 

   

  

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

MOTIVATIONS FOR PROVIDING AND SEEKING EWOM:
A CROSS CULTURAL COMPARISON OF US. AND KOREAN

COLLEGE STUDENTS

presented by

Sung Mi Han

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

MA. degree in Advertising

 

 

 

   

£Wﬁ

 

Major Professor’s Signature

5/4 ﬁt?

Date

 

MSU is an afﬁnnatr've-acﬁon, equal-opportunity employer

.n-I-l-l-A‘L-l-D-l-l-_“-L-I-c—n-0-I--.-l-.-l-Q-c-u--a-n-u-g-

.I-O-t-t-I-I-l-l-I-I-l-I-I-I-l-l-C-I-I-U-l-I-O-0-I-v--o-I

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/07 p:/CIRC/DaleDue.indd-p.1

 

 

MOTIVATIONS FOR PROVIDING AND SEEKING EWOM: A CROSS
CULTURAL COMPARISON OF US. AND KOREAN COLLEGE STUDENTS

By

Sung Mi Han

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Advertising

2008

Abstract

MOTIVATIONS FOR PROVIDING AND SEEKING EWOM: A CROSS
CULTURAL COMPARISON OF US. AND KOREAN COLLEGE STUDENTS

By
Sung Mi Han
This study investigated consumers’ underlying motivations to engage in
electronic word-of—mouth (eWOM) communication through online and their relationships
with eWOM behavior. The study also examined cross-cultural differences in motivations
for providing and seeking eWOM between Americans and Koreans. The analysis found
ﬁve motivation factors for providing eWOM: social interaction beneﬁts/self-
enhancement, helping the company (or brand), vengeance upon the company (or brand),
concern for others, and economic incentive. Also, four motivations were identiﬁed for
seeking eWOM: risk reduction, social interaction beneﬁts, social-oriented product
information, and product usage information. These motivations had diverse effects on
consumers’ frequency of posting comments regarding a product or service on the Internet
and visits of different platform types to provide and seek comments. Lastly, results
indicate that the cultural characteristics of individualism and collectivism signiﬁcantly
inﬂuence motivations for providing and seeking eWOM. Implications of these ﬁndings

for researchers, marketers and online platform operators are further discussed.

Cepyright by
SUNG Ml HAN
2008

With much thankfulness to God,

I dedicate this thesis to my parents for their unconditional love and support.

iv

Table of Contents

List of Tables ......................................................................................... vi
Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................................................. 1
Chapter 2: Background .............................................................................. 4
Traditional WOM: Characteristics and Impact on Consumers ........................ 4
Electronic WOM (eWOM): Characteristics and Impact on Consumers ............. 8
Chapter 3: Study 1: Literature Review ........................................................... 11
Motivations for Engaging in eWOM .................................................... 11
Relationship between eWOM Motivations and eWOM Behavior ................... 18
Chapter 4: Study 1: Method ........................................................................ 21
Participants and Procedure ................................................................ 21
Questionnaire Development ............................................................... 22
Chapter 5: Study 1: Results ........................................................................ 25
eWOM Motivation ........................................................................ 25
Relationship between eWOM Motivations and eWOM Behavior .................. 29
Summary of Study 1 ﬁndings ............................................................ 34
Chapter 6: Study 2: Literature Review ........................................................... 36
Role of Culture in eWOM Motivations ................................................. 36
Cultural Differences of eWOM Motivations between the US. and South Korea.38
Chapter 7: Study 2: Method ........................................................................ 43
Participants and Procedure ............................................................... 43
Chapter 8: Study 2: Results ........................................................................ 44
Individualism-Collectivism between American and Korean Consumers ........... 44
Replications of eWOM Motivations among Korean Consumers .................... 44
Hypothesis and Research Question Testing ............................................. 45
Summary of Study 2 ﬁndings ............................................................ 48
Chapter 9: Discussion and Conclusion ........................................................... 49
eWOM Motivations and Their Inﬂuences on eWOM Behavior ..................... 49
Role of Culture in eWOM Motivations ................................................. 52
Practical Implications ...................................................................... 55
Limitations and Future Research ......................................................... 57
Appendix: Questionnaire ........................................................................... 58
References ............................................................................................ 66

List of Tables

Table 1. Factor Analysis for Motivations to Provide eWOM ................................. 26
Table 2. Factor Analysis for Motivations to Seek eWOM ..................................... 28

Table 3. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting the Frequency of Posting eWOM
and the Selection of Platform Types .............................................................. 31

Table 4. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting the Frequency of Reading eWOM
and the Selection of Platform Types .............................................................. 34

Table 5. Means and Standard Deviation of US. and Korean Consumers: eWOM
Providing Motivations .............................................................................. 45

Table 6. Means and Standard Deviation of US. and Korean Consumers: eWOM
Seeking Motivations ................................................................................. 47

vi

Chapter 1
Introduction

The Internet has become one of the major interpersonal communication channels
for consumers, enabling them to exchange abundant information with fellow consumers.
This online interpersonal communication of a product, a service, or a company is called
electronic Word-of-Mouth (eWOM). According to the Pew Internet & American Life
Project (2004), 26 percent of American intemet users, accounting for more than 33
million people, had rated a product or a person on the Internet. In 2007, a survey
conducted by iCrossing revealed that 49 percent of the 1,094 adult Internet users have
searched online for consumer product reviews prior to purchase, which has increased,
since 2005, by nine percent (Larson 2007). Consumers’ demand of interpersonal
communication has been increasing as product attributes are becoming more complex
and the credibility of advertising has declined (Godes et al. 2005). In addition to this, the
advances of Internet technologies have made eWOM a growing social phenomenon.

Traditional WOM has been known as one of the most inﬂuential information
sources for consumers (Buttle 1998). It is perceived as more reliable and consumer-
oriented than marketer-generated information (Arndt 1967a). Along with these merits,
Internet technology has provided unique characteristics to eWOM communication.
Unlike traditional face-to-face WOM, which is limited to an individual’s social
boundaries, eWOM is rapidly and easily exchanged among a multitude of consumers
regardless of time or geographical restrictions.

As the importance of eWOM has been increasing, researchers have paid attention

to the role of eWOM in consumers’ decision making processes. Studies have found that

eWOM communication is considered as more credible and relevant to consumers than
marketer-generated information on the Internet (Bickart and Schindler 2001) and helpful
to reduce perceived risk in e-commerce (Ha 2002). In addition, a positive eWOM
communication about a product can improve the overall value of the product, enhance
loyalty intentions (Gruen, Osmonbekov, and Czaplewski 2006), and increase product
sales (Chevalier and Mayzlin 2006).

While numerous eWOM studies have placed emphasis on the effects of eWOM
on consumer behavior, only limited studies have investigated why consumers engage in
eWOM communication. Hennig-Thurau and his colleagues (2004a; 2004b) have
identiﬁed different consumer motivations to engage in providing and seeking eWOM
activities in Germany. However, there may be limitations in generalizing Hennig-Thurau
and his colleagues’ (2004a; 2004b) dimensions of eWOM motivations to American
consumers due to signiﬁcant cultural differences of value systems (e. g.,de Mooij 2004;
Hofstede 1980) and goal orientation (Schmuck, Kasser, and Ryan 2000) between the US.
and Germany. More recently, an exploratory study regarding consumer motivations for
seeking eWOM was carried out in the US. by Goldsmith and Horowitz (2006). However,
the exploratory nature of Goldsmith and Horowitz’ (2006) study makes it difﬁcult to
draw solid conclusions about eWOM seeking motivations. Thus, a comprehensive
examination of American consumers’ motivations in providing and seeking eWOM is
inevitable for an accurate understanding of their use in eWOM communication.

Furthermore, previous eWOM motivation studies have overlooked an important
issue: the inﬂuence of culture on eWOM motivations. Culture is the sum of shared values,

beliefs, and norms in a society (de Mooij 2004). Numerous studies have found that

culture has a signiﬁcant impact on consumer behavior (Hempel 1974; Lee 2000; Takada
and Jain 1991). For example, some cultures have shown higher preference for and
susceptibility to WOM information than others (Dawar, Parker, and Price 1966; Doran
2002; Gilly et al. 1998). The frequency of engaging in eWOM (Fong and Burton 2006)
has also been found to vary by culture. Consequently, investigating motivations for
providing eWOM in respect to cultural inﬂuences is important to more fully understand
and predict consumers’ eWOM behavior.

Therefore, the purpose of the present study is two-fold. First, this study strives to
further explore eWOM providing and seeking motivations and their inﬂuences on eWOM
behaviors. Second, this study also seeks to investigate how culture may affect consumers’
motivations for providing and seeking eWOM in the light of the individualism and
collectivism cultural dimension from Hofstede’s (1980) work. Consumers in the US. and
South Korea will be compared to investigate whether and how consumers in these two
countries show different tendencies toward certain types of eWOM motivations. The US.
and South Korea are different in the individualism and collectivism dimension, yet both
countries have comparable levels of Internet development, given that the Internet
penetration level of South Korea (66.5%) is almost as high as that of the US. (69.7%)
(IntemetWorldStats 2007). Thus, by comparing the US. and South Korea, one is able to
reduce the inﬂuence of technology variables and distinctively show the cultural
inﬂuences on eWOM motivations.

This research provides several implications for marketers who are eager to
harness the power of eWOM. First, having an adequate knowledge about consumers’

motivations for providing and seeking eWOM can help marketers encourage consumers

to spread messages about their products by stimulating certain eWOM motivations that
are more likely to drive eWOM activities. Second, eWOM platform operators (e. g.,
Epinions.com, eBay, and Yahoo!) can use such knowledge to improve the information
value of their Web sites by providing functions and services that better motivate
consumers to provide and seek eWOM. Lastly, international marketers can effectively
beneﬁt from the impact of eWOM in different countries by implementing particular
strategies to satisfy consumers’ culture—speciﬁc eWOM motivations.
This study is organized as follows. Chapter 2 reviews the background literature on
traditional WOM and eWOM communications. Chapters 3 through 5 review the literature
on consumers’ eWOM motivations and report the ﬁndings of survey research regarding
eWOM motivations and their inﬂuences on eWOM behavior among US. college
students. Chapters 6 through 8 review the literature on the role of culture in eWOM and
discuss the ﬁndings of survey research regarding the cross-cultural comparison of eWOM
motivations between US. and Korean college students. Finally, chapter 9 discusses the
ﬁndings and provides implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research.
Chapter 2
' Background
Traditional WOM: Characteristics and Impact on Consumers
Word-of-mouth (W OM) communication has been known as a major inﬂuence on
what people know, feel, and do (Buttle 1998). Amdt (1967a) deﬁnes WOM as oral,
person-to-person communication between a receiver and a non-commercial
communicator regarding a brand, product, or service. Stern (1994) states that WOM is

different from advertising in that it is face-to-face, interactive, ephemeral, spontaneous,

and does not have clever turns of phrases or jingles. WOM has signiﬁcant inﬂuences on
consumers’ decision-making processes (Bone 1992). WOM can be a stimulus for need
recognition and the source of pre-purchase information to evaluate alternatives. Further,
it can inﬂuence post-purchase evaluation by shaping consumers’ expectations towards
product quality. Depending on whether product quality meets expectations, satisfaction or
dissatisfaction can be generated (Oliver 1997; Webster 1991). Researchers have found
that WOM plays a critical role in the adoption of new products and diffusion of
innovation (Brooks 1957; Brown and Reingen 1987; Richins 1983; Richins and Root-
Shaffer 1988; Rogers 1995; Webster 1991; Whyte 1954). Whyte (1954) found that the
clusters of air-conditioner (innovation in 1954) ownership in Philadelphia corresponded
to friendship patterns, indicating that the adoption of innovation was related to the ﬂow
of interpersonal inﬂuence. Consumers tend to rely on WOM information for buying new
products (Amdt 1967b; Sheth 1971); WOM information from friends or reference groups
help them learn the consequences of purchase decisions and thus decreases the tension
that can be generated from the trial of new products (Dichter 1966).

Three aspects of WOM contribute to dominant impacts on consumers: consumer
orientation, credibility, and interactivity. These characteristics become more distinctive
when they are compared with those of mass media-generated commercial information.
Unlike commercial messages, WOM is operated by consumers who voluntarily engage in
information providing and seeking activities; therefore, WOM information is consumer-
oriented. In addition, WOM participants are supposed to have no self-interest in product
sales and are independent of marketers’ selling intent (Amdt 1967b). Thus, WOM

information is considered more credible than marketer-generated sources, which are often

biased to companies’ perspectives (Amdt 1967a; Bickart and Schindler 2001; Brooks
1957; Silverman 2001). Lastly, WOM is a two-way interpersonal communication, which
is distinguished from the one-way communication of mass media. Since information
receivers can inquire and gain feedback about particular product details from information
communicators in face-to-face situations, consumers can obtain more ﬂexible and
custom-tailored information from WOM communication than from mass media (Amdt
1967a; Gilly et al. 1998; Silverman 2001).

Numerous studies have revealed that WOM has a more powerful inﬂuence on
consumers’ decision making than other marketing sources. Katz and Lazarsfeld (1955)
found that WOM is more likely to affect consumers to switch brands in household goods
and food product categories, compared to newspapers, magazines, personal selling, and
radio advertising. Day (1971) found that WOM was nine times as persuasive than
advertising in changing consumers’ attitudes toward a product from negative to positive.
Additionally, Herr, Kardes, and Kim (1991) found that face-to-face WOM was more
inﬂuential to consumers in evaluating brands than printed sources (e. g., Consumer
Reports); the vivid presentation of face-to—face information allows it to be more
successfully received by consumers. On the other hand, some studies have found that
advertising and WOM can complement and stimulate each other’s effects. Smith and
Vogt (1995) found that advertising alleviated the inﬂuences of negative WOM. Hogan,
Lemon, and Libai (2004) found that positive WOM increased the value of advertising up
to two to three times.

The inﬂuences of WOM on consumers’ purchase decisions are more noteworthy

in some conditions than others. First, the degree of WOM inﬂuence may vary by

purchase circumstances or product categories. It has been found that consumers are more
likely to be affected by WOM information when their involvement with the purchase
decision is especially high during the information search and evaluation processes (File,
Judd, and Prince 1992; Richins and Root-Shaffer 1988). Studies have also found that
WOM information becomes particularly important for the purchase of products or
services with higher perceptive risk (Bansal and Voyer 2000; File, Cermak, and Prince
1994; Murray 1991). In addition, Richins and Root-Shaffer (1988) have discovered that
consumers who have high enduring involvement with particular product categories tend
to become active communicators about the product.

Second, differences in individual characteristics may affect consumers’
susceptibility for WOM information (Bearden, Netemeyer, and Teel 1989; McGuire
1968). For example, some studies came to the conclusion that individuals’ self-
conﬁdence impacts their susceptibility to the inﬂuences of others. Cox and Bauer (1964)
found that individuals with low self-conﬁdence were more likely to conform to others’
opinions to avoid social disapproval than those with high self-conﬁdence. Amdt (1967b)
found that individuals with high self-conﬁdence sought more WOM information than
those with low self-conﬁdence because they have a higher tendency to discuss products
freely with others. Furthermore, an individual’s knowledge about product category can
also affect the susceptibility of WOM information. Kiel and Layton (1981) found that
consumers with low product knowledge were more likely to depend on interpersonal
information sources than those with high product knowledge.

