized
as opinion leaders, SMIs can enhance the influence of information that is passed on to others (Jalil-
vand, 2017). Influencers are also viewed as micro-celebrities on SM (Gaenssle & Budzinski, 2020;
Hudders et al., 2020). The rise of SMIs has forced organizations to pay more attention to influencers’
marketing strategies (De Veirman et al., 2017); therefore, influencer marketing has become a market-
ing tool for the online global business environment, enabling organizations to interact with their
customers more credibly and directly the way (Backaler, 2018; Hays et al., 2013). Influencer marketing
can also be viewed as a partnership between brands and content creators, who shape products or
services with their personalities and communicate them further to their target audience (De Veirman
et al., 2017). Celebrities are often used for the promotion of touristic destinations (Rinka & Pratt, 2018;
Van der Veen, 2008), enabling the creation of a positive attitude among visitors. Gretzel (2018) exam-
ined the impact of influencer marketing and concluded that destinations are less likely to use this
tool than international hotels. Femenia-Serra and Gretzel (2020) prove that IM offers a new oppor-
tunity for the DMO to boost the popularity of a destination by using the power of SM, and to reach
more consumers than usual, especially segments such as Millennials or Zers, who are more
influenced by SM (Dabija et al., 2018; Khamis et al., 2016). Potential consumers can use and rely
on the experiences disseminated in the SM when deciding to buy certain tourism products (Litvin
et al., 2008). The results of a questionnaire-based global survey research – carried out by Rakuten
Marketing (2019) in five countries and among 3,600 consumers – suggest that 88% of respondents
were inspired to choose their favorite destination due to an influencer. Therefore, social media is a
powerful and intense channel for SMIs to share their travel experiences with their peers, which can
be an important factor in potential tourists’ decision-making. Although SM and SMIs are powerful
tools to engage consumers in many aspects, these could also lead to a negative impact on travel
organizations and destinations’ image. Varkaris and Neuhofer (2017) found that negative contents
influence traveler’s hotel decision making. Moreover, negative contents have a higher impact
than positive ones, which could be automatically an exclusion criterion in hotel decision-making.
Besides, negative comments of dissatisfied and/or angry consumers can harm the tourism industry
strategies (Thevenot, 2007), and can decrease the desire to visit a destination (Alonso-Almeida et al.,
2019). Also, SM may have an influencing role in some destinations’ overtourism, such in the case of
Barcelona (Alonso-Almeida et al., 2019), while negative eWOM could inhibit the revisit intention
(Abubakar et al., 2017).
2.3. Trust in social media influencers

Trust has been explored by many researchers across different disciplines, including philosophy
(Barber, 1983), sociology (Putnam, 1995), economics (Koehn, 1996), marketing (Doney & Cannon,
1997), and organizational studies (Mayer et al., 1995). Trust is a complex and multidimensional
concept (Mayer et al., 1995), with some authors claiming that ‘there is no other variable which so
thoroughly influences interpersonal and intergroup behaviour’ (Golembiewski & McConkie, 1975,
p. 131). From a marketing perspective, trust is designed as a key factor to create and maintain suc-
cessful long-term relationships (Pennanen et al., 2007). Besides trust, trustworthiness also plays an
important role in the marketing approach. Trustworthiness is not the same as trust but can be
described as ‘the antecedent accumulated perceptual experiences that lead one to trust’ (Caldwell
& Clapham, 2003, p. 352). Consumers tend to have more trust in online information shared by an
opinion leader (Metzger et al., 2010). Source credibility has a positive impact on persuasion and infor-
mation appraisal (Wilson & Sherrell, 1993). The concepts of trust and source credibility are widely
studied in IM literature (Ye et al., 2021). Due to the rise of this topic, Agostino et al. (2019) define
influencers as ‘an active and empowered social media user who is listened to and seen as a
trusted source by other social media users’ (p.3). In the context of tourism and hospitality, trust
has been studied by many scholars in different fields such as airlines (Forgas et al., 2010), travel
agencies (Wu & Chang, 2006), and destination (Artigas et al., 2017). Because of the multidimensional
aspect of trust, the conceptualization of consumer trust (Bratu, 2019; Mircică, 2020) in tourism and
hospitality was analyzed by many scholars (Cohen et al., 2014). According to Wang et al. (2014), the
most cited definition of consumer trust is ‘the willingness to rely on an exchange partner in whom
one has confidence’ (Moorman et al., 1993, p. 135). In the context of online travel websites, Agag and
El-Masry (2017) highlighted that consumers’ trust in online travel websites depends on perceived
ease of use, website quality, website reputation, and perceived usefulness. Moreover, Kim et al.
(2017) found that trust in online booking provider sites and trust in hotels increases consumer
booking intention. Artigas et al. (2017) studied consumer trust in the case of destinations and
have found that the place reputation is a key aspect to building trust on a tourism destination.
In the context of SMIs, previous studies have found that the informative value of the content gen-
erated by SMIs, trustworthiness, attractiveness, and perceived similarity act as antecedents of
influencers’ trust in branded posts (Lou & Yuan, 2019). Moreover, they found that followers trust
in influencer branded posts positively influence their willingness to purchase (Lou & Yuan, 2019).
Besides, Martínez-López et al. (2020) found that trust has a predicting power of post credibility,
which in order leads on a stronger interest to the influencers’ post. In addition, Xiao et al. (2018)
noted that trust has a positive impact on information credibility and could lead to a positive
brand attitude. Konstantopoulou et al. (2019) revealed that, prior positive experiences with the
SMI lead to a stronger trust, and trust seem to be an important predictor of eWOM. From a consumer
perspective, SMIs seem to be more trustworthy than celebrities, followers can identify more with
them, and SMIs have a stronger impact on consumers’ purchase intention (Schouten et al., 2020).
However, consumers’ perception of trust could be harmed from various perspectives. Prior
studies revealed that sponsorships could decrease consumers’ perception of influencers’ trust
(Hudders et al., 2020). Moreover, Singh et al. (2020) noted that influencers used as a tool for adjust-
ment of the company reputation, after an organizational crisis, could lead to a decreased brand trust
and corporate credibility can influence consumers’ brand attitude (Goldsmith et al., 2000).
2.4. Proposed model and hypothesis development

Several studies have shown the influence of SM on different stages of the customer journey in
tourism (Fotis et al., 2012; Hudson & Thal, 2013; Narangajavana et al., 2017; Varkaris & Neuhofer,
2017; Guerreiro et al., 2019). The impact of SMI on tourists’ decision-making processes has also been
examined (Chryssoula, 2017; Guerreiro et al., 2019; Magno & Cassia, 2018; Rinka & Pratt, 2018), but
further research is needed in this domain. Tourists’ decision-making processes have been examined
through their use of SM (Chryssoula, 2017; Guerreiro et al., 2019), trust in IM (Chryssoula, 2017),
blogger trustworthiness (Magno & Cassia, 2018), information quality (Magno & Cassia, 2018), attitude
towards advertisements and destination (Rinka & Pratt, 2018). The credibility of the content gener-
ated by SMI appears to be an important factor for subsequent purchasing intention, which has been
defined with variables such as: influencer’s number of followers, influencer’s personality, and activi-
ties presented (Chryssoula, 2017), together with attractiveness, expertise, and trustworthiness
(Ohanian, 1990). The reliability of the SMI is a key factor in the tourist decision-making process;
hence, the current research model (Figure 1) measures its impact on every stage of the customer
journey. In the pre-purchase phase, in addition to exploring information and evaluating alternatives,
the desire variable is also examined (an aspect not previously considered in the literature). In the case
of celebrities, it has been proven that they may drive the desire for tourists to visit a destination (Lee
Figure 1. Conceptual Model.

