563165

research-article2014

JTRXXX10.1177/0047287514563165Journal of Travel ResearchRing et al.

Research Article

Word-of-Mouth Segments: Online,

Offline, Visual or Verbal?

Journal of Travel Research

2016, Vol. 55(4) 481492
The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0047287514563165
jtr.sagepub.com

Amata Ring1, Aaron Tkaczynski1, and Sara Dolnicar1

Abstract
Most tourists love to share their holiday experiences with family, friends, and, increasingly, strangers, using the Internet. Such
word-of-mouth represents a highly influential information source for potential tourists and is therefore of great interest to
tourism marketing managers. This study aims to understand patterns among tourists when sharing holiday experiences, both
in terms of the communication channel they use and the kind of content they share. The findings contribute to a theoretical
understanding of word-of-mouth behavior by empirically showing that word-of-mouth is not a homogeneous activity. Rather,
results show that distinct segments of word-of-mouth behavior exist. Segments differ with regard to content shared (visual/
verbal) and channel used (offline/online). Two out of the five segments use only offline channels to share their experiences,
and the extent of visual content shared varies across segments. The article illustrates how these findings could be translated
into proactive marketing action aimed at instigating word-of-mouth behavior.
Keywords
market segmentation, electronic word-of-mouth, traditional word-of-mouth, bootstrap, cluster analysis

Introduction

Literature Review

The influence of word-of-mouth has been studied extensively in consumer decision making. This body of work is
characterized by a number of assumptions: (1) that word-of
mouth is a homogenous activity; (2) that electronic word-ofmouth is more influential than traditional word-of-mouth;
and (3) that word-of-mouth is predominantly verbal, not
visual. This article challenges these three assumptions. The
following research questions are investigated:

Word-of-mouth is defined as informal communication

between private parties concerning evaluations of goods and
services (Anderson 1998, p. 6). Word-of-mouth happens in
the context of a specific situation (Allsop, Bassett, and
Hoskins 2007) and may contain both cognitive and emotive
elements (Sweeney, Soutar, and Mazzarol 2012). It is sought
by consumers who have not experienced a product or service
because it is seen to be credible and trustworthy coming from
an experienced personal source (Allsop, Bassett, and Hoskins
2007). Hence, word-of-mouth is of special importance for
services (Murray 1991). It has been shown to be the information source most frequently used by tourists (e.g., Andereck
and Caldwell 1994; Bieger and Laesser 2004; Day, Cai, and
Murphy 2012; Gitelson and Crompton 1983; Murphy,
Moscardo, and Benckendorff 2007) and is therefore of critical importance to tourism destinations and businesses.
Yet, despite its role in influencing purchase decisions
(Arndt 1967; Whyte 1954), word-of-mouth has its limitations. Most critically for the tourism industry, word-of-mouth
is difficult to influence or control (Allsop, Bassett, and
Hoskins 2007). It is therefore important to develop a good
understanding of the nature of word-of-mouth behavior.

Research question 1: Is tourist word-of-mouth a homogeneous activity, or do different tourists use different
approaches when sharing their vacation experiences?
Research question 2: Do tourists use both electronic and
traditional word-of-mouth to communicate their experiences or does one form dominate?
Research question 3: Do tourists use both verbal and
visual word-of-mouth to communicate their experiences,
or does one form dominate?
To answer these three research questions, an analysis of heterogeneity of word-of-mouth patterns was conducted using
information provided by Australian tourists about how they
shared their holiday experiences. Findings from this study
contribute to theory by challenging current assumptions
about word-of-mouth. This has implications not only for
future research, but also for tourism marketing managers,
who may benefit from considering a larger set of marketing
activities to stimulate word-of-mouth than relying primarily
on social media.

The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Corresponding Author:
Amata Ring, Research Fellow, UQ Business School, The University of
Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia.
Email: a.ring@uq.edu.au

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Harbin Inst. of Technology on June 9, 2016

482

Journal of Travel Research 55(4)

Such understanding forms the basis of the tourism industrys

ability to stimulate or reinforce desirable word-of-mouth.

The Assumption of Word-of-Mouth as a

Homogeneous Activity
Word-of-mouth has mostly been studied as an information
source for tourists, rather than from the perspective of the communicator of the holiday experience. Several studies have
investigated segments based on the use of different information
sources in the context of holiday planning and decision making
(e.g., Bieger and Laesser 2004; Fodness and Murray 1997;
Hsieh and OLeary 1994; Murphy, Moscardo, and Benckendorff
2007). These studies identify segments with varying degrees of
importance of word-of-mouth and other information sources.
However, all these studies treat word-of-mouth as one homogeneous activity. Murphy, Moscardo, and Benckendorff (2007)
consider heterogeneity to some extent by differentiating
between different sources of word-of-mouth (friends and relatives vs. other travelers), but do not investigate differences in
the approaches used by communicators.
To date, only a few studies have investigated word-ofmouth behavior from the communicators perspective. In a
study on the trustworthiness of different online information
sources, Munar and Jacobsen (2013) report descriptive results
regarding intentions to share digitized content after returning
from vacation. Munar and Jacobsen found that tourists exhibit
different levels of intentions to use certain types of media
(Facebook, blogs, Twitter, online reviews, emails/sms/mms)
to share such content. Sending emails or text/multimedia messages are reported as the most popular. While Munar and
Jacobsen show that the popularity of various digital communication channels varies, they did not investigate combinations
of media used or the type of content that is shared.
Bronner and de Hoogs (2011) findings show that the
motivations to post influence: the type of website where an
online review is posted, the number of aspects addressed, the
valence of the review, and, to a lesser extent, whether or not
pictures are used. While Bronner and de Hoog identify a
source for differences in some aspects of the content, they
investigated only one specific electronic word-of-mouth
activity (posting a review online). Lo etal. (2011) investigated a different single electronic word-of-mouth activity
(sharing photographs online) and identify different segments
of sharers based on the types of media they used.
These studies provide valuable insights into how creators
of word-of-mouth can differ, but no study deals with the heterogeneity in word-of-mouth activity resulting from a combination of traditional and electronic word-of-mouth and the
mixture of visual and verbal content.