Finally, the degree of social ties between a receiver and a communicator of WOM,

which represents the strength of a consumer’s relationship with others (Bone 1992), is

another factor that manipulates the impact of WOM information. Depending on “the
amount of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy, and reciprocal services” invested in
the given relationship, tie strength is characterized from strong ties (e. g., family and close
ﬁ‘iends) to weak ties (e. g., fellow consumers) (Granovetter 1973, p.1361). It has been
found that the receiver considers the information from the communicator as highly
credible when tie strength between the two is high (Bansal and Voyer 2000); thus
consumers are more likely to be inﬂuenced by WOM information from strong tie sources
(versus weak tie sources) for decision making (Bansal and Voyer 2000; Brown and
Reingen 1987). On the other hand, it is suggested that a weak tie has a bridging function
that spreads information from one subgroup to another in the broader social system,
facilitating the ﬂow of WOM information (Brown and Reingen 1987; Granovetter 1973).
Electronic WOM (eWOM): Characteristics and Impact on Consumers

The grth of the Internet and E-commerce industries has changed consumption
patterns and empowered consumers by providing easier and faster access to massive
product information. Faber, Lee, and Nan (2004) argued that online information is
distinguished from traditional mass media-generated information; the Intemet can
provide incomparably larger amounts of information with combined video, text, and
sound in a single presentation and comparative information on numerous brands at the
same time. Furthermore, the Internet has allowed consumers to interact with other
consumers from different cultures and regions through its various platforms of
communication. This new form of WOM generated in the online environment is called
electronic WOM (eWOM). Hennig-Thurau et al. (2004) deﬁne eWOM as “any positive

or negative statement made by potential, actual, or former consumers about a product or

company, which is made available to a multitude of peOple and institutions via the
Internet” (p.39).

The characteristics of the Internet have made eWOM distinctive from traditional
WOM. First of all, the Internet has removed the time and geographical constraints of
WOM. Therefore, eWOM can be provided or sought at any time and at any place,
increasing the accessibility of consumer-to-consumer communication. Second, eWOM
can be exchanged among an unlimited number of individuals through the Internet, while
traditional WOM is limited to an individual’s social contact boundaries (Ellison and
Fudenberg 1995). Thus, the volume of information from eWOM is greater than that from
traditional WOM. Third, eWOM allows an individual to receive various viewpoints
(positive and negative) about a product from multiple sources, while traditional WOM
generally provides a single perspective of information at a time (Chatterjee 2001).
Therefore, eWOM information is more dense and diverse compared to traditional WOM
information. Fourth, eWOM is also distinguished ﬁom traditional WOM in that eWOM
can be anonymously generated. Therefore, social pressure or restrictions that might be
unavoidable in face-to-face communication can be eased in eWOM communication (Gelb
and Sundaram 2002). For example, consumers can ﬁ'eely express their negative
comments about a product without concern about others’ judgements, or they can inquire
about products or services that may solve their personal problems while protecting their
privacy. Finally, traditional WOM and eWOM are also different in the way
communication is expressed. Traditional WOM involves verbal communication, while

eWOM is processed through written language. It is suggested that written communication

tends to be more formal and logical than oral communication (Sun et al. 2006), so a
written endorsement is regarded to have more authority (Gelb and Sundaram 2002).
Recognizing these unique characteristics of eWOM, researchers have examined
the effects of eWOM on consumers’ perceptions, attitudes, and decision making. Bickart
and Schindler (2001) found that consumers who gathered product information from
online forums showed higher interest in a product category than those who searched for
information from corporate Web sites. They speculated that this result may stem from the
fact that eWOM information is more credible, relevant, and able to generate empathy for
consumers than marketer-generated information. In addition, Gruen, Osmonbekov, and
Czaplewski (2006) found that engaging in eWOM activities positively increased the
overall value of the product and loyalty intentions because consumers could receive
additional information about product beneﬁts during the discussion. Finally, Chevalier
and Mayzlin (2006) investigated the relationship between consumer product review
content and relative sales of books at two leading online book sellers. They found the
growth of positive reviews of a book increased its sales compared to no reviews at all.
Furthermore, several researchers have found that the impact of eWOM can vary
by the characteristics of its receivers. Xue and Phelps (2004) indicate that eWOM
information provided on an online forum was not always more persuasive than the
eWOM information provided on corporate websites; however, the inﬂuence of an eWOM
platform might be moderated by receivers’ product involvement and experiences with
ofﬂine WOM communication. Chatterjee (2001) examined the impact of a consumer’s
familiarity with the retailer on acceptance of negative reviews and patronage intentions.

The results showed that consumers who patronized a retailer based on familiarity were

10

less receptive to negative reviews about the retailer and less likely to switch retailers; on
the other hand, consumers who chose a retailer based on price were more likely to believe
negative information about the retailer and to switch retailers.
Chapter 3
Study 1: Literature Review

In the preceding discussions, the characteristics of WOM and eWOM, and their
roles in consumers’ purchase decision processes have been reviewed. In Study 1,
consumers’ motivations to engage in WOM and eWOM communication are discussed in
order to investigate which factors drive consumers to provide or seek eWOM information
and how these motivations are connected with certain eWOM behaviors.
Motivations for Engaging in eWOM

Motivation is the force that drives individuals to take an action (Schiffman and
Kanuk 1991); therefore, identifying underlying motivations is critical in predicting and
understanding an individual’s behavior. Motivation is generated from tension-systems
which create a state of disequilibrium (Bayton 1958). Individuals have a basic desire for
balance in their lives. Therefore, when their state becomes unbalanced, they will make an
effort to restore equilibrium by selecting a goal, which will release themselves from the
tensions, and then by taking patterns of action to achieve the goal (Hennig-Thurau et al.
2004). An unbalanced consumption experience originates from either satisfaction or
dissatisfaction toward a product or a service (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004). When the
quality of a product exceeds expectations, consumers become satisﬁed and delighted. On
the contrary, when the product quality is below expectations, consumers become

dissatisﬁed and frustrated (Oliver 1997). These strong positive and negative emotions

ll

build a psychological tension for consumers, so they may engage in positive or negative
WOM activities to reduce this imbalance (Sundaram, Mitra, and Webster 1998). Richins
(1983) states that providing negative WOM about a product is positively related to the
seriousness of the problem with the product. Consumers may not pass along negative
WOM about a product when there is minor dissatisfaction with it, but as the severity of
the problem becomes higher, consumers tend to put more effort in responding to the
problem and spreading negative WOM about the product.

Although satisfaction or dissatisfaction toward a product is considered as the
general and basic stimulus of WOM communication (e.g., Anderson 1998; Richins 1983),
researchers have also identiﬁed more speciﬁc and divergent factors that motivate
consumers to provide or seek traditional WOM information (e. g., Dichter 1966; Engel,
Kegerreis, and Blackwell 1969; Sundaram, Mitra, and Webster 1998). Since eWOM
communication is an expanded form of traditional face-to—face WOM, it is expected that
WOM and eWOM share the core motivations to engage in peer-to-peer communications
regarding a product or service (Hennig—Thurau et al. 2004). Thus, drawing on the
previous research in both traditional WOM and eWOM, this study identiﬁes motivations
to provide and seek eWOM, which have been most commonly found in the literature.
Motivations for Providing eWOM

The ﬁrst motivation for providing eWOM is self-enhancement. Previous research
in traditional WOM has found that consumers tend to talk about products to others in
order to achieve their emotional needs, such as gaining attention, suggesting status, or
asserting expertise (Dichter 1966; Engel, Kegerreis, and Blackwell 1969; Hennig-Thurau

et al. 2004; Sundaram, Mitra, and Webster 1998). Sundaram, Mitra, and Webster (1998)

12

state that providing product-related information would help consumers enhance their self-
image as intelligent shoppers among other consumers. This motivation has also been
identiﬁed in the eWOM motivation study by Hennig-Thurau et al. (2004). More
speciﬁcally, a factor analysis of eWOM providing motivations in their study found that
the self-enhancement motivation for providing eWOM among German consumers was
loaded on the same factor with the motivation to express positive feelings of a satisﬁed
purchase experience. The combination of these two motivations implies that consumers
may perceive that expressing positive feelings of their satisﬁed purchase experiences
would enhance their image as consumption experts.

The second motivation for providing eWOM is concern for others. Previous
studies in both traditional WOM and eWOM have found that consumers are motivated to
provide product-related information out of concern for others (Dichter 1966; Engel,
Kegerreis, and Blackwell 1969; Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004; Sundaram, Mitra, and
Webster 1998; Walsh, Gwinner, and Swanson 2004; Ward and Ostrom 2002). The
motivation of concern for others is also referred to as altruism by Sundaram, Mitra, and
Webster (1998), since the information provider does not expect any reward (e. g.,
ﬁnancial reward) in return for helping others. They found that altruism would generate
either positive WOM or negative WOM information. Consumers provide positive WOM
to assist the information receivers in making satisfying purchase decisions, while
negative WOM is offered to warn others about or prevent others from the consequences
of buying certain products.

The third motivation for providing eWOM is helping the company. Sundaram,

Mitra, and Webster (1998) revealed that consumers tend to provide positive WOM about

13

a company to help the company. When a consumer is highly satisﬁed with a product, he
or she is motivated to engage in positive WOM activities to give a reward to the company.
Although the motivation of helping companies is psychologically related to the general
altruism motive as the motivation of concern for others (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004), it is
distinguished from the concern for others motivation because its main purpose is to do
something good for the company rather than other fellow consumers (Sundaram, Mitra,
and Webster 1998). In the study of eWOM providing motivations, Hennig-Thurau et al.
(2004) explained this motivation according to the equity theory proposed by Oliver and
Swan (1989). Since individuals have a desire to maintain equitable and fair exchanges, if
consumers think they have received more beneﬁts than they paid, they try to help the
company by recommending its products to other consumers on the Internet to balance the
transactions.

The fourth motivation for providing eWOM is venting negative feelings toward
the company or brand. In contrast to the helping the company motivation, this motivation
is associated with dissatisfying purchase experiences. In both traditional WOM and
eWOM contexts, consumers tend to provide negative WOM about a brand, product, or
company to others to ease their anger and frustration from the consumption experience or
to take vengeance upon the company (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004; Sundaram, Mitra, and
Webster 1998; Ward and Ostrom 2002). Sundaram, Mitra, and Webster (1998) have
found that when a company does not care about customer complaints, consumers tend to
feel that the company should not be allowed to operate and thus, share their negative
experiences with others in order to stop them patronizing the company. Ward and Ostrom

(2002) have also found that consumers tend to make more effort to elaborate negative

14

WOM on the lntemet for revenge against companies when they are dissatisﬁed, not only
with a product or service failure, but also with the companies’ lack of action to the
complaints.

The ﬁfth motivation for providing eWOM is social interaction beneﬁts. Hennig-
Thurau et al. (2004) have found that consumers tend to articulate themselves on the
Internet to have social interactions with others. They have argued that providing
comments on online opinion platforms is perceived to help consumers satisfy their
emotional needs, such as belonging, by the interaction with other fellow consumers and
from community membership. Consumers’ eWOM activities may be closely related to
their use of the Internet in general. It has been found that people tend to use the Internet
to fulﬁll their social needs by interacting with others who share similar interests and with
others who are even outside of their ofﬂine social boundaries (Korgaonkar and Wolin
1999; Papacharissi and Rubin 2000; Parker and Plank 2000).

The ﬁnal motivation for providing eWOM is economic incentives. Consumers are
motivated to provide product recommendations on the lntemet to get economic
incentives, such as Web points or coupons, which are often provided by opinion
platforms on the lntemet to increase consumers’ participation in eWOM exchanges and
websites’ informational value (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004). The motivation of economic
incentives originates from a distinctive characteristic of eWOM. Unlike traditional WOM,
which is directly delivered from one consumer to another consumer, eWOM is
exchanged through the assistance of a third party, the online platform operators.

Based on these discussions, the following research question is posed:

RQl: What motivates US. consumers to provide comments about a product,
service, or company on the lntemet?

15

Motivations for Seeking eWOM

The ﬁrst motivation for seeking eWOM is risk reduction. Consumers seek WOM
or eWOM to decrease the perceived risk in making purchase decisions (Goldsmith and
Horowitz 2006; Schiffman and Kanuk 1991). Traditional WOM studies have found that
consumers are more likely to rely on interpersonal information sources when the risk of
purchasing is high (Bansal and Voyer 2000; File, Cermak, and Prince 1994; Murray
1991), due to the fact that WOM information can provide clariﬁcation and feedback
opportunities to consumers and thus, effectively decrease prepurchase uncertainty about a
product or service (Amdt 1967a; Gilly et al. 1998; Silverman 2001). Ha (2002) also
found that collecting WOM information created trust and conﬁdence for the information
receivers and thus effectively reduced perceived risks of lntemet auctions.

The second motivation for seeking eWOM is social approval. This motivation is
related to information search processes for the social function of consumption (Hennig-
Thurau and Walsh 2004). Schiffman and Kanuk (1991) proposed that consumers are
motivated to seek WOM information in order to purchase a product that is approved or
accepted by other people. Hennig-Thurau and Walsh (2004) also found that consumers
seek other consumers’ comments about products on the lntemet to be aware of a
product’s social image, compare their idea about a product with that of others, or get
other consumers’ approval for their purchase decision.

The third motivation for seeking eWOM is reduction of search time and effort in
purchase decision making (Goldsmith and Horowitz 2006; Schiffman and Kanuk 1991).
Citing from Wiedmann, Walsh, and Mitchell’s (2001) study, Hennig-Thurau and Walsh

(2004) have stated that the excess of information and product types makes it difﬁcult for

16

consumers to know all the alternatives. In this situation, WOM is a good way to get
buying-related information with fewer time-consuming search activities. In addition, as
the lntemet technology has facilitated the process of eWOM exchanges, the beneﬁts from
the convenience and information value of eWOM are even further enhanced.

The fourth motivation for seeking eWOM is to get product (usage) information.
Studies in both traditional WOM and eWOM contexts have found that consumers seek
WOM or eWOM to get product-related information (Goldsmith and Horowitz 2006;
Hennig-Thurau and Walsh 2004; Schiffman and Kanuk 1991). Consumers can get
information for new products, learn how a product is consumed, or solve problems with
using the product through seeking others’ product-related comments on the lntemet. As
product features become more complex and technical, consumers are more likely to rely
on eWOM as a product information source (Godes et al. 2005). This may be because
eWOM is thought to be written by real product buyers and users and thus is more
relevant to consumers than the information provided by manufacturers or marketers
(Bickart and Schindler 2001). This motivation is distinguished from the motivation to
seek eWOM for social orientation through information in terms of the fact that its
objective is mainly focused on getting information about product attributes and market
trends.

The ﬁnal motivation for seeking eWOM is social interaction beneﬁts, which also
drives consumers to provide eWOM. As the Internet serves a role to facilitate
interpersonal communication and activities (Korgaonkar and Wolin 1999), consumers

can participate in others’ shopping experiences or have a sense of belonging to a

17

community by seeking other consumers’ postings on online eWOM platforms (Hennig-
Thurau and Walsh 2004).
Based on these discussions, the following research question is posed:

RQ2: What motivates US. consumers to seek comments about a product, service,
or company on the lntemet?

