Dataset for understanding why people share their travel experiences on social media: Structural equation model analysis.

The data presented in this article relates to the individual intrinsic and extrinsic motivations to share travel experience in social media. The 381 records were gathered in Portugal using an online survey. A statistical analysis of the data was carried out using partial least squares (PLS). This dataset shows a relationship between identification, internalization, and compliance to perceived enjoyment, and also, between perceived enjoyment, altruistic motivations, personal fulfillment, and self-actualization as well as security and privacy reasons to actual travel experience sharing. For further findings and interpretation, please refer to the research article entitled “Why do people share their travel experiences on social media?” [1]. We suggest the use of this data to compare with data collected by other researchers to develop cross-country analyses based on the model proposed by Oliveira, Araujo, and Tam [1].

Tourism, Leisure, and Hospitality Management Specific subject area Sharing tourism experiences through social media Type of data

Data
The data file spreadsheet accompanying this article consists of 381 rows and 32 columns of data. Each row represents an individual's response to a questionnaire. A seven-point range scale was used to allow the respondents to indicate how much they agree or disagree with a particular statement, so a numerical value in the data file means the respondent level of agreement, with 1 being "strongly disagree" and 7 being "strongly agree". Our demographic data indicated that of the 381 respondents, 251 (66%) are female. Regarding age, 120 (31%) of the respondents are under 24 years, 184 (48%) of the respondents are between 25 and 44 years, and the rest (77 respondents) are above 44 years. Regarding the highest level of education completed, the majority of respondents are undergraduate 208 (55%), followed by masters' degree 121 (32%).
Each questionnaire item in the columns was given a label, as shown in the first row. Iden is the short form for identification; Inter for internalization; Comp for compliance; Pjoy for perceived enjoyment; AS for actual travel experience sharing; AM for altruistic motivations; PF for personal fulfilment and self-actualization; ER for environmental reasons; PR for personal reasons; RR for relationship reasons; and SR for security and privacy reasons. After filtering the data and the application of the measurement model, three items of identification remained for the structural equation modelling analysis: Iden1, Iden2 and Iden3; three items of internalization: Inter1, Inter2 and Inter3; three items of compliance: Comp1, Comp2 and Comp3; three items of Perceived enjoyment: Pjoy1, Pjoy2 and Pjoy3; three items of actual travel experience sharing: AS1, AS2 and AS3; three items of altruistic motivations: AM1, AM2 and AM3; three items Table 1 The data file items.

Constructs
Items remaining after measurement model  of personal fulfilment and self-actualization: PF1, PF2 and PF3; two items of environmental reasons: ER2 and ER3; three items of personal reasons: PR1, PR3 and PR4; two items of relationship reasons: RR2 and RR3; and three items of security and privacy reasons: SR1, SR2 and SR3 (see Table 1 below).

Experimental design, materials, and methods
We gathered the data using an online survey through Google forms. We tested our framework by submitting a survey through Facebook between June 2017 and July 2017. The participants of  We assessed the composite reliability criterion to verify the internal consistency. The values in Table 2 showed scores greater than 0.7 [3 , 4] . The average variance extracted (AVE) was evaluated based on Table 2 ; all items presented values above 0.5 [5] . Discriminate validity was validated based on three criteria: Fornell-Larcker criteria (please, see Table 3 ) [6] , cross-loading [7] , and heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) [8] . All criteria reveal that the measurement model presents discriminant validity (please, see in [1] ).
For formative construct (actual travel experience sharing (AS)) we based on Table 4 . We can see that problems in terms of multicollinearity are not present because the variance inflation factor (VIF) is lower than the value of 5 [9] . Based on Table 4 all items are statistically significant; this element reveals the adequacy of the items that belong to this formative construct. Table 5 summarizes the path coefficients of the variables showing ten paths, seven paths are supported, and three are not supported. The path coefficients and r-squares of this model are in Fig. 1 .

Declaration of interests
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.