Tourism Management 43 (2014) 46e54

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Motivations for sharing tourism experiences through social media

Ana Mara Munar a, *, Jens Kr. Steen Jacobsen b,1
a
Department of International Economics and Management, Copenhagen Business School, Porcelnshaven 24B 3.54, DK 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
b
Norwegian School of Hotel Management, University of Stavanger, NO 4036 Stavanger, Norway

h i g h l i g h t s

Altruistic and community-related motivations are most relevant for information sharing.

Motivational factors differ depending on type of content and type of social media.

Social networks allowing audience control are most popular for online sharing.

Tourists prefer sharing visual content above narrative/textual content.

There is low real-time use of social media for holiday content sharing.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Social media are increasingly relevant as part of tourism practices affecting destinations and businesses.
Received 30 April 2013 Based on a destination-specic survey, this study charts and explores summer holidaymakers motiva-
Accepted 15 January 2014 tions for social media contributions and their willingness to share content through various social media.
The ndings in relation to the much-visited destination of Mallorca offer an understanding of the
Keywords: adoption of tourist social media in technologically-advanced markets with high levels of ICT use. The
Social media
results provide insights into such motivational factors as personal and community-related benets as
Electronic word-of-mouth
well as the social capital that inuences a sharing of user-generated content. The study reveals a
User-generated content
Experience sharing
dominance of visual content, along with the relevance of altruistic and community-related motivations
Motivation and motivational differences between types of content creators. Sharing practices through social media
appear as valuable articulations of sociability and emotional support, while having lesser relevance as
information sources for holiday decision-making. The paper additionally shows the extent to which old
and new technologies overlap and complement each other.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction mutual trust into global databases of consumer information that

Advances in the Internet and social media are changing the
many ways that information about leisure travel and its experi-
ences are disseminated. Social media platforms permit tourists to
digitise and share online knowledge (Buhalis & Law, 2008; Volo,
2010), emotions and experiential moments (Jacobsen & Munar,
2012) far more widely than in the past. Contributions are elicited
for review sites (Streitfeld, 2011) and virtual communities are being
created that permit novel forms of social interaction (Kozinets,
1999). These developments transform what previously were
mainly private and commonly undisclosed experiences shared only
within small circles of acquaintances that were characterised by
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 45 3815 2538; fax: 45 3815 2500.
E-mail addresses: amm.int@cbs.dk (A.M. Munar), jens.s.jacobsen@uis.no
(J.Kr.S. Jacobsen).
1
Tel.: 47 2257 3800; fax: 47 2260 9200.
can be managed and analysed by tourism rms and organisations.
Moreover, Web-based platforms allow for real-time recording and
sharing of tourism experiences and thereby add to advances of
personal virtual identities (Munar, 2010). This is further supported
by the ubiquitous availability of Internet access in most European
holiday destinations.
Understanding the effects of various social media support sys-
tems is regarded as a top-priority tourism research topic (Williams,
Stewart, & Larsen, 2011). Some studies have examined the effect of
user-generated content in tourism (e.g. Fotis, Buhalis, & Rossides,
2012; Jacobsen & Munar, 2012; Litvin, Goldsmith, & Pan, 2008;
Xiang & Gretzel, 2010; Ye, Law, & Gu, 2009), while those factors
motivating tourist involvement in social media have received less
attention (Berger & Schwartz, 2011; Bronner & de Hoog, 2011; Yoo &
Gretzel, 2011). Further, limitations of previous studies on motiva-
tion for creation of user-generated content (UGC) in tourism con-
texts include the dominance of a single methodological approach,

