The Impact of Relational Characteristics on Consumer Responses to Word of Mouth on Social Networking Sites

ABSTRACT Previous research has consistently found an effect of the valence (positive vs. negative) of electronic word of mouth in general and of word of mouth on a social networking site (sWOM) specifically on consumer responses. The current study investigates how interpersonal and person-to-site relational characteristics (homophily, tie strength, and source credibility) moderate this effect on consumer responses to sWOM (behavioral and positive word-of-mouth intention). The results show that interpersonal homophily and source credibility both significantly reinforce the effect of sWOM valence on behavioral intention and positive word-of-mouth intention. Only considering person-to-site relational characteristics as antecedents, (person-to-site) homophily and source credibility reinforce the effect of sWOM valence on behavioral intention and on positive word-of-mouth intention. However, including both the interpersonal and the person-to-site relational characteristics as antecedents results in all person-to-site relational characteristics becoming nonsignificant as moderators. This study advances the sWOM literature by concurrently examining how both interpersonal and person-to site relational characteristics moderate the effect of message valence on sWOM responses. The findings imply that marketers should try to stimulate sWOM from credible sources that are homophilous to the target audience, as these relationships reinforce the positive impact of sWOM valence on behavioral intentions.

[1]  M. McPherson,et al.  Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks , 2001 .

[2]  Lixuan Zhang,et al.  Drivers and Outcomes of Brand Relationship Quality in the Context of Online Social Networks , 2013, Int. J. Electron. Commer..

[3]  M. Gilly,et al.  A dyadic study of interpersonal information search , 1998 .

[4]  J. Mccroskey,et al.  THE EFFECT OF INTERACTION BEHAVIOR ON SOURCE CREDIBILITY, HOMOPHILY, AND INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION , 1974 .

[5]  J. Mccroskey,et al.  Analysis and Improvement of the Measurement of Interpersonal Attraction and Homophily , 2006 .

[6]  Sofie Bitter,et al.  Consequences of customer engagement behavior: when negative Facebook posts have positive effects , 2016, Electron. Mark..

[7]  James G. Helgeson,et al.  A Conceptual and Measurement Comparison of Self-Congruity and Brand Personality , 2004 .

[8]  S. Fournier,et al.  Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research , 1998 .

[9]  Huaping Chen,et al.  Credibility of Electronic Word-of-Mouth: Informational and Normative Determinants of On-line Consumer Recommendations , 2009, Int. J. Electron. Commer..

[10]  Shelly Rodgers,et al.  Development of an Instrument to Measure Web Site Personality , 2006 .

[11]  Sony Kusumasondjaja,et al.  Credibility of online reviews and initial trust , 2012 .

[12]  P. Herr,et al.  Effects of Word-of-Mouth and Product-Attribute Information on Persuasion: An Accessibility-Diagnosticity Perspective , 1991 .

[13]  Yongjun Sung,et al.  Brand followers' retweeting behavior on Twitter: How brand relationships influence brand electronic word-of-mouth , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[14]  J. Walther,et al.  Health Information, Credibility, Homophily, and Influence via the Internet: Web Sites Versus Discussion Groups , 2008, Health communication.

[15]  Roobina Ohanian.  Construction and Validation of a Scale to Measure Celebrity Endorsers' Perceived Expertise, Trustworthiness, and Attractiveness , 1990 .

[16]  P. Lazarsfeld,et al.  Friendship as Social process: a substantive and methodological analysis , 1964 .

[17]  Alain Yee-Loong Chong,et al.  Determinants of negative word-of-mouth communication using social networking sites , 2016, Inf. Manag..

[18]  Rodrigo Uribe,et al.  Sidedness, commercial intent and expertise in blog advertising , 2016 .

[19]  Taesik Lee,et al.  Gender differences in consumers’ perception of online consumer reviews , 2011, Electron. Commer. Res..

[20]  Christopher C. Yang,et al.  Identifying Implicit and Explicit Relationships Through User Activities in Social Media , 2013, Int. J. Electron. Commer..

[21]  Dwayne D. Gremler,et al.  Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the Internet? , 2004 .

[22]  P. Bentler,et al.  Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis : Conventional criteria versus new alternatives , 1999 .

[23]  M. Sirgy,et al.  Moderators of the self-congruity effect on consumer decision-making: A meta-analysis , 2012 .

[24]  R. Hanneman.  Introduction to Social Network Methods , 2001 .

[25]  Maggie Geuens,et al.  Planning and Conducting Experimental Advertising Research and Questionnaire Design , 2017 .

[26]  Jose M. Such,et al.  BFF: A tool for eliciting tie strength and user communities in social networking services , 2013, Information Systems Frontiers.

[27]  J. Sweeney,et al.  Brand personality: Exploring the potential to move from factor analytical to circumplex models , 2006 .

[28]  Patrick De Pelsmacker,et al.  A Meta-analytic Investigation of the Role of Valence in Online Reviews , 2015 .

[29]  Patrick De Pelsmacker,et al.  Don't be so emotional! How tone of voice and service type affect the relationship between message valence and consumer responses to WOM in social media , 2017, Online Inf. Rev..

[30]  M. Thelwall.  Homophily in MySpace , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[31]  Alain Yee-Loong Chong,et al.  Examining the antecedents of persuasive eWOM messages in social media , 2014, Online Inf. Rev..

[32]  Jang-Sun Hwang,et al.  How Consumers Evaluate eWOM (Electronic Word-of-Mouth) Messages , 2009, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[33]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  Prominence-interpretation theory: explaining how people assess credibility online , 2003, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[34]  Chinintorn Nakhata,et al.  The Impact of Electronic Word-of-Mouth on Customer Satisfaction , 2019, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice.

