371

Evaluation of Emerging Technologies in Tourism: The

Case of Travel Search Engines
Young A Park
Ulrike Gretzel

Laboratory for Intelligent Systems in Tourism

Department of Recreation, Park, and Tourism Sciences
Texas A&M University, USA
{yapark, ugretzel} @tamu.edu

Abstract
Travel search engines arc a new breed of technology that has the potential to significantly
change the online travel distribution landscape. Using innovation diffusion and technology
acceptance models as the theoretical foundation, the paper presents a research framework to
evaluate such newly emerging technologies without relying on individuals' previous exposure
to or familiarity with the technology to be evaluated. Perceived usefulness, complexity, trust
(reliability and intentions) and subjective norm emerged as reliable constructs; however, only
the first three factors were found to have a significant influence on individuals' willingness to
adopt and/or recommend travel search engines. Limitations of the research framework are
discussed and implications for future research arc presented.
Keywords: technology adoption; technology evaluation; travel search engines.
1 Introduction
Recent developments in information technologies are bringing new opportunities to
travel and tourism businesses. In particular, how organizations distribute their tourism
products to consumers may change yet again as new travel search engines (TSEs)
debut. TSEs depict themselves as one-stop shops that provide a transparent window
into tourism product pricing. Their competitive advantage over online travel booking
Web sites like Expedia and Travelocity lies in their ability to conduct "meta-searches"
that span across multiple distributors. Such advances in tourism search technology
provide an edge in the tourism market since the average consumer currently checks
three to four websites before making a purchase (JupiterResearch, 2005). Consumers
are looking for an easier way to find the best travel deals, and TSEs promise to
provide effective support. However, not everyone is convinced that TSEs are bound
for success. Although they offer convenient features, TSEs still have not proven that
they will be compelling enough to overcome the higher name recognition and deeper
pockets of established online travel agencies (Eyefortravel, 2005a). Also, research
conducted by JupiterResearch (2005) indicates that consumers actually feel
empowered by online travel searches. Thus, consumers might not see a real advantage
in using TSEs as they would still have to search several Web sites on their own in
order to reach the same level of gratification.
There seems to be a clear need to evaluate the competitiveness of TSEs as new sites
are being developed and existing providers seek to expand their foothold in the
372

market. The challenge in evaluating emerging technologies in travel and tourism lies
in creating a research framework that can be applied to the context of a new intangible
offering. Existing technology adoption research in tourism has either focused on the
evaluation of technologies that had already been adopted or tried in a different context
(Christou & Kassianidis, 2002; O'Connor & Murphy, 2004) or focused largely on
usability concerns when exposing consumers to new technologies (Zins et al., 2004).
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to present and test a research design that seeks
to adapt existing approaches to the context of consumers' adoption of emerging travel
technologies.

2 Background
2.1 Travel Search Engines
Travel search engines allow consumers to conduct meta-searches of several online
travel booking sites. TSEs apply sophisticated search engine technology, thus giving
users a wider range of options and greater price transparency. TSEs are thought of as
more consumer-friendly than other online booking web sites because they crawl the
Web sites of travel suppliers more frequently, consequently generating an even
broader array of choices (Eyefortravel, 2005b). After a selection is made from the
search results, TSEs send users directly to the supplier's Web site to complete the
purchase. Thus, TSEs are moving up the value chain by offering travelers a one-stop
search model, enriched content, and user-friendly interfaces.
Sidestep has emerged as the leading TSE, followed by Cheapflights. Other main
players include Kayak, Yahoo! Farechase, Mobissimo and Qixo (Eyefortravel,
2005a). However, the TSE market is currently small and does not yet have a
significant impact on the online tourism industry. As of mid-November 2004, the top
six travel search engines held only a combined 0.42 percent share of all traffic to
online travel sites. In contrast, Expedia, Travelocity, and Orbitz held a combined 16
percent share of online travel traffic for the same time period (EyeforTravel, 2005a).
However, TSEs have a high possibility to directly impact existing revenue models in
the online tourism industry because tourism suppliers consider TSEs a new marketing
tool that drives traffic to their own websites (Eyefortravel, 2005a). The market share
of visits to four of the major TSEs has tripled from October 2004 to April 2005
whereas visits to the top five travel agency sites (Expedia, Travelocity, Orbitz,
Yahoot Travel and CheapTickets) increased by only 11 percent (Hitwise, 2005).
Hitwise further reports that visitors to top travel search engines are more likely to be
older, with Mobissimo attracting the largest number of visitors over the age of 55 (25
percent of total visitors). It is expected that as Baby Boomers retire and have more
leisure time, this price-conscious group will become a powerful driver of traffic to
travel meta-search engines (Hitwise, 2005). Nevertheless, the low market share
numbers suggest that awareness of TSEs among consumers is low and that more
widespread adoption has yet to occur.
 373