0261-5177/$ e see front matter 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.01.012
 A.M. Munar, J.Kr.S. Jacobsen / Tourism Management 43 (2014) 46e54
that is, online questionnaires distributed to online communities.
While demographic factors are usually accounted for, information
on travel types and specic destinations is relevant (e.g. Ryan &
Glendon, 1998) and frequently lacking (e.g. Huang, Basu, & Hsu,
2010; Yoo & Gretzel, 2011). The prevalent empirical approaches
concentrate on travellers who are already active online users and
have e-literacy skills. However, there are considerable inequalities
in web adoption and use, as well as content creation (Hargittai,
2004; Hargittai & Walejko, 2008).
This paper contributes to the understanding of tourists social
media adoption in technologically advanced nations with high
levels of information and communication technologies (ICT)
adoption and use, in relation to a holiday location that is generally
well-known in Western Europe and visited by numerous people
from virtually all social strata. Through the utilisation of an en route
(exit) survey approach in a specic, mature and mainstream
destination, the present study acknowledges the possible relevance
of digital divides and destination types in analyses of
holidaymaker-sharing practices. The study thus aims at expanding
the knowledge of this emergent eld and it presents unique in-
sights into tourist motivations for contributing to such social media
as social network sites and review sites. The main objectives of this
article are to:
1. Provide empirical evidence of motivations for contributing to
social media content creation and sharing
2. Examine the proles of tourists who create and share online
content
3. Analyse where and when tourists share online content, and
what type of content is shared
4. Examine the relationship between motivational factors, social
media types and type of content (visual versus narrative
content)
5. Contribute to expanding the knowledge base on technological
mediation and emerging tourism cultures in the context of
countries with high levels of information and communication
technologies adoption and use.
2. Literature review
2.1. Sharing practices in tourism social media
While previous studies have scrutinised knowledge sharing
practices in virtual communities (Hsu, Ju, Yen, & Chang, 2007), this
study expands the construct of knowledge sharing to encompass
the overall sharing of tourism experiences. In social media, tourists
share not only knowledge, they typically also share experiences. A
tourism experience can be dened as an individuals subjective
evaluation and undergoing (i.e., affective, cognitive, and behav-
ioural) of events related to his/her tourist activities that begins
before (i.e., planning and preparation), during (i.e., at the destina-
tion), and after the trip (i.e., recollection) (Tung & Ritchie,
2011:1369). Experiences are personal and depend on how in-
dividuals perceive and react to specic tourism places and products
(e.g. destinations, attractions, and accommodation). The sharing of
experiences includes not only knowledge-related aspects such as
facts about holiday attributes (e.g. prices, weather conditions,
beaches and other attractions) but may additionally include
communicating emotions, imaginations and fantasies about fea-
tures of a holiday, for example through photographs, emoticons and
other linguistic markers in online communication (Baym, 2010).
Research has also shown that advice on practical matters and
embodied feelings of comfort or discomfort are relevant in online
reviews of tourism attractions (Munar & Ooi, 2012). The percep-
tions and knowledge of tourism are conceived not simply along the
47
spatial activity of actually visiting places; it is equally shaped by
experiences of mediated, simulated, and imagined space
(Campbell, 2005) as also by touristic objects such as souvenirs
(Haldrup & Larsen, 2010) and postcards (Knebel, 1960). Social me-
dia provide new channels for the production and circulation of
meaning in tourism experiences and imaginations.
2.1.1. Real-time sharing
Tourists can create and share their experiences online over
different time horizons (Berger & Schwartz, 2011). The expansion of
new media and mobile technologies increases the possibility of
real-time experience sharing and encourages synchronic commu-
nication types (Bdker & Browning, 2012; Litvin et al., 2008;
Qualman, 2009; Shih, 2009). Increasingly, not only telephone
calls but also real-time electronic media such as short message
services (SMS) allow tourists to maintain relationships while away
on holiday. Tourists may thus gain a sense of real-time integration
into home events by initiating messages about their experiences by
texting, sending photographs/video by phone, using email and
posting on Internet sites (White & White, 2007).
2.1.2. Social media types
Web 1.0 refers to the rst stage of development of the World
Wide Web when websites were not yet providing interactive and
user-generated content. The evolution of Web 1.0 is known as Web
2.0 or social media. Social media adopt many different forms.
Popular types are wikis (e.g. Wikitravel), blogs (e.g. Travelblog) and
microblogs (e.g. Twitter), social network sites (e.g. Facebook),
media-sharing sites (e.g. Flickr, YouTube), review sites (e.g. Tri-
pAdvisor) and voting sites (e.g. Digg). These types differ in levels of
enabled social interactivity, temporal structure and reach of
communication, amount of social cues and context richness (e.g.
information about personal identities and spatial/environmental
contexts), as well as levels of hierarchy and control established by
site administrators (Baym, 2010; Munar & Jacobsen, 2013). Social
network sites usually provide social cues that are richer than that
found in other types of platforms such as review sites or media-
sharing sites. Here one can distinguish between private and pub-
lic sharing, on platforms that allow the users to tailor communi-
cation reach. For example, tourists can choose between making
their content available to all web users, their friends, or specic
groups/individuals. It has been shown that types of social media are
relevant to tourists involvement and use (Jacobsen & Munar, 2012).
2.1.3. Textual versus visual content
Tourism as sightseeing is deeply related to image-making media
(e.g. Beeton, 2004) and this is to some degree also the case for
holidaymaking such as relaxation in seaside resorts (e.g. Barthes,
1993). While information sharing is commonly related to textual
and narrative communicative practices (e.g. blogs and written re-
views), the sharing of experiences specically acknowledges crea-
tion and sharing of (audio)-visual content online. Photographs or
short videos sent from mobile phones act increasingly as the new
postcard (Munar & Jacobsen, 2013). While producers of visual
content commonly have been motivated by the ludic passing of
time, producers of narrative content prefer to disseminate infor-
mation (Stoeckl, Rohrmeier, & Hess, 2007).
2.2. Motivations for sharing online-content
2.2.1. Individual action and personal cognition
Social cognitive theory has been used to understand consumer
behaviour and typically presupposes that individual actions in
specic environments are based on personal cognition (Hsu et al.,
2007). A persons cognition is said to depend on self-efcacy and
48 A.M. Munar, J.Kr.S. Jacobsen / Tourism Management 43 (2014) 46e54
outcome expectations. Self-efcacy consists of personal capabilities
for decision-making and action needed to manage future situa-
tions. It has been suggested that the adoption and employment of
social media is impacted by the users e-literacy levels (e.g.
Hargittai, 2004; Hayles, 2012; Prensky, 2001; Tapscott, 2009) in
addition to other characteristics such as gender, age, income, na-
tionality and education (Gretzel & Yoo, 2008; Hargittai & Shafer,
2006; Wang & Fesenmaier, 2004; Wilson, Murphy, & Fierro, 2012;
Yoo & Gretzel, 2011). New media entail increased possibilities for
self-directed connectivity, allowing for individual empowerment
(Castells, 2001). Qu and Lee (2011) maintain that increased active
participation in a travel online community has a positive impact on
the sense of belonging, which may result in increased knowledge
sharing. Self-efcacy is additionally related to individualism and to
individuals capacities to choose courses of action. Late modern
societies are characterised by the advancement of individualism
(Beck & Beck-Gernsheim, 2002) and the Web has been said to re-
structure patterns of social relations and to assist in nurturing
individualism as a dominant form of online sociability (Castells,
2001: 152).
Habitually, tourists may share knowledge when outcomes
exceed the costs of knowledge sharing or are as expected (Hsu et al.,
2007: 154). Moreover, a signicant relationship between self-
efcacy and outcome expectations has been suggested (Hargittai &
Shafer, 2006). Tourists with high levels of perceived self-efcacy in
the electronic media will tend to expect positive outcomes of their
individual actions, while low e-literacy levels tend to result in
negative outcome expectations (Hsu et al., 2007). Then again, indi-
vidual outcome expectations may depend on motivational factors.
2.2.2. Self-centred motivations
Studies of sharing behaviour on social media have differentiated
between what have been entitled personal (self-centred) and
community-related expectations (Hsu et al., 2007, p. 156). Personal
expectations that may lead to largely self-centred motivations
include possibilities for gaining respect and recognition, increasing
social ties, augmenting ones self-esteem, enjoyment of online ac-
tivity, and achieving enhanced cooperation in return (Baym, 2010;
Gretzel & Yoo, 2008). Some of the self-centred motivations are
related to the maintenance and/or augmentation of social capital in
the forms of increased social interaction, trust, identication, and
reciprocity (Chang & Chuang, 2011). Further, enhanced recognition
by peers is typically promoted through techno-meritocratic sys-
tems of rewards and rankings aimed at inducing expertise and
merit, and these are embedded in the design of specic types of
social media sites (e.g. review sites) (Munar, 2010; Stringam,
Gerdes, & Vanleeuwen, 2010).
Individuals differ in their relation to information and communi-
cation technologies. While some expectations are related to achieving
feelings of pleasure and entertainment through ICT utilisation
(Kozinets, 2008), others have more to do with obtaining gains in ef-
ciency and efcacy e such as saving time and costs in planning or
sharing of holiday experiences (Wang & Fesenmaier, 2004). Moreover,
Yoo and Gretzel (2011) have found that United States travellers as
creators of user-generated content are mostly motivated by altruistic
and hedonic benets and that there is a signicant relationship be-
tween tourists personality types and motivational factors.
2.2.3. Community-related motivations
Community-related motivations concern tourists expectations
about possible impacts of online experiences on virtual commu-
nities or other social media users. Research on virtual communities
has identied the sharing of common frames of reference in rela-
tion to social norms, interests, and goals (Williams, 2009), for
instance helping a community to achieve its goals or to continue
operations (Hsu et al., 2007). This includes feelings of solidarity and
identifying as part of a community. Conversely, scholars have also
pointed to anti-tourist attitudes that can regularly be found among
tourists; some holidaymakers wish to remain separate and distinct
from what they perceive as a typical or common tourist role
