Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

eWOM persuasiveness: do eWOM platforms and product type matter?

  • Published:
Electronic Commerce Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) has a powerful influence on consumers’ purchase decisions. This influence varies with the source of the eWOM and product type. This study investigated how eWOM quality influences eWOM credibility and purchase intention and how this influence is moderated by the type of eWOM platform and product type. An experimental design was adopted, in which scenarios were manipulated to facilitate the collection of information. The results show that the type of eWOM platform moderates the influence of eWOM quality on eWOM credibility and purchase intention, and this phenomenon is particularly significant in search goods. These also further confirm that eWOM credibility is a partial mediator between eWOM quality and purchase intention. This study confirms the importance of establishing user-oriented online reply systems. The findings also demonstrate the degree to which the type of eWOM platform management mechanism influences the corporate management of eWOM. Furthermore, findings suggest a number of eWOM management mechanisms based on ethical marketing standards.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Reference

  1. Aaker, J. L. (2000). Accessibility or diagnosticity? Disentangling the influence of culture on persuasion processes and attitudes. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(4), 340–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Awad, N. F., & Ragowsky, A. (2008). Establishing trust in electronic commerce through online word of mouth: An examination across genders. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(4), 101–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Banerjee, A. V. (1992). A simple model of herd behavior. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(3), 797–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), 78–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bickart, B., & Schindler, R. (2001). Internet forums as influential sources of consumer information. Advances in Consumer Research, 15(3), 31–40.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bloch, P. H., Sherrell, D. L., & Ridgway, N. M. (1986). Consumer search: An extended framework. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(1), 119–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bone, P. F. (1995). Word-of-mouth effects on short-term and long-term product judgment. Journal of Business Research, 32(3), 213–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Casteleyn, J., Mottart, A., & Rutten, K. (2009). How to use facebook in your market research. International Journal of Market Research, 51(4), 439–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chang, H. H., & Wu, L. H. (2014). An examination of negative e-WOM adoption: Brand commitment as a moderator. Decision Support Systems, 59, 206–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chen, C., Wu, K., Srinivasan, V., & Zhang, X. (2011). Battling the internet water army: Detection of hidden paid posters. E-Print Service of Cornell University Library. arXiv preprint arXiv:1111.4297.

  12. Cheung, C. M. K., & Lee, M. K. O. (2012). What drives consumers to spread electronic word of mouth in online consumer-opinion platforms. Decision Support Systems, 53(1), 218–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cheung, M., Luo, C., Sia, C., & Chen, H. (2009). Credibility of electronic word-of-mouth: Informational and normative determinants of on-line consumer recommendations. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 13(4), 9–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chu, S. C., & Kim, Y. J. (2011). Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites. International Journal of Advertising, 30(1), 47–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dabholkar, P. A., & Sheng, X. (2012). Consumer participation in using online recommendation agents: Effects on satisfaction, trust, and purchase intentions. Service Industries Journal, 32(9), 1433–1449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 629–636.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Engel, J. F., Kollat, D. J., & Blackwell, R. D. (1984). Consumer behavior. Chicago: The Dryden Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Fang, Y. (2014). Beyond the credibility of electronic word of mouth: Exploring ewom adoption on social networking sites from affective and curiosity perspectives. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 18(3), 67–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Feldman, J. M., & Lynch, J. G, Jr. (1988). Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention and behavior. Journal o Applied Psychology, 3(3), 421–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Foote, J. (2006). Paid posters: Are you talking to one of them? Retrieved from http://voices.yahoo.com/paid-posters-talking-one-them-135961.html?cat=35.

  22. Gerdes, J., Stringam, B., & Brookshire, R. (2008). An integrative approach to assess qualitative and quantitative consumer feedback. Electronic Commerce Research, 8(4), 217–234.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Gorla, N., Somers, T. M., & Wong, B. (2010). Organizational impact of system quality, information quality, and service quality. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 19(3), 207–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., et al. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hao, Y. Y., Ye, Q., Li, Y. J. & Cheng, Z. (2010). How does the valence of online consumer reviews matter in consumer decision making? Differences between search goods and experience goods. In Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1–10).