2.2 Theories of IT Adoption: Innovation Diffusion Theory & Technology

Acceptance Models
The main concern of Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT) is explaining how
innovations are adopted and why certain innovations are adopted at different rates.
Five characteristics of innovations have been identified by IDT research as affecting
the rate of diffusion: 1) Relative Advantage; 2) Compatibility; 3) Complexity; 4)
Observability; and, 5): Triability (Rogers, 1995). Specific descriptions of the five
determinants are provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Rogers' Five Determinants of Technology Diffusion (Rogers, 1995)
The degree to which an innovation is perceived as being better
Relative Advantage
than its precursor.
The degree to which in an innovation is perceived as being
Compatibility consistent with the existing values, needs, and past experiences
of potential adopters.
The degree to which in an innovation is perceived as being
Complexity
difficult to use.
The degree to which the results of an innovation are observable
Observability
to others.
The degree to which an innovation may be experimented with
Triability
before adoption.
The other important theoretical foundation of technology adoption is the Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989). TAM is one of the most influential
extensions of Ajzen and Fishbein's (1975) theory of reasoned action and specifies two
key constructs that influence users' attitudes, intentions, and behaviors related to
technology adoption and use (Lippert & Forman, 2005). These two key influence
factors are: 1) Perceived Usefulness; and, 2) Perceived Ease of Use (Davis, Bagozzi,
& Warsaw, 1989) (see Table 2).
Table 2. Determinants of Technology Acceptance (Davis et al., 1989)

The degree to which an individual believes that using a

Perceived Usefulness
particular system would enhance his or her job performance.
The degree to which an individual believes that using a
Perceived Ease of Use
particular system would be free of physical and mental effort.

Later Venkatesh and Davis (2000) extended the original TAM model to account for
social influence (subjective norm, voluntariness, and image) in the adoption and
utilization of new information systems. In an attempt to integrate the main
competing user acceptance models, Venkatesh, Morris, and Davis (2003) formulated
the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). The UTAUT
was formulated with four core determinants of intentions and usage: 1) Performance
Expectancy; 2) Effort Expectancy; 3) Social Influence; and, 4) Facilitating Conditions.
It is argued that both approaches are very similar in the theoretical constructs used to
determine a user's likelihood to adopt a technology. Perceived Usefulness seems to
map onto Relative Advantage, and Perceived Ease of Use clearly measures the same
374

as the Complexity construct employed in IDT models. Both theoretical frameworks

also include a social dimension and Trialability could be subsumed under the
Facilitating Conditions construct included in the UTAUT model. The main
difference appears to be TAM's focus on a specific technology whereas IDT
recognizes the importance of establishing a technology's likelihood to be adopted in
relation to comparable existing technologies. Since new travel technologies enter a
market in which certain channels and respective technologies already exist, it is
suggested that a mixed model that takes both IDT and TAM propositions into account
will be most suitable for evaluating emerging technologies in the field of travel and
tourism.