(Jacobsen, 2000). But such anti-tourists may assumingly be willing
to post reviews, at least anonymously, as they might have particular
aversions towards being deceived by establishments that they
perceive as tourist traps. Travel review writers are additionally
motivated by helping tourism providers and contributing to the
well-being of other travellers (Gretzel & Yoo, 2008). Creators of
user-generated content may also wish to help other tourists to
minimise risk in their decision-making. Risk reduction is consid-
ered particularly crucial to non-routinised and extensive decisions
regarding the acquisition of expensive and complex products (such
as certain holiday tours). Roehl and Fesenmaier (1992) nd nan-
cial, psychological, satisfaction and time risks to be most frequently
associated with pleasure travel. Munar and Oois (2012) study of
TripAdvisor reviews demonstrates how tourist contributions are
often exercises of joint-afrmation and community empowerment;
it also reveals how reviewers often share advice on practical mat-
ters. Moreover, participation in social media includes social support
(from unknown people from whom one may not get much in re-
turn) (Cutrona & Russell, 1990; cited in Baym, 2010: 85). A possible
reason for this assumingly altruistic form of action is that sup-
porting others makes some people feel being needed (Baym, 2010).
Social media types differ greatly in features such as social cues,
reach, hierarchy and control (Munar & Jacobsen, 2013). Empirical
studies of review sites indicate that tourists with dissimilar moti-
vational factors tend to contribute to different sites (Bronner & de
Hoog, 2011: 50; Wilson et al., 2012: 224). Accessibility to shared
virtual content and the size of the social media sites (e.g. numbers of
users and volumes of content available) may impact on value per-
ceptions of online information sharing. Not all people are willing to
share their experiences online. The most common role in online
communities is that of the lurker: a person who reads but never
posts (Baym, 2010). Important reasons for not generating content
are opportunity time costs, privacy considerations, and a low sense
of group belonging (Preece, Nonnecke, & Andrews, 2004; Stoeckl
et al., 2007). Additionally, levels of usability and reusability of con-
tent also matter for the perceived value of online content. Social
media technologies generally favour sharing practices rather than
privacy or control of content (Munar, 2010). By sharing experiences,
tourists assumingly show altruistic behaviour (von Hippel, 2005),
thus indicating values of virtual community cultures (Castells, 2001)
while simultaneously generating digital resources that may become
commercial assets for social media rms (Ooi & Ek, 2010).
Community-related expectations are often interlinked with
personal-related expectations and vice-versa. Serving others online
may provide a sense of efcacy (Kollock,1999), while recognition as a
good provider of resources may raise a persons status within a group
(e.g. an online community) (Matzat, 2004), both cited in Baym (2010:
86). Although tourists may have a tendency to employ altruistic and
community-related terms when explaining reasons for their sharing
behaviour, they may also be aiming at individual benets such as
strengthened reputation or increased feelings of self-efcacy. Still, a
self-centred reason, such as contributing to a site that is useful to
oneself, can have a community-related dimension. This type of main
motivation may additionally reect feelings of reciprocity e giving
something back to social media sites or online communities that have
contributed in useful ways to ones own travel planning.
As shown above, there is an emerging body of knowledge on the
employment of electronic media and motivations for creating and
sharing user-generated content in tourism. Despite advancements
in this eld, there is still a need to test the robustness and
 A.M. Munar, J.Kr.S. Jacobsen / Tourism Management 43 (2014) 46e54
applicability of the different theoretical frameworks in diverse
empirical settings and through different methods. The following
sections of this article intend to make a contribution to this eld.
3. Method
A quantitative approach was utilised in order to map and
explore the research objectives, employing a self-completion
questionnaire as the instrument in an airport en route survey. The
mainstream and diverse destination of Mallorca in Mediterranean
Spain was selected as the study area because it is well-known in a
European context and visited by numerous people from various
countries and social strata, indicating quite wide holidaymaker
opportunities and interests in obtaining and posting information
about the island and its varied offers. Moreover, most hotels in
Mallorca provide free or cheap Internet access for their guests and
Internet cafs are commonplace.
Holidaymakers from Denmark and Norway were chosen as
participants due to the high levels of information and communi-
cation technologies access and use in Scandinavia. In 2009,
Denmark and Norway were among the six most advanced countries
in ICT, according to the International Telecommunication Union
(2009). For instance, about 70% of Norwegians who were 18 years
or older had a Facebook prole in the autumn of 2012 (Ipsos MMI,
2012). Besides high levels of ICT use, Denmark and Norway have
large segments of frequent air travellers and a high propensity for
taking summer holidays in other countries, including the European
Mediterranean. Additionally, widespread English prociency in
these countries (EF Education, 2012) is crucial, as English is the
lingua franca of international Internet-based travel commerce and
tourist information in most of Europe.
3.1. Sample and procedure
This study comprised Danish and Norwegian speaking leisure
travellers returning from Mallorcas only airport on international
direct charter and scheduled ights to airports in Denmark and
Norway, as air travel was the dominant form of transport for non-
cruise tourists staying overnight in Mallorca (Conselleria de
Turisme i Esports, 2011).
This en route (exit) survey employed temporal stratication, based
on knowledge of air trafc structure. The data collection was carried
out on nine selected days, mixing different days of the week, from 12
July to 24 August 2012, with the majority of responses from 12 July to 7
August, thus covering the peak summer holiday period for Scandi-
navians, from the end of June until early August. Most survey days
included more than one ight. A screening question was rstly asked
so as to recognise leisure travellers. The potential respondents were
then asked to ll in the self-completion questionnaire, which was
returned to the staff.
The reply rate among those who were asked to ll in the
questionnaire was not known, partly because the numbers of
passengers on the selected ights and their distribution in terms of
travel parties were not known. The response rate was also inu-
enced by the fact that most couples and families lled in just one
questionnaire and numbers of children on the ights were not
known. Staff notes indicated a response rate of nearly 45%, which
was considered satisfactory since airport surveys commonly have
reported response rates between 40% and 70% (Rideng &
Christensen, 2004). The effective sample size was 398.
Distributing data collection over a period of six weeks and
varying the days reduced the sampling error for this study (cf.
Hurst, 1994). By studying tourists at a specic destination, one also
avoided the bias that came with previous web-based surveys of
online communities (e.g. Wang & Fesenmaier, 2004).
49
3.2. Measurement
The survey instrument and its items was partly inspired by
previous research (Jacobsen & Munar, 2012; Munar & Jacobsen,
2013) and was partly based on personal interviews with both
young and old people with summer holiday experiences from
Mediterranean seaside destinations. The questionnaire was avail-
able in Danish and Norwegian, translated from the English by the
multilingual research team and its assistants. Several drafts of
questionnaire formulations were tested on various persons and
discussed with travel survey experts. The survey instruments
simplicity resulted from interview time constraints, that is, the
limited time frame when passengers might be available as they
were checking in at the airport.
The study included queries concerning the holidaymakers
possible media reports e whether or not they had or planned to
possibly tell others about the trip through eight selected online and
other media. The following response alternatives were employed:
have done already, will do, and will not/not relevant (Table 2). It
should be noted that, when compared to respondents reports on
actual or past behaviour, reports of intention were a weaker indicator.
Moreover, the questionnaire included six different motivations
for sharing experiences about the trip on websites and/or social
networks. The respondents who reported that they would talk
about their present trip on websites or social networks were asked
to state their response to six questionnaire statements on a Likert-
type three-point scale (1 disagree, 2 neither/nor, 3 agree).
Motivations mainly linked with what have been entitled self-
centred expectations were measured by the following items: I
want to contribute to websites that are useful to me, I want to be
more recognised for my experiences, I want to maintain social
connections and friendship, and I like to share my impressions
through the Internet. Motivations associated mainly with
community-related expectations were measured through the
subsequent items: I want to help others and I want to prevent
people from using bad products (Table 3).
The holidaymakers were also asked about their possible afli-
ation with the networking website Facebook, the dominant social
networking medium in Scandinavia at the time of the survey (Ipsos
MMI, 2012). Other questions included the possible use of infor-
mation conveyed through social media for the present tour,
possible use of the Internet during the holiday stay, whether or not
they had bought a tour package, and Internet purchases of parts of
the holiday services. In addition, the questionnaire comprised in-
quiries about the respondents backgrounds in relation to famil-
iarity with the destination area, duration of stay, and customary
demographic variables such as gender, education, and age (Table 1).
The data were analysed using PASW Statistics 18. The chi-square
statistic (c2) was employed in order to test the statistical signi-
cance of the observed association in cross-tabulations. Only dif-
ferences that were statistically signicant at the .05 percent level
(p < 0.05) were reported. It should be noted that the employment
here of a post-positivist survey approach does not imply a general
acceptance of an objectivist epistemology.
Table 1 provides a number of key characteristics of the sample.
Some 35% of the respondents were rst-time visitors to Mallorca,
and 45% had stayed more than one week in the study area. Some
56% of the respondents were women, reecting an actual female
majority on such tours (cf. Jacobsen, 2002). The median age of the
respondents was 40 years. Half of the tourists had a higher edu-
cation, while quite a few were still too young to have started at a
university or college. Some 24% of the sample had bought only air
tickets while the remaining 76% had purchased some kind of tour
package including air tickets and accommodation. Moreover, three
out of four tourists had a Facebook prole (Table 1), indicating
50 A.M. Munar, J.Kr.S. Jacobsen / Tourism Management 43 (2014) 46e54

