Disentangling the Effects of Social Network Density on Electronic Word-of-Mouth (eWOM) Intention

A widely accepted notion in diffusion literature is that individuals’ word-of-mouth behavior is constrained by the properties of social structures (e.g., tie strength, positions in a network) they belong to. Although many studies have indeed confirmed the existence of such social influence, little is known about how the social structural effects are produced and work at a psychological level. This study attempts to present how one's electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) intention is shaped by 2 key factors—the valence of product-related information and the social coherence of the communication network in which s/he belongs. To understand the process through which the network structures moderate the impact of information valence on eWOM intention, 2 different moderation processes—a) mediated moderation and b) moderated mediation—were tested in a 2 × 2 factorial experiment. The experimental results supported the moderated mediation model, and the implications of the results were discussed.

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

[2]  J. Gotlieb,et al.  The Moderating Effects of Message Framing and Source Credibility on the Price-perceived Risk Relationship , 1994 .

[3]  P. V. Marsden,et al.  NETWORK DATA AND MEASUREMENT , 1990 .

[4]  Yong Zhang,et al.  Moderating Effects of Need for Cognition on Responses to Positively versus Negatively Framed Advertising Messages , 1999 .

[5]  Barry Wellman,et al.  Integrating individual, relational and structural analysis , 1991 .

[6]  Susan J. Winter,et al.  Electronic Word-of-Mouth in Online Environments , 2006 .

[7]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications , 1994, Structural analysis in the social sciences.

[8]  C. Judd,et al.  When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. , 2005, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[9]  James F. Engel,et al.  Word-of-mouth Communication by the Innovator , 1969 .

[10]  M. Holbrook,et al.  Consumer Responses to Advertising: The Effects of Ad Content, Emotions, and Attitude toward the Ad on Viewing Time , 1991 .

[11]  John Scott.  Social Network Analysis , 1988 .

[12]  Seounmi Youn,et al.  Online Word-of-Mouth (or Mouse): An Exploration of Its Antecedents and Consequences , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[13]  R. Burt.  Social Contagion and Innovation: Cohesion versus Structural Equivalence , 1987, American Journal of Sociology.

[14]  L. James,et al.  Mediators, Moderators, and Tests for Mediation. , 1984 .

[15]  Mark S. Granovetter,et al.  Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers. , 1976 .

[16]  Marsha L. Richins,et al.  The Role of Evolvement and Opinion Leadership in Consumer Word-Of-Mouth: an Implicit Model Made Explicit , 1988 .

[17]  R. Petty,et al.  Message Framing and Persuasion: A Message Processing Analysis , 1996 .

[18]  J. Zaichkowsky.  Measuring the Involvement Construct , 1985 .

[19]  David K. Perry,et al.  Viral Marketing or Electronic Word-of-Mouth Advertising: Examining Consumer Responses and Motivations to Pass Along Email , 2004, Journal of Advertising Research.

[20]  Jack M. Feldman,et al.  Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. , 1988 .

[21]  H. Tajfel.  Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. , 1978 .

[22]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[23]  J. Coleman.  FREE RIDERS AND ZEALOTS: THE ROLE OF SOCIAL NETWORKS , 1988 .

[24]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Edition , 2003 .

[25]  A. Tversky,et al.  Rational choice and the framing of decisions , 1990 .

[26]  P. Tetlock,et al.  Taboo Trade-Offs, Relational Framing, and the Acceptability of Exchanges , 2005 .

[27]  Pascale G. Quester,et al.  Online Discussion Groups as Socal Networks , 2006 .

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

[29]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of Innovations , 1964 .

[30]  E. Hirschman,et al.  Motives Underlying Marketing Information Acquisition and Knowledge Transfer , 1982 .

[31]  R. Mizerski.  An Attribution Explanation of the Disproportionate Influence of Unfavorable Information , 1982 .

[32]  Jonathan K. Frenzen,et al.  Structure, Cooperation, and the Flow of Market Information , 1993 .

[33]  Gabriel Weimann,et al.  On the Importance of Marginality: One More Step into the Two-Step Flow of Communication , 1982 .

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

[35]  Theo M.M. Verhallen,et al.  Behavioral costs as determinants of cost perception and preference formation for gifts to receive and gifts to give , 1994 .

[36]  Phillip Bonacich,et al.  Communication Dilemmas in Social Networks: An Experimental Study , 1990 .