2.3 A Modified Model to Evaluate Emerging Travel Technologies

Relative advantage and perceived usefulness have been found to be strong predictors
of individuals' acceptance of technology (Moore & Benbasat, 1991; Venkatesh et al.,
2003). The same is true for complexity/ease of use/effort expectancy (Thompson,
Higgins, & Howell, 1991). Although compatibility has not been included in most of
the TAM-based studies, task fit has been proposed as a possible influence factor and
can be subsumed under the Performance Expectancy construct proposed by UTAUT
(Venkatesh et al., 2003). Literature on brand loyalty and switching also suggests that a
clear intrinsic or extrinsic motivation has to be present before a new product is adop-
ted as a substitute for an existing brand choice (Chintagunta, 1993). Relative advan-
tage and compatibility can be seen as factors that provide intrinsic motivation, while
social influence serves as an extrinsically motivating factor. Since the use of travel
booking technology is typically not observable to others, it is suggested that the Subj-
ective Norm construct arising from the TAM literature provides a more suitable mea-
sure in the context of this study than the Observability construct proposed by IDT.
Subjective norm refers to an individual's belief that a salient referent thinks a behavior
should be performed (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). It has been found to be especially in-
fluential in the early stages of technology use when users have limited direct expe-
rience from which to develop attitudes (Hartwick & Barki, 1994; Taylor & Todd,
1995).
Trialability seems to be rather unimportant in the context of emerging travel
technologies as they typically do not require upfront investments and are easily acces-
sible online. However, perceived risk associated with a technology has been iden-
tified as an important factor determining technology adoption (Christou et al., 2004).
In general, trust has been proposed as a critical construct in online environments due
to higher perceived risks and greater uncertainties compared to "bricks-and-mortar"
settings (Reichheld & Scheffer, 2000; Gefen, 2000). Jarvenpaa, Tractinsky, and Vitale
(2000) conceptualize trust as a belief in integrity, benevolence, and ability. Similarly,
McKnight, Choudhury, & Kacmar (2002) define it as specific beliefs in competence,
integrity, and benevolence that lead to trusting intentions. Recently, Gefen, Kara-
hanna, & Straub (2003) proved that trust is an important construct along with per-
ceived usefulness and ease of use in determining the adoption of a technology and is a
primary reason for why customers return to Web sites. Taking these considerations
into account, a modified model to evaluate emerging travel technologies is proposed
and includes the following dimensions: 1) Relative Advantage; 2)Compatibility; 3)
Complexity; 4) Trust; and, 5) Subjective Norm (see Table 3).
 375

Table 3. Proposed Determinants of Travel Technology Adoption

The degree to which an innovation is perceived as being more
Relative Advantage
useful than other available technologies.

Compatibility The degree to which in an innovation is perceived as being

suitable for accomplishing one's task.
The degree to which in an innovation is perceived as being
Complexity
difficult to use.
The degree to which an innovation is perceived as reliable and
Trust
benevolent.
The degree to which socially influential individuals think the
Subjective Norm
technology should be adopted and used.

I RelativeAdvantage ]
I
[ Compatibility [ Willingness to Adopt [

[ Complexity I

[ Trust ] Willingness to Recommend

[ SubjectiveNorm ......]

Fig 1. Proposed Model of Influences on Travel Technology Adoption

In the case of new technologies that have not yet been introduced or widely adopted,
the focus of evaluation naturally has to be on behavioral intentions rather than actual
behavior. Importantly, the UTAUT model shows that IT usage is driven by
behavioral intentions (Venkatesh et al., 2003), thus stressing the value of including
intentions to adopt a technology into a general evaluation framework. However, it
seems that intentions to use might not always be appropriate in the travel context
where product consumption does not occur on a regular basis. Also, word of mouth
has been found to influence diffusion of innovations (Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1964) as
well as perceptions of products and speed of adoption (Sultan, Farley, & Lehmann,
1990). Consequently, willingness to recommend the technology is proposed as a
second dependent variable in the model. Relative Advantage, Compatibility, Trust
and Subjective Norm are assumed to have a positive impact on an individual's
willingness to adopt and recommend a new travel technology, whereas the
relationship is negative for the Complexity construct (Figure 1).

3 Methodology
Since the goal was to evaluate a technology that is not yet widely known, a research
framework was designed that could tackle this issue. Subjects were invited to a
laboratory in July and August 2005 and were asked to sit down in front of a computer.
First, the subjects completed a questionnaire which asked questions about their travel
376