Table 1 Table 2
Key characteristics of the sample (percentages) N 361e398. Media use for sharing tourism experiences (percentages).

Gender Have done Will Will not/ SD N

Female 56 already do not
Male 44 relevant
Education
Use email/text messages/mms to 31 28 41 .842 384
Primary school 15
tell about the trip
Secondary education 34
Photo album/video for acquaintances, 11 31 58 .687 388
University/college 51
on Facebook etc.
Age, years
Send picture postcards 26 7 67 .874 384
Up to 25 27
Photo album/video on the Internet, 4 13 84 .484 387
26 to 39 21
for all to see
40 to 49 31
Write review on the Internet 3 13 85 .449 380
50 or older 24
(TripAdvisor, Booking.com etc.)
Country of residence
Make blog/diary for acquaintances, 3 7 90 .430 381
Denmark 46
on Facebook etc.
Norway 54
Use Twitter to tell about the trip 3 3 94 .359 383
Duration of stay in destination area
Make blog/diary on the Internet, 3 3 95 .367 382
Up to one week 56
for all to see
8e14 days 41
More than two weeks 4
Familiarity with destination area
First visit 35
Once before 25 communicating holiday recounts was through analogue picture
Twice or more before 40 postcards, as 26% had already sent postcards while 7% planned to
Journey organisation do so. The public sharing of content was less frequent than private
Bought only air ticket 24 sharing, only 3e4% had already posted a blog or a photo album/
Bought air ticket and accommodation, etc. 76
Flight type
video on the Internet, for all to see, while an additional 13% planned
Charter 59 a photo album/video for all and 3% planned a blog available to all. As
Scheduled 41 few as 3% of the holidaymakers had posted evaluations on review
Internet purchase sites (e.g. TripAdvisor, Booking.com) at the moment they lled in
Whole or part of holiday tour purchased on the Internet 91
the questionnaire, while another 13% planned to contribute to such
No Internet purchase 10
Use of Internet during present holiday sites. Some 3% had already created a blog or diary for acquaintances,
Yes 74 on Facebook or similar, whereas another 7% of the holidaymakers
No 27 planned to do this. Some 3% had composed a blog or a diary on the
Facebook prole Internet, for all to see, while 3% intended to do so. Twitter had
Yes 75
No 25
already been employed to tell about the trip by 3% of these trav-
Use of information from social media for present holiday tour (for purposes ellers, and a further 3% had this in mind.
other than destination decision) Table 2 revealed an emphasis on visual content for social net-
Yes 22 works compared to textual content; 42% of the respondents had
No 78
shared or planned to share visual content in social networks for
acquaintances, while only 10% had already done or planned to blog
or write diaries about their trip on these platforms. Among the
prevalent familiarity with social media and regular computer and different types of textual content sharing, posting reviews was
Internet use. As many as 91% of the respondents had purchased the quite popular, as 16% of the tourists had written or planned to write
whole or part of the tour on the Internet, and 74% of these Mallorca online reviews. Results indicated a higher tendency to post content
visitors stated that they had used the Internet during their holiday. on social network platforms with possible control of audiences and
limited reach such as Facebook and similar, compared to websites
4. Results with global audiences and wider reach. The most frequent form of
real-time electronic communication was through text messages,
This section presents the results of the study according to the mms and emails (31% of the respondents). The sharing of visual
main research objectives: rstly, where and when tourists shared content on social network sites presented the second largest real-
online content, and types of media reports shared; secondly, evi- time oriented contributing behaviour; 11% indicated that they
dence of motivations for contributing to social media; thirdly, re- had shared this type of content while they were in the destination
lationships between reported motivations and other tourist area.
characteristics that according to previous studies might impact on These Scandinavians accentuated community-related motiva-
use and adoption of social media such as levels of e-literacy and tions for sharing tourism experiences through social media sites.
age; and nally, the relationship between types of content (visual The tourists were quite strongly motivated by assuming that their
versus narrative), types of social media and reported motivational contributions would positively impact on other web-users
factors. knowledge and decision-making. For example, 40% of these holi-
Among the types of media reports included in the survey, the daymakers stated that helping others was an important reason for
Mallorca visitors mainly spoke about their tours by means of email wanting to share experiences, while a similar proportion wished to
and mobile phone text and photo/video messages. Some 31% of the prevent people from using bad products (Table 3). Additionally, one
tourists had already used these media and another 28% planned to in four spoke about their trip on websites in order to maintain
use them (Table 2). Presenting photo albums/videos only for ac- social connections and friendship, and equally many wished to
quaintances on Facebook or similar social media was the second contribute to websites that they themselves found useful. Some
most frequent means of conveying holiday reports, although only 20% liked to share their impressions through the Internet, while
11% had already done this when departing from the island while yet only 10% stated that they wanted to increase recognition by telling
another 31% planned to do so. Another common way of about the trip on websites or social networks. As many as 45% of the
 A.M. Munar, J.Kr.S. Jacobsen / Tourism Management 43 (2014) 46e54 51