et al., 2008). The second phase, the purchase decision, relates to buying intention, while the final
post-purchase phase focuses on satisfaction and travelers’ experience sharing.
2.5. The role of SMIs in pre-purchasing

SM shapes consumers’ desires and perceptions of a destination which influence individual purchas-
ing intentions (Kim, 2012). Travel photos published on SM by travelers who visited a specific destina-
tion can play a more important role in choosing the destination and to the traffic on that destination,
than advertising campaigns promoted by hotel institutions (Beeton, 2010). Travelers use various
social networking sites to get information when planning their next trip (Verma & McCarthy,
2012), but the most critical roles appear in the stages of problem recognition and information
searching (Dabija et al., 2018). 80% of users who appeal to SM for travel purposes seek information
about destinations and accommodation and heavily rely on prior opinions (Cox et al., 2009). Fotis
et al. (2012) noted that consumers use social networking sites with differing intensity at all stages
of the decision-making process. When planning a holiday, SM is mostly used for searching infor-
mation about a potential destination and to exclude destinations removed from the evoked set. Nar-
angajavana et al. (2017) also confirmed that tourists use SM to search for information before making
final purchasing decisions. In the pre-purchase stage, the tourists obtain information from different
social networks such as blogs, social media, web pages, tourism units, etc. Prestwich et al. (2008)
revealed that, intention lead more probable to behaviour when goal desire is associated with it.
Lin and Huang (2006) found that blog comments about Greece led to an increased desire to visit
the country. Celebrity participation also influences people’s desire to visit a destination (Lee et al.,
2008). Moreover, the travel influencers themselves intend to inspire their followers (Yılmaz et al.,
2020). Information acquired by consumers shapes their expectations that influences the purchasing
decision process (Narangajavana et al., 2017). The Internet plays an important role in a multidimen-
sional process that includes expectations, planning, forecasting, and sharing tourist experiences
(Monaco, 2017). Therefore, searching for information on social media raises expectations for the
tourist about the destination and could choose the destination that best fits the expectations.
According to Guerreiro et al. (2019), consumers may plan their travel via SM, but SMIs do not
influence the choice of alternatives. SM tends to influence the evaluation of alternatives (Hudson
& Thal, 2013). In contrary, Schroeder and Pennington-Gray (2015) found that SM is not a main
tool for planning an international leisure trips. Regarding the trust in the information sources gen-
erated by peers, Filieri (2016) indicates that the trustworthiness of tourism reviews is expected to
enhance persuasion. The perceived trustworthiness of the reviews might be influenced by the
source and message perceived trustworthiness along with the review valence, and patterns of
reviews. The effect of SMI on the evaluation of alternatives is controversial and unclear; therefore,
the following hypotheses have been formulated:
H1: Customer Trust towards the content generated by social media influencers (SMI) has a significant impact on
travel desire.
H2: Customer Trust in content created by social media influencers (SMI) has a significant impact on information
searching for tourism destinations.
H3: Customer Trust in content generated by social media influencers (SMI) has a significant impact on evaluating
tourism destinations.
2.6. The Role of SMIs in actual purchasing

According to Guerreiro et al. (2019), those who are loyal to SMIs tend to visit places/destinations and
value their quality in terms of credibility, integrity, and trust. Fotis et al. (2012) show that the greater
the influence of social media on destination choice, the more likely consumers are to change their
holiday plans. Based on this, we assume that:
H4: Trust in the content created by influencers has a significant positive impact on the purchase of tourism
products.
2.7. The Role of SMIs in the post-Purchase phase

Consumers raise expectations about a particular product or service before making a purchase
(Montero & Fernandez-Aviles, 2010), whereas, in the tourism sector, travelers formulate expectations
about the service they offer. Once they have experienced the service, tourists compare it to their pre-
vious expectations. The expectation relates to the travel experience, which ultimately results in sat-
isfaction or dissatisfaction (Robinson & Schanzel, 2019). Most consumers trust the content of an SMI if
it appears as non-sponsored content, thereby increasing its credibility (Rakuten Marketing, 2019),
that is, increasing the chances of a potential traveler to choose a particular destination. Post-pur-
chase visitors compare their tourist product experience with previous expectations (Dunne et al.,
2011), which ultimately results in satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Oliver (1997) claimed that ‘satisfac-
tion is the consumer fulfillment response’ (p.13), being a consumer judgment on the perceived
level of product experience. In the online tourism context, sellers’ ratings can influence tourists e-sat-
isfaction (Tseng, 2017). The hospitality literature highlights a strong relationship between trust and
satisfaction (Christou, 2010). Consumers then use SM to express their opinions and experiences
(Kang & Schuett, 2013) in the form of positive or negative posts. The impact of SMI is also recognized
in this respect (Magno & Cassia, 2018), which is greatly influenced by the credibility and quality of the
information shared (Hollowell et al., 2019; Popescu & Ciurlău, 2019). Tourism organizations and mar-
keting professionals can use this influential role to moderate consumer decision-making. Positive
experiences of a brand can lead to positive recommendations via SM (Bigne et al., 2019). Preliminary
research tended to focus on the UGC tool – user-generated content - of SM (Narangajavana et al.,
2017), but there is a close connection between UGC and SMI. UGC contributes to reducing perceived
risks in purchasing decisions (Nezakati et al., 2014). Mulvey et al. (2020) found that younger gener-
ations are most likely to use social media to share travel experiences, however, there is a cross-
national difference in travel experience sharing behaviour patterns. Oliveira et al. (2020) investigated
the experience sharing behaviour and found that identification with a group and the internalization
of a reference group norm positively influence the travel experience sharing behaviour via perceived
enjoyment. Based on the above, the following hypotheses were postulated:
H5: Customer Trust in content generated by influencers has a positive impact on destination travel product
satisfaction.
H6: Content generated by influencers has a positive impact on tourist’s experience sharing behaviour.
2.8. Mediating effects

Trust has a significant effect on consumer behaviour and decision-making (Singh & Sirdeshmukh,
2000). Wen (2010) found a positive relationship between consumer trust in online shopping and
intention to purchase travel online, while Kamarulzaman (2007) did not encounter any positive
effects. Expectations of service quality influence tourist behaviour, directly and indirectly, facilitating
the intention to visit a destination (Loureiro & Kastenholz, 2011). Online trust is the main vector for
purchase intention (Bart et al., 2005), enhancing buying behaviour (Jarvenpaa et al., 2000). Consumer
trust in online information has a positive impact on online information search behaviour (Dabija
et al., 2017; Menon et al., 2002). Online reviews and interactive platforms have a positive effect on
consumer purchasing intentions and behaviour (De Maria & Finotto, 2008). Trust influences word
of mouth (WOM), consumers being more likely to contribute positive WOM among online travel
communities (Lien & Cao, 2014). SM positively influences consumer purchasing intention (Pjero &
Kercini, 2015). Purchase intention has a significant impact on the actual purchase and post-purchase
behaviour; WOM influences purchasing intention, which in return increases the probability of actual
purchasing and information-sharing behaviour (Wang & Yu, 2017); therefore, SMIs have a spillover
effect on the decision-making journey, and each step of the journey may have a mediating role in
the SMI impact on the next step. Therefore, we assume that:
H7: Desire to travel mediates the relationship between SMI trust and information search.
H8: Information search mediates the relationship between SMI trust and the evaluating of alternatives.
H9: Evaluating of alternatives mediates the relationship between SMI trust and purchase decision.
H10: Purchase decision mediates the relationship between SMI trust and travel satisfaction.
H11: Travel satisfaction mediates the relationship between SMI trust and travel experience sharing.
Figure 1. encompasses the proposed conceptual model and the developed hypotheses.
3. Research methodology
3.1. Research design
The present study aims to examine the impact of SMI trust on travel customer journeys, and to
explore the direct and indirect relationship between SMI trust and each step of the decision-
making journey. We conducted an empirical investigation among SM users from an emerging
market (Romania), to test the proposed hypotheses. Romania is showing a fast growth rate in inter-
net user (Statista, 2020a) penetration in different industries, especially tourism (Statista, 2020b). The
model shown in Figure 1 was developed to test the impact of SMI trust on each stage of the decision-
making process: desire to travel (DS); information search (IS); evaluating alternatives (EA), purchase
decision (PD); satisfaction (SF); and experience sharing (ES).
3.2. Sampling and data collection