Relationship between eWOM Motivations and eWOM Behavior

The second objective of Study 1 is to investigate the relationship between eWOM
motivations and eWOM behavior. Motivation is a critical element for understanding and
predicting human behavior. According to Reeve (2005), motivation inﬂuences the energy
and direction of behavior. He states that energy determines the strength, intensity, and
persistence of behavior, and direction leads behavior toward achieving a particular goal
or an outcome. Therefore, different motivations for a particular domain should generate
different levels of energy and diverse directions of behaviors related to that domain. For
example, Korgaonkar and Wolin’s (1999) study revealed that people’s usage of the
lntemet varied based on their motivations for using the lntemet. The results indicated that
heavier lntemet users who spent more than one hour per day on the Web compared to
users who spent less than one hour were more likely to use the lntemet to be entertained
or to escape from reality (escapism motivation), to effectively obtain useful information
(information motivation), to enjoy the interactive features of the lntemet (interactive
control motivation), to interact and socialize with others with similar interests
(socialization motivation), and to purchase products with lower prices (economic
motivation).

In a similar vein, we can expect that eWOM motivations may inﬂuence how often

consumers engage in providing and seeking eWOM. Hennig-Thurau et al.’s (2004) study

18

conducted in Germany investigated how motivations for providing eWOM affected the
number of comments written on opinion platforms and the frequency of visits to opinion
platforms. They found the motivations for social beneﬁts had the strongest positive
impact on platform visiting frequency, followed by extraversion/positive self-
enhancement and concern for others, while venting negative feelings and platform
assistance were negatively related to the frequency of platform visits. The motivation for
social beneﬁts also had the strongest inﬂuence on the number of comments provided,
followed by economic incentives, concern for other consumers, and extraversion/positive
self-enhancement, while other factors had no signiﬁcant inﬂuence. These ﬁndings
indicate that consumers may show different providing or seeking eWOM behaviors
according to their eWOM motivations. For example, consumers who are motivated by the
interest in social interaction beneﬁts may seek eWOM on a regular basis, while
consumers who are motivated by risk reduction in purchase decisions or for solving
problems with a product may occasionally seek eWOM only during these particular
situations. Thus, the different patterns of consumers’ eWOM behaviors, such as the
frequency of providing or seeking comments, will be manifested differently depending on
their eWOM motivations.

Consequently, this discussion leads to the following hypothesis.

H1: Types of eWOM providing motivations will be related to the frequency of
providing comments on the Web.

H2: Types of eWOM seeking motivations will be related to the frequency of
seeking comments on the Web.

Moreover, consumers’ motivations for providing and seeking eWOM may affect

consumers’ use of different eWOM platform types as well. eWOM occurs through a

19

variety of lntemet communication platforms, and each platform has its own
characteristics. First, discussion forums indicate discussion board facilities on the Web,
and most consumer opinion and review sites (e. g., http://www.epinions.com or
http://www.cnet.com) are classiﬁed as discussion forums. On discussion forums, any
visitors can simply provide and search for information without an operator’s approval.
Second, a complaint site is similar to discussion forums. However, it is considered a
different type of online platform because of its strong and unique purpose of existence.
Complaint sites facilitate negative WOM communication about companies, and
consumers can report their complaints or get tips on complaint resolution from other
consumers through these Web sites (Bailey 2004). Third, blogs are journal style user-
generated Web sites, providing commentary or news on speciﬁc topics (e.g.,
http://blog.myspace.com). According to eMarketer (2007), a majority of blog users read
others’ blogs to be entertained and to keep up with personal interests or hobbies. Fourth,
consumer product reviews are also exchanged through portal sites (e. g.,
http://www.yahoo.com), which provide a variety of services from Web search engines to
personal communication sources, such as email and message boards (Telang and
Mukhopadhyay 2005). Thus, through the characteristic convenience of portal sites,
consumers can easily browse various sources of information at once and become more
engaged in eWOM communication. Finally, retailers’ Web sites and auction sites are
another type of eWOM channel. Customer reviews and ratings provided on these sites are
considered the most accessible and prevalent forms of eWOM in that they are

conveniently provided to consumers along with merchandise information (Chatterjee

2001).

20

Harrison-Walker (2001) found that numerous consumers chose complaint forums
on the Web in their ﬁrst attempt to ofﬁcially articulate a negative purchase experience.
She further stated that easy access and convenience of lntemet complaint forums
facilitated consumers’ complaint processes. This implies that when consumers engage in
eWOM, they may select the particular type of eWOM platform that would better help
them to satisfy their eWOM motivations. Therefore, it is expected that the selection of
different eWOM platform types may be inﬂuenced by different motivations of eWOM.
For instance, consumers who are motivated by economic incentives tend to provide
comments on Web sites that offer discount coupons for providing product reviews. In
addition, consumers who seek eWOM for their interest in product (usage) information
may choose newsgroups or discussion forums because more various topics and diverse
information are discussed in these types of platforms. Therefore, the following research
question was proposed.

RQ3: Whether and how will types of eWOM providing motivations be related to
the selection of different types of eWOM platforms?

RQ4: Whether and how will types of eWOM seeking motivations be related to
the selection of different types of eWOM platforms?
Chapter 4
Study 1: Method

Participants and Procedure

To test the proposed hypotheses and answer the research questions, a self-
administered survey was conducted with undergraduate students at a major Midwestern
university in the US. The use of a student sample is considered appropriate for this study,

because college students are not only heavy users of the lntemet compared to the general

21

population, but also more active in online activities. A report by comScore (comScore
2004) indicated that college students’ frequency and duration of lntemet usage was 20
percent higher than those of average lntemet users. The survey research was conducted in
university classrooms. After being informed about the deﬁnition of eWOM and the
purpose of this study, participants were asked to complete the questionnaire.

A total of 469 students participated in the survey, and the 95 who answered that
they had neither provided nor sought comments about a product, company, or service on
the Web were excluded from the subsequent data analysis. Twenty one participants who
identiﬁed themselves as non-Americans were excluded as well. As a result, a total of 353
responses were analyzed in Study 1. One hundred thirty four participants were male
(38%), while 219 (62%) were female. A majority of the participants described themselves
as White/Caucasian (89%), followed by Asian/Paciﬁc Islanders (5%), Black/African-
Americans (3%), Hispanic/Latinos (2%), and Others (1%). The participants’ mean age
was 21.54 (SD = 1.22).

Questionnaire Development

The survey instrument included questions for both providing and seeking eWOM
motivations and behaviors. Questions for providing eWOM motivations and behaviors
were asked first, and then questions for seeking eWOM followed. The participants were
ﬁrst asked if they had ever provided comments regarding a product, company, or service
on the Web. If participants had never provided or sought comments before, they were
asked to skip the questions about providing or seeking eWOM and to answer the general

questions in the part three.

22

The questionnaire consisted of three parts. The ﬁrst part measured participants’
eWOM providing behaviors and motivations. eWOM providing behaviors were measured
by the frequency of providing comments about a product, company, or service and the
frequency of visits to each of six eWOM platforms to provide comments within the last
12 months (e.g., consumer review sites, complaint sites, auction sites, retailers’ sites,
portal sites, and blogs). Speciﬁcally, the frequency of providing comments and of visits
to each type of eWOM platforms were measured using the following six categories:
‘never’, ‘once or twice a year’, ‘several times a year’, ‘once a mon ’, ‘once a week’, and
‘everyday’. Following questions regarding eWOM providing behaviors, the participants
were asked to indicate what motivated them to provide comments about a product,
service, or company on the lntemet. To measure motivations for providing eWOM, 15
items were borrowed from Hennig-Thurau et al.’s (2004) study. This study also created
another 16 items based on the conceptual deﬁnitions of different types of WOM and
eWOM motivations provided in the previous studies. A total of 31 items were generated
for eWOM providing motivations. The participants were asked to indicate their level of
agreement with each of these items on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly
disagree (1) to strongly agree (7).

The second part of the questionnaire focused on eWOM seeking behavior and
motivations. Questions about eWOM seeking behavior and motivations followed the
same procedure as with measuring eWOM providing behavior and motivations. eWOM
seeking behaviors were also measured by the frequency of seeking comments about a
product, company, or service and the frequency of visits to each of six eWOM platforms

to seek comments within the last 12 months. The participants were then asked to indicate

23

motivations for seeking comments about a product, service, or company on the lntemet.
Seven items from Goldsmith and Horowitz’s (2006) and 11 items from Hennig-Thurau
and Walsh’s (2004) studies were borrowed to measure motivations for seeking eWOM.
Another 13 items were created for this study. A total of 31 items were generated for
eWOM seeking motivations.

The third part of the questionnaire asked about participants’ general intemet usage,
susceptibility to interpersonal inﬂuence, levels of individualism and collectivism, and
demographic information. The participants’ susceptibility to interpersonal inﬂuence was
measured using Bearden, Netemeyer, and Teel’s (1989) 12-item scale. The scale
examined the level of the need to identify or improve one’s image with others through the
purchase or use of products and brands (i.e., I often identify with other people by
purchasing the same products and brands they purchase), the willingness to conform to
others’ expectations regarding purchase decision (i.e., If other people can see me using a
product, I often purchase the brand they expect me to buy), and the tendency to learn
product information by observing or asking others (i.e., I frequently gather information
from friends or family about a product before 1 buy). A seven-point Likert scale was also
used (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha coefﬁcient was .87.
The participants’ levels of individualism and collectivism were measured by Singelis’
(1994) Self-Construal Scale. The scale measures the strength of an individual’s
independent and interdependent self construal. Each dimension is measured with 12 items,
on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The Cronbach’s
alpha coefﬁcients were .66 for the independent self construal and .67 for the

interdependent self construal. A sample of the questionnaire is attached in the Appendix.

24

Chapter 5
Study 1: Results

Among the 353 participants, 133 (38%) reported having provided comments
about a product, service, or company on the Web, while 345 (98%) participants indicated
that they had sought others’ comments. Only those responses from the 133 participants
and from the 345 participants were included in the subsequent data analyses for
examining eWOM providing and seeking motivations and behaviors, respectively.
eWOM Motivation

eWOM Providing Motivation. RQl asked about consumers’ motivations for
providing eWOM. A total of 31 items that measures eWOM providing motivations were
factor analyzed through principal components analysis to test the validity of items and to
identify the dimensionality of motivations for providing eWOM. Varimax rotation was
utilized to examine variables that might suggest possible motivation factors. Factors with
eigenvalues greater than 1.0 were extracted, and the minimum values of factor loadings
were set at .40. Items that cross-loaded on more than one factor or did not meet the
criteria described above were dropped one by one. After these procedures, nine items
were eliminated, resulting in 22 remaining items.

The ﬁndings of the factor analysis revealed ﬁve factors of motivations for
providing eWOM, accounting for 72.7% of the total variance: 1) social interaction
beneﬁts/self-enhancement, 2) helping the company (or brand), 3) vengeance upon the
company (or brand), 4) economic incentives, and 5) concern for others (see Table 1).

The ﬁrst factor is labeled social interaction benefits/self—enhancement, as it

represented a combination of two proposed motivations: social interaction beneﬁts and

25

self-enhancement. It contained six items for social interaction beneﬁts and three items for
self-enhancement (o. = .93). This factor accounted for 28.6% of the variance. The second
factor was helping the company (or brand), accounting for 16.5% of the variance. It
consisted of ﬁve items for helping the company and one for self enhancement (i.e., ‘to
tell others about my buying successes’) (ct = .84). The third factor was vengeance upon
the company (or brand), accounting for 11.2% of the variance. It included three items (a
= .83). The fourth factor, economic incentives, explained 8.3% of the variance, containing
two items (r = .74). The last factor, concern for others, accounted for 8.1% of the

variance. It included two items (r = .54).

Table 1. Factor Analysis for Motivations to Provide eWOM

 

Factor Items Components
(Cronbach’s alpha) “1 provide comments about a product, service, 1 2 3 4 5
or company on the lntemet ...... ”

 

Social interaction - Because I like the social interaction with other
beneﬁts/ consumers .892
self-enhancement - Because it’s ﬁm to communicate with other .843
(a = .93) people
- To show others that I am a clever shopper .825
- Because it makes me feel that I belong to a .821
group
- To communicate with various people sharing .798

similar interest

- Because a chat among like-minded people is a .796
nice thing

- Because I feel good when others show me .759
some respect for my knowledge.

- To get attention for providing .752
recommendations

- To meet people .722

Helping the - To support the company and the product that l .856
company like
(or brand) - Because I am so satisﬁed with a company and .840
(a = .84) its product that I want to help the company to
be successful
- Because 1 want to encourage the good .776
company
- To tell others about my buying successes .715
- To make more people buy the product of the .656
company that I support

26

Table 1 Continued

- Because in my own opinion, good companies .655
(brands) should be supported

Vengeance upon the - To damage the company’s reputation .880
company (or brand) - To take vengeance upon the company .842
(a = .83) - Because the company harmed me, now I will .800

harm the company!

Economic - Because of the incentives I receive .901
incentives - To get a discount or coupons from the Website .876
(1': .74)
Concern for others - To prevent others from having the same .875
(F .54) negative experience as me

- To warn others of bad products .813

 

Cumulative % of Variance: 72.7%

eWOM Seeking Motivation. RQ2 asked about consumers’ motivations for
seeking eWOM. A total of 31 items for measuring eWOM seeking motivations were
factor analyzed using the same procedure as the factor analysis of eWOM providing
motivations described above. After the item reﬁning procedures, 12 items were
eliminated, resulting in 19 remaining items. For motivations to seek eWOM, a total of
four factors were identiﬁed, accounting for 70.2% of the total variance: 1) social
interaction beneﬁts, 2) risk reduction, 3) social-oriented product information, and 4)
product usage information (see Table 2).

The ﬁrst factor was social interaction benefits, accounting for 21.7% of the
variance after rotation. It contained six items (a = .89). The second factor was found to be
risk reduction. It explained 19.1% of the variance, including ﬁve items (a = .86). Four
items were from reduction motivations, and one item was from social approval (i.e.,
‘because I can get the conﬁrmation that I made the right buying decision’). The third

factor was social-oriented product information, explaining 17.8% of the variance. It

27

consisted of ﬁve items (a = .84): three items were from getting product (usage)
information (i.e., ‘to know which topics are in,’ ‘because I am interested in what is new,’
and ‘because it’s fun to learn and compare the information of products in the
marketplace’) and two items were from social approval (i.e., ‘to know if the product is
popular’ and ‘to know the product’s social image’). The last factor, product usage
information, accounted for 11.6% of the variance. This factor included three items (a

= .74).

Table 2. Factor Analysis for Motivations to Seek eWOM

 

Factor Items Components
(Cronbach’s alpha) “I seek comments about a product, a service, or

company provided by other consumers on the 1 2 3 4
lntemet ...... ”

Social interaction - Because it’s fun to communicate with other people .873

beneﬁts (a = .89) - Because it makes me feel that I belong to a group .866
- Because I like the social interaction with other .819
consumers
- Because I really like being part of such a .750
community
- To communicate with various people sharing .711
similar interest

Risk reduction - Because I don’t want to end up regretting a .846
(a = .86) decision I make
- To avoid making a risky decision .842
- Because I don’t want to buy a bad product .814
- So the chances of me making a bad decision are .803
reduced
- Because I can get the conﬁrmation that I made the .539
right buying decision

Social-oriented - To know the product’s social image .814

product information - To know which topics are “in” .782

(a = 34) - To know if the product is popular .749
- Because I am interested in what is new .704
- Because it’s fun to learn and compare the .545
information of products in the marketplace

Product usage - To know experts’ opinion about my problem .788
information - To ﬁnd advice and solutions for my problems with .772
(a = .74) the product

- Because I ﬁnd the right answers by seeking others’ .632

comments on the lntemet when l have difﬁculties

with the product

 

Cumulative % of Variance: 70.2%

28

Relationship between eWOM Motivations and eWOM Behavior

Hierarchical multiple regressions were performed to test H1, H2, and RQ3. This
analytical approach allows us to examine whether a certain predictor additionally
explains the criterion variable after other predictors are controlled.

eWOM Providing Motivations and eWOM Providing Behavior. The frequency
of providing comments (H1) and the frequency of visits to each of the different platform
types (RQ3) were entered as criterion variables in hierarchical multiple regressions. For
predictors, Internet usage hours, gender, and ethnicity were entered into the ﬁrst block.
The factors of eWOM providing motivations were then entered into the second block.

