Measurement Development

Consistent with the pilot study, a multi-item approach was used in the formal study.

To appeal for a more reliable and valid measurement model, several items removed in the pilot study were modified or still cut off in the measurement of the formal study (see Table 5.1, p. 92, for more information). On the basis of the modified instruments from the pilot study, measures of the extended variables were added, including self-efficacy, online social capital, and behavioral engagement intention. Like the pilot study, all items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

To confirm content validity, two academic researchers and a product manager who has worked for Sina Weibo and Alibaba in China were asked for suggestions on the appropriateness of all items. After that, two groups of English professionals (including a Singaporean) with proficiency in both English and Chinese back-translated the original English questionnaire. Resulting from the cross comparison, the final version of the measurement was decided. All the measurement items are shown in Table 5.1 (p. 92).

Table 5.1

Measurement Items

Construct Item

Technical adequacy (TA)

INT1 Social media allows me to create content as per my imagination.

INT2 Social media allows me to change or influence the way the medium looks.

PER1 Social media stores all my preferences and offers me extra services based on them.

PER2 Social media does a pretty good job guessing what I want and making suggestions.

SOC1 Social media enables me to develop good social relationships with others in the context.

SOC2 Social media enables me to make a good impression on others in the context.

Argument quality (AQ)

AQ1 The travel information on social media is accurate.

AQ2 The travel information on social media is relevant to my needs.

AQ3 The travel information on social media is comprehensive.

AQ4 The travel information on social media is up-to-date.

AQ5 The arguments of travel information on social media are convincing.

AQ6 The arguments of travel information on social media are strong.

Source credibility (SC)

SC1 The users providing travel information are knowledgeable on travel topic.

SC2 The users providing travel information are experienced.

SC3 The users providing travel information are trustworthy.

SC4 The users providing travel information are reliable.

SC5 The users providing travel information and I share similar viewpoints.

SC6 The users providing travel information and I share similar interests.

Social presence (SP)

SP1 I feel others on social media are aware of my presence.

SP2 I feel the interaction with others on social media is close.

SP3 I feel the interaction with others on social media is emotional.

SP4 I feel the interaction with others on social media is warm.

SP5 I feel involved with others on social media.

Self-disclosure (DIS)

DIS1 I often talk about myself when using social media.

DIS2 I intimately and fully reveal myself when using social media.

DIS3 My self-disclosures when using social media are completely accurate reflections of who I really am.

DIS4 I consciously intend to reveal my feelings about myself on social media.

DIS5 I normally express my “good” feelings about myself when using social media.

Perceived self-efficacy (EFF)

EFF1 I am confident I can search for travel information that I want on social media.

EFF2 I am confident I can evaluate the credibility of travel information on social media.

EFF3 I am confident I can distinguish the credibility of sources providing travel information on social media.

EFF4 I am confident I can navigate unexpected problems when using travel information by social media.

Perceived bridging social capital (BRI)

BRI1 Interacting with people on social media makes me want to try new things.

BRI2 Interacting with people on social media makes me interested in what people unlike me are thinking.

BRI3 Interacting with people on social media makes me feel like part of a larger community.

BRI4 Interacting with people on social media makes me feel connected to the bigger picture.

BRI5 Talking with people on social media makes me curious about other places in the world.

BRI6 I am willing to spend time to support general community activities on social media.

Perceived bonding social capital (BON)

BON1 There are several people on social media I trust to help solve my problems.

BON2 There is someone on social media I can turn to for advice about making very important decisions.

BON3 When I feel lonely, there are several people on social media I can talk to.

BON4 If I needed an emergency loan, I know someone on social media I can turn to.

BON5 The people I interact with on social media would put their reputation on the line for me.

BON6 The people I interact with on social media would be good job references for me.

Perceived information usefulness (PIU)

PIU1 The travel information on social media is informative.

PIU2 The travel information on social media is valuable.

PIU3 The travel information on social media is helpful.

Behavioral engagement intention (BEI)

BEI1 The travel information provided on social media motivates me to take action.

BEI2 I have followed the travel information from others on social media.

BEI3 I am likely to agree with and “likes” the travel information on social media.

BEI4 I am willing to share my travel related experiences by social media.

BEI5 I am willing to post my comments on travel information by social media.

BEI6 I am willing to repost travel information on social media.

5.1.1 Measurement scales adapted from pilot study

Four items in the measurement of the pilot study were removed according to the results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). They are AQ1, SP4, TIA1, and TIA3.

Meanwhile, the factor loadings of SOC2 (λ = .535) and AQ2 (λ = .636) were relatively lower than other items (see Table 3.5, p. 69). To improve the reliability and validity of the measurement, they were modified or updated in the measurement of the formal study.

5.1.2 Measurement of perceived self-efficacy

Perceived self-efficacy reflects consumers’ confidence in their ability and skills to make decision through travel-related technologies (Yoo et al., 2017). In this research, respondents were asked to rate their confidence of their ability and skills to use travel information on social media, including searching, evaluating, distinguishing credible sources, and navigating unexpected problems (Yoo et al., 2017; T. Zhou et al., 2016).

5.1.3 Measurement of perceived online social capital

As noted in subsection 2.5.2 (p. 48), ISCS built (Williams, 2006) and its developed version developed constructed by Ellison and colleagues (2007), have been widely used to measure social capital in different fields. This research tried to transfer their applications into the tourism research to define the scope of the items under the bridging and bonding social capital. As such, this research also referred to the version developed by Kim and colleagues (2016) in their research on revisit intention of social network

sites for tourism-related activities.

5.1.4 Measurement of travel information engagement

To gain respondents’ subjective behavioral response, in the formal study, the measurement scale of behavioral engagement intention was invited to represent consumers’ intention to engage in travel information via social media. Behavioral engagement intention holds two dimensions, combining the intentions for information adoption and information generation. Sussman and Siegal’s (2003) version of information adoption measurement was updated to adapt to consumers’ particular behaviors identified by social media metrics. As such, information adoption was measured by three items closely related to the taking side in using travel information via social media applications, including following, liking, and being motivated to taking action. Meanwhile, information generation was reflected through consumers’ intentions to share, post, and repost travel information via social media, which draws more on the giving side of travel information engagement (Ge & Gretzel, 2017; P. Wang et al., 2017).