The Assumption That Electronic Word-of-Mouth

Dominates
Electronic word-of-mouth is defined as all informal communications directed at consumers through Internet-based technology

related to the usage or characteristics of particular goods and services, or their sellers (Litvin, Goldsmith, and Pan 2008, p. 461).
Electronic resources such as email, the Internet, mobile phones,
instant messaging, and blogs have made sharing information and
opinions easier than ever (Allsop, Bassett, and Hoskins 2007).
Electronic word-of-mouth advances traditional word-of-mouth
in several ways: (1) the line of communication is expanded to
one-to-many, one-to-one, or many-to-many (Litvin, Goldsmith,
and Pan 2008). This (2) escalates the audience of both positive
and negative electronic word-of-mouth because it becomes
accessible globally (Chan and Guillet 2011; Ip, Lee, and Law
2012) and (3) allows sharing between strangers while traditionally word-of-mouth refers to opinions from friends and family.
(4) Electronic word-of-mouth can be spread over a variety of
channels, some of which allow anonymity (Benckendorff,
Sheldon, and Fesenmaier 2014). Furthermore, communicating
online (5) has overcome the perishability of traditional wordof-mouth because it can be collected and preserved (Goldsmith
2006).
These advantages of electronic word-of-mouth have led
to an increase in the importance of electronic word-of-mouth
compared to traditional word-of-mouth (Goldsmith 2006;
Litvin, Goldsmith, and Pan 2008; Sun etal. 2006).
Additionally, Gretzel and Yoo (2008) have shown the influence of electronic word-of-mouth on purchase decisions.
However, some advantages of electronic word-of-mouth are
also perceived as disadvantages by others. While credibility
is regularly attributed to electronic word-of-mouth (Bickart
and Schindler 2001; Bronner and de Hoog 2010), others
argue that online word-of-mouth may be perceived as
untrustworthy or inaccurate because it is created by strangers
whose credibility may not be easily established (Tham, Croy,
and Mair 2013). In an investigation of the different dimensions of trustworthiness for online channels, Dickinger
(2011) shows that tourists doubt the ability of users who generate electronic word-of-mouth to provide high-quality
information. The differences between traditional and electronic word-of-mouth, especially with regards to credibility,
led Tham, Croy, and Mair (2013) to conclude that traditional
word-of-mouth is still important. Tan and Tangs (2013)
findings also show that one cannot generally conclude that
either traditional or electronic word-of-mouth is more
important.
Consequently, while the emergence of and increase in
electronic word-of-mouth has to be acknowledged, investigating traditional and electronic word-of-mouth simultaneously seems to represent a more complete picture of total
word-of-mouth behavior.

The Assumption That Word-of-Mouth Is

Predominantly Verbal
The focus on verbal content in traditional word-of-mouth,
where communication is the central element in the definition (Anderson 1998; Fitzgerald Bone 1992; Westbrook
1987), has been carried over to electronic word-of-mouth,

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Harbin Inst. of Technology on June 9, 2016

483

Ring et al.
where the verbal aspect also dominates (Goldsmith 2006;
Hennig-Thurau etal. 2004; Litvin, Goldsmith, and Pan 2008;
Sun etal. 2006). Consequently, a substantial amount of tourism-related research has been conducted on text-driven blogs
(e.g., Pan, MacLaurin, and Crotts 2007; Zehrer, Crotts, and
Magnini 2011) and online reviews (e.g., Gretzel and Yoo
2008; Sparks and Browning 2011; Vermeulen and Seegers
2009). Despite the dominance of visual experiences in tourism (Feighey 2003), in the context of word-of-mouth,
researchers have turned their attention to the visual representation of a travel experience only recently (e.g., Lo etal.
2011; Stepchenkova and Zhan 2013).
The only study that explicitly focuses on the importance
of the combination of visual and verbal content in tourismrelated word-of-mouth is by Lee and Tussyadiah (2011).
Based on the dual-coding theory (Paivio 1990), they argue
that both visual (e.g., photographs) and verbal means (e.g.,
written and spoken language) constitute a tourists mental
representation of a destination. Lee and Tussyadiah found
that in the context of an online travel community, the combination of text and photo is perceived as the most influential
source of information, and is also the combination of content
most frequently contributed to the online travel community.
However, Bronner and de Hoog (2011) show that not everyone contributes both types of information in the context of
posting reviews.
In line with Lee and Tussyadiah (2011), this study focuses
on the use of both visual and verbal content in wordof-mouth; an area that has not yet been extensively studied.

Methodology
Data
Survey data were collected from 1003 adult Australian residents using an Australian research-only online panel company that recruits respondents both online and through
traditional avenues such as mail and intercepts. Respondents
were paid a small amount of money as compensation for
their efforts. Although well-maintained online panels have
been shown to lead to equally representative samples
(Dolnicar, Laesser, and Matus 2009), it is possible that online
data collection in this particular study will lead to an overestimation of respondents who use electronic media to communicate about their holiday experiences. This is not
problematic, however, because the primary aim of the study
is to explore patterns of word-of-mouth behavior, not to correctly predict the segment size of people who display those
patterns.
Respondents were asked how often they go on holiday
and which travel information sources they normally use for
making their decisions. Respondents were also asked to
think of their last domestic holiday and indicate where they
spent it, how far it was from home, how they got there, how
long the holiday was, what the accommodation was, how

Table 1. Frequency of Reported Word-of-Mouth Behaviors.

Conversations
Showed photos in person
Updated a web journal or
website
Updated/posted a blog (online
diary) or network tool (e.g.,
MySpace or Facebook)
Emailed photos
Written emails (no pictures)
Video footage
Other (please specify)a
I didnt talk about itb

937 (100%)
618 (66%)
67 (7%)
70 (7%)
381 (41%)
380 (40%)
138 (15%)
25 (3%)

Out of the 25 who ticked the other option, 23 provided details.

Of these, 14 respondents specified a behavior that corresponded to
a behavior they ticked (e.g., phone calls, which are conversations).
Six respondents specified other options of sharing their experiences
(postcards, church newsletter, letter, writing a summary, MSN, braille).
The remaining three responses do not represent a means to share
experiences or are not explained clearly.
b
Nineteen respondents were excluded from the analysis because they
specified that they did not talk about it. The percentages displayed in
the table correspond to the final sample size of 940 (after these 19
respondents were removed).

much they spent, and which activities they engaged in (these

comprised 45 activities used in the Domestic Visitor Survey
conducted by Tourism Research Australia 2009). Respondents
were then asked whether they communicated their holiday
experiences and how. The items used to measure wordof-mouth behavior included practices relating to offline as
well as online word-of-mouth, and represent the use of visual
or verbal content. Respondents were first asked, After your
last holiday, did you share or communicate your experiences
with any of the following people? Then they were asked,
In which of the following ways did you communicate this
information? All word-of-mouth behavior items were
binary. The binary format was selected because it was of
interest in this study whether or not tourists engaged in certain behaviors, rather than the extent to which they did so.
Furthermore, binary data is suitable for analysis with all
available segmentation methods, whereas ordinal data,
which would have resulted by asking a small number of frequency levels or levels of agreement, cannot easily be analyzed using clustering approaches because the distance
between scale points is not defined (Kampen and
Swyngedouw 2000). The specific items used as segmentation base are conversations, showing photos in person, updating a web journal or website, updating/posting a blog (online
diary) or network tool (e.g., MySpace or Facebook), emailing photos, writing emails (no pictures), and sharing video
footage. The frequencies for all items are shown in Table 1.
Finally, respondents were asked to provide some information about their personal characteristics, including their age,
gender, family status, household size, education level,
income, and employment status.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Harbin Inst. of Technology on June 9, 2016

484

Journal of Travel Research 55(4)