This study is based on a quantitative survey using a self-administered questionnaire as the data
collection tool, implemented in January 2020. Snowball sampling was used, a technique rec-
ommended when it is challenging to strictly identify the desired population (Saunders et al.,
2009). The target population was represented by the members of two tourist generations,
namely, Generation Y (Millennials) born between 1980 and 1994 and Generation Z (digital
natives) born between 1995 and 2010 (Dabija et al., 2017; Prensky, 2001) because they
spend the most time on SM (c.3 hours daily) (Mccrindle Research, 2012; WEF, 2019). To filter
out any respondents who did not belong to Millennials or Generation Z, respondents had to
write at the beginning of the questionnaire their birth year. Therefore after data collection,
all respondents with a birth year before 1980 were manually dismissed by the authors. The
classification into generations was done afterwards by the authors according to the literature
(McCrindle Research, 2012). Other two travel and influencer related questions were formulated
to measure the travel and SM experience of the respondents, namely, the travel frequency and
the most preferred SMI. Data collection was done through an online questionnaire posted on
various social networking sites, especially on specified Facebook groups addressed to travel
lovers, who share their travel experiences with other members of the groups. From the 180
administered questionnaires, 18 were removed as being incomplete, leaving 162 to be
further analyzed (Table 1). Although, according to the literature, the listwise deletion of the
cases is inferior in terms of the statistical power of the model to other data imputation
methods dealing with missing data (Shin et al., 2009; Vriens & Melton, 2002), we followed
the method applied by Khoi et al. (2020) in tourism research and removed cases with high
rate of missing values in the main variables. Table 1 shows the socio-demographic character-
istics of the respondents.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the respondents.

Demographics Frequency Percentage
Gender (n=162)
Female 97 60%
Male 65 40%
Age (n=162)
10-25 (Generation Z) 92 57%
26-40 (Generation Y) 70 43%
Income in EUR (n=162)
<210 38 23%
210-420 17 10%
421-620 50 31%
621-830 27 17%
>830 30 19%
Daily time spent on Social Media (n=162)
<1 h 6 4%
1-2,9 h 124 77%
3-5 h 31 19%
>5 h 1 1%
Number of SMIs followed in travel (n=162)
1-3 96 59%
4-6 53 33%
6-8 11 7%
>8 2 1%
3.3. Questionnaire design and measures

Operationalization of the questionnaire items was done according to the literature; several scales
were being used (Table 2). Respondents had to assess those items on a 7-point Likert scale (total
agreement / disagreement).
3.4. Data Analysis

The conceptual model (Figure 1) was tested using Smart PLS 3.0. SMI trust was modelled as a reflec-
tive construct (Sarstedt et al., 2017) together with the travel customer journey steps desire (DS), infor-
mation search (IS), evaluating alternatives (EA), purchase decision (PD), post-purchase satisfaction
(SF) and travel experience sharing (ES). The measured items loadings, evaluations of the internal con-
sistency, reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of all reflective constructs are pre-
sented in Tables 2 and 3.
Structural model. To achieve the research scope, we examined first the relationship between SMI
trust and traveler’s purchasing decisions. Figure 2 indicates the results of the SEM-PLS path algorithm
and the relations established between the dependent and independent constructs. Based on the t-
statistics, five of the assumed hypotheses show positive and significant influences, while one of them
(SMIs trust and ES) had to be rejected.
All measured item loadings are above 0.70, indicating that convergence validity is given
(Hair et al., 2010). Reliability was tested using Cronbach’s α and composite reliability,
which must be above 0.6 to be acceptable for exploratory purposes (Chin, 1998), while
those above 0.7 are adequate for confirmatory purposes (Daskalakis & Mantas, 2008; Henseler
et al., 2012). AVE of 0.5 or higher indicates an adequate model (Chin, 1998), and all CR
values are greater than 0.7 (Hair et al., 2010). Discriminant Validity measures the differences
between each construct (Hair et al., 2010). The square root of each AVE is greater than
the construct correlations, thus indicating adequate discriminant validity for all constructs
(Table 3).
In addition to the direct effect, this study also tested the mediation effect of each journey step on
the SMI trust effect at the following stage (Figure 3). Baron and Kenny (1986) proposed three
Table 2. Measurement properties of the reflective constructs.

Loading Cronbach’s AVE CR Adapted
Construct Item Measure (>0.7) Alpha (>0.7) (>0.5) (>0.7) from
Desire DS1 Aspiration to visit a destination 0.934 0.911 0.850 0.944 Goldsmith
advertised by SMI. et al., 2000
DS2 Willingness to buy the tourist 0.956
product recommended by SMI.
DS3 Desire to visit the destination 0.874 Prestwich
recommended by SMI. et al., 2008
Information I1 I use SM to search for information 0.979 0.908 0.909 0.952 Kang &
search about my next travel destination. Schuett,
2013
I2 I research online by reading about 0.928 Rinka & Pratt,
SMI traveller’s experiences via 2018
social media.
Evaluating EA1 Likely to consider SMI’s travel 0.934 0.854 0.873 0.932 Magno &
alternatives experiences when making my Cassia,
travel decisions. 2018
EA2 When I have to make travel-related 0.934
decisions, I will take suggestions
from digital influencers.
Purchase PD1 Final decision relating to booking a 0.944 0.821 0.845 0.916 Cox et al.,
decision trip or tourist products because of 2009
the SMI.
PD2 Change existing travel plans 0.893
because of the SMI.
Satisfaction SF1 Comfortable with one’s own 0.757 0.827 0.659 0.884 Tseng, 2017
purchasing decision.
SF2 Wise choice to buy this tourist 0.841
product.
SF3 Satisfaction with own travel 0.922
experience based on SMI’s
recommendation.
SF4 Once I make up my mind, I will not 0.710
look back again.
Experience ES1 Sharing own trip experience to 0.870 0.790 0.710 0.879 Kang &
Share create a good impression about Schuett,
myself. 2013
ES2 Sharing trip experience to receive 0.919
positive feedback from others.
ES3 Sharing own trip with SM showing 0.727
similarity with SMIs.
SMI Trust T1 SMI is trustworthy. 0.909 0.975 0.833 0.978 Goldsmith
T2 SMI is reliable. 0.894 et al., 2000
T3 SMI is honest. 0.898
T4 SMI is dependable. 0.908
T5 SMI is believable. 0.940
T6 I trust the information about travel 0.945 Cox et al.,
provided by Influencers. 2009
T7 SMI is more trustworthy than mass 0.905 Fotis et al.,
media. 2012
T8 SMI is more trustworthy than travel 0.918
agents.
T9 SMI is more trustworthy than 0.898
official tourist sites.
Notes: DS = desire; IS = information search; EA = evaluating alternatives; PD = purchase decision; SF = satisfaction; ES = experi-
ence sharing; AVE = Average Variance Extracted; CR Composite Reliability.
conditions for analyzing the mediating effect: (1) the independent and dependent variables must be
significantly related; (2) the independent and mediating variables must be significantly related;
(3) the effect of an independent variable on the dependent must disappear or be significantly
reduced.
Table 3. Discriminant validity.