Table 3 Regarding imparting holiday experiences on websites, there were

Motivations for sharing tourism experiences on social media sites (percentages).
Disagree Neither nor Agree SD
I want to help others 15 45
I want to prevent people from using 16 44
bad products
I want to contribute to websites that 24 49
are useful to me
I want to maintain social connections 30 45
and friendship
I like to share my impressions through 34 46
the Internet
I want to be more recognised for my 45 46
experiences
respondents did not actually disclose information about their hol-
iday experiences on websites or social networks in order to become
more recognised.
Taken together, there was a considerable ambivalence in rela-
tion to motivations for sharing holiday experiences on websites
and/or social networks, as nearly half of the interviewees respon-
ded to the middle category neither/nor (Table 3).
Those holidaymakers who had a Facebook prole and the
youngest half of the tourists showed higher levels of identication
with the self-centred motivations included in the study. The dif-
ferences were signicant for three variables; maintaining social
connections and friendship, contributing to websites that they
found useful, and fondness for sharing impressions through the
Internet. Moreover, holidaymakers who had a Facebook prole
stated to a larger extent than their fellow travellers that they
additionally wanted to help others and that they wished to prevent
people from using bad products (Table 4). Those tourists who had
used the Internet during the trip also showed a higher level of
identication with two self-centred motivations: liking to share
impressions through the Internet and wanting to contribute to
websites that were useful to themselves. Very few respondents
agreed that they spoke about the trip on websites or social net-
works because they wished more recognition for their experiences.
no differences related to gender and education.
N The Mallorcan visitors who wrote online reviews identied to a
40 .697 280
larger extent than their fellow travellers with community-related
40 .709 273 motivations but they also wanted to contribute to websites that
were useful to themselves (Table 5). More than other tourists, those
27 .716 276 respondents who stated that they had or would speak about the
trip by creating a blog or a diary on Facebook or similar, identied
26 .744 273
with self-centred motivations. These tourists wanted to maintain
20 .726 274 social connections and friendship, they liked to share their im-
pressions through the Internet, and they wanted to be more rec-
10 .647 275
ognised for their experiences. Additionally, holidaymakers who had
or would compose a blog or diary on the Internet for all to see
wanted to a larger extent than fellow passengers to maintain social
connections and friendships. Those who utilised Twitter to speak
about the trip wanted to a larger degree than other respondents
more recognition for their experiences.
Tourists sharing visual content with their acquaintances in so-
cial networks identied to a larger extent than fellow travellers
with all motivations included here, except more recognition for
their experiences (Table 6). Additionally, more than the other
tourists, respondents sharing online content for all to see were led
by self-centred motivations such as wanting to contribute to
websites that were useful to them, liking to share their impressions
through the Internet, and being more recognised for their
experiences.
5. Discussion and conclusions
5.1. When, where and types of content
Social media, while not the number one channels of commu-
nication, are increasingly relevant for the sharing of tourism ex-
periences. However, as shown above, adoption of these practices
was dependent on the type of media. Social network sites such as
Facebook were the most popular among the Scandinavian holi-
daymakers studied here. Such social media platforms allowing
control of audiences, enabling communicative practices with high

Table 4
Motivations for sharing tourism experiences, by Internet and Facebook use and age (percentages).

Used Internet during trip Facebook prole Age N

Yes No Yes No 40 41e

I want to help others 42 35** 44 26* 42 36 101e113

I want to prevent people from using bad products 41 37** 42 35* 43 39 104e110
I want to contribute to websites that are useful to me 29 19* 30 13* 33 19* 67e74
I want to maintain social connections and friendship 26 23 28 15* 33 19* 67e70
I like to share my impressions through the Internet 24 9* 24 6* 26 15* 52e56
I want to be more recognised for my experiences 9 13 11 6 12 7 25e26

*Statistically signicant difference, calculated by chi-square (p < 0.05).

**Nearly signicant differences.

Table 5
Motivations for sharing tourism experiences, by media types for sharing (percentages).

Write review Blog/diary Facebook Blog/diary for all Twitter N

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

I want to help others 57 37* 49 39 35 41 45 40 109e111

I want to prevent people from using bad products 58 35* 47 39 37 40 37 39 103e106
I want to contribute to websites that are useful to me 61 19* 35 25 35 26 37 26 71
I want to maintain social connections and friendship 24 25 47 22* 50 24* 32 25 66e69
I like to share my impressions through the Internet 30 18 44 17* 39 19** 32 19 54e55
I want to be more recognised for my experiences 12 8 24 7* 18 8 16 8* 24

*Statistically signicant difference, calculated by chi-square (p < 0.05).