H1 predicted that eWOM providing motivations would be related to the frequency
of providing eWOM comments. As in Table 3, the model testing the relationship between
the frequency of providing eWOM comments and motivations to provide eWOM
accounted for 17.9% of the total variance. The ﬁrst block explained 2.6% of the variance,
and no factor was found to inﬂuence the frequency of providing eWOM comments. After
this block was controlled, motivations to provide eWOM accounted for 15.3% of the total
variance. The motivation for Social interaction beneﬁts/self—enhancement was found to
have the strongest, positive impact on consumers’ frequency of providing comments, B
= .21, p < .05, followed by Helping the company, B = .19, p < .05. On the other hand, the
motivation for economic incentives was negatively related to consumers’ frequency of
providing comments, [3 = -.17, p < .01. Thus, H1 was partially supported.

RQ3 examined whether and how types of eWOM providing motivations would be
related to the frequency of visits to each of the different types of eWOM platforms to

provide eWOM comments (see Table 3). First, the model predicting the frequency of

29

visits to consumer review sites accounted for 17.9% of the variance. The ﬁrst block,
accounting for 0.1% of the variance, had no relationship with the frequency of visits to
consumer review sites. The second block explained 17.8% of the variance. The
motivation for social interaction beneﬁts/self-enhancement was found to be a signiﬁcant
predictor of the frequency of visits to consumer review sites, B = .33, p < .001. Second,
the model testing the motive importance on the frequency of visits to complaint sites
explained 30.9% of the variance. The ﬁrst block accounted for 9.0% of the variance;
ethnicity was a signiﬁcant predictor of the frequency of visits to complaint sites, B = .21,
p < .01. After the ﬁrst block was controlled, the second block accounted for 21.9% of the
variance. It was found that consumers who provide eWOM for vengeance upon the
company (or brand) motivation were more likely to provide comments on complaint sites,
B = .10, p < .05, whereas consumers motivated by concern for others were less likely to
provide eWOM on complaint sites, B = -.10, p < .05. Third, the model examining the
motive importance on the ﬁequency of visits to retailers’ sites accounted for 12.5% of the
variance overall (the ﬁrst block: 3.9%, the second block: 8.6%). In the ﬁrst block, gender
was a marginally signiﬁcant predictor of providing comments on retailers’ sites, B = .34,
p < .1. In the second block, the motivations for helping the company (or brand), B = .15,
p < .1, and economic incentives, B = -.11, p < .1, approached, but did not reach
signiﬁcance. Fourth, the model testing the motive importance on the ﬁ'equency of visits
to portal sites explained 19.8% of the variance. The ﬁrst block accounted for 5.2% of the
variance; male (versus female) consumers were found to be more likely to provide
comments on portal sites, B =.39, p < .05. After the ﬁrst block was controlled, the

motivation for social interaction beneﬁts/self-enhancement was found to be a signiﬁcant

30

predictor of the frequency of visits to portal sites, B =.25, p < .01. The second block
explained 14.6% of the variance. Finally, the model predicting the frequency of visits to

either auction sites or blogs did not reveal any signiﬁcant relationship.

Table 3. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting the Frequency of
Providing eWOM and the Selection of Platform Types

 

Frequency Consumer

. Complaint Auction Retailers’
of posting revrew

sites sites sites Portals Blogs

 

 

 

 

sites
Final Beta

Gender‘ .20 .06 .1 1 .39 .34# .34 -.35
lntemet usage hours .00 .00 -.00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Ethnicity .13 .00 .21 ** .04 .10 .06 .1 1
R’ A .03 .00 .09 .05 .04 .05 .02
eWOM
Motivations
Social interaction
beneﬁts/ .21* .33*** .04 .02 -.02 .25" .11
Self-enhancement
Helpmg the .19* .05 -.01 .10 .15# -.01 .15
company
vengeam “10°“ the .05 -.03 .10* -.05 .07 -.00 .10
company
Economic incentives -.17** -.01 .06 -.00 -.1 1# -.04 -.01
Concern for others -.01 .01 -.10* .04 -.04 -.06 -.17
R’ A .15 .18 .22 .07 .09 .15 .07
TotalR’ A .18 .18 .31 .12 .13 .20 .09

 

a:Coded as 1 = female, 2 = male.
#p< .09, *p< .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001

eWOM Seeking Motivations and eWOM Seeking Behavior. For criterion
variables in hierarchical multiple regressions, the ﬁequency of seeking comments (H2)
and the frequency of visits to each of the different platform types (RQ4) were entered.
For predictors, lntemet usage hours, gender, and ethnicity, and susceptibility to
interpersonal inﬂuence were entered into the ﬁrst block. The factors of eWOM seeking

motivations were then entered into the second block.

31

H2 predicted that eWOM seeking motivations would be related to the frequency
of seeking eWOM comments. The model that tested the relationship between the
frequency of seeking comments and motivations to seek eWOM explained 18.7% of the
variance (see Table 4). The ﬁrst block accounted for 5.9% of the total variance.
Speciﬁcally, lntemet hours, B = .00, p < .01, and gender, B = .46, p < .05, were
signiﬁcant predictors of the frequency of seeking comments, indicating that consumers
who are male or spend longer hours using the lntemet tended to seek eWOM more
frequently. After controlling these variables, four motivations to seek eWOM explained
12.8% of the total variance. It was found that risk reduction was the only signiﬁcant,
positive predictor of the frequency of seeking comments, B = .34, p < .001. Thus, H2 was
partially supported.

RQ4 examined whether and how types of eWOM seeking motivations would be
related to the frequency of visits to each of six different types of eWOM platforms to
seek eWOM comments (see Table 4). The ﬁrst model tested consumer review sites,
accounting for 21.9% of the variance overall (the ﬁrst block: 7.7%, the second block:
14.2%). In the ﬁrst block, gender was found to have a signiﬁcant relationship with the
frequency of visits to consumer review sites to seek eWOM. After controlling the ﬁrst
block, it was found that social interaction beneﬁts had the strongest, positive inﬂuence on
visiting consumer review sites, B =.22, p < .01, followed by product usage information/
problem solving, B =.l3, p < .05. The second model examined the relationship between
eWOM seeking motivations and complaint sites, which explained 16.2% of the total
variance. The ﬁrst block accounted for 3.4% of the variance, and the results showed that

gender was signiﬁcantly related to the frequency of visits to complaint sites, B =.22, p

32

< .05, while the effect of susceptibility to interpersonal inﬂuence approached but did not
reach statistical signiﬁcance, B =.07, p < .1. After these variables were controlled, social
interaction beneﬁts showed a signiﬁcant relationship with the selection of complaint sites,
B =.22, p < .001. The third model testing auction sites accounted for 13.9% of the total
variance (the ﬁrst block: 3.7%, second block: 10.2%). In the ﬁrst block, it is found that
consumers who used the lntemet for longer times were more likely to visit auction sites,
B =.01, p < .05. Also, the effect of gender on the frequency of visits to auction sites
approached but did not reach statistical signiﬁcance, B =.30, p < .01. eWOM motivations
to seek eWOM as a second block showed that product usage information/ problem
solving was a signiﬁcant predictor of the frequency of visits to auction sites, B =.22, p

< .01. In the fourth model, accounting for 18.7% of the variance, retailers’ sites were
tested (the ﬁrst block: 6.0%, the second block: 12.7%). In the ﬁrst block, gender, B =.39,
p < .05, lntemet usage, B =.Ol, p < .01, and susceptibility, B =.l3, p < .05, were found be
signiﬁcant predictors of selecting retailers’ sites to seek comments. After the ﬁrst block
was controlled, product usage information/ problem solving was found to have a
signiﬁcant inﬂuence on the frequency of visits to retailers’ sites to seek comments, B =.20,
p < .05. The inﬂuence of social interaction benefits, B = -.15, p < .1, and risk reduction, B
=.14, p < .1, approached the relationship, but they did not reach signiﬁcance. The ﬁfth
model tested portal sites, accounting for 12.9% of the variance. The ﬁrst block explained
4.6% of the variance, and it was found that consumers who are male, B =.34, p < .05, or
have high susceptibility to interpersonal inﬂuence, B =.18, p < .01, were more likely to
select portal sites. In the second block, accounting for 8.3% of the variance, product

usage information was found to be a signiﬁcant predictor of the frequency of visits to

33

portal sites, B =. 18, p < .05. The last model examined blogs, but no signiﬁcant

relationship was found.

Table 4. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting the Frequency of
Seeking eWOM and the Selection of Platform Types

 

Frequency Consumer

Complaint Auction Retailers’

 

 

 

 

of seeking review sites sites sites Portals Blogs
sites
Final Beta
Gender“ .46* 52*M .22* .30 .39* .34* -.13
lntemet usage hours .00" .00 .00 .00 .00" .00 .00“
Ethnicity .10 .05 .01 -.10 -.08 .07 .05
Susceptibility .12 .16“ .07# .09 .13* .18" .06
R’ A .06 .08 .03 .04 .06 .05 .02
eWOM Motivations
:0le “mam" "09 .22" 22*" .06 -.15# .00 .11
eneﬁts
Risk reduction 34*" .08 -.06 .12 .14# .02 .07
30““ ‘f’ﬁeme" . "4° -.03 .03 -.03 -.00 .08 .08
product information
fmd‘w‘ Page '84 .13* .04 .22" .20" .18* .13
information
R’ A .13 .14 .13 .10 .13 .08 .06
Totale A .19 .22 .16 .14 .19 .13 .08

 

a:Coded as l = female, 2 = male.
#p<.09, ‘p<.05, **p< .01, ***p< .001

Summary of Study 1 findings

The ﬁndings of Study 1 identiﬁed ﬁve motivations for providing eWOM: social

interaction beneﬁts/self-enhancement, helping the company (or brand), vengeance upon

the company (or brand), economic incentives, and concern for others. For motivations to

seek eWOM, the following four factors were found: social interaction beneﬁts, risk

reduction, social-oriented product information, and product usage information.

Study 1 also showed that, to some degree, types of eWOM motivations had a

signiﬁcant inﬂuence on the frequency of providing and seeking eWOM. Speciﬁcally, the

motivation for social interaction beneﬁts/self-enhancement was the strongest, positive

34

predictor of consumers’ frequency of providing comments, followed by helping the
company. In contrast, the more consumers were motivated by economic incentives, the
less frequently they provided comments on the Web. For motivations to seek eWOM,
consumers who seek eWOM for risk reduction more frequently sought comments on the
Web.

Study 1 also examined the relationship between eWOM motivations and opinion
platform types. The results indicated that consumers who provide eWOM for social
interaction beneﬁts/selflenhancement were more likely to choose consumer review sites
and Web portals to provide comments. Consumers providing eWOM to take vengeance
upon the company (or brand) were more likely to post comments on complaint sites,
while consumers motivated by concern for others were less likely to provide eWOM on
complaint sites. The motivations for helping the company (or brand) and economic
incentives were found to be marginally signiﬁcant predictors of selecting online retailers’
sites.

In addition, Study 1 found that consumers motivated by social interaction beneﬁts
were more likely to visit consumer review sites and complaint sites to seek other
consumers’ comments. This motivation also showed a marginally signiﬁcant relationship
with the frequency of visits to online retailers’ sites. Consumers who sought others’
comments about products for product usage information were more likely to visit
consumer review sites, auction sites, retailers’ sites, and Web portals. Whereas, risk
reduction was found to approach the relationship with online retailer’s sites, but did not

reach signiﬁcance.

35

Chapter 6
Study 2: Literature Review
Role of Culture in eWOM Motivations

The development of communication and transportation technologies has opened
the era of globalization. Now, Coca-Cola (http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com) is
consumed in over 200 countries, and McDonald’s (http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp) has
more than 30,000 local restaurants in over 100 countries. Even though people consume
the same global brands and products, their buying motives and usage behaviors are
different ﬁ'om culture to culture (de Mooij 2004; Mueller 1996; White 2000). Culture is
typically deﬁned as the sum of learned and shared values, beliefs, norms, and attitudes in
a society (de Mooij 2004). Culture is also referred to as “the collective programming of
the mind,” since it directs cognition, motivation, and behavior of people at both an
individual level and a societal level (Hofstede 1980, p.201). This mental programming is
developed in the early days of one’s life and is constantly reinforced.

Culture inﬂuences an individual’s self concept, value system, and communication
style. Thus, culture affects various aspects of consumer behavior such as shopping and
buying behavior (Hempel 1974), complaining behavior (Watkins and Liu 1996), brand
loyalty (Lam 2007; Lee 2000), and adoption of innovation (Takada and Jain 1991;
Yaveroglu and Donthu 2002). Culture affects consumers’ media preference and usage
behavior as well. Somasundaram and Light (1994) found signiﬁcant differences in the
media perceptions of consumers in the US, Canada, Hong Kong, and India regarding
newspaper, magazine, radio, television, direct mail, and outdoor advertising. Kim and La

Ferle (2006) found that US. consumers tended to use the Internet more for information

36

sources than Korean consumers, while Korean consumers were more likely to be
motivated by the social aspects of the lntemet than US. consumers. These ﬁndings
illustrate that it is important for multi-national organizations to take cultural aspects into
consideration in developing international marketing strategies in order to decrease risk
and increase the effectiveness of marketing and advertising practices (de Mooij 2004).

In the ﬁeld of cross-cultural consumer behavior, Hofstede’s cultural value
framework is one of the most inﬂuential and commonly used frameworks (Back and
Singh 2007). Hofstede (1980) originally developed four dimensions of national culture:
individualism/collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and
masculinity/femininity. Hofstede’s dimensions were expanded later by adding Confucian
dynamism, which is also referred to as long-term/short-term orientation (Hofstede and
Bond 1988). He measured 75 countries and regions on a scale from 0 to 100 for each of
his dimensions. Although countries’ scores were initially created in the early 19705,
subsequent studies found that the original scores were still valid (de Mooij 2004), which
implies that core national values are enduring and not easily changed. Among the ﬁve
dimensions, this study will focus on the individualism and collectivism dimension only.
This dimension is the most distinctive dimension in human social behavior (Hofstede
1980) and thus best captures the variants between different cultures (Laroche, Kalarnas,
and Cleveland 2005).