Sample Description

Data Analysis

Of the 1,003 respondents, 44 cases were deleted because of

straight-lining or implausible answers. Nineteen respondents
were excluded because they did not communicate or share
their last holiday experience in any way. This resulted in a
final sample size of 940 observations.
The sample consisted of 52 percent females and 48 percent males. Twenty-two percent were 29 or younger, 19
percent 3039 years, 20 percent 4049 years, 22 percent
5059 years, 15 percent 6069 years, and 2 percent 70
years or older. Compared to Australian census data
(Australian Bureau of Statistics 2014), the current sample
underrepresented the age group of 70 years and older by
10 percentage points, while slightly over-representing
people aged 5059 years and 6069 years. Regarding state
of residency, the numbers mirrored the distribution of the
total Australian population (Australian Bureau of Statistics
2014), with the majority of respondents from New South
Wales (30%), Victoria (26%), and Queensland (20%).
Half of the respondents took a maximum of four domestic
trips a year and the majority did not go on overseas holidays (56%).
Regarding their last holiday within Australia, almost all
(94%) traveled independently, and 37 percent went on a
weekend trip. Half traveled less than 550 kilometers to their
chosen destination and the majority traveled by careither
their own (64%) or a rental (11%). Respondents mainly
stayed in private properties (own or friends, 25%), hotels
or motels with a maximum of three stars (19%), four- or
five-star hotels or resorts (16%), or in serviced apartments
(11%). Traveling with their partner (67%) was the most
popular option. Of these, 30% also traveled with their
children.
A first examination of the segmentation variables (see
Table 1) revealed that 937 of the 940 talked about their last
holiday in conversations, making this variable non-informative for the cluster solution. Non-informative variables bear
the risk of masking underlying structure (Milligan 1980;
Steinley and Brusco 2008). Consequently, this variable was
removed. However, 200 respondents (21%) shared their holiday experiences in conversations only, making it the most
frequent single word-of-mouth pattern. This segment was
extracted a priori using a commonsense approach (Dolnicar
2004) and named offline verbalists.
The remaining six variables showed mixed levels of
adoption. Tourists most frequently reported showing photos
(66%), emailing photos (41%), and writing emails without
photos (40%). The other three options were used less frequently (sharing videos, 15%; updating web journals or websites, 7%; updating blogs or network tool, 7%). These six
variables were used as the segmentation base for the remaining 740 respondents. A sample size of 740 is adequate for
cluster analysis with six binary variables (Dolnicar etal.
2014).

To identify patterns of reported word-of-mouth behavior, a

data-driven approach was chosen because the structure of the
sub-markets was not known a priori (Green 1977). The literature identifies stability as an important criterion for segment attractiveness (Dibb and Simkin 2008). Stability was
used as a criterion for determining which number of clusters
to choose for the analysis. Specifically, bootstrap samples of
the original data set were used to calculate many segmentation solutions for numbers of clusters from 2-to-10. The stability of segmentation solutions within each of those numbers
of clusters was then calculated (Dolnicar and Leisch 2010).
This procedure can be applied using several algorithms. For
this study, Martinetz and Schultens (1994) neural gas algorithm with Euclidean distance was used because this algorithm produces more stable results than k-means clustering
(Ganglmair and Wooliscroft 2001). Neural gas is very similar to k-means. It only differs in two aspects: (1) neural gas
adjusts the location of the cluster centroids after each case is
assigned to a cluster, whereas for k-means centroid adjustment occurs only after all data points have been assigned to
a cluster; (2) neural gas adjusts not only the closest centroid
but also, with decreasing weights, the other neighboring centroids for each case, thus reducing the risk of getting stuck in
a local optimum. The neural gas algorithm has been previously applied to classification research in tourism (Mazanec
etal. 2010).
The stability analysis was undertaken in four steps: (1)
calculation of cluster solutions for bootstrap samples; (2)
predicting cluster memberships of original observations
based on cluster solutions from bootstrap samples; (3) calculation of adjusted Rand indices (Hubert and Arabie 1985) to
determine agreement between predictions; and (4) selection
of optimal number of clusters based on adjusted Rand
indices.
Calculation of Cluster Solutions for Bootstrap Samples.Fifty
pairs of bootstrap samples were drawn from the data. Consider bootstrap samples A and B one such pair. The neural
gas algorithm was used to compute cluster solutions for
numbers of clusters ranging from 2 to 10 on bootstrap sample A. Every computation (i.e., for numbers of clusters from
2 to 10) was conducted five times, and only the best solution
based on the smallest within-cluster sum of squares was
retained. Then, the cluster centroids of these 2 to 10 clusters
solutions were saved. The same was repeated for bootstrap
sample B.
Predicting Cluster Membership of Original Observations. In the
second step, these centroids were used to predict cluster
membership for every observation in the original data set.
First, the cluster centroids of bootstrap sample A were used
to predict cluster membership by assigning every observation to the closest centroid. This was done for all 2 to 10

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Harbin Inst. of Technology on June 9, 2016

485

Ring et al.
clusters solutions. Then, the predictions were repeated based
on the cluster centroids of bootstrap sample B. The outcome
of this step was a set of predictions for all 2-to-10 clusters
solutions. One pair of predictions for every observation in
the original data set was obtained for all numbers of clusters
solutions (2-to-10). The first prediction was based on the
solution from bootstrap sample A, while the second was
based on the solution from bootstrap sample B. These pairs
of predictions were the basis for the stability analysis.
Calculation of Adjusted Rand Indices. The third step formed the
heart of the stability analysis. The Rand index was used to
judge on the stability of the 2-to-10 clusters solutions (Rand
1971). The Rand index expresses agreements as a proportion
of agreements and disagreements between two solutions. As
an example, consider the predictions from the pair of bootstrap samples A and B for the two-cluster solution. For every
pair of observations, it was determined (1) if the two observations were assigned to the same cluster based on the predictions from bootstrap sample A, or not; and (2) if they were
assigned to the same cluster based on the predictions from
bootstrap sample B, or not. Agreements are all pairs of observations either assigned to the same cluster in both (1) and (2),
or not assigned to the same cluster in both (1) and (2). Disagreements are all pairs of observations that were either put
into the same cluster in (1), but into different clusters in (2),
or put into the same cluster in (2), but into different clusters
in (1). An index value closer to one indicates a higher agreement between the two predictions based on A and B. Perfect
agreement is represented by a Rand index of 1. Finally, the
Rand index was adjusted for chance (adjusted Rand index by
Hubert and Arabie 1985; for computation see also Steinley
2004). For the pair of bootstrap samples A and B, this computation of the adjusted Rand index was repeated for all
numbers of cluster solutions (2-to-10), resulting in one
adjusted Rand index for each of the 2-to-10 clusters
solutions.
For the stability analyses, 50 such pairs of bootstrap samples were drawn. Consequently, for each of the 2-to-10 clusters solution, 50 adjusted Rand indices were obtained.
Selection of Optimal Number of Clusters.In the final step,
these adjusted Rand indices were used to determine the optimal number of clusters. For each of the 2-to-10 clusters solutions, the distribution of the adjusted Rand indices was
compared. The closer the average of the 50 adjusted Rand
indices for a given number of clusters to one, the more stable
the solution.
Figure 1 summarizes the results of the stability analysis. It
shows the boxplots of the adjusted Rand indices (y axis) calculated from the 50 pairs of bootstrap samples for 2-to-10
clusters (x axis). The adjusted Rand index lies between 0 (no
agreement between a pair of cluster solutions) and 1 (perfect
agreement between a pair of cluster solutions). For every
prespecified number of clusters (2-to-10), the shown