experience and opinions as well as awareness regarding online travel booking sites.
Second, the subjects were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions
and provided with instructions that asked them to complete a simple travel planning
task, i.e. finding the best deal for a flight and two-night hotel stay in Las Vegas
September 12-14, 2005. Each subject was asked to explore two travel search engine
Web sites (either SideStep and Kayak or SideStep and Mobissimo) and two online
tourism booking Web sites (Expedia and Travelocity for both conditions). Sidestep,
Kayak, and Mobissimo were selected because they had been evaluated as the top
TSEs (EyeforTravel, 2005). Expedia and Travelocity were selected as
representatives of online travel booking Web sites because of their prominence in the
market. It was deemed necessary to expose subjects to both types of Web sites to
make comparisons in terms of relative advantage possible. Subjects were explicitly
told that they could not use any other Web site for their travel planning task. After
writing down the best deal found, subjects completed a post-test questionnaire to
evaluate TSEs in comparison to the online booking web sites.
3.1 Subjects
The sample consisted of graduate students at a U.S. university. The subjects were
personally contacted via email and asked to participate in a study about travel
planning. Such a convenience sample was deemed appropriate as the purpose of this
research was to test properties of evaluation scales rather than to generalize f'mdings
about TSE evaluations to a general traveling public.
3.2 Survey Instrument
The study included two separate surveys, one administered before and one after the
completion of the task. The pre-task survey asked subjects to rate their travel
experience and to indicate their awareness and previous experience with different
travel search engines and online travel booking Web sites. The post-task survey
instrument included a total of 25 items to measure the five influence factors and the
two dependent variables. The 4-item Relative Advantage, the 3-item Compatibility
and the 4-item Complexity scale were adapted from Venkatesh et al. (2003). The
7-item Trust scale was adapted from Gefen et al. (2003) and Delgado-Ballester (2004).
Subjective Norm was measured using three items adapted from Venkatesh and Davis
(2000). The Willingness to Adopt construct included two items that had been
modeled after the behavioral intentions questions in Venkatesh et al. (2003). For
Willingness to Recommend, the word "use" was simply replaced with "recommend".
All questions were measured using a scale ranging from 1-Strongly Disagree to
7-Strongly Agree. Also, subjects were asked to indicate on a 7-point scale how
different they thought TSEs were in comparison to online travel agency W e b sites.
In addition, the survey asked respondents to describe the two TSEs and two travel
agency Web sites they had been exposed to using a list of 12 words (unbiased,
efficient, money saving, fun, innovative, comprehensive, trustworthy, time saving,
helpful, reliable, familiar, complex) that had been selected based on the meaning of
the five influence factors.
3.3 Analysis
The data was analyzed using descriptive and multivariate statistics. The reliability
 377

of the scales was measured using Cronbach Alpha. The uni-dimensionality of the
constructs was tested using factor analyses with principal components as the
extraction method and Varimax rotation.

4 Results
4.1 Profile of Subjects
A total of 50 subjects participated in the study. The average age of the respondents
was 33, with ages ranging from 24 to 54. Half of the respondents were male and
half were female. All subjects indicated they had at least intermediate Internet use
skills. More than half of the subjects stated that they had taken more than three trips
during the past two years. Few of the respondents had previously heard of or used
TSEs (Table 4). This confirms that a methodology different from the typical survey
questionnaire was necessary to obtain information about the competitiveness of TSEs
with respect to their likelihood of being adopted.
Table 4. Familiarity with Travel Booking Web sites
. . . . . .

Have heard/Have used

Travel website . . . . .
Percent Travel website Percent
Expedia 92% CheapFlights 28%
Travelocity 88% SideStep 10%
Priceline 86% ........... Kayak 6%
Orbitz 78% Vacation to go 4%
Yahoo Travel 56% FareChase 4%
Hotwire 54% . . . . .
Qixo 2%
........ CheapTickets 52% Mobissimo 2%

4.2 Scale Development

No significant differences were found between evaluations of subjects who had
looked at Sidestep and Kayak versus Sidestep and Mobissimo. Thus, data from both
conditions were combined. Cronbach Alpha scores were computed to assess the
reliability of the constructs. The Alpha scores ranged from 0.83 to 0.95, thus
indicating that the reliability was very high. Factor analyses were conducted to test
whether the constructs were also uni-dimensional. The results indicated that the
Trust construct was comprised of two dimensions that signified reliability and
intentions. Existing trust research supports this finding (Delgado-Ballester, 2004).
The Trust scale was therefore split into two separate constructs. Both subscales have
excellent measurement properties (Table 5).