Construct DS EA ES IS PD SF
DS 0.922
EA 0.857 0.934
ES 0.105 0.119 0.842
IS 0.706 0.702 0.198 0.953
PD 0.774 0.697 0.161 0.621 0.919
SF 0.127 0.194 0.437 0.177 0.143 0.812
SMI trust 0.378 0.374 0.072 0.506 0.301 0.108
Figure 2. The Structural Model.
4. Results and discussions

The first hypothesis, H1 assumed that trust in the content created by SMIs has a significant positive
effect on the travel desire of young consumers. Table 4 indicates that a positive significant effect can
be traced between trust in SMIs and desire to travel (β = 0.378; T-value = 5.930 and p<0.05). There-
fore, H1 can be accepted. This is in line with similar studies (Lee et al., 2008; Lin & Huang, 2006). H2
concludes that trust in the content created by SMIs has a significant positive effect on information
searching. This study disclosed a significant effect between SMI trust and consumer information
Figure 3. Structural Model with Mediating Effect.
Table 4. Structural estimates of the model.

Paths Path Coefficients Standard Deviation T - Value P values R2 Hypotheses
SMI trust -> DS 0.378 0.064 5.930*** 0.000 0.143 H1 - Supported
SMI trust -> IS 0.506 0.054 9.383*** 0.000 0.256 H2 - Supported
SMI trust -> EA 0.374 0.065 5.797*** 0.000 0.140 H3 - Supported
SMI trust -> PD 0.301 0.068 4.399*** 0.000 0.091 H4 - Supported
SMI trust -> SF 0.108 0.052 2.095* 0.037 0.012 H5 - Supported
SMI trust -> ES 0.072 0.065 1.107n.s. 0.269n.s. 0.005 H6 - Not Supported
Note: *p-value < 0.05; ***p-value < 0.001.
DS = desire; IS = information search; EA = evaluating alternatives; PD = purchase decision; SF = satisfaction; ES = experience
sharing.
searching in travel field (β=0.506; T-value=9.383; p<0.05). Hence H2 can be supported. The respon-
dents often used SM for search information on their next travel experience, in line with similar
studies (Dabija et al., 2017; Fotis et al., 2012; Guerreiro et al., 2019).
H3 presumed that trust in the content created by SMIs has a significant positive impact on the
evaluation of alternatives. Analyses have shown that the path coefficient and T-statistic indicate sig-
nificant values (β=0.374; T-value=5.797; p<0.05) between SMI trust and the evaluation of destination
alternatives. Thus, H3 can be supported. The evaluation of alternatives was found to have a positive
relationship with SMI trust, which is in line with previous research in the context of SM (Hudson &
Thal, 2013; Narangajavana et al., 2017). This positive impact suggests that the respondents in this
study are likely to consider SMIs’ travel experiences when they make travel-related decisions and
accept suggestions from influencers. It can be concluded that SMI trust positively and significantly
affects consumer pre-purchasing stages and positively affects purchasing intention to visit a desti-
nation, which is in line with previous studies (Rinka & Pratt, 2018; Varkaris & Neuhofer, 2017; Wen,
2010).
H4 assumed that trust in the content created by SMIs has a significant positive impact on the pur-
chase of tourist products. The analyses illustrate a significant effect between SMI trust and purchas-
ing decision (β=0.301; T-value=4.399; p<0.05), meaning that H4 was sustained. The results of this
study suggest that SMI trust has a positive impact on consumer decision-making. 44.9% of respon-
dents had visited a destination because of an SMI’s recommendations and were likely to make a final
decision related to booking a trip or tourist product because of the SMI; hence they influenced the
consumers’ purchasing decisions, in line with previous studies (Chryssoula, 2017; Guerreiro et al.,
2019).
H5 presumed that the trust in content created by SMIs has a significant positive impact on post-
purchase satisfaction. Based on the path coefficient and T-statistic of the PLS approach, SMI trust and
travel satisfaction had a significant relationship (β=0.108; T-value=2.095; P<0.05). Therefore, H5 can
be supported in line with previous studies (Christou, 2010). Satisfaction of respondents included
feeling comfortable with the purchase decision recommended by SMIs, that the choice they had
made was a wise one, and being satisfied with their travel experience, based on SMI recommen-
dations. H6 was based on the analysis that SMI trust had an insignificant effect on a traveler’s experi-
ence sharing on SM (β=0.072; T-value=1.107; p>0.05). There is not enough evidence to support the
assumption that SMI trust may influence traveler experience sharing on SM. Therefore, H6 is rejected.
Contrary to previous studies (Kang & Schuett, 2013; Lien & Cao, 2014), SMI trust had no effect on
traveler experience sharing on social media.
As shown in Figure 1, the R2 of each dependent variable is relatively small (DS=0.143; IS=0.256;
EA=0.140; PD=0.091; SF=0.012; ES=0.005), for the simple reason that the travelling customer
journey is a complex process, which is influenced by multiple factors (e.g. attitude, perceived
control etc.), not only by the SMIs. For this reason, we tested the impact of the steps of customer
journeys in mediating the interrelationship between SMI trust and the traveler’s decision-making
journey, which will be further presented.
4.1. Tests of mediating effect