Figure 1. Stability analysis results (boxplot of stability of 50

calculations for all numbers of clusters between 2 and 10; black
horizontal line indicates the median, and 50% of the data is within
the box).

boxplots provide guidance on the stability of the solution. A

boxplot close to the top of the graph (i.e., 1) indicates a high
agreement across bootstrap samples. The four-segment solution is the most stable and was therefore selected for further
analysis.
After identifying the optimal number of clusters, the final
cluster analysis was performed on the original data set. The
best solution based on the smallest within-cluster sum of
squares of five reruns of the algorithm was selected.
For a segmentation solution to be useful to marketers, the
segments should be distinguishable with regards to background variables that allow marketers to identify the segments (Dibb and Simkin 2008). To differentiate between the
segments based on background variables not included in the
segmentation base, multinomial logistic regression was used.
The aim of this analysis is not to draw causal conclusions
about why word-of-mouth is communicated in a certain way.
Rather, gaining a better understanding of the nature of the
segments allows marketers to identify and access them, thus
making them viable target segments for marketing activities
aimed at stimulating word-of-mouth. General sociodemographics and travel-related behavior characteristics are used
as independent variables because they can be observed by
marketers. Five separate models were estimated (sociodemographics, vacation activities undertaken, information sources
and type of booking, mode of transport, general travel characteristics). Then, the significant variables (p < .1) from
these models were put into one model.1 All analyses were

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Harbin Inst. of Technology on June 9, 2016

486

Journal of Travel Research 55(4)

Figure 2. Segment Profile Plot.

Note: Bars are in color only if the difference between the clusters mean and the overall mean for this variable is either at least half of the overall mean or
at least a tenth of the total maximum for this variable. Because the total maximum is one for all binary variables in this analysis, the latter absolute cut-off
value equals .1 for all variables. These cut-off values could have been defined in a more or less restrictive way. Note that the percentages given are based
on the total sample size of 940. The fifth segment, offline verbalists, are 21% (200 respondents).

carried out using R (R Core Team 2013), using flexclust

(Leisch 2006) and nnet (Venables and Ripley 2002).

Results
Research Question 1: Is Tourist Word-of-Mouth a
Homogeneous Activity?
Figure 2 profiles the segments: colored bars indicate the percentage of people in each segment who engage in a specific
activity, and the red horizontal lines represent the sample
average. To easily identify variables that contribute the most
to the distinct profile of a specific cluster, variables that do
not show a substantial deviation from the total sample mean
are shown in white (Dolnicar and Leisch 2014). Writing
emails and emailing photos best distinguishes between the
four segments. In segments 1 and 3, all respondents emailed
photos, whereas in segments 2 and 4 nobody did. In segments 3 and 4, all respondents sent (verbal) emails, whereas
in clusters 1 and 2 nobody did. All segments liked to show
photos (offline) of their holidays, but segment 4 did to a considerably lesser extent.
In total, five word-of-mouth segments are identified. Four
emerged from the data-driven segmentation analysis and the
fifth was extracted a priori. Note that all segments share their
experiences in conversations. For the a priori selected

segment (offline verbalists), conversations are the only

means of sharing their experiences. The multinomial logistic
regression identified several variables that assist in profiling
and differentiating each of the segments. Results are reported
in Table 2. Offline verbalists serve as the baseline category
because members of this segment engage in only one type of
word-of-mouth behavior (sharing experiences in
conversations).
Table 3 summarizes with whom the segments share their
holiday experiences. Because this is a behavior that happens
after a holiday has taken place, it is a background variable
that cannot be used by marketers to identify people. Hence, it
was not included in the multinomial logistic regression.
Table 3 also shows the average amount of holiday activities
undertaken (out of 44) as a proxy for how active the segments are on their holiday.
The first segment (online visualists) is characterized by
the use of visual information (email photos, 100%; show photos, 86%; update blog or Facebook, 16%; show video footage,
23%; see Figure 2). In contrast to segments 3 and 4, members
of this segment do not use purely verbal online communication (written emails). The only significant sociodemographic
variable is employment (see Table 2). Retirees were more
likely to be in the online visualists segment than those who
are in full-time employment (odds ratio 4.26). Tourists belonging to this segment are unlikely to participate in activities such

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Harbin Inst. of Technology on June 9, 2016

487

Ring et al.
Table 2. Multinomial Logistic Regression Results.
Article I.
Online viualists vs. offline verbalists

Sociodemographics
Activities

Information and booking

Transport
Travel characteristics

Offline visualists vs. offline verbalists

Sociodemographics
Activities

Travel characteristics

Interactive sharers vs. offline verbalists

Sociodemographics
Activities

Information and booking

Transport

Online verbalists vs. offline verbalists

Sociodemographics
Activities

Information and booking

Transport

Travel characteristics

B (SE)

Odds Ratio

Intercept
Retireda
Bushwalks
Whale/dolphin watching
Charter boat/cruise
Visiting a spa/getting a massage
General sightseeing
Having picnics/barbecues
Eating out in reasonably priced places
Booked accommodation on the Internet
Traveled to destination by four-wheel drive
Traveled to destination by bus
Traveled alone
Size of travel party
Was a special vacation (once every few years)b

3.03 (0.96)**
1.45 (0.49)**
0.88 (0.32)**
1.12 (0.44)*
0.89 (0.42)*
1.10 (0.47)*
0.98 (0.41)*
0.89 (0.30)**
1.01 (0.38)**
0.66 (0.32)*
1.25 (0.53)*
1.41 (0.71)*
1.14 (0.53)*
0.06 (0.03)*
0.82 (0.39)*

4.26
2.41
0.33
2.44
3.00
2.66
2.43
0.36
1.93
3.49
4.09
0.32
1.06
0.44

Intercept
Retireda
Studenta
Bushwalks
Charter boat/cruise
Visiting wildlife parks/zoos/aquariums
Relax/doing nothing
Number of international trips per year
Traveled alone
A regular break (multiple times a year)b

0.34 (0.78)
1.19 (0.42)**
1.62 (0.57)**
0.65 (0.29)*
0.79 (0.38)*
0.65 (0.32)*
0.66 (0.31)*
0.47 (0.18)*
0.92 (0.42)*
0.75 (0.31)*

3.29
5.05
1.91
2.20
1.92
0.52
0.63
0.40
0.47

Intercept
Retireda
Bushwalks
Visiting wildlife parks/zoos/aquariums
Having picnics/barbecues
Eating out in upmarket restaurants
Booked accommodation on the Internet
Use information from tourist info centerc
Traveled to destination by plane
Traveled to destination by bus
Traveled around at destination by plane

3.42 (0.83)***
0.83 (0.42)*
0.88 (0.29) **
0.86 (0.33)**
0.79 (0.27)**
0.73 (0.28)**
0.88 (0.27)**
0.52 (0.25)*
1.03 (0.33)**
1.66 (0.62)**
1.00 (0.50)*

2.30
2.40
2.35
2.20
2.07
2.42
1.67
2.80
5.24
2.73

Intercept
Female
Bushwalks
Visit botanic or other public gardens
Going for scenic walks/drives
Visiting friends and relatives
Eating out in upmarket restaurants
Relax/doing nothing
Someone else in travel party booked accommodation
Traveled to destination by plane
Traveled to destination by bus
Traveled around at destination by plane
Times went out for lunch
Number of domestic trips per year

