Friends and Relatives
4.4.2 Analysis of the Contributions of the Items to the Correlations
Having identified a correlation between perceived utility and the use of tourist information sources, further analysis was conducted in order to develop the understanding of why information sources
164 were or were not used in the destination decision making process. The perceptions that respondents had of the key characteristics of the information sources were measured on a five point Likert type scale, 1 being represented by Strongly Disagree and 5 being represented by Strongly Agree. The results for each information source are discussed in this section in terms of mean scores on the perception scale for each of the key characteristics. It is important to discuss the results in this manner as it will correspond with the results obtained from logistic regression analysis which are discussed later in this section.
Table 24 demonstrates the results of the question, ‘do you consider the following information source unbiased?’ The five sources perceived to be most unbiased are all non-commercial information sources (i.e. they do not gain financially if the decision maker chooses a one destination or another). The range of the mean scores for these five sources was 0.45; the mean score for the source seen to be least biased, ITRS’s being 3.72 and the mean score for OTG’s in fifth place being 3.27. There was a telling gap thereafter with all of the commercial information sources being perceived as much less unbiased. These results were expectable based on the findings of Money and Crotts (2003) who stated that commercial information sources hold less credibility. The strong performance of information obtained through friends and relatives is similar to the result of research by Mack et al, (2008) who measured the credibility of this source on an identical five point Likert scale and found a mean score of 3.94. This was compared to the mean scores for different types of online blogs which are not specifically included in this research. Tan and Chen (2011) also found that friends and relatives were seen to be the most credible source of information in the results of their research (which only considered non-commercial sources). Neither Mack et al (2008) or Tan and Chen (2011) specifically include online traveller review sites such as Tripadvisor in their research and Tan and Chen acknowledge that this exclusion is a limitation of their study. While Sparks et al (2013) focused their research on online travel reviews, their findings related to the credibility of the information and the inclination to visit the destination rather than the perceived credibility and the decision to use the source. Their findings did, however, identify a strong relationship between more credible web sites and a positive attitude towards the site.
165
Table 24; The Following Information Sources are Unbiased, 1 Strongly Disagree, 5 Strongly Agree
N Mean
Std. Deviation Independent Traveller Review Sites 346 3.72 1.101 Friends and Relatives 345 3.55 1.188 Printed Travel Guides 343 3.30 1.029 Online Only Travel Agents 347 3.27 1.079 Online Travel Guides 345 3.27 .985 Local Tourist Board 341 2.72 1.074 High Street Travel Agents Web Site 341 2.66 1.074 High Street Travel Agent 339 2.58 .989 Owner or Company Representative 347 2.57 1.119
Table 25 shows the mean scores from the perception scale referring to whether the information sources are up to date. It can be seen that the owner or company representative is perceived to be the most up to date which is unsurprising given that they are the ultimate provider of transport and accommodation services. What the table also shows is that the two non-web based information sources, friends and relatives and printed travel guides, were the two sources perceived to be least up to date. There is no existing research which measures and compares the perceived currency of these tourist information sources, however, Gretzel and Yoo (2008), whose research focused on the use and impact of online traveller reviews, found similarly positive perceptions of the currency of the information provided by this source (65.3% of their respondents believed ITRS’s to be up to date).
Table 25; The Following Information Sources are Up to Date, 1 Strongly Disagree, 5 Strongly Agree
N Mean Std.
Deviation Owner or Company Representative 348 3.95 .886 Independent Traveller Review Sites 346 3.81 .962 Online Only Travel Agents 348 3.78 .896 High Street Travel Agent 340 3.55 .880
Online Travel Guides 342 3.53 .879
High Street Travel Agents Web Site 343 3.50 .901
Local Tourist Board 346 3.42 .930
Friends and Relatives 342 3.37 1.010 Printed Travel Guides 343 2.88 .963
166 Table 26 presents the results from the perception scale for the ease of access of each information source. Once again, it can be seen that non-web based information sources perform badly on this characteristic and comprise the three least accessible sources. Friends and relatives, one may argue, are also a non-web based information source, and they rank in the top half of this table. Friends and relatives, however, may be contacted through web based communication channels such as social media. While authors such as Jang (2004), Xiang and Gretzel (2010) advocate the importance of understanding the perceived accessibility of information sources, especially since the advent and proliferation of the world wide web, there has been no research which compares travellers perceptions of the accessibility of the information sources in a way that is comparable. Xiang and Gretzel (2010) and Nusair (2013), for example look specifically at the role and accessibility of social media/social networks but do not enumerate the perceived accessibility of the information source. Frais et al (2008) researched the role of travel agents and internet information providers and argued the importance of accessibility for information sources, but did not measure perceived accessibility.
Table 26; The Following Information Sources are Easy to Access, 1 Strongly Disagree, 5 Strongly Agree
N Mean
Std. Deviation Independent Traveller Review Sites 348 4.26 .789 Online Only Travel Agents 349 4.19 .776
Online Travel Guides 344 4.07 .768
Friends and Relatives 345 4.02 .847
Local Tourist Board 346 3.82 .885
High Street Travel Agents Web Site 343 3.81 .942 Owner or Company Representative 346 3.48 1.088 High Street Travel Agent 340 3.18 1.101 Printed Travel Guides 346 3.15 1.062
The results of the final question relating to perceptions of information sources are presented in Table 27 below. The alternatives included in the question were limited to those through which destination decision makers could complete a booking. Online only travel agents comfortably lead this category as they are nearly half a point above Owner or Company Representative, the source in second place. HSTA’s and HSTAWS’s performed badly on this perception scale. Once again, little research which condenses the various tourist information sources into a discrete list and compares their perceived attributes has been conducted, preventing the results of this research to be compared. Sanchez et al’s (2006) research on perceived value of information search focused solely on travel agents and, furthermore, the aspects of the travel agent which were seen to offer value to
167 potential customers. Cho et al (2012) analyse the perceived value of information provided by local tourist boards from the perspective of different cultures, but again, the results offer no value as a means of comparison to this research.
Table 27; The Following Information Sources Offer Good Value, 1 Strongly Disagree, 5 Strongly Agree
N Mean
Std. Deviation Online Only Travel Agents 343 3.94 .842 Owner or Company Representative 342 3.51 1.041
Local Tourist Board 340 3.27 .957
High Street Travel Agents Web Site 339 3.02 1.094 High Street Travel Agent 335 2.89 1.094
The discussion above presents the results of the analysis which shows how each information source is perceived on the four key characteristics; this discussion can be used to provide further evidence of the linkages between the perception of information sources, their overall perceived utility and their subsequent use in the destination decision making process. Table 28 below presents the results of the analysis in a single location in order to easily view the ranking position of each source on perceptions, utility and use. The table demonstrates a fair consistency between perceptions, utility and use, however, to test the relationships empirically, further analysis was conducted, the results of which are discussed below.
Table 28; Summary of Rankings on Utility Scores, Use and Perception Scores
Utility Use Perceptions Unbiased Up to Date Easy to Access Value Provided
Independent traveller review site 1 1 1 2 1 NA
Online only travel agents 2 3 4 3 2 1
Friends and relatives 3 2 2 8 4 NA
Online travel guide 4 4 5 5 3 NA
Owner or company representative 5 5 9 1 7 2
Local tourism board 6 6 6 7 5 3
High street travel agents' web site 7 8 7 6 6 4
Printed travel guide 8 7 3 9 9 NA
168