According to the original non-mediated model, SMI trust is related to both desire and infor-
mation search (β = 0.378; T-value = 5.930 and p<0.05; β=0.506; T-value=9.383; p<0.05); condition
(1) and (2) of the mediation are supported. When introducing desire (DS) into the basic model
as the mediator variable (Table 5), the effect of desire to travel on information searching
becomes highly significant (β=0.651; p<0.05). The direct effect of SMI trust on information
searching becomes weaker (β=0.215; p<0.05), which suggests a partial mediation role for
desire (Baron & Kenny, 1986). The desire to travel mediation of SMI trust and information
search linkage (H7) is supported, and 57.6% of the variance in information searching is
explained by the mediation model.
Table 5. The mediating role of DS, IS, EA, PD, SF on the SMI trust effect.
Independent / Dependent (Path coefficients)
Models mediator DS IS EA PD SF ES
Original model SMI trust 0.378*** 0.506*** 0.374*** 0.301*** 0.108* 0.072n.s.
Model SMI trust 0.377*** 0.215*** 0.049n.s. 0.047n.s. 0.066n.s. 0.023n.s.
mediation DS 0.651***
Direct effects IS 0.707***
EA 0.680***
PD 0.131*
SF 0.484***
Type of mediation Partial Full Full Full Not
mediation of mediation of mediation of mediation of calculated
the DS the IS the EA the PD
Hypotheses H7 – H8 – H9 – H10 – H11 – not
supported supported supported supported supported
*p-value < 0.05 level; ***p-value < 0.001.
The impact of SMI trust on the evaluation of the alternatives is mediated by the information
search (Table 5). In the mediation model, the coefficient value of SMI trust is smaller than in the orig-
inal one (0.049 < 0.374) and became nonsignificant. This reduction in value indicates that H8 is sup-
ported information search having a full mediation on the SMI trust impact on evaluating alternatives.
In addition, 53.4% of the variance in information searching was explained by the mediation model.
SMI trust also significantly impacts the evaluating of alternatives (mediators) and the purchasing
decision (Table 5). However, the coefficient value of SMI trust is smaller in the mediation model than
in the original model (0.047 < 0.301). This reduction in value indicates that H9 is supported. Results
confirm that the evaluating of alternatives acts as a mediator in the relation between SMI trust and
purchasing decisions, and 48.8% of the variance in purchasing decisions is explained by the
mediation model. Results also show that SMI trust significantly impacts both the purchasing decision
(mediator) and satisfaction. However, the coefficient value of SMI trust in the mediation model
became smaller and nonsignificant (0.066 < 0.108). This reduction in impact value indicates that
H10 is supported and confirms that the purchasing decision acts as a mediator in the relation
between SMI trust and post-purchase satisfaction.
The mediating effect of satisfaction between SMI trust and experience sharing behaviour was not
analyzed, because the first condition of the mediation model (1) was not achieved. However, satis-
faction had a strong impact on experience sharing behaviour (PC=0.484). In this context, H11 was
rejected. In comparison with the direct effects of the variables, the R2 of each dependent variable
is higher in the analysis of indirect effects, which means that there is a strong relationship
between each step of the customer decision-making journey toward SMIs.
Therefore, findings indicate that consumer trust in SMIs directly and positively affects the main
stages of the customer journey and each step of the customer journey can mediate the effect of
SMI trust on the next phase. The results demonstrate that SMIs trust positively influences the pre-
purchase phase, namely the desire, information search, and evaluation of alternatives. The results
were consistent with prior research such as (Cox et al., 2009; Lin & Huang, 2006; Narangajavana
et al., 2017; Schroeder & Pennington-Gray, 2015; Yılmaz et al., 2020). The results confirmed the
impact of SMIs trust on tourists’ purchase decisions and were in line with previous research such
as Fotis et al. (2012) and Guerreiro et al. (2019). In the post-purchase phase, SMIs trust positively influ-
ences tourists’ satisfaction, which is in line with prior studies (Christou, 2010). In contrary to prior
research (Mulvey et al., 2020; Oliveira et al., 2020), the results indicate that SMIs trust does not
influence traveler experience sharing on SM.
Regarding the generational approach of the study, Gen Z and Millennials were included. Most of
the previous studies were also taken to sample Millennials (Chryssoula, 2017; Guerreiro et al., 2019;
Rinka & Pratt, 2018), but younger generations as well (Fotis et al., 2012). Only a few studies were
extended the sample to older generations (Fotis et al., 2012; Kang & Schuett, 2013). Therefore, it
remains unclear how Xers and Baby Boomers are influenced by SMIs on their travel decision process.
Similarly, the present study does not have evidence on Xers and Baby Boomers’ behaviour regarding
the impact of SMI trust on travel customer journeys. Moreover, previous studies were implemented
in different countries and nationalities, such as Russia and the other former Soviet Union Republics
(Fotis et al., 2012), China (Rinka & Pratt, 2018), Greece (Chryssoula, 2017), and so on. Similarly, the
present study represents another perspective regarding the geographical approach being con-
ducted in Romania.
The impact of SM on tourists’ behaviour and decision making has been explored by many scholars
(Chatzigeorgiou & Christou, 2020; Wong et al., 2020), also in the context of SMIs (Chryssoula, 2017;
Magno & Cassia, 2018). Although previous studies have explored the impact of trust on the peer-to-
peer market (Ert & Fleischer, 2019), and on intention to purchase online tourism products (Kim et al.,
2011; Ponte et al., 2015), this study demonstrated the influential impact of SMI trust on tourists’ cus-
tomer journey.
5. Conclusions
The originality of the paper consists in evaluating the impact of SMI trust on travel decision-making
journeys and of the direct and indirect relationship at each stage. Findings indicate that consumer
trust in SMIs directly and positively affects the main stages of the customer journey. Contrary to what
was expected in H6, the assumption that SMI trust has a positive impact on consumer-generated
content during the travel experience was not supported. This study also contributes to the customer
decision-making journey literature by examining and confirming each step of the decision journey as
a mediating mechanism through SMI trust. According to the results, the most impactful direct and
indirect effect of SMI trust arose in the pre-purchase phase of the customer journey, being taken over
by the journey resources accumulated in the pre-purchase stage. Thus, the customer journey should
be an integrated process, the spillover effect of SMI trust across the journey being revealed, where
each step can mediate the effect of SMI trust on the next phase. The results indicate the positive
relationship between SMI trust, desire to travel, and consumer information search behaviour. Con-
sumers who trust in SMIs and feel the desire to visit a destination recommended by an influencer
are more likely to search for information provided by SMIs. The mediation effect of SMI trust is sig-
nificantly indirect in every stage of the customer journey, except for travel experience sharing.
The results are relevant for marketing practitioners and managers who design strategic plans and
implement tools to improve destination marketing. There is a clear evidence that SMIs have a great
impact on all stages of the travel planning process if the SMIs are able to develop trust toward their
content. It may be beneficial to improve the destination via an SMI. Travel-related information pro-
vided by SMIs is more trustworthy than that advertised by mass media, travel agents, or official
tourist sites. Companies should pay more attention to perceived source credibility. Consumer
trust in influencers can increase the desire to visit a destination, which enhances rising brand aware-
ness; they are more likely to choose that destination when evaluating alternatives. Trustful influen-
cers also exhibit an influence over purchasing decisions, consumers being able to change their
existing travel plans because of trustful SMI recommendations. This means that companies can
have a major impact on consumers’ purchasing decisions via SMIs. Third, SMIs can increase the sat-
isfaction of the travel experience, which can positively affect repurchasing behaviour. This is a key
element for a long-term relationship and to build customer loyalty.
The present study has the limitations of an exploratory study. The limited sample size (n=162) and
the convenience sampling method reduce the generalizability of the result. Further investigations
are needed in the generational approach to explore the impact of SMIs on the Post-Millennial gen-
eration. They are using social media to search for information about their next destination choose?
They are influenced by SMIs? Do they trust on SMIs? There are only a few questions that can explore
in-depth by further studies. Since the contextual approaches of the previous studies are diversified,
cross-country studies are needed to explore the similarities and differences between other countries
and nationalities. The present study was conducted in an emerging market, therefore could be a
benchmark for future studies how to measure and which factors influence Millennials decision pro-
cesses in the context of destination planning.
The proposed model did not include other important factors (e.g. perceived behavioural control,
attitude, etc.). Future research should consider applying other factors which may influence travel
decision-making, e.g. perceived behavioural control, demographics factors, perceived service
quality, loyalty, etc. Sampling technique is recommended for a future study to improve the validity
and generalization of the research outcomes. Such research could identify the relationship between
consumers, SMI, and companies, investigating how consumer trust in SMIs could affect trust in a
company or brand. Moreover, further research may explore the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on
consumers’ destination decision making process and could extend to other emerging markets to
identify the similarities and differences in the perception of SMI tools.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
Dan-Cristian Dabija http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8265-175X
References
Abubakar, A. M., & Ilkan, M. (2016). Impact of online WOM on destination trust and intention to travel: A medical tourism
perspective. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 5(3), 192–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.12.
005
Abubakar, A. M., Ilkan, M., Meshall Al-Tal, R., & Eluwole, K. K. (2017). eWOM, revisit intention, destination trust, and
gender. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 31, 220–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2016.12.005
Agag, G. M., & El-Masry, A. A. (2017). Why do consumers trust online travel websites? Drivers and outcomes of consumer
trust toward online travel websites. Journal of Travel Research, 56(3), 347–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0047287516643185
Agostino, D., Arnaboldi, M., & Calissano, A. (2019). How to quantify social media influencers: An empirical application at
the teatro alla scala. Heliyon, 5, 5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01677
Alonso-Almeida, M. d. M., Borrajo-Millán, F., & Yi, L. (2019). Are social media data pushing overtourism? The case of
Barcelona and Chinese tourists. Sustainability, 11(12), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123356
Artigas, M. E., Yrigoyen, C. C., Moraga, E. T., & Villalón, C. B. (2017). Determinants of trust towards tourist destinations.
Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, 6(4), 327–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2017.03.003
Backaler, J. (2018). Then vs. now: Influencer marketing (re-) defined. Digital Influence, 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-319-78396-3_2
Barber, B. (1983). The logic and limits of trust. Rutgers University Press.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:
Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Bart, Y., Shankar, V., Sultan, F., & Urban, G. (2005). Are the drivers and role of online trust the same for all web sites and
consumers? A large-scale exploratory empirical study. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 133–152. https://doi.org/10.1509/
jmkg.2005.69.4.133
Beeton, S. (2010). The advance of film tourism. Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development, 7(1), 1–6. https://doi.
org/10.1080/14790530903522572
Bigne, E., Andreu, L., Perez, C., & Ruiz, C. (2019). Brand love is all around: Loyalty behaviour, active and passive social