3.31 (0.96)***
0.87 (0.30)**
0.78 (0.33)*
1.08 (0.35)**
0.75 (0.34)*
0.64 (0.32)*
0.84 (0.32)**
0.97 (0.36)**
1.22 (0.52)*
1.20 (0.36)***
2.00 (0.66)**
1.39 (0.54)**
1.09 (0.48)*
0.08 (0.03)*

2.38
2.18
0.34
2.12
1.90
2.32
0.38
0.30
3.33
7.36
4.03
0.34
1.08

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. No significant results were found for education (reference category: university education), age, how often newspapers are read
(sociodemographics), going camping, playing tennis, visiting museums or art galleries, going on guided tours (activities), book accommodation: on the phone, at arrival, via travel
agent, use hotel brochures as information source,c use exhibitions/fairs as information sourcec (information and booking), get around at destination by: walking, bus, ferry,
taxi, rented car (transport), vacation taken on weekend or during the week, type of accommodation stayed at (reference category: private property where no payment was
required), traveled with children, length of the trip, times went out for coffee (travel characteristics).
a
Full-time employed was used as the reference category.
b
A typical annual vacation (once a year) was used as the reference category.
c
Asked in general (In general, which information sources do you use to help you with your vacation destination choice?). All other trip characteristics refer to the last
Australian (domestic) vacation.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Harbin Inst. of Technology on June 9, 2016

488

Journal of Travel Research 55(4)

Table 3. Summary of Segment Characteristics.

Background Variable
Shared experiences with (%)
Partner
Friends
Family
Work colleagues
Mean of activities
done (maximum 44)

Online
Visualists (14%)

Offline
Visualists (24%)

Interactive
Sharers (26%)

Online
Verbalists (14%)

Offline
Verbalists (21%)

80
91
91
54
14

70
85
86
44
13

81
97
96
62
15

71
91
89
60
12

65
80
76
45
9

Note: Results are significant at the 0.05 level, after correcting for multiple testing (Holm 1979).

as whale or dolphin watching or eating out in reasonably

priced restaurants (odds ratios of 0.33 and 0.36, respectively).
However, tourists bushwalking, being on charter boats or
cruises, visiting a health or beauty spa, sightseeing, and having
picnics or barbecues are all more likely to be online visualists (odds ratios 2.41, 2.44, 3.00, 2.66, and 2.43, respectively).
Additionally, behaviors such as booking accommodation on
the Internet (odds ratio 1.93) or traveling to the destination by
four-wheel drive (odds ratio 3.49) or bus (odds ratio 4.09) are
significant predictors of belonging to this segment. The odds
of people who are on a special vacation to be in this segment
decrease to 44 percent (compared to people who are on a regular break). Finally, people traveling alone are less likely to be
online visualists (odds ratio 0.32). The odds of being
included in this segment increase by 6 percent for every additional person in the travel party. Table 3 shows that members
of this segment actively shared their experiences with many
different people and participated in a lot of different activities
during their vacations.
Travelers in the second segment (offline visualists)
showed photos to a high extent (95%), but use the other
means of sharing experiences less than the average. In contrast to the first segment, this segment shared their pictures
only offline. Retirees and students were more likely to be in
this segment than those in full-time employment (odds ratios
3.29 and 5.05, respectively). The activity profile of this segment was less likely to include relaxing or doing nothing
(odds ratio 0.52). Conversely, bushwalking, being on a charter boat or cruise, and visiting wildlife parks, zoos, or aquariums were popular activities (odds ratios 1.91, 2.20, and 1.92,
respectively). They also traveled less internationally and did
not tend to travel alone. For every additional international
trip, the odds of belonging to this segment are reduced by 37
percent, and traveling alone reduces the odds to 40 percent.
Offline visualists were less likely to be on a regular break
(odds ratio 0.47 compared to being on a typical annual vacation). Indeed, a descriptive investigation of this variable
shows that this segment was not only less likely to be on a
regular break (32% compared to an average of 48% in the
other segments), but was more often on a special vacation
(36% compared to an average of 25% in the other segments).
Offline visualists shared their experiences less frequently

with different people and engaged in an average amount of

activities during their vacation (see Table 3).
Aside from the unanimous adoption of emails for both
written communication and pictures, the third segment
(interactive sharers) also displays an above average level
for all other variables (show photos, 87%; update blogs or
Facebook, 11%; update web journals, 15%; show video footage, 10%). Again, retirees were more likely to belong to this
segment (odds ratio 2.30). Table 3 shows that they were the
most active segment. Activities such as bushwalking; visiting wildlife parks, zoos, or aquariums; having picnics or barbecues; and eating out in upmarket restaurants all increase
the odds of belonging to the interactive sharers segment
(odds ratios 2.4, 2.35, 2.20, and 2.07, respectively).
Additionally, the odds for someone who books accommodation on the Internet are 2.42 times higher. Using information
from tourist information centers increases the odds by 1.67.
Tourists traveling to the destination by plane or bus (odds
ratios 2.80 and 5.24, respectively) and who travel around by
plane (odds ratio 2.73) are also more likely to be interactive
sharers. Respondents in this segment also shared their experiences with a wider variety of different people.
The fourth segment (online verbalists) exhibits belowaverage values for all variables except writing emails (100%).
Members of this segment still showed photos (56%), but to a
lesser extent than did visually dominated segments. Females
are more likely to belong to this segment (odds ratio 2.38),
and to participate in bushwalks, scenic walks or drives, visiting friends and relatives, and eating out in upmarket restaurants all increase the odds of belonging to this segment (odds
ratios 2.18, 2.12, 1.90, and 2.32, respectively). They were less
likely to relax and do nothing or visit botanic gardens (odds
ratios 0.38 and 0.34, respectively). Tourists traveling to the
destination by plane or bus were also more likely to be online
verbalists compared to those who did not use this type of
transport (odds ratios 3.33 and 7.36, respectively).
Additionally, the odds of tourists who traveled by plane during their vacation to be in this segment are 4.03 times higher.
They were less often found to be eating out for lunch (odds
ratio 0.34). Online verbalists were more likely to undertake
domestic travel than offline verbalists. For every additional
domestic trip per year, the odds of belonging to this segment

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Harbin Inst. of Technology on June 9, 2016

489

Ring et al.
increase by eight percent. Online verbalists shared their
experiences to an average extent, with the exception of sharing with colleagues, where they show a higher than average
level. They also were more active on vacations than the
offline verbalists, but to a lesser extent than were the other
three segments (see Table 3).
Segment 5 (offline verbalists) shared holiday experiences only in conversations. Because this segment was chosen as the reference category, the negative intercepts for all
segments (see Table 2) indicate that an observation where all
continuous variables are 0 and the values for all categorical
variables are their reference categories is most likely to
belong to Segment 5. Additional information from Table 3
shows that offline verbalists shared their experiences with
the smallest number of people and were also the least active
during their vacations.
In summary, the results for Research Question 1 (Is tourist
word-of-mouth a homogeneous activity, or do different tourists use different approaches when sharing their vacation
experiences?) suggests that word-of-mouth is not a homogeneous activity; rather, distinct segments with regards to different types of word-of-mouth behavior exists.

