Measures

1. Measures In total 12 constructs are employed in the study, and some of them are constructed based on the pilot study – focus group interviews.

2. Appendix – ‘Market Maven’ scale Reference: Feick, L. F., & Price, L. L. (1987). The market maven: A diffuser of marketplace information. The Journal of Marketing, 83-97.

3. Appendix – ‘Market Maven’ scale Reference: Vazifehdoost, H., Akbari, M., & Charsted, P. (2012). The Role of Psychological Traits in Market Mavensim Using Big Five Model. International Journal of Management and Business Research, 2(3), 243-252.

4. Appendix – ‘Past Experience’ scale Reference: Huang, S. S., & Hsu, C. H. (2009). Effects of travel motivation, past experience, perceived constraint, and attitude on revisit intention. Journal of Travel Research. In this study, past travel experience was operationalized as 2 separate constructs, namely past visitation and overall satisfaction o f past experience. Past visitation was measured by asking respondents how many times they had visited Hong Kong (see Appendix 1A, Section VI). Satisfaction is an important concept that has attracted the attention o f many researchers. It has usually been measured directly by a single-item scale ranging from “very unsatisfied” to “very satisfied” (Cronin & Taylor, 1992). However, Baker and Crompton (2000) argued that a multi-item scale for measuring satisfaction might be more effective. In their study to evaluate the relationships among quality, satisfaction, and behavioral intention, Baker and Crompton (2000) adopted a 4-item, 9-point semantic differential scale to measure overall satisfaction. The 4 sets o f bi-polar terms were dissatisfied/satisfied, displeased/pleased, unfavorable/favorable, and negative/positive. Thus, a revised version o f the scale developed by Tomas et al. (2002) was adopted to measure overall satisfaction on past experience. A 7-point Likert-type scale, instead o f a semantic differential format scale, was used. Respondents were asked to evaluate past visitation to Hong Kong by indicating the degree o f agreement on 4 statements.

5. Appendix – ‘Online Transactional Self-efficacy’ scale Reference: Kim, Y. H., & Kim, D. J. (2011). Does Self-Efficacy Matter?: Examining Online Transaction Self-Efficacy and General Self-Efficacy in B2C E-Commerce. The scale of online transactional self-efficacy is measured by four items from the previous study (Kim & Kim, 2005): (1) I am confident that I can obtain relevant information through online sources (e.g., online discussion groups, reputation sites, etc.) on the web vendors from whom I am planning to make online purchases, (2) I am confident that I am usually able to purchase exactly the item that I want from web vendors, (3) I am confident that in case my order does not come through in a satisfactory manner, I am able to take care of the problem(s) on my own, and (4) I am confident that I am able to find a trustworthy web vendor based on ratings (e.g., the number of the stars or the smiley faces) provided by other consumers.

6. Appendix – ‘Facebook Activities’ Survey Questions Reference: Retrieved in http://blog.reyjunco.com/facebook-frequency-of-use-and-activities-survey-questions

7. Appendix – ‘Three Basic Needs Scales’ Survey Questions

8. Appendix – ‘Amotivation’ scale Ratelle, C. F., Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., Larose, S., & Senécal, C. (2007). Autonomous, controlled, and amotivated types of academic motivation: A person-oriented analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 734.