The individualism and collectivism dimension measures an individual’s degree of
dependency on others within a society. Individualism is mostly found in North America,
Northern Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, whereas collectivism is found in Asia,

Africa, Mediterranean Europe, the Middle East, and Latin America, which account for 70

37

to 80 percent of the world’s population (Hofstede 1980). According to Triandis (1989),
individuals’ values, self concept, perceptions of others, and patterns of interaction with
the environment are signiﬁcantly inﬂuenced by the cultural meaning systems of their
society. Markus and Kitayama (1991) deﬁne individualism and collectivism as the
independent view of self versus the interdependent View of self. Individualistic cultures
view an individual as an independent, self-contained, and autonomous entity, who
behaves as a result of one’s own unique internal attributes such as traits, abilities, motives,
and values. On the contrary, collectivistic cultures view the self as interdependent with
others. Therefore, an individual is regarded as a part of one’s community, and one’s
behavior is inﬂuenced by others’ thoughts, feelings, and actions in the relationships
(Markus and Kitayama 1991).

Cultural Differences of eWOM Motivations between the US. and South Korea

The US. and South Korea have opposite characteristics in the individualism and
collectivism dimension. The US. is distinctively high on individualism, while South
Korea is a highly collectivistic society (Hofstede 1980). Given the role of culture in
consumer behavior, this cultural difference between the US. and South Korea may also
be manifested in consumers’ motivations for providing and seeking eWOM
communications.

Role of Culture in eWOM Providing Motivations. Study 1 demonstrated that
American consumers tend to provide eWOM for social interaction beneﬁts/self-
enhancement, helping the company (or brand), vengeance upon the company (or brand),
economic incentives, and concern for others. These motivations may be differently

manifested in Koreans. South Korea is a collectivistic culture in which a group’s goal and

38

needs are more important than those of an individual. According to Markus and Kitayama
(1991), other-serving motivations are more important than self-serving motivations in
highly interdependent cultures like South Korea than in highly independent cultures like
the US. People in collectivistic cultures have strong emotional attachment to their group
members, while in-groups of individualistic cultures require less mutual obligations and
also have less inﬂuence on individuals (de Mooij 2004). Consequently, Koreans may be
more likely than Americans to provide eWOM information out of concern for others.

H3: Korean consumers are more likely to provide eWOM out of concern for
others than American consumers.

While showing opinions and emotions is restricted by others’ reactions in
collectivistic cultures, individualistic cultures encourage people to freely express opinions
and emotions. People in collectivistic cultures are less likely than people in
individualistic cultures to display their emotions — especially negative ones like anger —
because negative opinions are considered as threats to a group’s harmony (de Mooij
2004; Markus and Kitayama 1991; Triandis 1989). Consumers in collectivistic cultures
are also known to be less likely to voice their complaints to the companies than
consumers in individualistic cultures (de Mooij 2004; Watkins and Liu 1996). Therefore,
we can assume that consumers in South Korea may be less likely to provide eWOM to
take vengeance upon a company or a brand than American consumers.

H4: American consumers are more likely than Korean consumers to provide
eWOM to take vengeance upon the company (or brand).

Collectivistic Koreans have a stronger desire for social interactions than
individualistic Americans. Individualistic cultures view an individual as distinctive and

independent from others in that discovering and expressing one’s characteristics are

39

critical in these cultures. In contrast, collectivistic cultures consider that individuals are
interdependent to each other, and thus people in theses cultures have a strong desire to
belong to a group and to maintain good relationships with its members (Markus and
Kitayama 1991). Previous cross-cultural Internet motivation studies also found that
Korean Web users were more likely to be motivated to use the lntemet for social
interactions than US. Web users (Kim and La F erle 2006; K0, Robert, and Cho 2006).
These ﬁndings imply that Korean consumers may have a higher tendency to provide
eWOM for social interaction beneﬁts.

On the other hand, the self-enhancement motivation may be stronger for
consumers in individualistic cultures than those in collectivistic cultures. In
individualistic cultures, positive feelings of oneself are associated with being better than
others and self—assertion (Markus and Kitayama 1991). On the contrary, self-
enhancement and self-promotion are negatively perceived in collectivistic cultures, while
self-control and self-restraint are regarded as morally mature (Y oshida, Kojo, and KaKu
1982). A study by Chung and Darke (2006) revealed that consumers in individualistic
cultures showed a greater tendency than consumers in collectivistic cultures to provide
more WOM information for products that can better express their self-image than for
utilitarian products. Moreover, they found that consumers in individualistic cultures
tended to exaggerate the beneﬁts of the products they purchased more than consumers in
collectivistic cultures. These ﬁndings imply a higher tendency in individualistic
consumers of providing eWOM to promote their self-image or to express themselves as

intelligent shoppers.

40

It is interesting to examine how these conﬂicting cultural propensities in self-
enhancement and social interactions will be manifested in the eWOM providing
motivation of social interaction beneﬁts/self-enhancement between Korean and American
consumers. Thus, the following research question is addressed:

RQS: Whether and how will American consumers and Korean consumers be

different in their tendencies to provide eWOM for social interaction beneﬁts/self-

enhancement?

Due to the difficulty of explaining cultural differences of eWOM motivations of
helping the company and economic incentives using the individualism-collectivism
dimension, the following research question is proposed:

RQ6: Whether and how will American consumers and Korean consumers be

different in their tendencies to provide eWOM for helping the company (or

brand) and economic incentives?

Role of Culture in eWOM Seeking Motivations. Study 1 showed that American
consumers tend to seek eWOM for social interaction beneﬁts, risk reduction, social-
oriented product information, and product usage information. As with consumers’
motivations for providing eWOM, these eWOM seeking motivations may also be
differently manifested in Koreans. As discussed above, Koreans have a stronger desire
for social interactions than Americans because relationships with others are more
emphasized in collectivistic cultures than in individualistic cultures. Therefore, we can
assume that Koreans seek eWOM information to communicate with other consumers or

to have a sense of belonging to online communities.

H5: Korean consumers are more likely to seek eWOM for social interaction
beneﬁts than American consumers.

In collectivistic cultures, one’s behavior is highly inﬂuenced by thoughts and

actions of others in the relationships. On the other hand, individualistic cultures consider

41

an individual being an autonomous agency, who acts according to one’s own distinctive
internal attributes (Markus and Kitayama 1991). Therefore, consumers in collectivistic
cultures are more likely to be susceptible to normative inﬂuence in purchase decision
making. Kropp, Lavack, and Silvera (2005) found that collectivistic Koreans showed
stronger needs to conform to others’ expectations in making purchase decisions or to
enhance one’s images through the use of a product or brand (of, Bearden, Netemeyer,
and Teel 1989) than individualistic Canadians, Australians, and Norwegians. Thus, we
can assume that Koreans may have higher tendencies than American consumers to seek
information about products’ social images or popularity when they make purchase
decisions.

H6: Korean consumers are more likely than American consumers to seek eWOM
for social-oriented product information.

In addition, since others’ opinions are more important for collectivistic cultures
than individualistic cultures, people in collectivistic cultures are more likely to use WOM
information as a major information source than people in individualistic cultures. Doran
(2002) found that collectivistic Chinese people heavily relied on personal information
sources in purchase decision-making, while individualistic North Americans used a
variety of information sources, including marketer-generated sources and knowledge
from one’s past purchase experiences. Thus, we can hypothesize that Korean consumers
may be more likely than American consumers to seek others’ comments on the lntemet to
get product feature knowledge or to solve problems with their product usage.

H7: Korean consumers are more likely than American consumers to seek eWOM
for product usage information.

42

Lastly, due to the difﬁculty of explaining cultural differences of eWOM seeking
motivations of risk reduction, the following research question is proposed:

RQ7: Whether and how will American consumers and Korean consumers be

different in their tendencies to seek eWOM for risk reduction?

Chapter 7
Study 2: Method
Participants and Procedure

To test the role of culture in eWOM providing motivations, the survey data
collected in Study 1 were used again in Study 2 as a US. sample, and a self-administered
survey was carried out in South Korea. Undergraduate students at two universities in
Seoul, South Korea, participated in the study. The survey was distributed in a classroom
setting, following the same procedure as that of Study 1. The English version of the
questionnaire used in Study 1 was translated into Korean and then back-translated into
English to assure comparability.

A total of 257 students in South Korea participated in the survey, but 21 of them
reported that they had never provided or sought comments about a product, a service, or a
company on the lntemet. Thus, a total of 236 participants were included as the Korean
sample in the subsequent data analyses. One hundred six were male (45%) and 130 were
female (55%). The mean age was 21.51 (SD = 2.29), which was similar to that of

American respondents (M = 20.54).

43

Chapter 8
Study 2: Results

Among the 257 Korean participants, 134 (57%) reported that they had provided
comments about a product, service, or company on the Web, while 220 (93%)
participants indicated that they had sought others’ comments. Only those responses from
the 134 participants and from the 220 participants were included in the subsequent data
analyses for examining eWOM providing and seeking motivations and behaviors,
respectively.
Individualism-Collectivism between American and Korean Consumers

Before examining the role of culture in eWOM providing and seeking motivations
between American and Korean consumers, the participants’ levels of individualism and
collectivism were compared. This procedure was necessary to verify the basic assumption,
regarding the cultural differences between the US. and Korea in respect to self construal,
used in the development of the hypotheses in this study. As expected, a t-test showed that
the US. participants were signiﬁcantly more individualistic (M = 4.94, SD = .77) than
Korean participants (M = 4.55, SD = .69) (p < 0.001), while Korean participants tended
to be collectivistic (M = 4.74, SD = .67) signiﬁcantly more than the US. participants (M
= 4.58, SD = .74) (p < 0.01).
Replications of eWOM Motivations among Korean Consumers

A factor analysis was conducted to determine whether the Korean data replicated
the ﬁndings of the American consumers. The factor analysis using the Korean data
generated similar factor structures and item loadings to those found in the American data.

The reliabilities of items for eWOM providing motivations were as follows: social

44

interaction beneﬁts/self—enhancement (a = .91), helping the company (or brand) (a = .82),
vengeance upon the company (or brand) (a = .80), economic incentives (r = .91), and
concern for others (r = .43). The reliabilities of items for eWOM seeking motivations
were as follows: social interaction beneﬁts (a = .86), risk reduction ((1 = .83), social-
oriented product information (a = .78), and product usage information (a = .70).
Hypothesis and Research Question Testing

Role of Culture in eWOM Providing Motivations. To test H3, H4, RQ5, and
RQ6, a Multivariate Analysis of Co-Variance (MANCOVA) was conducted. Country
(the US. or South Korea) was treated as the independent variable and ﬁve motivations
for providing eWOM were treated as dependent variables. Gender and lntemet usage
hours were included in the analysis as covariates. The results of MAN COVA revealed a
signiﬁcant effect of culture on the eWOM providing motivations, Wilks’ 3. =86, F (5,
238) = 7.804, p = <.001. Gender, Wilks’ A =.88, F (5, 238) = 6.434, p = <.001, and
lntemet usage hours, Wilks’ 2. =94, F(5, 238) = 3.171 , p = <.01, were found to be

signiﬁcant covariates. See Table 5 for means and standard deviations for all conditions.

Table 5. Means and Standard Deviation of US. and Korean Consumers:
eWOM Providing Motivations

 

 

 

US Korea
Mean SD Mean SD
S'l't ti b fts/lf-
ocra In one on ener se 2.24 1.30 2.37 1.07
enhancement
Helping the company 4.44" 1.33 3.96" 1.17
Vengeance upon the company 2.67 ** 1.61 3.37M 1.56
Economic incentives 2.90" 1.79 3.63“ 1.71
Concern for others 5.05“ 1.48 5.42“ 1.15

 

*p < .05, **p< .01, **"‘p < .001

45

H3 predicted that Korean consumers would be more likely to provide eWOM out
of concern for others than American consumers. The univariate analysis showed that
culture had a signiﬁcant effect on the concern for others motivation, F (1, 242) = 5.885, p
= <.05. Speciﬁcally, Korean participants (M = 5.42) had a signiﬁcantly higher tendency
to provide eWOM for concern for others than American participants (M = 5.05). Thus,
H3 was supported.

H4 predicted that Americans would be more likely than Koreans to provide
eWOM to take vengeance upon the company (or brand). The univariate analysis
indicated that there was a signiﬁcant impact of culture on this motivation, F (1, 242) =
12.365, p = <.01. Inconsistent with our prediction, however, Korean participants (M =
3.37) were more likely than American participants (M = 2.67) to be motivated by this
motivation. Therefore, H4 was rejected.

RQ5 and RQ6 asked whether and how American consumers and Korean
consumers would be different in the eWOM providing motivation for social interaction
beneﬁts/self-enhancement, helping the company or brand, and economic incentives. The
results showed that Americans (M = 2.24) were similar to Koreans (M = 2.37) in their
motivation for social interaction beneﬁts/self—enhancement, F (1, 242) = 1.648, n.s. For
the motivation for helping the company (or brand), U.S. respondents (M = 4.44) showed
a higher tendency than Korean respondents (M = 3.96), F (1,242) = 7.075, p = <.01.
Finally, Korean respondents (M = 3.63) were more likely than US. respondents (M =
2.90) to be motivated by economic incentives, F (l, 242) = 7.739, p = <.01.

Role of Culture in eWOM Seeking Motivations. The results of MANCOVA

testing motivations for seeking eWOM demonstrated a signiﬁcant effect for respondents’

46

culture, Wilks’ 2. =89, F(4, 526) = 17.073, p = <.001. Gender, Wilks’ i. =.98, F(4, 526) =
2.714 , p = <05, and susceptibility to interpersonal inﬂuence, Wilks’ 1. =66, F (4, 526) =

69.343, p = <.001, were signiﬁcant covariates, while lntemet usage hours, Wilks’ 2. =99,
F (4, 526) = 1.614, n.s., was not. See Table 6 for means and standard deviations for all

conditions.

Table 6. Means and Standard Deviation of U.S. and Korean Consumers:
eWOM Seeking Motivations

 

 

 

US Korea
Mean SD Mean SD
Social interaction benefits 2.32 1.20 2.32 1.13
Risk reduction 4.76*** 1.24 5.44*** 1.07
Social -oriented product information 330*" 1.37 3.97 *** 1.25
Product usage information 4.16*** 1.32 4.66*** 1.25

 

*p < .05, ”p < .01, ***p < .001

H5 predicted that Korean consumers would be more likely to seek eWOM for
social interaction beneﬁts than American consumers. Inconsistent with our prediction,
the univariate analysis found no signiﬁcant difference between the American consumers
(M = 2.32) and Korean consumers (M = 2.32), F(1, 529) = .641, n.s. Thus, H5 was
rejected.

H6 predicted that Korean consumers would be more likely than U.S. consumers to
seek eWOM for social-orientedproduct information. The univariate analysis found a
signiﬁcant main effect for culture, F (1, 529) = 33.256, p = <.001. Korean respondents (M
= 4.66) were more likely to be motivated by this motivation than U.S. respondents (M =

4.12) when seeking eWOM comments. Therefore, H6 was supported.

47

H7 predicted that Korean consumers would be more likely than U.S. consumers to
seek eWOM for product usage information. The univariate test found signiﬁcant
differences between American consumers and Korean consumers, F (1, 529) = 17.880, p
= <.001. Korean respondents (M = 3.97) had a higher propensity toward seeking product
usage information than U.S. respondents (M = 3.30). Thus, H7 was supported.

RQ7 asked whether and how American consumers and Korean consumers would
be different in their eWOM seeking motivations for risk reduction. Korean respondents
(M = 5.44) were more likely than U.S. respondents (M = 4.76) to be motivated by risk
reduction, F( 1,529) = 36.342 , p = <.001.