**Nearly signicant differences.
52 A.M. Munar, J.Kr.S. Jacobsen / Tourism Management 43 (2014) 46e54
Table 6
Motivations for sharing tourism experiences, by media types for sharing (percentages).
I want to help others
I want to prevent people from using bad products
I want to contribute to websites that are useful to me
I want to maintain social connections and friendship
I like to share my impressions through the Internet
I want to be more recognised for my experiences
*Statistically signicant difference, calculated by chi-square (p < 0.05).
**Nearly signicant differences.
levels of social cues and facilitating management of digital identi-
ties (Baym, 2010; Munar, 2010) were the most relevant for expe-
rience sharing in the context of this study. What is more, the
Scandinavian Mallorca tourists willingness to share visual content
was higher than their actual use of social media information for the
tour; as 78% indicated that they had not used information from
social media for the present holiday tour for purposes other than
deciding on the destination.
Media knowledge and levels of e-literacy have consequences for
self-efcacy, the evaluation of outcome expectations (Hsu et al.,
2007), and the use and adoption of technology (Hargittai, 2004;
Hayles, 2012). All in all, these Scandinavian tourists showed high
levels of e-commerce adoption. Moreover, a large majority (three
out of four) had a Facebook prole and just as many used the
Internet during the holiday. The willingness to share content
through Facebook or similar social network platforms further
supports the idea that active participation in an online community
may help to increase feelings of self-efcacy and have a positive
impact on content sharing (Qu & Lee, 2011). However, the results
were not conclusive: while 75% of the sample had a Facebook
prole, only 42% had shared or were willing to share visual content
about their travel experience on social network sites. The results
accordingly supported previous empirical studies indicating the
primacy of lurkers versus posters in social media (Baym, 2010).
Several tourism social media studies have examined active content
creators, also called e-uentials (Bronner & de Hoog, 2011; Wang &
Fesenmaier, 2004; Xiang & Gretzel, 2010), while lurking and lurkers
are rarely explored.
This account on Scandinavian international tourists media re-
ports provides two additional insights of importance. Firstly,
despite a previous emphasis of the real-time and synchronic po-
tential of social media (Bdker & Browning, 2012; Litvin et al., 2008;
Qualman, 2009; Shih, 2009), the temporality of sharing practices
indicated low importance of these communicative features in
content sharing. Secondly, there was a high resilience here of the
use of Web 1.0 means of communication. Some 31% of the re-
spondents had reported about their tour through email and mobile
phone text and photo messages while a further 28% planned to give
holiday details through these Web 1.0 technologies, the most
prevalent in this context of international leisure travel.
Even traditional postcards were not always sent in real-time;
26% of the holidaymakers had mailed cards already while 7%
planned to send off such greetings either at the airport or after
returning home. Photographs or short videos sent from mobile
phones have been termed the new postcards (Munar & Jacobsen,
2013) but the present study shows that old postcards were
nearly as popular for holiday greetings in this context. The impor-
tance and resilience of postcards point to the relationship between
technological development and the evolution of the social-being of
objects and materialities in tourism. Old and new technologies
(postal and digital services) overlap and complement one another.
In an era of instant communication and ubiquitous mobile
Photo/video Facebook Photo/video for all N
Yes No Yes No
48 34* 50 38 111e112
42 38* 35 41 106e107
39 15* 40 23* 72e73
34 18* 36 23** 70
32 10* 38 16* 56
12 6 16 7* 25
technologies, postcards as touristic objects may be less vital as in-
formation provision and noticeable consumption (e.g. Knebel,
1960) while retaining or gaining other social meanings, for
example as decorative objects, providing lasting expressions of
emotional links between travellers and their families and ac-
quaintances at home (e.g. Haldrup & Larsen, 2010). In a similar way,
digital content sharing and conversations about the holiday in
Mallorca with persons in the home community may contribute to a
postmodern blurring of distinctions between home and away (cf.
White & White, 2007).
5.2. Motivations for sharing
A considerable ambivalence was revealed among these Scandi-
navian holidaymakers in relation to motivations for speaking about
their trip on websites and/or social networks, as nearly half of the
interviewees responded predominantly to the middle category
neither/nor. This seems at least partly related to the diversity of
social media; the various types of sites and contents (e.g. Baym,
2010; Munar & Jacobsen, 2013). Facebook and similar social
network sites usually provide social cues that are richer than that
found in other types of platforms such as review sites or media-
sharing sites. These networks differ from other interactive media
because they increasingly contribute to establishing and main-
taining social capital in the form of relationships among users
(Chang & Chuang, 2011). The popularity and high adoption of social
networks such as Facebook among Scandinavians (Table 1) may
contribute to these being the most utilised social media channels
for sharing online content. On the other hand, while having a low
level of social cues, review sites may be perceived as highly useful
due to the large amount of available content, their mainly global
reach, and the numerous contributions based on non-commercial
motivations.
This study additionally supports the relevance of altruistic and
community-related motivations highlighted in previous research
(Hsu et al., 2007). Social and emotional support was found to be a
relevant reason for participation in online groups (Baym, 2010). It
was also shown that 40% of these Scandinavian tourists regarded
helping others as an important reason for sharing experiences.
Moreover, 40% claimed that they contributed online because they
wanted to prevent people from using bad products. These results
also conrmed previous studies that indicated a tourist willingness
to communicate advice on practical matters (Munar & Ooi, 2012).
Despite systems of rewards and rankings embedded in social media
sites allowing tourists to show off their travel expertise (Stringam
et al., 2010), increased social recognition was not a popular
sharing motivation among these Scandinavians. Only 10% admitted
that they imparted experiences in order to become more socially
recognised.
Sharing practices through social media sites appeared as valu-
able expressions of sociability, while having a low level of relevance
as information sources for holidaymakers. Gains in personal
 A.M. Munar, J.Kr.S. Jacobsen / Tourism Management 43 (2014) 46e54
reputation or the usefulness of the site seemed to be less important
for these tourists than social and emotional support (Baym, 2010).
Scholars have previously indicated the importance of hedonism for
content creation (Yoo & Gretzel, 2011) and techspressive di-
mensions of technology use such as fun, escape, entertainment and
pleasure (Kozinets, 2008). More than for information-seeking
purposes, adoption of sharing practices in social networks may
contribute to the staging of virtual personal identities in late-
modern societies with high levels of individualization (Beck &
Beck-Gernsheim, 2002; Munar, 2010). In this context, the pre-
dominance of Facebook is not surprising, as this social network site
had a leading position in Scandinavia at the time of the survey (e.g.
Ipsos MMI, 2012).
Community-related expectations are often interlinked with
personal-related expectations (Kollock, 1999; Matzat, 2004; in
Baym, 2010). The low scores here of self-centred motivations might