Research Question 2: Do Tourists Use Both

Electronic and Traditional Word-of-Mouth to
Communicate Their Experiences?
The findings show that both, electronic and traditional wordof-mouth, are used. However, the findings also show substantial heterogeneity in the use of these two channels. Two
of the five segments are dominated by traditional wordof-mouth (offline visualists and offline verbalists) while
the other three segments employ a combination of traditional
and electronic word-of-mouth behaviors.

Research Question 3: Do Tourists Use

Both Verbal and Visual Word-of-Mouth to
Communicate Their Experiences?
The tourists in this survey shared both verbal and visual
word-of-mouth content. Segments can also be profiled by
their diverging use of these two types of contents. All respondents engaged in conversations, but the extent of the use of
visual material varies across segments. One segment exclusively used verbal word-of-mouth (offline verbalists) and
one other segment was dominated by verbal content (online
verbalists); they also showed photos, but to a lesser extent
than the other three segments.

Discussion
Results indicate that there is substantial heterogeneity in how
word-of-mouth is expressed. Traditional and electronic
word-of-mouth stand side by side, and both visual and verbal
word-of-mouth play a role in sharing holiday experiences.

Different people display different tendencies of using combinations of word-of-mouth modes and channels.
These findings contribute to the theoretical understanding
of word-of-mouth in several ways. They empirically support
the notion that, while electronic media is increasingly important, traditional word-of-mouth continues to play a major
role in sharing holiday experiences (Tham, Croy, and Mair
2013). Additionally, the findings provide empirical evidence
for the importance of a relatively new stream of research
studying the role of visual stimuli as part of word-of-mouth
behavior in tourism (Lee and Tussyadiah 2011; Lo etal.
2011; Stepchenkova and Zhan 2013) and point to the potential of simultaneous use of verbal and visual content (Lee and
Tussyadiah 2011).
This study is the first to demonstrate the extent of heterogeneity among tourists with respect to different ways of sharing holiday experiences. This finding has practical
implications, because it implies that tourism marketers may
want to not only focus on social media to stimulate and
orchestrate word-of-mouth activity but may want to think
about other strategies to achieve the same aim for different
tourist groups. Several authors (e.g., Schmallegger and
Carson 2008; Litvin, Goldsmith, and Pan 2008) have argued
that providing incentives for tourists to write blogs based on
their experience can positively influence how other tourists
(such as their friends and family) perceive a destination
image. Similar incentives could be developed for tourists
who prefer other ways of sharing their holiday experiences
or who communicate predominantly visual or textual information. For example, online visualists (an active segment
often found on cruises, sightseeing, picnicking, or fourwheel driving) could be offered free photo shoots on cruises
or in typical four-wheel driving hot spots. Sending free digital copies of these photographs to members of this segment
is likely to lead to those photos being actively shared online.
It could be argued, of course, that people will not share photos taken by others. But traditionally, this was the way it was
done: for many decades it was the postcarda photo taken
by a professionaland a few lines of text that were used by
tourists to share their holiday experiences. Today, it is common practice for tourists to share photos taken by tour operators such as Contiki and TopDeck Tours on social media. The
postcard might be a dying tradition, but similar mechanisms
could well be embraced by todays tourists, and may have
substantial benefits for the tourism destination or provider. A
professionally taken picture makes the destination appear
more attractive, allowing the tourist destination or provider
to portray itself in line with its positioning, while at the same
time improving the boasting potential for the tourist. Also,
it may offer a way of getting around not being permitted to
take pictures at sites of cultural significance such as museums and sacred locations.
Another example of how these findings could be translated
into marketing ideas stimulating word-of-mouth would be for
tour operators or destinations who build their positioning on

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Harbin Inst. of Technology on June 9, 2016

490

Journal of Travel Research 55(4)

special or once-in-a-lifetime experiences. They could target

the offline visualists, who are likely to be on special holidays rather than regular breaks. Retirees and students are
likely to be in this segment. Special holidays are underpinned
by emotional responses, which makes them suitable for wordof-mouth (Sderlund and Rosengren 2007). Tourism organizations or destinations who position themselves as a special
treat could think about strategies to provide their guests with
tangible evidence of their holiday, and encourage them to
show them to their friends and family when they get home.
Overall, it can be concluded that there is potential to
leverage word-of-mouth. Distinct segments exist, which differ in their word-of-mouth behavior. Providing targeted support for these segments represents one possible approach to
increase the likelihood that these efforts translate into
word-of-mouth.

Conclusions, Limitations, and Future

Work
This article challenges three implicit assumptions of wordof-mouth research: that word-of-mouth is a homogenous
activity; that electronic word-of-mouth is dominant; and that
word-of-mouth is predominantly verbal. The stability of the
cluster analysis lends support to the assertion that word-ofmouth should not be considered a homogeneous activity.
Rather, results indicate very distinct patterns. Patterns differ
regarding the content that is shared (visual and verbal) and
the means of sharing it (off- and online). More specifically,
the results show that sharing visual word-of-mouth content
plays a key role for some tourist segments, and that both
electronic and traditional word-of-mouth should be considered when developing strategies to foster word-of-mouth.
For example, focusing primarily on electronic word-of-mouth
would neglect the potential of stimulating positive wordof-mouth in market segments that still use traditional ways of
sharing their holiday experiences, the offline verbalists
and offline visualists.
Findings from this study contribute theoretically to the
understanding of heterogeneity in sharing holiday experiences as well as offering a basis for the tourism industry to
develop new, creative ways of stimulating word-of-mouth.
The study is limited in that it is based on reported sharing
behavior of holiday experiences. While this research focused
on sharing behaviors that differentiate between visual and
verbal, as well as offline and online content, the authors cannot claim the studied behaviors to be exhaustive. Future
research might want to include behaviors such as writing
reviews. It would be very interestingalthough challenging
in terms of the research designto replicate this study using
actual observed behavior at an individual level. Also, it
would be of great interest to link the present study with prior
work on motivations to engage in word-of-mouth. Previous
research has already identified different segments based on
motivations for word-of-mouth behavior (Hennig-Thurau

etal. 2004). To understand whether these word-of-mouth

motivation segments determine the way in which word-ofmouth is communicated provides an interesting avenue for
further research. Another interesting avenue for further
research is to determine the degree to which tourists would
be willing to share professional photographs (controlled by
tourism marketers). They might share them either as a substitute of or in addition to their own photos, and might prefer
soft or hard copies.
While this research shows clear differences in the content
shared (visual and verbal) and in the way content is shared
(offline and online), it remains unclear whether or not these
exhibited behaviors translate into the same preferences for
information processing. For example, do people who share
their experiences visually also prefer visual information? It
seems promising for further research to investigate the relationship between information processing and information
sharing. Additionally, the current research does not differentiate between positive and negative word-of-mouth. Rather,
it is assumed that the findings apply to positive word-ofmouth. Future research should investigate if word-of-mouth
behavior differs depending on the communicated holiday
experiences being positive or negative. Last but not least,
generalizations from this study have to be drawn cautiously.
Conclusions are limited to domestic travel by Australian
residents. However, the authors do not see obvious reasons
why these patterns would be substantially different in other
Western countries or in other travel contexts, but this would
certainly be an interesting research question for future
investigation.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Katie Cliff for contributing to the
development of the questionnaire, Friedrich Leisch for his advice
on visualizing the solution and Pierre Benckendorff for feedback on
a previous version of the paper.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This
research was funded by the Australian Research Council under the
Discovery Grant Scheme (project number DP110101347).