Summary of Study 2 findings

Study 2 investigated how culture inﬂuences eWOM motivations. In general, the
results found that, although eWOM providing and seeking motivations between
American and Korean consumers are similar in types, signiﬁcant differences exist in
degrees. It was found that U.S. consumers had a signiﬁcantly higher tendency toward
helping the company (or brand) than Korean consumers when providing eWOM, while
Korean consumers showed stronger motivations than U.S. consumers for vengeance upon
the company (or brand), economic incentives, and concern for others. However, no
signiﬁcant difference was found between these two countries. For motivations to seek
eWOM, this study found that Korean social interaction beneﬁts/self—enhancement
consumers were more likely than U.S. consumers to seek comments for risk reduction,
social-oriented product information, and product usage information. On the other hand,
Korean consumers and U.S. consumers showed no different tendency in social

interaction beneﬁts.

48

Chapter 9
Discussion and Conclusion

This study set out to investigate more fully what motivates American consumers
to provide and seek eWOM and how these motivations inﬂuence eWOM behaviors.
Moreover, this study sought to examine how culture inﬂuences eWOM providing and
seeking motivations, comparing American and Korean consumers.
eWOM Motivations and Their Inﬂuences on eWOM Behavior

Our ﬁndings revealed that consumers provide eWOM to belong to a group or be
recognized for one’s excellence by others through the interaction with other consumers
(social interaction beneﬁts/self-enhancement), to reward the company for quality
products (helping the company), to ease the tension from an unsatisfying purchase
experience by retaliating against the company (vengeance upon the company), to prevent
others from negative purchase experiences (concern for others), and to receive coupons
or discounts from online platform operators (economic incentives). The motivation for
economic incentives is differentiated from the other motivations in that it is extrinsically
stimulated, while the others are intrinsically driven. Among the intrinsically-driven
motivations, social interaction beneﬁts/self-enhancement is also distinguished ﬁom the
other three intrinsic motivations in that it is elicited by the beneﬁts of engaging in eWOM
providing activities, while the other motivations are triggered by the consequences of
purchase experiences.

The results of this study also found that consumers seek eWOM in order to reduce
the risk in their purchase decision-making by beneﬁting from others’ buying experiences

(risk reduction), to interact with other consumers or to obtain a sense of membership in

49

online communities (social interaction beneﬁts), to know a product’s social image or
market trends (social-oriented product information), and lastly, to obtain advice and
solutions to their problems with using the product (product usage information). The
motivation for seeking product usage information is different from the motivation for
seeking social-oriented product information. The former is related to seeking information
about technological aspects of product features, while the latter is related to seeking
information about symbolic meanings or popularity of a product.

The ﬁndings of this study also demonstrated that eWOM motivations inﬂuence
how frequently consumers provide and seek eWOM. Social interaction beneﬁts/self-
enhancement was the strongest predictor of the frequency of providing comments about a
product or service. The importance of social interaction beneﬁts in eWOM activities is
consistent with the popularity of social network sites among college students in both the
U.S. (e.g., Facebook or MySpace) and Korea (e. g., Cyworld). Helping the company or
brand was also positively related to the frequency of providing comments, while
vengeance upon the company or brand had no inﬂuence on the frequency of providing
eWOM. This result highlights the role of satisﬁed consumers as information
disseminators, whose impact on other consumers has been estimated as lower than
unsatisﬁed consumers in some studies (e.g., Burson-Marsteller 2001; TARP 1986).
Unlike other motivations, the economic incentives motivation was negatively related to
the frequency of providing comments, indicating that consumers motivated by extrinsic
rewards tend not to provide eWOM. As for the frequency of seeking eWOM, risk
reduction was the only positive predictor of the frequency of seeking comments. It

suggests that the desire to reduce the uncertainty or perceived risk in making purchase

50

decisions increases consumers’ involvement with eWOM information search activities.

This study also found that consumers tend to choose platform types that can
satisfy their eWOM providing motivations. Consumers motivated by social interaction
beneﬁts/self-enhancement tend to visit consumer review sites or portal sites to provide
comments. These platforms may help consumers satisfy this motivation because they can
profoundly discuss their product experiences with others having similar interests on
consumer review sites and portal sites. Consumers motivated by vengeance upon the
company (or brand) were more likely to visit complaint sites, while the concern for
others motivation was negatively related to the visits to these sites. It implies that
consumers consider complaint sites as an effective outlet to express their anger against
the companies and take vengeance upon the companies. When a main purpose of
providing eWOM is to help other consumers, however, consumers do not turn to
complaint sites because these complaint sites are often used by those who have already
experienced products.

Regarding consumers’ motivations to seek eWOM and their seeking activities,
consumers motivated by social interaction beneﬁts tend to visit consumer review sites
and complaint sites to seek others’ comments. Seeking others’ comments on consumer
review sites for social interaction corresponds with our earlier ﬁnding of consumers
tending to provide comments on these sites for social interaction/self—enhancement.
However, the ﬁnding that consumers tend to seek eWOM on complaint sites for the
social interaction purpose is somewhat intriguing. This may be relevant to strong
community memberships of complaint sites. Ward and Ostrom (2006) state that users of

complaint sites have a common social identity as they share similar disappointing

51

purchasing experiences. They argue that fellow consumers’ comments on those sites
provide emotional support to the site visitors who feel betrayed by companies. Our
ﬁndings also demonstrated that consumers who are motivated to get product usage
information tend to visit consumer review sites, auction sites, retailers’ sites, and portal
sites to seek comments. It implies that consumers seek comments about product usage
information from various sources.

Role of Culture in eWOM Motivations

Further, the ﬁndings of this study revealed the important cultural differences
between Americans and Koreans not in types but in degrees of different motivations to
provide and seek eWOM. Consistent with our predictions, Korean participants in
collectivistic cultures showed a higher tendency to provide eWOM out of concern for
others than American participants in individualistic cultures. Also, Koreans had stronger
propensities than Americans to seek eWOM for social-oriented product information and
product usage information. This result conﬁrms that consumers in collectivistic cultures
are more likely than consumers in individualistic cultures to rely on interpersonal
communications as a source of product information.

Unexpectedly, however, Koreans were more likely than Americans to provide
eWOM to take vengeance upon the company (or brand). This ﬁnding is surprising
because venting negative emotions is thought to be regulated in collectivistic cultures (de
Mooij 2004; Triandis 1989) and collectivistic consumers are less likely to voice their
complaints to companies than individualistic consumers (de Mooij 2004; Watkins and
Liu 1996). This result can be explained from two perspectives. First, consumers who

provide product-related information on the lntemet are often anonymous. As consumers’

52

identities are concealed in the online environment, Koreans may enjoy restored freedom
to uncover their emotions often inhibited in face to face interaction. Kim and Rhee (2006)
state that the lntemet has become a medium in the Korean society through which an
individual or a group’s thoughtless and conﬂicting opinions are expressed. According to
de Mooij (2004), the values that are undesirable and restricted to a culture’s norms can be
more appealing to people. For Korean consumers, this cultural paradox may manifest as a
strong motivation to express negative emotions toward companies and to take vengeance
upon the companies by providing eWOM on the Internet.

Second, the result can also be explained by the distinction between in-group and
out—group. Human nature shows favoritism toward in-group members but exhibits hostile
attitudes toward out-group members (Brewer 1979; Tajfel et al. 1971 ). Triandis (1985)
argued that collectivistic cultures draw a more extreme distinction between in-group and
out-group members than individualistic cultures. Therefore, collectivistic people tend to
show negative emotions toward strangers more than do individualistic people
(Matsumoto et al. 1988). It is reasonable to assume that Korean consumers may conceive
fellow consumers as in-group members but consider companies as out-group members.
Thus, their motivation to provide eWOM to take vengeance upon the companies may be
stronger than American consumers. The perspective of this in-group and out-group
behavior is also relevant to the ﬁnding that Korean participants are less likely than
American participants to provide eWOM to help the company (or brand).

The ﬁndings of this study showed that the economic incentives motivation was
stronger for Koreans than Americans. This result may be explained by the Confucian

dynamism concept proposed by Hofstede and Bond (1988). They have argued that thrift,

53

as a Confucian value, was one of the important factors that encouraged the dramatic
economic growth of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Drawing
on this notion, we may consider that Koreans have a stronger desire than Americans to
save money by receiving coupons or discounts for providing eWOM from platform
operators.

This study also found that Koreans were more likely than Americans to be
motivated to seek eWOM for risk reduction. This result may be closely associated with
the higher tendencies of Koreans than Americans in Hofstede’s (1980) uncertainty
avoidance dimension. Since high uncertainty avoidance cultures have a high level of
anxiety and less tolerance toward unclear or unpredictable situations, consumers in these
cultures have a stronger desire to decrease the potential risk in their purchase decisions
than consumers in low uncertainty avoidance cultures (de Mooij 2004).

Interestingly, no cultural inﬂuence was found for the motivation of social
interaction beneﬁts/self-enhancement (providing) and for the motivation of the social
interaction beneﬁts (seeking). It suggests that Americans and Koreans have similar levels
of desire to interact with others and desire to enhance their self-esteem by providing
eWOM. Researchers have argued that people in individualistic cultures tend to join many
in-groups with weak bonds, while people in collectivistic cultures tend to have a few in-
groups holding strong membership (de Mooij 2004; Triandis 1985). This indicates that
consumers in both individualistic cultures and collectivistic cultures have a similar level
of desire for social interactions. The same argument can apply to the self-enhancement
motivation. Kobayashi and Brown (2003) found that, although collectivistic Japanese

people’s presentation of self-esteem was more modest than individualistic Americans’

54

presentation, they evaluated themselves as better than others, like Americans. They
claimed that self-enhancement is a universal desire, but its manifestation is shaped by
culture.

Our ﬁndings revealed that cultural differences exist in the degrees of consumers’
motivations for providing eWOM, rebutting the idea of globalization of consumer culture
proposed by Levitt (1983). Particularly, the present research demonstrates culture’s
impact on young adults, in the context of eWOM, who are considered to have more
homogenized needs and values across cultures than other age groups (Mueller 1996). The
ﬁndings also provide insights into our understanding of the complex inﬂuence of culture
in eWOM providing motivations. For example, the individualism/collectivism dimension
was represented in the motivation of concern for others in a predictable way, whereas it
was manifested in the motivation of vengeance upon the company (or brand) in a more
complicated way. These ﬁndings suggest that researchers should understand culture’s
inﬂuence on eWOM providing motivations ﬁom multiple perspectives.

Practical Implications

The current research also has implications for eWOM platform operators and
marketers. Having knowledge about consumers’ motivations to provide and seek eWOM
will help eWOM platform operators and marketers develop services and strategies that
will satisfy consumers’ speciﬁc wants and needs. Speciﬁcally, the ﬁnding that consumers
who are motivated by economic rewards tend not to provide eWOM is noteworthy. To
increase consumers’ participation in providing comments about a product or service,
platform operators should encourage consumers to voluntarily engage in eWOM

communication. In addition, marketers should recognize the importance of satisﬁed

55

consumers as positive eWOM disseminators. To beneﬁt from satisﬁed consumers’
positive eWOM communications, marketers should continue not only to improve
consumers’ satisfaction levels but also to facilitate the process of spreading positive
eWOM. For example, marketers can send a hyper link to customers’ email accounts that
directly connects them to recommendation or rating services of online platforms.
Moreover, eWOM platform operators -—- especially consumer review websites — should
use strategies that will satisfy consumers’ motivations for social interaction beneﬁts by
providing them with more opportunities to interact with other consumers. They can
provide communication services such as chat rooms for platform users or hold online or
ofﬂine events where community members can gather and meet. It is also important to
know that consumers motivated by the risk reduction motivation are active seekers of
eWOM information. To satisfy their needs, eWOM platform operators can develop Web
site functions that allow consumers to view overall reputation of product quality or to
easily compare details of different products.

For international marketers and online platform operators, the evidence of cultural
differences in degrees of eWOM providing motivations suggests that eWOM platform
services or marketing strategies should be customized depending on consumers’ cultural
characteristics. For example, marketers in collectivistic cultures such as Korea should
recognize the importance of managing negative eWOM. Marketers may need to position
themselves as consumers’ in-group members to lessen the emotional gap between
consumers and themselves. This effort may reduce consumers’ motivations to take
vengeance upon companies and increase their motivations to help companies. In addition,

marketers targeting collectivistic cultures can beneﬁt from the strong needs of seeking

56

interpersonal information in disseminating eWOM information about their products. On
the other hand, marketers in individualistic cultures such as the U.S. should focus on
maintaining positive relationships with their satisﬁed consumers and encourage them to
create positive buzz about their products.
Limitations and Future Research

Although this study has implications, limitations also exist. Among several
dimensions of culture, this study focused only on the individualism-collectivism
dimension. Although this dimension is the most distinctive dimension in human social
behavior (Hofstede 1980), and thus best captures the differences between different
cultures (Laroche, Kalamas, and Cleveland 2005), future research should examine other
dimensions of culture as well to understand more thoroughly the role of culture in eWOM
providing motivations. Additionally, this study examined consumers’ eWOM providing
motivations in only two countries—the U.S. and South Korea. Additional studies should
examine consumers’ eWOM motivations in other countries that range in terms of
important cultural dimensions. Finally, this study used a student sample. Additional

replications using a different population should be undertaken.

57

Appendix

Questionnaire

Study of Word-of-Mouth on the lntemet
Thank you for participating in a research study on electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM). Please
read the following questions carefully and answer as best as you can. Before you start answering
the questions, please take a minute to read the deﬁnitions.

Definitlon of eWOM:

o eWOM indicates any positive or negative comments about a product, a service, or
a company made by consumers on the lntemet.

. eWOM information is available on various Web sites, such as consumer
review/complaint sites (e.g., Epinions.com, CNET, and thiscompanysuck.com),
onllne market places (e.g., eBay and Amazon.com), Web portals (e.g., Yahool), and
blogs (e.g., Myspacecom), etc.

Part 1:
I. uestlons r ardln Providin Comments about a Product on the lntemet

1. Have you ever provided comments about a product, a service, or a company on the

lntemet?
Yes ............. 1
No ............... 2 (If no, please skip to Question 9 in page 3)

2-1. In the last 12 months, how gften did you provide comments about a product, a service, or a
company on the lntemet?
Never provided Regularly provided
comments
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2-2. In the last 12 months, how often did you provide comments about a product, a service, or a
company on the lntemet?

Never ......................................................................................................... 1
Once or twice a year ................................................................................. 2
. Several times a year ................................................................................. 3
Once a month ............................................................................................ 4
Once a week ............................................................................................. 5
Everyday ................................................................................................... 6

3. In the last 12 months, approximately how many comments did you provide about a product, a
service, or a company on the lntemet?