The factor analyses indicated relatively low factor loadings for the "Using TSEs
involves less time doing 'mechanical' operations" item in the Complexity construct
and for the "TSEs' visual appearance better fits my style" item in the Compatibility
construct. The Alpha statistics also showed that the reliability of the scales could be
increased if the items were excluded. An exploratory factor analysis with all items
for Relative Advantage, Compatibility, and Complexity revealed that the items should
be assigned to different factors. Apparently, having to do less mechanical operations
such as clicking and sorting is a matter of perceived relative advantage rather than a
question of complexity. On the other hand, a Web site's visual appearance and its fit
378

T a b l e 5. M e a s u r e m e n t Properties o f Scales for I n d e p e n d e n t C o n s t r u c t s

Construct Name & Items Factor Eigen Variance

Loadin~s Value Expl. Alpha
Perceived Usefulness . . . . . . . . . .
......................................................................................................................................................... 4 45 6 3.51 o'A " 0.90
- Using TSEs makes travel planning e ~ i e r ......................................................i87 ....................................................................................................................................
- TSE fit better with the way I like to plan trips .87
- TSEs better provide what I need to accomplish
my planning task. .83
- TSEs enable me to accomolish my travel .82
planning tasks more quickly.
- I feel that using TSEs would help me save more .78
money.
- TSEs give me greater confidence that I found the
best deal .70
- Using TSEs involves less time doing
'mechanical' operations (such as clicking, .68
in ~.........................
...........~ P ........ , sortin .g_,............................................................................................................................................................
.etc) ..................................................................................................................................
......C.o...m....p...!~!.tr.. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ~...9...7 ................ .74.34.,.°../...... ..................0......8...8...........
- Working with TSE is less complicated. .94
- TSEs take less time to learn how to use. .88
- TSEs are less difficult to understand. .84
......:...TS...ZXv.!.su.a.!..a.p..p..~.~c.e D..u...er .~ts..m~...stz!.e... ......................................... ..79. ....................................................................................................................................
Social Norms 2.71 90.20% 0.95
..... :~eopie-wi~o~e-impo~iio'"me-wiii~i~~n-i~ii~a~i ............................................................................................................................................................................
should rather use TSEs. .96
- People whose opinions I value will think I
should rather use TSEs. .95
- People who influence my behavior will think that
I should rather use TSEs. .94
..... ~..r..u..s..t.....L{...R....e.,!.!..a.,..b!!.!..t~). .............................................................................................................................................................................2.40 .................79....6..6..0../0 .................9.-87. ........
- TSEs better meet my expectations. .94
- TSEs are less likely to disappoint me. .87
......-..I..{ee!....g.re.a..t.er...c.o..,n.~.~,e.nce.. whe,n....,,u,.s!,,n,.g..,TS,,,E..,s,.: ..................................................80. ....................................................................................................................................
......~..r.gs.t..Lgn...t..e...nt.!o.ns.). ..............................................................................................................................................................................~.-D ................ .7..3...44.D ................ 0...8_8.. ........
- TSEs guarantee more satisfaction. .87
- TSEs are more honest and sincere in addressing .86
my concerns.
- I can rely more on TSEs to solve problems if
.86
they emerge.
- I believe that TSEs make a greater effort to
.84
..... satisfy me. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

with one's p e r s o n a l style appears to be seen as s o m e t h i n g that r e d u c e s the c o m p l e x i t y

o f using the system. This could be a question o f cognitive style, w h i c h has b e e n
s u g g e s t e d as an i m p o r t a n t factor to consider for Website usability (Zins, 2003;
R u m e t s h o f e r , P u h r e t m a i r & WOB, 2003). In addition, R e l a t i v e A d v a n t a g e and
C o m p a t i b i l i t y e m e r g e d as one u n i - d i m e n s i o n a l construct. It s e e m s that the
t e c h n o l o g y ' s c o m p a t i b i l i t y is e v a l u a t e d as a relative a d v a n t a g e . In general, the items
included s e e m to be better s u m m a r i z e d under the T A M t e r m " P e r c e i v e d U s e f u l n e s s " .