media users. Current Issues in Tourism, 23(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1631760
Bratu, S. (2019). Can social media influencers shape corporate brand reputation? Online followers’ trust, value creation,
and purchase intentions. Review of Contemporary Philosophy, 18, 157–163. https://doi.org/10.22381/RCP18201910
Caldwell, C., & Clapham, S. E. (2003). Organizational trustworthiness: An international perspective. Journal of Business
Ethics, 47(4), 349–364. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1027370104302
Chatzigeorgiou, C., & Christou, E. (2020). Adoption of social media as distribution channels in tourism marketing: A quali-
tative analysis of consumers’ experiences. Journal of Tourism, Heritage & Services Marketing, 6, 25–32. https://doi.org/
10.5281/zenodo.3603355
Chen, C. H., Nguyen, B., Klaus, P., & Wu, M. S. (2015). Exploring electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) in the consumer pur-
chase decision-making process: The case of online holidays – evidence from United Kingdom (UK) consumers.
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 32(8), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2015.1123390
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach for structural equation modelling, modern methods for business
research (pp. 295–336). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publisher.
Christou, E. (2010). Relationship marketing practices for retention of corporate customers in hospitality contract cater-
ing. Tourism and Hospitality Management, 16, 1–10.
Chryssoula, C. (2017). Modelling the impact of social media influencers on the behavioural intentions of millennials: The
case of tourism in rural areas in Greece. Journal of Tourism, Heritage & Services Marketing, 3, 25–29. https://doi.org/10.
5281/ZENODO.1209125
Cohen, S. A., Prayag, G., & Moital, M. (2014). Consumer behaviour in tourism: Concepts, influences, and opportunities.
Current Issues in Tourism, 17(10), 872–909. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2013.850064
Cox, C., Burgess, S., Sellitto, C., & Buultjens, J. (2009). The role of user-generated content in tourists’ travel planning
behavior. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 18(8), 743–764. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19368620903235753
Dabija, D. C., Băbuţ, R., Dinu, V., & Lugojan, M. (2017). Cross-generational analysis of information searching based on
social media in Romania. Transformations in Business & Economics, 16(2(41)), 248–270.
Dabija, D. C., Bejan, B., & Tipi, N. (2018). Generation X versus millennials communication behavior on social media when
purchasing food versus tourist services. Ekonomie a Management, 21(1), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.15240/tul/001/
2018-1-013
Daskalakis, S., & Mantas, J. (2008). Evaluating the impact of a service-oriented framework for healthcare interoperability.
Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 136, 285–290. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-58603-864-9-285
De Maria, E. D., & Finotto, V. (2008). Communities of consumption and made in Italy. Industry and Innovation, 15(2),
179–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662710801954583
De Veirman, M., Cauberghe, V., & Hudders, L. (2017). Marketing through Instagram influencers: The impact of number of
followers and product divergence on brand attitude. International Journal of Advertising, 36(5), 798–828. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02650487.2017.1348035
Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of
Marketing, 61, 35–51. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251829
Dunne, G., Flanagan, S., & Buckley, J. (2011). Towards a decision-making model for city break travel. Journal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality, 5(2), 158–172. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506181111139573
Ert, E., & Fleischer, A. (2019). The evolution of trust in airbnb: A case of home rental. Annals of Tourism Research, 75,
279–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.01.004
Femenia-Serra, F., & Gretzel, U. (2020). Influencer marketing for tourism destinations: Lessons from a mature destination.
In J. Neidhardt & W. Wörndl (Eds.), Information and communication technologies in tourism (pp. 65–78). Springer.
Filieri, R. (2016). What makes an online consumer review trustworthy? Annals of Tourism Research, 58, 46–64. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.annals.2015.12.019
Forgas, S., Moliner, M. A., Sánchez, J., & Palau, R. (2010). Antecedents of airline passenger loyalty: Low-cost versus
traditional airlines. Journal of Air Transport Management, 16(4), 229–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2010.
01.001
Fotis, J., Buhalis, D., & Rossides, N. (2012). Social media use and impact during the holiday travel planning process.
Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-1142-0_2
Freberg, K., Graham, K., McCaughey, K., & Freberg, L. (2011). Who are the social media influencers? A study of public
perceptions of personality. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 90–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.11.001
Gaenssle, S., & Budzinski, O. (2020). Stars in social media: New light through old windows? Journal of Media Business
Studies, 25, 1–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/16522354.2020.1738694
Goldsmith, R., Lafferty, B., & Newell, S. (2000). The impact of corporate credibility and celebrity on consumer reaction to
advertisements and brands. Journal of Advertising, 29(3), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2000.10673616
Golembiewski, R. T., & McConkie, M. (1975). The centrality of interpersonal trust in group process. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.),
Theory of group process (pp. 131–185). John Wiley.
Gretzel, U. (2018). Influencer marketing in travel and tourism. In M. Sigala, & U. Gretzel (Eds.), Advances in social media for
travel, tourism, and hospitality: New perspectives, practice, and cases (pp. 147–156). Routledge.
Guerreiro, C., Viegas, M., & Guerreiro, M. (2019). Social networks and digital influencers: Their role in customer decision
journey in tourism. Journal of Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, 7, 240–260.
Gunn, C. A. (1988). Tourism planning (2nd edn.). Taylor and Francis.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., & Babin, B. J. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Pearson Education
International.
Hays, S., Page, S. J., & Buhalis, D. (2013). Social media as a destination marketing tool: Its use by national tourism organ-
isations. Current Issues in Tourism, 16(3), 211–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2012.662215
Henseler, J., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2012). Using partial least squares path modelling in international advertising
research: Basic concepts and recent issues. In S. Okazaki (Ed.), Handbook of research on international advertising
(pp. 252–276). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Hollowell, J. C., Rowland, Z., Kliestik, T., Kliestikova, J., & Dengov, V. V. (2019). Customer loyalty in the sharing economy
platforms: How digital personal reputation and feedback systems facilitate interaction and trust between strangers.
Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics, 7(1), 13–18. https://doi.org/10.22381/JSME7120192
Hu, X., Liu, S., Zhang, Y., Zhao, G., & Jiang, C. (2019b). Identifying top persuaders in mixed trust networks for electronic
marketing based on word-of-mouth. Knowledge-Based Systems, 182, 104803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2019.
06.011
Hu, L., & Olivieri, M. (2020). Social media management in the traveller’s customer journey: An analysis of the hospitality
sector. Current Issues in Tourism, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1819969
Hu, H., Zhang, D., & Wang, C. (2019a). Impact of social media influencers’ endorsement on application adoption: A trust
transfer perspective. Social Behavior and Personality: an International Journal, 47(11), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.2224/
sbp.8518
Hudders, L., De Jans, S., & De Veirman, M. (2020). The commercialization of social media stars: A literature review and
conceptual framework on the strategic use of social media influencers. International Journal of Advertising, 1–49.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2020.1836925
Hudson, S., & Thal, K. (2013). The impact of social media on the consumer decision process: Implications for tourism
marketing. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 30(1), 156–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2013.751276
Jalilvand, M. R. (2017). Word-of-mouth vs. Mass media: Their contributions to destination image formation. Anatolia, 28
(2), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2016.1270840
Jarvenpaa, S. L., Tractinsky, N., & Vitale, M. (2000). Consumer trust in an internet store. Information Technology and
Management, 1(12), 45–71. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019104520776
Kamarulzaman, Y. (2007). Adoption of travel e-shopping in the UK. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, 35(9), 703–719. https://doi.org/10.1108/09590550710773255
Kang, M., & Schuett, M. A. (2013). Determinants of sharing travel experiences in social media. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 30(1-2), 93–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2013.751237
Khamis, S., Lawrence, A., & Raymond, W. (2016). Self-branding, ‘micro-celebrity’, and the rise of social media influencers.
Celebrity Studies, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/19392397.2016.1218292
Khoi, N. H., Phong, N. D., & Le, A. N. H. (2020). Customer inspiration in a tourism context: An investigation of driving and
moderating factors. Current Issues in Tourism, 23(21), 2699–2715. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1666092
Kim, S. (2012). Audience involvement and film tourism experiences: Emotional places. Emotional Experiences. Tourism
Management, 33(2), 387–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.04.008
Kim, M. J., Chung, N., & Lee, C. K. (2011). The effect of perceived trust on electronic commerce: Shopping online for
tourism products and services in South Korea. Tourism Management, 32(2), 256–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2010.01.011
Kim, S. Y., Kim, J. U., & Park, S. C. (2017). The effects of perceived value, website trust, and hotel trust on online hotel
booking intention. Sustainability, 9(12), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122262
Koehn, D. (1996). Should we trust in trust? American Business Law Journal, 34(2), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1744-1714.1996.tb00695.x
Konstantopoulou, A., Rizomyliotis, I., Konstantoulaki, K., & Badahdah, R. (2019). Improving SMEs’ competitiveness with
the use of Instagram influencer advertising and eWOM. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 27(2), 308–
321. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-04-2018-1406
Lee, S., Scott, D., & Kim, H. (2008). Celebrity fan involvement and destination perceptions. Annals of Tourism Research, 35
(3), 809–832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2008.06.003
Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey. Journal of
Marketing, 80(6), 69–96. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0420
Lien, C. H., & Cao, Y. (2014). Examining We Chat users’ motivations, trust, attitudes, and positive word-of-mouth:
Evidence from China. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 104–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.08.013
Lin, Y. S., & Huang, J. Y. (2006). Internet blogs as a tourism marketing medium: A case study. Journal of Business Research,
59(10), 1201–1205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.11.005
Litvin, S. W., Goldsmith, R. E., & Pan, B. (2008). Electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and tourism management.
Tourism Management, 29(3), 458–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.05.011
Lou, C., & Yuan, S. (2018). Influencer marketing: How message value and credibility affect consumer trust of branded
content on social media. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 19(1), 58–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2018.
1533501
Lou, C., & Yuan, S. (2019). Influencer marketing: How message value and credibility affect consumer trust of branded
content on social media. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 19(1), 58–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2018.
1533501
Loureiro, S. M. C., & Kastenholz, E. (2011). Corporate reputation, satisfaction, delight, and loyalty towards rural lodging
units in Portugal. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(3), 575–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.
2010.10.007