1-5 comments ........................................................................................... 1
5-10 comments ......................................................................................... 2
10—15 comments ....................................................................................... 3
15—20 comments ....................................................................................... 4
20-25 comments ....................................................................................... 5
25-30 comments ....................................................................................... 6
More than 30 comments ........................................................................... 7

58

4. In the last 12 months, how often did you provide comments about a product, a service, or a

company at following Web sites?
Never Once Afew Once Afew Everyday

a year times a times
a year month a
month

(1 ). Consumer revrew srtes (e.g., 1 2 3 4 5 6
Epinions.com)
(2.) Complaint srtes (e.g., 1 2 3 4 5 6
thiscompanysuckcom)
(3) Online auction sites (e.g., eBay) 1 2 3 4 5 6
(4) Online retailers’ sites (e.g., Amazon.com) 1 2 3 4 5 6
(5) Web portals (e.g., Yahoo!) 1 2 3 4 5 6
(6) Blogs (e.g., Myspace.com) 1 2 3 4 5 6
(7) Others (specify: ) 1 2 3 4 5 6

5. What kinds of product or service categories have you provided comments about on the
lntemet? (Check all that apply)

1) Retail 2) Restaurant

3) Financial 4) Telecommunication/Wireless services

5) Food and Beverage 6) Alcoholic Beverage

7) Pharmaceutical 8) Automotive

9) Electronic Products 10) Apparel

1 1) Cosmetics 12) Personal Care

13) Entertainment 14) Cleaning Products

15) Toys and Kids Items 16) Furniture and Household Items

17) Tobacco 18) Insurance

19) Doctors/Lawyers 20) Others (specify: )

6-1. In the last 12 months, how often did you provide positive comments about a product, a

service, or a company on the lntemet?
Never provided Regularly provided
comments
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6-2. In the last 12 months, how often did you provide negative comments about a product, a

service, or a company on the lntemet?
Never provided Regularty provided
comments
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7-1. Some Web sites or product companies offer incentives (or rewards) for providing comments
about a product, a service, or a company on the lntemet (e.g., Web points, discounts, coupons
etc.). Have you ever received any incentives by providing comments?

Yes ............... 1

No ................ 2

7-2. If yes, what kinds of incentives have you received? (Check all that apply)

(1) Web points (2) Discounts
(3) Cash (4) Coupons
(5) Gifts (6) Others (specify: )

59

8. People vary in why they provide comments about a product, a service, or a company on the
lntemet. Please indicate why you provide comments about a product, a service, or a
company on the Internet by circling the number that best describes your agreement or
disagreement with each statement. You may think many items are similar. Actually, no two items
are exactly alike so be sure to circle one number for each statement.

“I rovide comments about a roduct a service or a corn an on the Internet ...... ”

Strongly Strongly
disagree agree
(1) To help others with my own positive experiences. 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
(2) Because in my own opinion, good companies (brands) 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
should be supported.
(3)Tomeetpeople. 1--2--3---4--5---6--7
(4) To get attention for providing recommendations. 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7

(5) Because the company harmed me, and now I will harm the 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
company!

(6) To tell others about my great buying experience. 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
(7)Towarn othersofbad products. 1--2 --3---4--5---6--7
(8) Because I am so satisﬁed with a company and its product 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 — - 5- - - 6 - - 7

that I want to help the company to be successful.

(9) To tell others about my buying successes. 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
(10) To give others the Opportunity to buy the right product. 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
(11) To make more people hear my complaint about a company. 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
(12) To get a discount or coupons from the Website. 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7

(13) To support the company and the product that I like.

(14) Because I like to tell others my expert knowledge.

(15) Because of the incentives I receive.

(16) Because a chat among like-minded people is a nice thing.
(17) To show others that I am a clever shopper.

(18) Because I want to encourage the good company.

--2--3---4--5---6--7
--2--3---4--5---6--7
--2—-3---4--5---6--7
--2--3---4--5---6--7

(19) To retaliate against the company for a bad buying 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
expenence.

(20) To collect Web points for providing comments. 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
(21) To prevent others from having the same negative 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
experience as me.

(22) Because it is worthwhile to help others buy the right 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5— - - 6 - - 7
product.

(23) To damage the company's reputation. 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
(24) To communicate with various people sharing similar 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
interest.

(25) To make more people buy the product of the wmpany that l 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
support.

(26) Because it’s fun to communicate with other people.
(27) To make money for providing product reviews.

(28) So I can give a reward to the good company.

(29) Because it makes me feel that I belong to a group.
(30) To take vengeance upon the company.

--2--3---4--5---6--7
--2--3---4--5---6--7
--2--3—--4--5---6--7
--2--3---4--5---6--7
--2--3---4--5---6--7

—L—l—L—L—l

A

(31) Because I like the social interaction with other consumers. - - 2 - - 3— - - 4 - - 5. - - 6 - - 7
(32) Because I receive a reward for giving information. 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7

60

(33) To help others know useful product information. 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7

(34) Because I feel good when others show me some respect 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 — - 5- - - 6 - - 7
for my knowledge.

(35) To voice out my complaint about the company. 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
BALL:

II. Now, we would like to know your experience regarding Seeking other consumers’
comments about a product provided on the Internet

9. Have you ever sought any comments about a product, a service, or a company provided by
other consumers on the lntemet?
Yes ............. 1

No .............. 2 (If no, please skip to Question 15 in page 5)

10-1. In the last 12 months, how often did you seek other consumers’ comments about a
product, a service, or a company on the lntemet?

Never sought RegularIy sought
comments
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10—2. In the last 12 months, how often did you seek other consumers’ comments about a
product, a service, or a company on the lntemet?

Never ......................................................................................................... 1
Once or twice a year ................................................................................. 2
Several times a year ................................................................................. 3
Once a month ............................................................................................ 4
Once a week ............................................................................................. 5
Everyday ................................................................................................... 6

11-1. How often have you decided to purchase a product or use a service after reading other
consumers’ positive comments about a product, a service, or a company on the lntemet?
Never Always
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11-2. How often have you decided n_ot to purchase a product or use a service after reading other
consumers’ negative comments about a product, a service, or a company on the lntemet?
Never Always
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12. In the last 12 months, how often did you seek other consumers’ comments about a product,
a service, or a company at following Web sites?
Never Once A few Once A few Everyday

a year times a times

a year month a
month

(1) Consumer review sites (e.g.,
Epinions.com) 1 2 3 4 5 6
(2) Complaint sites (e.g.,
thiscompanysuckcom)
(3) Online auction sites (e.g., eBay)
(4) Online retailers’ sites (e.g., Amazon.com)
(5) Web portals (e.g., Yahoo!)
(6) Blogs (e.g., Myspace.com)
(7) Others (specify: )

.1.—34.5.3.5
NNNNNN
03020303000)
##-D-h-§J>
010101010101
0300303030)

61

13. What kinds of product or service categories have you sought others’ comments about on the

lntemet? (Check all that apply)

1) Retail 2) Restaurant

3) Financial 4) Telecommunication/Wireless services
5) Food and Beverage 6) Alcoholic Beverage

7) Pharmaceutical 8) Automotive

9) Electronic Products 10) Apparel

1 1) Cosmetics 12) Personal Care

13) Entertainment 14) Cleaning Products

15) Toys and Kids Items
17) Tobacco 18) Insurance
19) Doctors/Lawyers 20) Others (specify:

16) Furniture and Household Items

)

14. People vary in why they seek comments about a product, a service, or a company provided
by other consumers on the lntemet. Please indicate why you seek comments about a product,
a service, or a company provided by other consumers on the lntemet by circling the number
that best describes your agreement or disagreement with each statement. You may think many
items are similar. Actually, no two items are exactly alike so be sure to circle one number for each

statement.

“I seek comments about a roduct a servlce or com an rovlded b other consumers

on the lntemet ...... ”

(1) Because contributions by other customers help me to make
the safe buying decisions.

(2) Because I wonder how many people are using the product.
(3) So I can save a great deal of time during shopping.

(4) Because I really like being part of such a community

(5) To ﬁnd advice and solutions for my problems with the
product.

(6) To know which topics are “in.”

(7) To know the product’s social image.

(8) Because I can get the conﬁrmation that I made the right
buying decision.

(9) To know experts’ opinion about my problem.

(10) To compare different products easily.

(11) Because I enjoy participating in other community members’
shopping experiences.

(12) Because I heard about something new and I want to ﬁnd
out more about it.

(13) To beneﬁt from others’ experiences before I buy a product
or use a service.

(14) Because I am able to research the product conveniently
from home, work, or school.

(15) So the chances of me making a bad decision are reduced.
(16) To get information on the quality of products faster than
elsewhere.

(17) Because it’s fun to learn and compare the information of
products in the marketplace.

62

1

Strongly
disagree

Strongly
agree

--2--3---4--5---6--7

--2--3---4--5---6--7
--2--3---4--5---6--7

--2 --
--2 --

---4--5---6--7

3
3---4--5---6--7

--2--3---4--5---6--7
--2--3---4--5---6--7

0000

---4--5---6--7
---4--5---6--7
---4--5---6--7
---4--5—--6--7
---4--5---6--7

(18) Because others’ opinion about a product is important for 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
me.

(19)Toknowifthe product is popular. 1--2 --3---4--5---6--7
(20)To learn howto usethe product. 1--2 --3---4--5---6--7
(21) Because it’s fun to communicate with people in the 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
community.

(22) Because I don’t want to end up regretting a decision I 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
make.

(23) To communicate with various people sharing similar 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
interest.

(24) Because I ﬁnd the right answers by seeking others’ 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
comments on the Internet when I have difﬁculties with the

product.

(25) Because saving my time and effort in the product search is 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
important for me.

(26)To know what kinds of people generally buy the product. 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
(27) Because it makes me feel that I belong to a group. 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
(28) Because it’sagood waytogeta plentyofproduct 1--2 --3---4--5---6--7
information.

(29) Because I am interested in what is new. 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
(30) To avoid making a risky decision. 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5— - - 6 - - 7
(31) To get a variety of information from people who have 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
positive and negative Opinions.

(32) Because I don’t want to buy a bad product 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
(33) Because the amount of effort I have to make to ﬁnd 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
information is small.

(34)Togetthe product’s usertips. 1--2 --3---4--5---6--7

(35) Because I like the social interaction with other consumers. 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
ems

a Qupstlpns fpr Ever_'y Pprtlcipant

15. How many hours do you usually spend using thp lntemet on an average gpy?

hour(s) minutes

16. People vary in why they use the lntemet. Please indicate why you use the lntemet by
circling the number that best describes your agreement or disagreement with each statement
using the scale below. Many items might seem similar; however no two items are exactly alike so
be sure to circle one number for each statement.

“I use the lntemet ...... ”

Strongly Strongly
disagree agree
(1)Toe-mailotherpeople 1--2--3---4--5---6--7

(2) To connect with my friends
(3) To make a purchase

--2--3---4--5---6--7
--2--3---4--5---6--7

A-Ld—L—l

(4)Todoresearch --2--3—--4--5---6--7
(5)Toexplorenewsites --2--3---4--5---6--7
(6)Tobuythings --2--3---4--5---6--7
(7)Tocommunicatewithothers 1--2 --3---4--5---6--7

63

(8)Togetinformationlneed 1--2--3---4--5---6--7
(9)Tosurfforfun 1--2--3—--4--5---6--7
(10)Toﬁnd interesting web pages 1--2 --3---4--5---6--7
(11)To purchasea product I’ve heard about 1--2 --3---4--5---6--7
(12)Toﬁnd outthings I need to know 1--2 --3---4--5---6--7
17. The following questions ask about your shopping tendencies. Please indicate yourself in
general by circling the number that best describes your agreement or disagreement with each
statement using the scale below.

Strongly Strongly

disagree agree

(1) When buying products, I generally purchase those brands 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
that I think others will approve of.

(2) lfIhaveIittIeexperiencewitha product, Ioften askmy 1--2 --3---4--5---6--7
friends about the product.
(3) I Iiketoknowwhatbrands and products makegood 1--2 --3---4--5---6--7

impressions on others.

(4) I frequently gather information from friends or family about a 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
product before I buy.

(5) To make sure I buy the right product or brand, I often 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
observe what others are buying and using.

(6) If other people can see me using a product, I often purchase 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
the brand they expect me to buy.

(7) I often consult other people to help choose the best 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
alternative available from a product class.

(8) I often identify with other people by purchasing the same 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
products and brands they purchase.

(9) I achieve a sense of belonging by purchasing the same 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7

products and brands that others purchase.
(10) I rarely purchase the latest fashion styles until I am sure my 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
friends approve of them.

(11) It is important that others like the products and brands I 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
buy.

(12) lflwantto be like someone, Ioften tryto buythe same 1--2 --3---4--5—--6--7
brands that they buy.

18. The following questions ask about ypur tendencies in relationships with otheg. Please
indicate yourself in general by circling the number that best describes your agreement or
disagreement with each statement using the scale below.

Strongly Strongly
disagree agree
(1) It is important for me to maintain harmony within my group. 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
(2) I am comfortable with being singled out for praise or rewards. 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
(3) I prefer to be direct and forthright when dealing with people 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
I’ve just met.
(4) It is important to me to respect decisions made by the group. 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - - - 6 - - 7

(5) I am the same person at home that I am at school. 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4
(6) Even when I strongly disagree with group members, I avoid 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
an argument.

(7) I’d rather say “No” directly, than risk being misunderstood. 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
(8) Speaking up during a class is not a problem for me. 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7
(9) My happiness depends on the happiness of those around 1 - - 2 - - 3- - - 4 - - 5- - - 6 - - 7

64

me.
(10) If my brother or sister fails, I feel responsible.

(11) I act the same way no matter who I am with.

(12) I respect people who are modest about themselves.

(13) I have respect for the authority ﬁgures with whom I interact.
(14) Having a lively imagination is important to me.

(15) I would offer my seat in a bus to my professor.

(16) Being able to take care of myself is a primary concern for
me.

(17) I will stay in a group if they need me, even when I’m not
happy with the group.

(18) I enjoy being unique and different from others in many
respects.

(19) I should take into consideration my parents' advice when
making education/career plans.

(20) I value being in good health above everything

(21) I often have the feeling that my relationships with others are
more important than my own accomplishments.

(22) My personal identity independent of others is very important
to me.

(23) I feel comfortable using someone’s ﬁrst name soon after I
meet them, even when they are much older than I am.

(24) I will sacriﬁce my self-interest for the beneﬁt of the group I
am in.

5 Please answer the following questions about yourself.

19. Please indicate your gender. (1) Female (2) Male
20. How old are you? years old
21. What is your ethnicity?

(1 ) White/Caucasian

(2) BIack/African-American
(3) Hispanic/Latino(a)

(4) Asian/Paciﬁc Islander
(5) Other

22. What is your nationality?

 

23. What is your major?

 

Thank you for your particlpationl

65

1--2--3---4--5---6--7
1--2--3---4--5---6--7
1--2--3—--4--5---6--7

1--2--3---4--5—--6--7
1--2--3---4--5---6--7

1--2--3—--4--5---6--7

References

Anderson, Eugene W. (1998), "Customer satisfaction and word of mouth," Journal of
Service Research, 1(1), 5-17.

Amdt, Johan (1967a), "Role of product-related conversations in the diffusion of a new
product, " Journal of Marketing Research, 4(August), 291 -95.

 

(1967b), "Perceived risk, sociometric integration and word of mouth in the
adoption of a new food product." In Risk taking and information handling in
consumer behavior, graduate school of business administration, D. F. Cox (Ed.),
Boston, MA: Harvard University, 289-323.

Baack, Daniel W. and Nitish Singh (2007), "Culture and web communications," Journal
of Business Research, 60(3), 181-88.

Bailey, Ainsworth A. (2004), "Thiscompanysucks.Com: The use of the intemet in
negative consumer-to-consumer articulations," Journal of Marketing
Communications, 10, 169-82.

Bansal, Harvis S. and Peter A. Voyer (2000), "Word-of-mouth processes within a
services purchase decision context," Journal of Services Research, 3(November),
166-77.

Bayton, James A. (1958), "Motivation, cognition, learning: Basic factors in consumer
behavior," Journal of Marketing, 22(3), 282-89.