Note
1. The nonsignificant variables in these five models were as follows: income, frequency of watching TV (sociodemographics), visit the beach, visit farms, swimming, snow activities,
horse riding, cycling, hiking/climbing, exercise, golf, fishing,
diving, surfing, four-wheel driving, adventure activities (e.g.,
bungee jumping), other water activities (e.g., sailing), attend
concert, theatre or other performing arts, visit history/heritage

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Harbin Inst. of Technology on June 9, 2016

491

Ring et al.
buildings or sites, experience aboriginal arts/crafts, attend festivals/fairs, visit amusement/theme parks, going to markets,
visit industrial tourism heritage, visit attractions for kids, visit
pubs, shopping, watch movies, visit casinos, attend an organized sporting event (activities), use as information source (in
general): destination information brochures, brochures from
tour operators, information from travel agent, ads in newspapers, travel guides/books, information from friends and relatives, radio, TV, Internet, slide nights (information sources and
booking), get to destination by rented car, train, get around at
destination by other water transport (e.g., private boat), rented
car. Get to destination by car and get around at destination by
car were not included in the multinomial logistic regression
model because of their strong correlation with other transport
variables (transport), traveled only with partner, traveled with
friends, packaged vs. independent trip, times eating out for
breakfast, times eating out for dinner (travel characteristics).

References
Allsop, Dee T., Bryce R. Bassett, and James A. Hoskins. (2007).
Word-of-Mouth Research: Principles and Applications.
Journal of Advertising Research, 47 (4): 398-411.
Andereck, Kathleen L., and Linda L. Caldwell. (1994). The
Influence of Tourists Characteristics on Ratings of Information
Sources for an Attraction. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 2 (2/3): 171-90.
Anderson, Eugene W. (1998). Customer Satisfaction and Word of
Mouth. Journal of Service Research, 1 (1): 5-17.
Arndt, Johan. (1967). Role of Product-Related Conversations
in the Diffusion of a New Product. Journal of Marketing
Research, 4 (3): 291-95.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2014). Census for a Brighter
Future. http://www.abs.gov.au/census (accessed August 1,
2014).
Benckendorff, Pierre J., Pauline J. Sheldon, and Daniel R.
Fesenmaier. (2014). Social Media and Tourism. In Tourism
Information Technology, 2nd edition. Oxford: CABI, pp. 12351.
Bickart, Barbara, and Robert M. Schindler. (2001). Internet
Forums as Influential Sources of Consumer Information.
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 1 (3): 31-40.
Bieger, Thomas, and Christian Laesser. (2004). Information
Sources for Travel Decisions: Toward a Source Process
Model. Journal of Travel Research, 4 (4): 357-71.
Bronner, Fred, and Robert de Hoog. (2010). Consumer-Generated
versus Marketer-Generated Websites in Consumer Decision
Making? International Journal of Market Research, 52 (2):
231-48.
Bronner, Fred, and Robert de Hoog. (2011). Vacationers and
eWOM: Who Posts, and Why, Where, and What? Journal of
Travel Research, 50 (1): 15-26.
Chan, Nga Ling, and Basak Denizci Guillet. (2011). Investigation
of Social Media Marketing: How Does the Hotel Industry in
Hong Kong Perform in Marketing on Social Media Websites?
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 28 (4): 345-68.
Day, Jonathon, Liping Cai, and Laurie Murphy. (2012). Impact
of Tourism Marketing on Destination Image: Industry
Perspectives. Tourism Analysis, 17 (3): 273-84.
Dibb, Sally, and Lyndon Simkin. (2008). Market Segmentation
Success: Making It Happen! New York: Routledge.

Dickinger, Astrid. (2011). The Trustworthiness of Online Channels

for Experience- and Goal-Directed Search Tasks. Journal of
Travel Research, 50 (4): 378-91.
Dolnicar, Sara. (2004). Beyond Commonsense Segmentation: A
Systematics of Segmentation Approaches in Tourism. Journal
of Travel Research, 42 (3): 244-50.
Dolnicar, Sara, Bettina Grn, Friedrich Leisch, and Kathrin
Schmidt. (2014). Required Sample Sizes for Data-Driven
Market Segmentation Analyses in Tourism. Journal of Travel
Research, 53 (3): 296-396.
Dolnicar, Sara, Christian Laesser, and Katrina Matus. (2009).
Online versus Paper Format Effects in Tourism Surveys.
Journal of Travel Research, 47 (3): 295-316.
Dolnicar, Sara, and Friedrich Leisch. (2010). Evaluation of
Structure and Reproducibility of Cluster Solutions Using the
Bootstrap. Marketing Letters, 21 (1): 83-101.
Dolnicar, Sara, and Friedrich Leisch. (2014). Using Graphical
Statistics to Better Understand Market Segmentation Solutions.
International Journal of Market Research, 56 (2): 97-120.
Feighey, William. (2003). Negative Image? Developing the Visual
in Tourism Research. Current Issues in Tourism, 6 (1): 76-85.
Fitzgerald Bone, Paula. (1992). Determinants of Word-of-Mouth
Communications during Product Consumption. Advances in
Consumer Research, 19:579-83.
Fodness, Dale, and Brian Murray. (1997). Tourist Information
Search. Annals of Tourism Research, 24 (3): 503-23.
Ganglmair, Alexandra, and Ben Wooliscroft. (2001). K-Means vs.
Topology Representing Networks: Comparing Ease of Use for
Gaining Optimal Results with Reference to Data Input Order.
In Consumer Psychology of Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure,
Vol. 2, edited by Josef A. Mazanec, Geoffrey I. Crouch, J.
R. Brent Ritchie, and Arch G. Woodside. Wallingford, UK:
CABI, pp. 231-42.
Gitelson, Richard J., and John L. Crompton. (1983). The Planning
Horizons and Sources of Information Used by Pleasure
Vacationers. Journal of Travel Research, 21 (3): 2-7.
Goldsmith, Ronald E. (2006). Electronic Word-of-Mouth. In
Encyclopedia of E-Commerce, E-Government and Mobile
Commerce, edited by K.-P. Mehdi. Hershey: Idea Group, pp.
408-12.
Green, Paul E. (1977). A New Approach to Market Segmentation.
Business Horizons, 20 (1): 61-73.
Gretzel, Ulrike, and Kyung Hyan Yoo. (2008). Use and Impact of
Online Travel Reviews. In Information and Communication
Technologies in Tourism 2008, edited by Peter OConnor,
Wolfram Hpken, and Ulrike Gretzel. Wien: Springer, pp. 35-46.
Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten, Kevin P. Gwinner, Gianfranco Walsh,
and Dwayne D. Gremler. (2004). Electronic Word-ofMouth via Consumer-Opinion Platforms: What Motivates
Consumers to Articulate Themselves on the Internet? Journal
of Interactive Marketing, 18 (1): 38-52.
Holm, Sture. (1979). A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test
Procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6 (2): 65-70.
Hsieh, Sheauhsing, and Joseph T. OLeary. (1994). Communication
Channels to Segment Pleasure Travelers. Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing, 2 (2/3): 57-75.
Hubert, Lawrence, and Phipps Arabie. (1985). Comparing
Partitions. Journal of Classification, 2 (1): 193-218.
Ip, Crystal, Hee Lee, and Rob Law. (2012). Profiling the Users of
Travel Websites for Planning and Online Experience Sharing.
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 36 (3): 418-26.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Harbin Inst. of Technology on June 9, 2016