Luo, Q., & Zhong, D. (2015). Using social network analysis to explain the communication characteristics of travel-related
electronic word-of-mouth on social networking sites. Tourism Management, 46, 274–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tourman.2014.07.007
Magno, F., & Cassia, F. (2018). The impact of social media influencers in tourism. Anatolia, 29(2), 288–290. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13032917.2018.1476981
Martínez-López, F. J., Anaya-Sánchez, R., Esteban-Millat, I., Torrez-Meruvia, H., D’Alessandro, S., & Miles, M. (2020).
Influencer marketing: Brand control, commercial orientation, and post credibility. Journal of Marketing
Management, 36(17–18), 1805–1831. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2020.1806906
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of
Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335
McCrindle Research. (2012). Retrieved 5 January, 2020 from https://mccrindle.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/
Generations-Defined-Sociologically.pdf
Menon, A., Deshpande, A., Perri III, M., & Zinkhan, G. (2002). Trust in online prescription drug information among internet
users: The impact on information search behavior after exposure to direct-to-consumer advertising. Health Marketing
Quarterly, 20(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1300/J026v20n01_03
Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Medders, R. B. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online.
Journal of Communication, 60(3), 413–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x
Mircică, N. (2020). Restoring public trust in digital platform operations: Machine learning algorithmic structuring of
social media content. Review of Contemporary Philosophy, 19(0), 85–91. https://doi.org/10.22381/RCP1920209
Monaco, S. (2017). Tourism and the new generation: Emerging trends and social implications in Italy. Journal of Tourism
Futures, 4(1), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-12-2017-0053
Montero, J. M., & Fernandez-Aviles, G. (2010). An alternative to independence between expectations and disconfirma-
tion versus the positive version of the assimilation theory. An application to the case of cultural/Heritage tourism.
International Journal of Management & Information Systems, 14(4), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.19030/ijmis.v14i4.844
Moorman, C., Deshpande, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors affecting trust in market research relationships. Journal of
Marketing, 57(1), 81–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700106
Mulvey, M. S., Lever, M. W., & Elliot, S. (2020). A cross-national comparison of intragenerational variability in social media
sharing. Journal of Travel Research, 59(7), 1204–1220. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287519878511
Murphy, P., Pritchard, M. P., & Smith, B. (2000). The destination product and its impact on traveller perceptions. Tourism
Management, 21(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(99)00080-1
Narangajavana, Y., Fiol, L. J. C., Tena, M. A. M., Artola, R. M. R., & Gracia, J. S. (2017). The influence of social media in creat-
ing expectations. An empirical study for tourist destination. Annals of Tourism Research, 65, 60–70. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.annals.2017.05.002
Nezakati, H., Amidi, A., Jusoh, Y. Y., Moghadas, S., Aziz, Y. A., & Sohrabinezhadtalemi, R. (2014). Review of social media
potential on knowledge sharing and collaboration in tourism industry. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 172,
120–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.344
Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers perceived expertise, trust-
worthiness and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1990.10673191
Oliveira, T., Araujo, B., & Tam, C. (2020). Why do people share their travel experiences on social media? Tourism
Management, 78, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.104041.
Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A Behavioral perspective on the consumer. McGraw Hill.
Pennanen, K., Tiainen, T., & Luomala, H. (2007). A qualitative exploration of a consumer’s value-based e-trust building
process: A framework development. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 10(1), 28–47. https://doi.
org/10.1108/13522750710720387
Pjero, E., & Kercini, D. (2015). Social media and consumer behavior – How does it work in Albania reality? Academic
Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 4(3), 141–146. https://doi.org/10.5901/ajis.2015.v4n3s1p141
Ponte, E. B., Trujillo-Carvajal, E., & Escobar-Rodriguez, T. (2015). Influence of trust and perceived value on the intention to
purchase travel online: Integrating the effects of assurance on trust antecedents. Tourism Management, 47, 286–302.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.10.009
Popescu, G. H., & Ciurlău, F. C. (2019). Making decisions in collaborative consumption: Digital trust and reputation
systems in the sharing economy. Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics, 7(1), 7–12. https://doi.
org/10.22381/JSME7120191
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1108/
10748120110424816
Prestwich, A., Perugini, M., & Hurling, R. (2008). Goal desires moderate intention - behaviour relations. British Journal of
Social Psychology, 47(1), 49–71. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466607X218221
Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78. https://doi.
org/10.1353/jod.1995.0002
Rakuten Marketing. (2019). Influencer Marketing Global Survey Consumers. Retrieved 5 January, 2020 from. https://go.
rakutenmarketing.com/hubfs/docs/201920Influencer20Marketing20Report20-20Rakuten20Marketing.pdf
Rinka, X., & Pratt, S. (2018). Social media influencers as endorsers to promote travel destinations: An application of self-
congruence theory to the Chinese generation Y. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 35(7), 958–972. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10548408.2018.1468851
Robinson, V. M., & Schanzel, H. A. (2019). A tourism inflex: Generation Z travel experiences. Journal of Tourism Futures, 5
(2), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-01-2019-0014
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Hair, J. F.. (2017). Partial least squares structural equation modeling. In: C. Homburg, M.
Klarmann, & A. Vomberg (Eds.), Handbook of Market Research (pp. 1–40). Heidelberg: Springer.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Selecting samples. In M. Saunders, P. Lewis, & A. Thornhill (Eds.), Research
methods for business students (pp. 204–242). Pearson Education Limited.
Schmallegger, D., & Carson, D. (2008). Blogs in tourism: Changing approaches to information exchange. Journal of
Vacation Marketing, 14(2), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356766707087519
Schouten, A. P., Janssen, L., & Verspaget, M. (2020). Celebrity vs. Influencer endorsements in advertising: The role of
identification, credibility, and product-endorser fit. International Journal of Advertising, 39(2), 258–281. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02650487.2019.1634898
Schroeder, A., & Pennington-Gray, L. (2015). The role of social media in international tourist’s decision making. Journal of
Travel Research, 54(5), 584–595. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287514528284
Shin, T., Davison, M. L., & Long, J. D. (2009). Effects of missing data methods in structural equation modeling with non-
normal longitudinal data. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(1), 70–98. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10705510802569918
Sigala, M., Christou, E., & Gretzel, U. (2012). Social media in travel, tourism and hospitality: Theory, practice and cases.
Ashgate, Farnham, Surrey, Burlington.
Singh, J., Crisafulli, B., Quamina, L. T., & Xue, M. T. (2020). ‘To trust or not to trust’: The impact of social media influencers
on the reputation of corporate brands in crisis. Journal of Business Research, 119, 464–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2020.03.039
Singh, J., & Sirdeshmukh, D. (2000). Agency and trust mechanisms in consumer satisfaction and loyalty judgments.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 150–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300281014
Statista. (2020a). Retrieved 18 January, 2020 from https://www.statista.com/statistics/567577/predicted-internet-user-
penetration-rate-in-romania/
Statista. (2020b). Retrieved 18 January, 2020 from https://www.statista.com/outlook/262/148/travel-tourism/romania#mar
ket-revenue
Thevenot, G. (2007). Blogging as a social media. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 7(3-4), 287–289. https://doi.org/10.
1057/palgrave.thr.6050062
Tseng, A. (2017). Why do online tourists need sellers’ ratings? Exploration of the factors affecting regretful tourist e-sat-
isfaction. Tourism Management, 59, 413–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.08.017
Tussyadiah, I., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2009). Mediating tourist experiences: Access to places via shared videos. Annals of
Tourism Research, 36(1), 24–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2008.10.001
Usui, R., Wei, X., & Funck, C. (2018). The power of social media in regional tourism development: A case study from
Ōkunoshima island in hiroshima, Japan. Current Issues in Tourism, 21(18), 2060–2064. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13683500.2017.1372393
Van der Veen, R. (2008). Analysis of the implementation of celebrity endorsement as a destination marketing instru-
ment. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 24(2-3), 213–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548400802092841
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. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTT-09-2016-0058
Verma, R., & McCarthy, L. (2012). Customer preferences for online, social media, and mobile innovations in the hospi-
tality industry. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 53(3), 183–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965512445161
Vriens, M., & Melton, E. (2002). Managing missing data. Marketing Research, 14(3), 12–17.
Wang, L., Law, R., Hung, K., & Guillet, B. D. (2014). Consumer trust in tourism and hospitality: A review of the literature.
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 21, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2014.01.001
Wang, Y., & Yu, C. (2017). Social interaction-based consumer decision-making model in social commerce: The role of
word of mouth and observational learning. International Journal of Information Management, 37(3), 179–189.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.11.005
Wen, I. (2010). Online travelers’ decision makings: A new equation model to evaluate impacts of website, search inten-
tion, and trust. Information Technology & Tourism, 12(2), 153–173. https://doi.org/10.3727/109830510X1288797
1002747
Wilson, E. J., & Sherrell, D. L. (1993). Source effects in communication and persuasion research: A meta-analysis of effect
size. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(2), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02894421
Wong, J. W. C., Lai, I. K. W., & Tao, Z. (2020). Sharing memorable tourism experiences on mobile social media and how it
influences further travel decisions. Current Issues in Tourism, 23(14), 1773–1787. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.
2019.1649372
World Economic Forum (WEF) Social Media by Generation. (2019). Retrieved 17 January, 2020 from https://www.
weforum.org/agenda/2019/10/social-media-use-by-generation/
Wu, J. J., & Chang, Y. S. (2006). Effect of transaction trust on e-commerce relationships between travel agencies. Tourism
Management, 27(6), 1253–1261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2005.06.009
Xiang, Z., Magnini, V. P., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2015). Information technology and consumer behavior in travel and
tourism: Insights from travel planning using the internet. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 22, 244–249.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2014.08.005
Xiao, M., Wang, R., & Chan-Olmsted, S. (2018). Factors affecting YouTube influencer marketing credibility: A heuristic-
systematic model. Journal of Media Business Studies, 15(3), 188–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/16522354.2018.1501146
Ye, G., Hudders, L., De Jans, S., & De Veirman, M. (2021). The value of influencer Marketing for business: A bibliometric
analysis and managerial implications. Journal of Advertising, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2020.1857888
Yılmaz, M., Sezerel, H., & Uzuner, Y. (2020). Sharing experiences and interpretation of experiences: A phenomenological
research on Instagram influencers. Current Issues in Tourism, 23(24), 3034–3041. doi:10.1080/13683500.2020.1763270