[35]  Danah Boyd,et al.  Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[36]  Victoria D. Bush,et al.  What We Know and Don't Know about Online Word-of-Mouth: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature , 2014 .

[37]  Shu-Chuan Chu,et al.  Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites , 2011 .

[38]  Hart Blanton,et al.  Evaluating the Self in the Context of Another: The Three-Selves Model of Social Comparison Assimilation and Contrast , 2013 .

[39]  Eric Gilbert,et al.  Predicting tie strength with social media , 2009, CHI.

[40]  J. Hair.  Multivariate data analysis : a global perspective , 2010 .

[41]  K. King,et al.  The Effects of Interpersonal Tie Strength and Subjective Norms on Consumers' Brand-Related eWOM Referral Intentions , 2015 .

[42]  G. Lilien,et al.  A multi-stage model of word-of-mouth influence through viral marketing , 2008 .

[43]  Chanthika Pornpitakpan.  The Persuasiveness of Source Credibility: A Critical Review of Five Decades' Evidence , 2004 .

[44]  Erin M. Steffes,et al.  Social ties and online word of mouth , 2009, Internet Res..

[45]  Iryna Pentina,et al.  Exploring effects of source similarity, message valence, and receiver regulatory focus on yelp review persuasiveness and purchase intentions , 2018 .

[46]  Patrick De Pelsmacker,et al.  EXPERT REVIEWERS BEWARE! THE EFFECTS OF REVIEW SET BALANCE, REVIEW SOURCE AND REVIEW CONTENT ON CONSUMER RESPONSES TO ONLINE REVIEWS , 2014 .

[47]  Sushant S. Khopkar,et al.  A penalty box approach for approximation betweenness and closeness centrality algorithms , 2015, Social Network Analysis and Mining.

[48]  L. Festinger.  A Theory of Social Comparison Processes , 1954 .

[49]  Miriam J. Metzger.  Making sense of credibility on the Web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[50]  Bilal Gonen,et al.  User characterization for online social networks , 2016, Social Network Analysis and Mining.

[51]  Mark S. Granovetter.  The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[52]  Yong Liu.  Word-of-Mouth for Movies: Its Dynamics and Impact on Box Office Revenue , 2006 .

[53]  E. Rogers,et al.  HOMOPHILY-HETEROPHILY: RELATIONAL CONCEPTS FOR COMMUNICATION RESEARCH , 1970 .

[54]  Ingoo Han,et al.  The effect of negative online consumer reviews on product attitude: An information processing view , 2008, Electron. Commer. Res. Appl..

[55]  Youn-Kyung Kim,et al.  Actual and ideal self-congruity affecting consumers' emotional and behavioral responses toward an online store , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[56]  Yi-Cheng Ku,et al.  Gratifications for using CMC technologies: A comparison among SNS, IM, and e-mail , 2013, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[57]  M. Gilly,et al.  Explorations of National Culture and Word-of-Mouth Referral Behavior in the Purchase of Industrial Services in the United States and Japan , 1998 .

[58]  Yong Zhang,et al.  Consumer product evaluation: the interactive effect of message framing, presentation order, and source credibility , 2000 .

[59]  Andrew B. Whinston,et al.  Whose and what chatter matters? The effect of tweets on movie sales , 2013, Decis. Support Syst..

[60]  N. Lee,et al.  Word of mouth communication within online communities: Conceptualizing the online social network , 2007 .

[61]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[62]  Kiwan Park,et al.  Do we always adopt Facebook friends’ eWOM postings? The role of social identity and threat , 2018, Electronic Word of Mouth as a Promotional Technique.

[63]  Peter H. Reingen,et al.  Social Ties and Word-of-Mouth Referral Behavior , 1987 .

[64]  Tammo H. A. Bijmolt,et al.  The Effect of Electronic Word of Mouth on Sales: A Meta-Analytic Review of Platform, Product, and Metric Factors , 2016 .

[65]  Julian K. Ayeh,et al.  “Do We Believe in TripAdvisor?” Examining Credibility Perceptions and Online Travelers’ Attitude toward Using User-Generated Content , 2013 .

[66]  J. Aaker,et al.  Dimensions of Brand Personality , 1997 .

[67]  Jay Kandampully,et al.  The influence of eWOM communications: An application of online social network framework , 2018, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[68]  Howard E. Aldrich,et al.  The Structure of Founding Teams: Homophily, Strong Ties, and Isolation among U.S. Entrepreneurs , 2003, American Sociological Review.

[69]  P. V. Marsden,et al.  Measuring Tie Strength , 1984 .

[70]  C. Fornell,et al.  Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. , 1981 .

[71]  A. Kaplan,et al.  Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media , 2010 .

[72]  Shu-Chuan Chu,et al.  The current state of knowledge on electronic word-of-mouth in advertising research , 2018, Electronic Word of Mouth as a Promotional Technique.

[73]  Chuan-Hoo Tan,et al.  Helpfulness of Online Product Reviews as Seen by Consumers: Source and Content Features , 2013, Int. J. Electron. Commer..

[74]  Patrick De Pelsmacker,et al.  Balance and Sequence in Online Reviews: The Wrap Effect , 2012, Int. J. Electron. Commer..

[75]  Mohammad Salehan,et al.  A Unified Model for the Adoption of Electronic Word of Mouth on Social Network Sites: Facebook as the Exemplar , 2018, Int. J. Electron. Commer..