492

Journal of Travel Research 55(4)

Kampen, Jarl, and Mark Swyngedouw. (2000). The Ordinal

Controversy Revisited. Quality and Quantity, 34 (1): 87-102.
Lee, Geunhee, and Iis P. Tussyadiah. (2011). Textual and Visual
Information in eWOM: A Gap between Preferences in
Information Search and Diffusion. Information Technology &
Tourism, 12 (4): 351-61.
Leisch, Friedrich. (2006). A Toolbox for K-Centroids Cluster
Analysis. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 51 (2):
526-44.
Litvin, Stephen W., Ronald E. Goldsmith, and Bing Pan. (2008).
Electronic Word-of-Mouth in Hospitality and Tourism
Management. Tourism Management, 29 (3): 458-68.
Lo, Iris Sheungting, Bob McKercher, Ada Lo, Catherine Cheung,
and Rob Law. (2011). Tourism and Online Photography.
Tourism Management, 32 (4): 725-31.
Martinetz, Thomas, and Klaus Schulten. (1994). Topology
Representing Networks. Neural Networks, 7 (3): 507-22.
Mazanec, Josef A., Amata Ring, Brigitte Stangl, and Karin
Teichmann. (2010). Usage Patterns of Advanced Analytical
Methods in Tourism Research 19882008: A Six Journal
Survey. Information Technology and Tourism, 12 (1):
17-46.
Paivio, Allen. (1990). Mental Representations. A Dual-Coding
Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Milligan, Glenn W. (1980). An Examination of the Effect of Six
Types of Error Perturbation on Fifteen Clustering Algorithms.
Psychometrika, 45 (3): 325-42.
Munar, Ana Mara, and Jens Kr Steen Jacobsen. (2013). Trust and
Involvement in Tourism Social Media and Web-Based Travel
Information Sources. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality
and Tourism, 13 (1): 1-19.
Murphy, Laurie, Gianna Moscardo, and Pierre Benckendorff.
(2007). Exploring Word-of-Mouth Influences on Travel
Decisions: Friends and Relatives vs. Other Travellers.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31 (5): 517-27.
Murray, Keith B. (1991). A Test of Services Marketing Theory:
Consumer Information Acquisition Activities. Journal of
Marketing, 55 (January): 10-25.
Pan, Bing, Tanya MacLaurin, and John C. Crotts. (2007). Travel
Blogs and the Implications for Destination Marketing. Journal
of Travel Research, 46 (1): 35-45.
Rand, William M. (1971). Objective Criteria for the Evaluation
of Clustering Methods. Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 66 (336): 846-50.
R Core Team. (2013). R: A Language and Environment for
Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing,
Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/.
Schmallegger, Doris, and Dean Carson. (2008). Blogs in Tourism:
Changing Approaches to Information Exchange. Journal of
Vacation Marketing, 14 (2): 99-110.
Sderlund, Magnus, and Sara Rosengren. (2007). Receiving
Word-of-Mouth from the Service Customer: An EmotionBased Effectiveness Assessment. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 14 (2): 123-36.
Sparks, Beverley, and Victoria Browning. (2011). The Impact of
Online Reviews on Hotel Booking Intentions and Perception of
Trust. Tourism Management, 32 (6): 2011.
Steinley, Douglas. (2004). Properties of the Hubert-Arabie
Adjusted Rand Index. Psychological Methods, 9 (3): 386-96.

Steinley, Douglas, and Michael J. Brusco. (2008). Selection of

Variables in Cluster Analysis: An Empirical Comparison of
Eight Procedures. Psychometrika, 73 (1): 125-44.
Stepchenkova, Svetlana, and Fangzi Zhan. (2013). Visual
Destination Images of Peru: Comparative Content Analysis
of DMO and User-Generated Photography. Tourism
Management, 36 (June): 590-601.
Sun, Tao, Seounmi Youn, Guohua Wu, and Mana Kuntaraporn.
(2006). Online Word-of-Mouth (or Mouse): An Exploration
of Its Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 11 (4): 1104-27.
Sweeney, Jilian C., Geoffrey N. Soutar, and Tim Mazzarol.
(2012). Word of Mouth: Measuring the Power of Individual
Messages. European Journal of Marketing, 46 (1/2): 237-57.
Tan, Wee-Kheng, and Chia-Yen Tang. (2013). Does Personality
Predict Tourism Information Search and Feedback Behaviour?
Current Issues in Tourism, 16 (4): 388-406.
Tham, Aaron, Glen Croy, and Judith Mair. (2013). Social Media
in Destination Choice: Distinctive Electronic Word-of-Mouth
Dimensions. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 30
(1/2): 144-55.
Tourism Research Australia. (2009). Activities Fact Sheet.
http://www.ret.gov.au/tourism/Documents/tra/Snapshots%20
and%20Factsheets/Activities_factsheet_FINAL.pdf (accessed
June 24, 2013).
Venables, W. N., and B. D. Ripley. (2002). Modern Applied
Statistics with S (Statistics and Computing), 4th edition. New
York: Springer.
Vermeulen, Ivar E., and Daphne Seegers. (2009). Tried and
Tested: The Impact of Online Hotel Reviews on Consumer
Consideration. Tourism Management, 30 (1): 123-27.
Westbrook, Robert A. (1987). Product/Consumption-Based
Affective Responses and Postpurchase Processes. Journal of
Marketing Research, 24 (3): 258-70.
Whyte Jr., William H. (1954). The Web of Word of Mouth.
Fortune, 50 (November): 140-43.
Zehrer, Anita, John C. Crotts, and Vincent P. Magnini. (2011).
The Perceived Usefulness of Blog Postings: An Extension
of the Expectancy-Disconfirmation Paradigm. Tourism
Management, 32 (1): 106-13.

Author Biographies
Amata Ring is a Research Fellow at the University of Queensland.
She has undertaken her doctoral studies at the Vienna University of
Economics and Business in Austria. Her research interests are tourism and international marketing, specifically market segmentation
and heterogeneity within consumer perceptions.
Aaron Tkaczynski is a lecturer in tourism and events at the
University of Queensland. Dr Tkaczynskis research interests center
on destination market segmentation, seasonality, and events tourism.
Sara Dolnicar holds degrees in Psychology and Business
Administration. She is a Research Professor in Tourism at the
University of Queensland. Saras key research areas are market segmentation methodology measurement in the social sciences. She has
applied her work mainly to tourism, but also a range of social marketing topics (environmental volunteering, foster care and public acceptance of water alternatives).

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Harbin Inst. of Technology on June 9, 2016