The four items u s e d to m e a s u r e Willingness to A d o p t and W i l l i n g n e s s to R e c o m m e n d

 379

were highly correlated and tests of reliability as well as the results of a factor analysis
suggested that the two dependent constructs should be combined into one (Table 6).
No changes were necessary for the Subjective Norm construct. All resulting
modified scales show improved reliability scores and high factor loadings and can be
assumed to constitute a highly reliable measurement instrument.
Table 6. Measurement Properties of Scale for Dependent Construct
Factor Eigen Variance
Construct Name & Items
Loadings...........Value Expl. Alpha
Willingness to Recommend and Adopt 3.09 90.20% 0.90
- I am more likely to recommend TSEs to
people I care about. .90
- I plan to use TSEs rather than other online 88
booking web sites in the near future.
- I am more likely to use TSEs the next time I
have to plan a trip. .87
- I plan to recommend TSEs rather than other
online booking web sites if someone asks for .86
my opinion.

Perceived Usefulness

Complexity

.[...........
5 4 1 ' * ~ ~ ~ Willingness to Adopt
Reliability
.. & Recommend
.321'* ..............
Intentions
.° .f°...'°"°°'°"°
.°.°.°"
Subjective Norm

** significant at the 0.01 level

Fig 2. Determinants of Willingness to Adopt & Recommend
A linear regression model was run to examine the influence of the five constructs on
subjects' willingness to adopt and recommend TSEs. The result was significant and
the included constructs explained 77% of the variance of the dependent variable.
Looking at the specific relationships (Figure 2), Reliability emerged as the most
influential factor; however, Perceived Usefulness and Intention also have a significant
impact on the dependent construct. The relationship of Complexity with Willingness
to Adopt and Recommend was, as expected, negative and not as dominant as one
could imply from the emphasis that has been placed on usability concerns in previous
research. Interestingly, no significant relationship was found for Subjective Norm.
380

It seems that travel technologies such as TSEs are consumed in private, making it less
important to consider what other people would think.
Since the technology adoption literature suggests that individuals need to perceive a
clear advantage of one technology over the other, subjects were asked to rate their
perceptions of the difference between TSEs and online travel agency Web sites (1-Not
at all different; 7-Extremely different). The mean rating was 3.94, which indicates
that the two were perceived as being rather similar. Subjects were also asked to
describe each of the four Web sites by choosing from a list of 12 words (Table 7).
Table 7. Top 3 Words Used to Describe Travel Booking Web Sites

Travel Websites Top 3 Words % of Respondents

Money saving 62%
SideStep Efficient 56%
Helpful 56%
Unbiased 48%
Kayak Efficient 48%
T!m.e,savi.ng, 44%
Money saving 44%
Mobissimo Efficient 40%
Helpful ..... 38%
Familiar 58%
Expedia Trustworthy 52%
Reliable 50%
Familiar 56%
Travelocity Efficient 52%
Helpful 50%
The results indicate that TSEs are described using mostly words that hint at their
usefulness whereas Expedia scores high on trust related words. Although the
specific results are not generalizable, this finding indicates that the word assignment
task could be useful in providing additional input to evaluate potential strengths and
weaknesses of the technology or Web site to be evaluated. The mean scores for the
model constructs confirm that TSEs score higher on the usefulness dimension than the
trust dimensions, with means of 5.4 for Perceived Usefulness, 4.7 for Reliability, and
4.9 for Intention. Since trust appears to be a strong influence factor, such a result
demonstrates that emerging travel technologies will have to invest more in building
trust in order to be able to challenge established players.

5 Conclusion
The study results suggest that the questions used were appropriately adapted to the
context of travel technology evaluation and that the research framework provides a
useful tool to evaluate a travel technology's likelihood to be adopted. However, the
most significant limitation of an experimental approach is clearly the restrictions it
imposes on sample size. One goal of the current study was to design the research
framework that could be easily transferred to the Web and administered to a larger
sample. The next step in the research process will indeed be a general population
survey using a Web-based version of the research framework. This will bring with it
 381

a loss of control that will have to be minimized, e.g. by tracking subjects' time spent
on the planning task.
With increases in user skills and improvements in Web design standards, usability
seems to become more a hygiene factor than a driver of technology adoption (Kim &
Fesenmaier, 2005). The study results confirm this trend by showing that complexity
is a barrier to adoption and use, but definitely not the most important factor. On the
other hand, trust has emerged as a heavily studied subject in relation to Web site use
(Gefen, 2000) and the findings confirm that including trust can provide important
insights into technology adoption dynamics.