The Impact of Social Media Influencers On Travel Decisions The Role of Trust in Consumer Decision Journey

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Impact of Social Media Influencers On Travel Decisions The Role of Trust in Consumer Decision Journey

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Impact of Social Media Influencers On Travel Decisions The Role of Trust in Consumer Decision Journey

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Current Issues in Tourism

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcit20

The impact of social media influencers on travel

Rebeka-Anna Pop, Zsuzsa Săplăcan, Dan-Cristian Dabija & Mónika-Anetta Alt

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1895729

Published online: 11 Mar 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 11780

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 63 View citing articles

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

The impact of social media inﬂuencers on travel decisions: the

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

CONTACT Rebeka-Anna Pop [email protected]

2.2. The Role of SMIs in tourism

2.3. Trust in social media inﬂuencers

2.4. Proposed model and hypothesis development

Figure 1. Conceptual Model.

2.5. The role of SMIs in pre-purchasing

2.6. The Role of SMIs in actual purchasing

2.7. The Role of SMIs in the post-Purchase phase

2.8. Mediating eﬀects

3.2. Sampling and data collection

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the respondents.

3.3. Questionnaire design and measures

3.4. Data Analysis

Table 2. Measurement properties of the reﬂective constructs.

Table 3. Discriminant validity.

Figure 2. The Structural Model.

4. Results and discussions

Figure 3. Structural Model with Mediating Eﬀect.

Table 4. Structural estimates of the model.

4.1. Tests of mediating eﬀect

You might also like