have revealed a possible social desirability bias (e.g. May, 2001).
Some Scandinavian tourists may have tended to proclaim altruistic
and community-related motivations as more important for their
actions than motivations associated with individual benets of a
(partly) more selsh nature. But it is also possible that most of these
Scandinavians surveyed here really did not take much interest in
personal exposure in the context included here.
The literature on social media often points to differences in
demographic factors (Gretzel & Yoo, 2008; Hargittai & Shafer, 2006;
Wang & Fesenmaier, 2004; Wilson et al., 2012; Yoo & Gretzel, 2011)
and generational divides (Prensky, 2001; Tapscott, 2009). The few
differences regarding these Scandinavian tourists sharing of online
content related to gender, education, country of residence, and
destination experience may indicate narrower digital gaps in
countries with high ICT use and adoption (cf. Hargittai & Shafer,
2006). However, there were indications of moderate generational
differences, as the youngest half of the Mallorca holidaymakers
showed a slightly higher level of identication with self-centred
motivations.
5.3. Types of content and motivations
These Scandinavian holidaymakers in Mallorca showed a clear
preference for visual content sharing versus narrative content
sharing. This reinforces the deep relationship between tourism and
image-making media traditionally featured in tourism studies (e.g.
Beeton, 2004). While visual content sharing was relatively popular
among these tourists, narrative story-telling through diaries or blog
entries was limited. Among the different narrative genres, review-
making had the largest adoption (16%). Risk reduction for other
tourists appeared as a relevant factor in the creation and sharing of
textual content. Despite some possible anti-tourist attitudes
(Jacobsen, 2000), the results supported the relationship between
review-making and altruistic motivations, feelings of solidarity,
joint-afrmation and concerns for the well-being of other travellers
(Gretzel & Yoo, 2008; Hsu et al., 2007; Munar & Ooi, 2012). Altru-
istic reviewers often provide practical tips and recommendations
that may contribute to improved quality experiences and increased
well-being. Interestingly, these highly altruistic actions lead to
protable commercial assets managed by online review sites (Ooi &
Ek, 2010). Despite the general popularity of review-sites, the pro-
portion here of lurkers was higher than that of posters, which may
have indicated a low sense of group belonging (Preece et al., 2004).
Previous studies have identied motivational differences be-
tween the creators of visual content and the creators of narrative
content (Stoeckl et al., 2007). Then again, results here showed that
differentiation appeared both externally (visual content creators
versus narrative content creators) as well as internally (creators of
diverse types of visual and narrative content reported different
53
motivations). Review-writers show different motivation patterns
than do micro-bloggers. Additionally, in the context of visual con-
tent, tourists sharing photos or videos with their acquaintances on
social networks identied to a higher extent with community-
related motivations than those tourists who shared content on
the Internet for all to see. Such diversity of motivational factors was
consistent with earlier studies (Bronner & de Hoog, 2011; Wilson
et al., 2012).
The experience-sharing patterns demonstrated here indicated a
complexity and multiplicity of these emerging technological prac-
tices. In the case of Scandinavians in this mature Mediterranean
destination, there was no winner takes it all but a diversity and
cacophony of media use for sharing tourism experiences.
5.4. Limitations and future research
This study has shown that the adoption and use of tourism so-
cial media depend on a vast array of different factors. Old and
new technologies and materialities have a social life and are
embedded in specic touristic cultures and environments. Future
social media research should thus reject a simplistic binary division
between visual and textual/narrative content creation and sharing,
and increasingly examine motivational differences throughout an
extensive range of textual/narrative genres (e.g. review-making,
blogging, micro-blogging, etc.) and virtual platforms (social
network sites, review-sites, media sites, etc.). Another relevant
factor is the increased use of mobile technologies (e.g. smartphones
and tablets). This preference, combined with gradually easier and
cheaper online access while on holiday, can be expected to inu-
ence future tourist sharing behaviour.
The poor relevance of self-centred motivations among these
Danish and Norwegian holidaymakers, especially the lack of in-
terest in recognition for their travel experiences, may be related
both to Scandinavian attitudes and to the specicity of Mallorca
being a well-known mainstream destination. Future research
should therefore explore the possible importance of personal mo-
tivations such as social recognition in other destination types with
other visitor categories. Moreover, it seems increasingly relevant to
explore the silent majority of holidaymakers; the tourist lurkers
and their roles in social media communication.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Graham M. S. Dann, Chris Ryan and the
anonymous reviewers for helpful comments to earlier versions of
the article. Moreover, the authors are indebted to Ragnhild Skog-
heim and Bjarke Mller for their assistance to the survey design and
accomplishment.
References
Barthes, R. (1993). Mythologies. London: Vintage.
Baym, N. K. (2010). Personal connections in the digital age. Cambridge: Polity.
Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization: Institutionalized individu-
alism and its social and political consequences. London: Sage.
Beeton, S. (2004). Rural tourism in Australia: has the gaze altered? Tracking rural
images through lm and tourism promotion. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality
Research, 6(3), 125e135.
Berger, J., & Schwartz, E. (2011). What drives immediate and ongoing word of
mouth? Journal of Marketing Research, 48(5), 869e880.
Bdker, M., & Browning, D. (2012). Beyond destinations: exploring tourist tech-
nology design spaces through local-tourist interactions. Digital Creativity, 23(3e
4), 204e224.
Bronner, F., & de Hoog, R. (2011). Vacationers and eWOM: who posts, and why,
where, and what? Journal of Travel Research, 50(1), 15e26.
Buhalis, D., & Law, R. (2008). Progress in information technology and tourism
management: 20 years on and 10 years after the Internetdthe state of eTour-
ism research. Tourism Management, 29(4), 609e623.
54 A.M. Munar, J.Kr.S. Jacobsen / Tourism Management 43 (2014) 46e54
Campbell, N. (2005). Producing America: redening post-tourism in the global
media age. In D. Crouch, R. Jackson, & F. Thomson (Eds.), The media and the
tourist imagination: Converging cultures (pp. 198e214). London: Routledge.
Castells, M. (2001). La galaxia Internet: reexiones sobre Internet, empresa y sociedad.
Barcelona: Plaza & Jans.
Chang, H. H., & Chuang, S.-S. (2011). Social capital and individual motivations on
knowledge sharing: participant involvement as a moderator. Information &
Management, 48, 9e18.
Conselleria de Turisme i Esports. (2011). El turisme a les Illes Balears: Anuari de
turisme. Retrieved from http://www.caib.es/sacmicrofront/archivopub.do?
ctrlMCRST865ZI128370&id128370.
Cutrona, C. E., & Russell, D. W. (1990). Type of support and specic stress: toward a
theory of optimal matching. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce (Eds.),
Social support: An interactional view (pp. 319e366). Toronto: Wiley Interscience.
EF Education. (2012). English prociency index. Retrieved February 17, 2013, from
http://www.ef./epi/about-epi/.
Fotis, J., Buhalis, D., & Rossides, N. (2012). Social media use and impact during the
holiday travel planning process. In M. Fuchs, F. Ricci, & L. Cantoni (Eds.), Pro-
ceedings of the international conference in Helsinborg, Sweden, January 25e27,