Bearden, William 0., Richard G. Netemeyer and Jesse E. Teel (1989), "Measurement of
consumer susceptibility to interpersonal inﬂuence," Journal of Consumer

Research, 15(4), 473-81 .

Bickart, Barbara and Robert M. Schindler (2001), "Internet forums as inﬂuential sources
of consumer information," Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15(3), 31-40.

Bone, Paula F. (1992), "Determinants of word-of-mouth communications during product
consumption," Advances in Consumer Research, 19, 579-83.

Brewer, Marilynn B. (1979), "In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A
cognitive-motivational analysis," Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 307-24.

Brooks, Robert C. Jr. (1957), "Word-of-mouth advertising in selling new products,"
Journal of Marketing 22(2), 154-61.

Brown, Jacqueline J. and Peter H. Reingen (1987), "Social ties and word-of-mouth
referral behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, 14(December), 350-62.

66

Burson-Marsteller (2001). "The power of online inﬂuencers - your company's newest
stakeholder group." Visited online March 5, 2008 at http://www.burson-
marsteller.com/Practices__And_Specialties/AssetFile/E-
Fluentials%20Brochure.pdf

Buttle, Francis A. (1998), "Word of mouth: Understanding and managing referral
marketing," Journal of Strategic Marketing 6, 241-54

Chatterjee, Patrali (2001), "Online reviews - do consumers use them?." In Advances in
consumer research, M. C. Gilly and]. Myers-Levy (Eds), Vol. 28, Ann Arbor,
MI: Association for Consumer Research, 129-33.

Chevalier, Judith A. and Dina Mayzlin (2006), "The effect of word of mouth on sales:
Online book reviews," Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3), 345-54.

Chung, Cindy M. Y. and Peter R. Darke (2006), "The consumer as advocate: Self-
relevance, culture, and word-of-mouth," Marketing Letter, 17, 269-79.

comScore (2004, October 14). "The university population online." Visited online
October 10, 2007, at http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/4411.asp

Cox, Donald and Raymond A. Bauer (1964), "Self conﬁdence and persuasibility in
women," Public Opinion Quarterly, 28(F all), 453-66.

Dawar, Niraj, Phillip M. Parker and Lydia J. Price (1966), "A cross-cultural study of

interpersonal information exchange," Journal of International Business Studies,
27(4), 497-516.

Day, George S. (1971), "Attitude change, media and word of mouth," Journal of
Advertising Research, 11(6), 31-40.

de Mooij, Marieke K. (2004), Consumer behavior and culture: Consequences for global
marketing and advertising, California: Sage.

Dichter, Ernest (1966), "How word-of-mouth advertising works," Harvard Business
Review, 44(November-December), 147-66.

Doran, Kathleen B. (2002), "Lessons learned in cross-cultural research of Chinese and
North American consumers," Journal of Business Research, 55(10), 823-29.

Ellison, Glenn and Drew Fudenberg (1995), "Word-of-mouth communication and social
learning," Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 93-125.

eMarketer (2007, March 7). "Blog reading is a free-ﬂoating affair." Visited online May
10, 2007, at
http://www.emarketer.com/Article.aspx?id= 1 00465 6&src=article_head_sitesearc
h

67

Engel, James F ., Robert J. Kegerreis and Roger D. Blackwell (1969), "Word-of-mouth
communication by the innovator," Journal of Marketing, 33. No 3, 15-19.

Faber, Ronald J ., Mira Lee and Xiaoli Nan (2004), "Advertising and the consumer
information environment online," The American Behavioral Scientist, 48, 447-66.

File, Karen M., Dianne S. P. Cermak and Russ A. Prince (1994), "Word-of-mouth effects
in professional services buyer behavior," The Service Industries Journal 14(3),
301-14.

 

, Ben B. Judd and Russ A. Prince (1992), "Interactive marketing: The inﬂuence of
participation on positive word-of-mouth and referrals," The Journal of Services
Marketing, 6(4), 5-14.

Fong, John and Suzan Burton (2006), "Electronic word-of-mouth: A comparison of stated
and revealed behavior on electronic discussion boards," Journal of Interactive
Advertising, 6(2), 61-70.

Gelb, Betsy D. and Suresh Sundaram (2002), "Adapting to ’word of mouse'," Business
Horizons, 45(4), 21-25.

Gilly, Mary C., John L. Graham, Mary F. Wolﬁnbarger and Laura J. Yale (1998), "A
dyadic study of interpersonal information search," Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 2(2), 83-100.

Godes, David, Dina Mayzlin, Yubo Chen, Sanjiv Das, Chrysanthos Dellarocas, Bruce
Pfeiffer, et al. (2005), "The ﬁrrn’s management of social interactions," Marketing
Letters, 16(3/4), 415-28.

Goldsmith, Ronald E. and David Horowitz (2006), "Measuring motivations for online
opinion seeking " Journal of Interactive Advertising, 6(2), 1-16.

Granovetter, Mark S. (1973), "The strength of weak ties," American Journal of Sociology,
78(May), 1360-80.

Gruen, Thomas W., Talai Osmonbekov and Andrew J. Czaplewski (2006), "eWOM: The
impact of customer-to-customer online know-how exchange on customer value
and loyalty," Journal of Business Research, 59, 449-56.

Ha, H.-Y. (2002), "The effects of consumer risk perception on pre-purchase information
in online auctions: Brand, word-of-mouth, and customized information,"

Computer-Mediated Communication, 8(1).

Harrison-Walker, L. J. (2001), "E-complaining: A content analysis of an intemet
complaint forum," Journal of Services Marketing, 15(4/5), 397-412.

68

Hempel, Donald J. (1974), "Family buying decisions - a cross-culturtal perspective,"
Journal of Maketing Research, 11(3), 295.

Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten, Kevin P. Gwinner, Gianfranco Walsh and Dwayne D. Gremler
(2004), "Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What
motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the intemet?," Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 18(1), 38-52.

 

and G Walsh (2004), "Electronic word-of-mouth: Motives for and consequences
of reading customer articulations on the intemet," International Journal of
Electronic Commerce, 8(2), 51-74.

Herr, Paul M., Frank R. Kardes and John Kim (1991), "Effects of word-of-mouth and
product-attribute information on persuasion: An accessibility-diagnosticity
perspective," Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 454-62.

Hofstede, Geert (1980), Culture's consequences: International diﬂerences in work-
related values, California: Sage Pulications.

—— and Michael H. Bond (1988), "The conﬁrcius connection: From cultural roots to
economic growth," Organizational Dynamite, 16(Spring), 4-21.

Hogan, John E., Katherine N. Lemon and Barak Libai (2004), "Quantifying the ripple:
Word-of-mouth and advertising effectiveness," Journal of Advertising Research,
44(3), 271-80.

InternetWorldStats (2007, June 30). "Top 20 countries with highest number of intemet
users." Visited online August 30, 2007, at
http://www.intemetworldstats.com/top20.htm

Katz, Elihu. and Paul F. Lazarsfeld (1955), Personal influence: The part played by
people in the ﬂow of mass communication, New York: The Free Press.

Kiel, Geoffrey C. and Roger A. Layton (1981), "Dimensions of consumer information
seeking behavior," Journal of Marketing Research, 18, May, 233-39.

Kim, Eun Mee and June Woong Rhee (2006), "Rethinking 'reading' online: The effects of
online communication," Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies,
50(4), 65-94.

Kim, Hee-Jung and Carrie La Ferle (2006), "Cultural inﬂuences on intemet motivations:
A comparison of Korean and U.S. consumers," International Journal of lntemet

Marketing and Advertising, 3(2), 142 - 57.

K0, Hanjun, Marilyn S. Robert and Chang-Hoan Cho (2006), "Cross-cultural differences
in motivations and perceived interactivity: A comparative study of American and

69

Korean intemet users," Jounal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising,
28(2), 93-104.

Kobayashi, Chihiro and Jonathon D. Brown (2003), "Self-esteem and self-enhancement
in Japan and America," Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 567-80.

Korgaonkar, Pradeep K. and Lori D. Wolin (1999), "A multivariate analysis of web
usage," Journal of Advertising Research, 39(2), 53-68.

Kropp, Fredric, Anne M. Lavack and David H. Silvera (2005), "Values and collective
self-esteem as predictors of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal inﬂuence
among university students," International Marketing Review, 22(1), 7-33.

Lam, Desmond (2007), "Cultural inﬂuence on proneness to brand loyalty," Journal of
International Consumer Marketing, 19(3), 7-21.

Laroche, Michel, Maria Kalamas and Mark Cleveland (2005), ""1" Versus "We": How
individualists and collectivists use information sources to formulate their service
expectations," International Marketing Review, 22(3), 279-308.

Larson, Jane (2007, September 24). "Survey: Online shoppers turning younger." Visited
online October 10, 2007, at
http://www.azcentral.com/business/consumer/articles/0924biz-icrossing0925.htrnl

Lee, Julie A. (2000), "Adapting Triandis's model of subjective culture and social behavior
relations to consumer behavior " Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(2), 177-26.

Levitt, Theodore (1983), "Tire globalization of markets," Harvard Business Review, 61(3),
92-103.

Markus, Hazel R. and Shinobu Kitayama (1991), "Culture and self: Implications for
cognition, emotion, and motivation," Psychological Review,, 20, 224-53.

Matsumoto, David, Tsutomu Kudoh, Klaus Scherer and Harald Wallbott (1988),
"Antecedents of and reactions to emotions in the united states and japan," Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 19(3), 267-86.

McGuire, William J. (1968), "Personality and susceptibility to social inﬂuence." In
Handbook of personality theory and research, Edgar F. Borgatta andWilliam W.
Lambert (Eds.), Chicago: Rand McNally, 1130-87.

Mueller, Brigitte (1996), International advertising, Belmont,: CA:Wadsworth Publishing
Company.

Murray, Keith. B. (1991), "A test of services marketing theory: Consumer information
acquisition activities," Journal of Marketing 55, January, 10-25.

70

Oliver, Richard L. (1997), Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer, New
York: McGraw-Hill.

 

and John E. Swan (1989), "Consumer perceptions of interpersonal equity and
satisfaction in transactions: A ﬁeld survey approach " Journal of Maketing, 53(2),
21-35.

Papacharissi, Zizi and Alan M. Rubin (2000), "Predictors of intemet use," Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44(2), 175-97.

Parker, Betty J. and Richard E. Plank (2000), "A uses and gratiﬁcations perspective on
the intemet as a new information source," American Business Review, 18(2), 43-
49.

Pew Intemet & American Life Project (2004). "The use of online reputation and rating
systems." Visited online October 10, 2007, at
http://www.pewintemet.org/pdfs/PIP_Datamemo_Reputation.pdf

Reeve, Johnmarshall (2005), Understanding motivation and emotion (4ed.), Hoboken:
NJ: Wiley.

Richins, Marsha L. (1983), "Negative word-of-mouth by dissatisﬁed consumers: A pilot
study," Journal of Marketing 47 (Winter), 68-78.

 

and Teri Root-Shaffer (1988), "The role of involvement and opinion leadership in
consumer word-of-mouth: An implicit model made explicit," Advances in
Consumer Research, 15(1), 32-36.

Rogers, Everett. M. (1995), Difﬁisions of innovations (4ed.), New York: The Free Press.

Schifﬁnan, Leon G. and Leslie L. Kanuk (1991), Consumer behavior, (4 ed.), Englewood
Cliffs: NJ : Prentice Hall.

Schmuck, Peter, Tim Kasser and Richard M Ryan (2000), "Intrinsic and extrinsic goals:
Their structure and relationship to well-being in gerrnan and u.S. College
students," Social Indicators Research, 50(2), 225-41.

Sheth, Jagdish N. (1971), "Word of mouth in low risk innovations," Journal of
Advertising Research, 1 1, 15-18.

Silverman, George (2001), The secrets of word-of-mouth marketing, New York:
American Management Association.

Smith, Robert E. and Christine A. Vogt (1995), "The effects of integrating advertising

and negative word-of-mouth communication on message processing and
reponse," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(2), 133-51.

71

Somasundaram, T. N. and C. D. Light (1994), "Rethinking a global media strategy: A
four country comparison of young adults' perceptions of media-speciﬁc
advertising," Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 7(1), 23-38.

Stern, Barbara B. (1994), "A revised model for advertising: Multiple dimensions of the
source, the message, and the recipient," Journal of Advertising, 23(2), 5-16.

Sun, Tao, Seounmi Youn, Guohua Wu and Mana Kuntarapom (2006), "Online word-of-
mouth (or mouse): An exploration of its antecedents and consequences," Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 1104-27.

Sundaram, D. S., Kaushik Mitra and Cynthia Webster (1998), "Word-of-mouth
communications: A motivational analysis " Advances in Consumer Research, 25,
527-31.

Tajfel, Henri, M. G. Billig, R. P. Bundy and Claude F lament (1971), "Social
categorization and intergroup behavior," European Journal of Social Psychology,
1(2), 149-78

Takada, Hirokazu and Dipak Jain (1991), "Cross-national analysis of diffusion of
consumer durable goods in paciﬁc rim countries," Journal of Marketing,
55(April), 48-54.

TARP (1986), Consumer complaint handling in America: Summary of ﬁndings and
recommendations, Washington: DC: White House Ofﬁce of Consumer Affairs.

Telang, Rahul and Tridas Mukhopadhyay (2005), "Drivers of web portal use," Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications, 4, 49—65.

Triandis, Harry C. (Ed.). (1985). Collectivism vs. Individualism: A conceptualization of a
basic concept in cross-cultural social psychology. London: Macmillan.

 

(1989), "The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts,"
Psychological Review, 96(3), 506—20,

Walsh, Gianfranco, Kevin P. Gwinner and Scott R. Swanson (2004), "What makes
mavens tick? Exploring the motives of market mavens' initiation of information
diffusion," The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 21(2/3), 109-22.

Ward, James C. and Amy L. Ostrom (2002), "Motives for posting negative word of
mouth communications on the intemet," Advances in Consumer Research, 29,
429.

 

(2006), "Complaining to the masses: The role of protest framing in customer-
created complaint web sites," Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 220-30.

72

Watkins, Harry S. and Raymond Liu (1996), "Collectivism, individualism and in-group
membership: Implications for consumer complaining behaviors in multicultural
contexts," Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 8(3, 4), 69-96.

Webster, Cynthia (1991), "Inﬂuences upon consumer expectations of services," Journal
of Services Marketing, 5, 516-33.

White, Roderick (2000), "International advertising: How far can it ﬂy?." In International
advertising: Realities and myths, J P Jones (Ed.), Thousand Oaks: Sage, 29-40.

Whyte, William H. ( 1954). The web of word of mouth. Fortune, 50 140-43.

Wiedmann, K. -P., G. Walsh and V. -W. Mitchell (2001), "The mannmaven: An agent for
diffusing market information," Journal of Marketing Communications, 7(4), 195-
212.

Xue, Fei and Joseph E. Phelps (2004), "lntemet-facilitated consumer-to-consumer
communication: The moderating role of receiver characteristics," International
Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising, 1(2), 121-36.

Yaveroglu, Idil S. and Naveen Donthu (2002), "Cultural inﬂuences on the diffusion of
new products," Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 14(4), 49.

Yoshida, Toshio, Kazunori Kojo and Hideotoshi KaKu (1982), "A study on the

development of self-presentaion in children," Japanese Journal of Educational
Psychology, 30, 30-37.

73

lililrlgjirljjlr111)er