Figure 1
The research IACM model adoption.
Source: Adapted from Erkan and Evans (2016) IACM.
Table 1
Sample profile.
| Item | Frequency | % |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 47 | 28 |
| Female | 119 | 72 |
| Age | ||
| 18–24 | 76 | 46 |
| 25–31 | 25 | 15 |
| 32–45 | 32 | 19 |
| > 55 | 33 | 20 |
| Level of education | ||
| High school | 39 | 23 |
| University degree | 86 | 52 |
| Postgraduate qualification | 41 | 25 |
| Number of social networks used | ||
| 1 | 10 | 6 |
| 2 | 37 | 22 |
| > 3 | 119 | 72 |
| Social network use | ||
| Several times a day | 160 | 96 |
| During the week | 6 | 4 |
| Follow influencers on hotels | ||
| Yes | 84 | 51 |
| No | 82 | 49 |
| Frequency of stays in a hotel | ||
| More than three times a month | 1 | 1 |
| Once a month | 6 | 4 |
| Every 2 months | 10 | 6 |
| Every 3 months | 20 | 12 |
| Twice a year | 67 | 40 |
| Once a year | 62 | 37 |
| Trips per year | ||
| Never | 5 | 3 |
| Once or twice | 65 | 39 |
| Three or four times | 61 | 37 |
| Five or six times | 17 | 10 |
| More than seven times | 18 | 11 |
| Reasons for travel | ||
| Work | 9 | 5 |
| Leisure | 157 | 95 |
Table 2
Matrix of correlations between variables.
| (AT) | BI | UF | QL | CD | ND | AT | |
| Adoption of eWOM information (AD) | 1.00 | ||||||
| Behavioural intention (BI) | .50** | 1.00 | |||||
| Usefulness of eWOM information (UF) | .14 | .12 | 1.00 | ||||
| Quality of eWOM information (QL) | .15 | .29** | .21* | 1.00 | |||
| Credibility of eWOM information (CD) | .13 | .07 | .28** | .19 | 1.00 | ||
| Needs of eWOM information (ND) | .25* | .40** | .17 | .39** | .20 | 1.00 | |
| Attitude toward eWOM information (AT) | .50** | .99** | .12 | .28** | .08 | .39** | 1.00 |
Table 3
Results from the structural equations model (path analysis).
| Independent variables | Dependent variables | B | b | t | p | R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality of eWOM information | Usefulness of eWOM Information | .13 | .14 | 1.24 | .215 | .183 |
| Credibility of eWOM information | .29 | .30 | 2.74 | .006 | ||
| Needs of eWOM information | .09 | .11 | 0.98 | .327 | ||
| Attitudes toward eWOM information | .01 | .02 | 0.14 | .886 | ||
| Usefulness of eWOM information | Adoption of eWOM Information | .22 | .17 | 1.77 | .076 | .048 |
| Attitudes toward eWOM information | .18 | .46 | 4.90 | < .001 | ||
| Attitudes toward eWOM information | Behavioural intention | .98 | .99 | 74.38 | < .001 | .988 |
| Adoption of eWOM information | .00 | .00 | 0.30 | .763 | ||
| Goodness-of-fit indexes | ||||||
| χ2/gl | .477 | |||||
| Goodness-of-Fit IndeX (GFI) | .990 | |||||
| Normed Fit Index (NFI) | .993 | |||||
| Comparative Fit Index (CFI) | 1.000 | |||||
| Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC) | 45.34 | |||||
| Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) | .000 | |||||