References

Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1975). Belief attitude, intention and behaviour: an introduction to
theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Christou, E., Avdimiotis, S., Kassianidis, P. & M. Sigala (2004). Examining the Factors
Influencing the Adoption of Web-Based Ticketing: Etix and its Adopters. information
and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2004, pp. 129-138. Vienna, Austria:
Springer.
Christou, E. & P. Kassianidis (2002). Examining the Adoption of E-Shopping for Travel
Services: Determinants of Consumers' Perceptions. Information and Communication
Technologies in Tourism 2002, pp. 187-196. Vienna, Austria: Springer.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., & Warshaw, P.R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a
comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35, 982-1003.
Delgado-Ballester, E. (2004). Applicability of a brand trust scale across product categories: a
multigroup invariance analysis. European Journal of Marketing, 38(5/6), 573-592.
EyeforTravel (2005a). A strategic analysis of the travel search engine (TSE) market. Retrieved
from http://www.eyefortravel.com/reports.asp; Accessed September 2, 2005.
EyeforTravel (2005b). The ultimate travel search engine. Retrieved from
http://www.eyefortravel.com/index.asp?news=45463; Accessed August 4, 2005.
Gefen, D. (2000). E-commerce: the role of familiarity and trust. Omega, 28 (6), 725-737.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: an
integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 51-90.
Hartwick, J. & Barki, H. (1994). Explaining the role of user participation in information system
use. Management Science, 40(4), 440-465.
Hitwise (2005). Travel Search Engines Rapid Rise Poses Threat to Travel Agencies. Accessed
at: http://www.hitwise.com/info/news/hitwiseHS2004/travel_search.html, September
4, 2005.
Jarvenpaa, S.L., Tractinsky, N., & Vitale, M. (2000). Consumer trust in an Intemet store.
Information Technology and Management, (1), 45-71.
Jupiter Research (2005). Online travel providers should continue to invest in tools. Retrieved
from http://www.jupitermedia.com/corporate/releases/05.07.27-newjupresearch.html
Accessed online" August 25, 2005.
Katz, E. & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1964). Personal influence: the part played by people in the flow of
mass communication. New York: The Free Press.
Kim, S.-E. & D. R. Fesenmaier (2005). Persuasive Designs of Tourism Web Sites in the United
States. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference, Travel and Tourism Research
Association, pp. 17-21. New Orleans, LA, June 12-15, 2005.
Lippert, S.K. & Forman, H. (2005). Utilization of information technology: examining cognitive
382

McKnight, D.H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and validating trust
measures for E-commerce: an integrative typology. Information Systems Research,
13(3), 334-359.
Moore, GC. & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions
of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research,
2(3), 192-222.
O'Connor, E & Murphy, J. (2004). Research on information technology in the hospitality
industry, Hospitality Management, 23, 473-484.
Reichheld, F.E & Schefter, P. (2000). E-loyalty: your secret weapon on the web. Harvard
Business Review, 78(4), 105-113.
Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.) New York: The Free Press.
Rumetshofer, H., PUhretmair, F. & W. W68 (2003). Individual information presentation based
on cognitive styles for tourism information systems. Information and Communication
Technologies in Tourism 2003, p440-447. Vienna, Austria: Springer.
Sultan, E, Farley, J.U., & Lehmann, D.R. (1990). A rneta-analysis of applications of diffusion
models. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(1), 70-77.
Taylor, S. & Todd, EA. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: a test of
competing Models. Information Systems Research, 6(4), 144-176.
Thompson, R.L., Higgins, C.A., & Howell, J.M. (1991). Personal computing: toward a
conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 124-143.
Venkatesh, v. & Davis, F.D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model:
four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.Ct, Davix, GB., & Davis, ED. (2003). User acceptance of information
technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
Zins, A.H. (2003) Adapting to cognitive styles to improve the usability of travel
recommendation systems. Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism
2003, p289-297.
Zins, A.H., Bauernfeind, U., Del Missier, F., Venturini, A. & H. Rumetshofer (2004). An
Experimental Usability Test for Different Destination Recommender Systems.
Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2004, pp. 228-238.
Vienna, Austria: Springer.