2012Information and communication technologies in tourism 2012 (pp. 13e24).
Vienna: Springer.
Gretzel, U., & Yoo, K. H. (2008). Use and impact of online travel reviews. In
P. OConnor, W. Hpken, & U. Gretzel (Eds.), Information and communication
technologies in tourism (pp. 35e46). Vienna: Springer.
Haldrup, M., & Larsen, J. (2010). Tourism, performance and the everyday: Consuming
the Orient. London: Routledge.
Hargittai, E. (2004). Internet access and use in context. New Media & Society, 6(1),
137e143.
Hargittai, E., & Shafer, S. (2006). Differences in actual and perceived online skills:
the role of gender. Social Science Quarterly, 87(2), 432e448.
Hargittai, E., & Walejko, G. (2008). The participation divide: content creation and
sharing in the digital age. Information, Communication & Society, 11(2), 239e256.
Hayles, N. K. (2012). How we think: Digital media and contemporary technogenesis.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation: the evolving phenomenon of user
innovation. Journal fr Betriebswirtschaft, 55(1), 63e78.
Hsu, M. H., Ju, T. L., Yen, C.-H., & Chang, C. M. (2007). Knowledge sharing behavior in
virtual communities: the relationship between trust, self-efcacy, and outcome
expectations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(2), 153e169.
Huang, Y., Basu, C., & Hsu, M. K. (2010). Exploring motivations of travel knowledge
sharing on social network sites: an empirical investigation of U.S. college stu-
dents. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 19(7), 717e734.
Hurst, F. (1994). En route surveys. In J. R. Brent Ritchie, & C. R. Goeldner (Eds.), Travel,
tourism, and hospitality research (2nd ed.) (pp. 453e472). New York: Wiley.
International Telecommunication Union. (2009). Measuring the information society:
The ICT development index. Retrieved January 4, 2010, from http://www.itu.int/
ITU-D/ict/publications/idi/2009/material/IDI2009_w5.pdf.
Ipsos MMI. (2012). Nordmenns bruk av sosiale medier [Norwegians use of social
media]. Retrived April 29, 2013, from http://ipsos-mmi.no/Nordmenns_bruk_
av_sosiale_medier.
Jacobsen, J. K. S. (2000). Anti-tourist attitudes. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2),
284e300.
Jacobsen, J. K. S. (2002). Southern comfort: a study of holiday style patterns of
Northerners in coastal Mallorca. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism,
2(1), 49e78.
Jacobsen, J. K. S., & Munar, A. M. (2012). Tourist information search and destination
choice in a digital age. Tourism Management Perspectives, 1(1), 39e47.
Knebel, H.-J. (1960). Soziologische Strukturwandlungen im modernen Tourismus.
Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke Verlag.
Kozinets, R. V. (1999). E-tribalized marketing? The strategic implications of virtual
communities of consumption. European Management Journal, 17(3), 252e264.
Kozinets, R. V. (2008). Technology/ideology: how ideological elds inuence con-
sumers technology narratives. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 865e881.
Litvin, S. W., Goldsmith, R. E., & Pan, B. (2008). Electronic word-of-mouth in hos-
pitality and tourism management. Tourism Management, 29(3), 458e468.
May, T. (2001). Social research: Issues, methods and process (3rd ed.). Milton Keynes:
Open University Press.
Munar, A. M. (2010). Digital exhibitionism: the age of exposure. Culture Unbound:
Journal of Current Cultural Research, 2, 401e422.
Munar, A. M., & Jacobsen, J. K. S. (2013). Trust and involvement in tourism social
media and web-based travel information sources. Scandinavian Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism, 13(1), 1e19.
Munar, A. M., & Ooi, C.-S. (2012). The truth of the crowds: social media and the
heritage experience. In L. Smith, E. Waterton, & S. Watson (Eds.), The cultural
moment in tourism (pp. 255e273). Abingdon: Routledge.
Ooi, C.-S., & Ek, R. (2010). Culture, work and emotion. Culture Unbound: Journal of
Current Cultural Research, 2, 303e310.
Preece, J., Nonnecke, B., & Andrews, D. (2004). The top 5 reasons for lurking:
improving community experiences for everyone. Computers in Human Behavior,
20(2), 201e223.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1e6.
Qualman, E. (2009). Socialnomics: How social media transforms the way we live and
do business. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley.
Qu, H., & Lee, H. (2011). Travelers social identication and membership behaviors in
online travel community. Tourism Management, 32, 1262e1270.
Rideng, A., & Christensen, P. (2004). En route surveys e some methodological issues.
Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 4(3), 242e258.
Roehl, W. S., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1992). Risk perceptions and pleasure travel: an
exploratory analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 30(4), 17e26.
Ryan, C., & Glendon, I. (1998). Application of leisure motivation scale to tourism.
Annals of Tourism Research, 25(1), 169e184.
Shih, C. C. (2009). The Facebook era: Tapping online social networks to build better
products, reach new audiences, and sell more stuff. Boston, Mass: Prentice Hall.
Stoeckl, R., Rohrmeier, P., & Hess, T. (2007). Motivations to produce user generated
content: differences between webbloggers and videobloggers. In 20th Bled
eConference eMergence: Merging and emerging technologies, processes, and in-
stitutions (pp. 398e413).
Streitfeld, D. (22 August 2011). Why, on the Web, so much is totally awesome. In-
ternational Herald Tribune, 15.
Stringam, B. B., Gerdes, J., & Vanleeuwen, D. M. (2010). Assessing the importance
and relationships of ratings on user-generated traveler reviews. Journal of
Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 11(2), 73e92.
Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tung, V. W. S., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2011). Exploring the essence of memorable tourism
experiences. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(4), 1367e1386.
Volo, S. (2010). Bloggers reported tourist experiences: their utility as a tourism data
source and their effect on prospective tourists. Journal of Vacation Marketing,
16(4), 297.
Wang, Y., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2004). Towards understanding members general
participation in and active contribution to an online travel community. Tourism
Management, 25(6), 709e722.
White, N. R., & White, P. B. (2007). Home and away. Annals of Tourism Research,
34(1), 88e104.
Williams, J. P. (2009). Community, frame of reference and boundary: three socio-
logical concepts and their relevance for virtual worlds research. Qualitative
Sociology Review, 5(2), 3e16.
Williams, P. W., Stewart, K., & Larsen, D. (2011). Toward an agenda of high-priority
tourism research. Journal of Travel Research, 51(1), 3e11.
Wilson, A., Murphy, H., & Fierro, J. C. (2012). Hospitality and travel: the nature and
implications of user-generated content. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 53(3),
220e228.
Xiang, Z., & Gretzel, U. (2010). Role of social media in online travel information
search. Tourism Management, 31(2), 179e188.
Ye, Q., Law, R., & Gu, B. (2009). The impact of online user reviews on hotel room
sales. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28, 180e182.
Yoo, K. H., & Gretzel, U. (2011). Inuence of personality on travel-related consumer-
generated media creation. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 609e621.
Jens Kr. Steen Jacobsen, Professor, Norwegian School of
Hotel Management, University of Stavanger. Research in-
terests include tourist behaviour and decision-making,
destination images, traveller perceptions and experiences
of landscapes and other holidaymaking environments.
Ana Mara Munar, Associate Professor, Copenhagen Busi-
ness School. Her research interests are in tourism and in-
formation and communication technologies, globalization
processes, destination branding, and policy and trends in
tourism education. Her latest work provides insights on
the impact that Web 2.0 and social media technologies
have on tourism.