  26. Herr, P. M., Kardes, F. R., & Kim, J. (1991). Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute information of persuasion: An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 454–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hsieh, J., Hsieh, Y., & Tang, Y. (2012). Exploring the disseminating behaviors of eWOM marketing: Persuasion in online video. Electronic Commerce Research, 12(2), 201–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hsieh, Y. C., Chiu, H. C., & Chiang, M. Y. (2005). Maintaining a committed online customer: A study across search-experience-credence products. Journal of Retailing, 81(1), 75–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Huang, J., Hsiao, T., & Chen, Y. (2012). The effects of electronic word of mouth on product judgment and choice: The moderating role of the sense of virtual community. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(9), 2326–2347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Huang, M., Cai, F., Tsang, A. S. L., & Zhou, N. (2011). Making your voice loud: The critical role of WOM information. European Journal of Marketing, 45(7), 1277–1297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Jensen, M. L., Averbeck, J. M., Zhang, Z., & Wright, K. B. (2013). Credibility of anonymous online product reviews: A language expectancy perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 30(1), 293–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Jiménez, F. R., & Mendoza, N. A. (2013). Too popular to ignore: the influence of online reviews on purchase intentions of search and experience products. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 27(3), 226–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kempf, D. S., & Palan, K. M. (2006). The effects of gender and argument strength on the processing of word-of-mouth communication. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 10(1), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kiecker, P., & Cowles, D. (2002). Interpersonal communication and personal influence on the internet: A framework for examining online word-of-mouth. Journal of Euromarketing, 11(2), 71–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. King, M. F., & Balasubramanian, S. K. (1994). The effects of expertise, end goal, and product type on adoption of preference formation strategy. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), 146–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kuan, K. Y., Zhong, Y., & Chau, P. K. (2014). Informational and normative social influence in group-buying: Evidence from self-reported and EEG data. Journal of Management Information Systems, 30(4), 151–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lascu, D., Bearden, W. O., & Rose, R. L. (1995). Norm extremity and interpersonal influences on consumer conformity. Journal of Business Research, 32(3), 201–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lee, J., Park, D. H., & Han, I. (2008). The effect of negative online consumer reviews on product attitude: An information processing view. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 7(3), 341–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lee, M., & Youn, S. (2009). Electronic word of mouth (eWOM). International Journal of Advertising, 28(3), 473–499.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Lim, B. C., & Chung, C. Y. (2011). The impact of word-of-mouth communication on attribute evaluation. Journal of Business Research, 64(1), 18–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Litvin, S. W., Goldsmith, R. E., & Pan, B. (2007). Electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and tourism management. Tourism Management, 29(3), 458–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Liu, F., Chou, M. Y., Liu, Y. L., & Chen, H. Z. (2013). The role of medical word-of-mouth on sport therapists: A patient psychological perspectives. Open Journal of Medical Psychology, 2(4), 7–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Lovett, M. J., Peres, R., & Shachar, R. (2013). On brands and word of mouth. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(4), 427–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Lynch, J. G, Jr, Marmorstein, H., & Weigold, M. F. (1988). Choices from sets including remembered brands: Use of recalled attributes and prior overall evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 169–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Market Intelligence & Consulting Institute (MIC), Institute for Information Industry. (2011). The analysis of Internet community media development. Retrieved from http://mic.iii.org.tw/aisp/reports/reportdetail_register.asp?docid=2965&rtype=freereport#.

  47. Mckinsey Global Institute (MGI). (2012). The social economy: Unlocking value and productivity through social technologies. Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/high_tech_telecoms_internet/the_social_economy.

  48. Mudambi, S. M., & Schuff, D. (2010). What makes a helpful online review? A study of customer reviews on amazon.com. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 185–200.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Nakayama, M., Wan, Y., & Sutcliffe, N. (2010). WOM or eWOM or something else: How does the web affect our dependence on shopping information sources? Americas Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1–10).

  50. Nelson, P. (1970). Information and consumer behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 78(2), 311–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Nielsen, J. (2010). College students (ages 18-24) on the Web. California: Nielsen Norman Group Press.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 39–52.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  53. Pan, L. Y., & Chiou, J. S. (2011). How much can you trust online information? Cues for perceived trustworthiness of consumer-generated online information. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 25(2), 67–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Pan, Y., & Zhang, J. Q. (2011). Born unequal: A study of the helpfulness of user-generated product Reviews. Journal of Retailing, 87(4), 598–612.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  55. Park, C., & Lee, T. (2009). Information direction, website reputation and eWOM effect: A moderating role of product type. Journal of Business Research, 62(1), 61–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Park, D., & Kim, S. (2008). The effects of consumer knowledge on message processing of electronic word-of-mouth via online consumer reviews. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 7(4), 399–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Park, D., & Lee, J. (2008). eWOM overload and its effect on consumer behavioral intention depending on consumer involvement. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 7(4), 386–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Park, D., Lee, J., & Han, I. (2007). The effect of on-Line consumer reviews on consumer purchasing intention: The moderating role of involvement. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 11(4), 125–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36(4), 717–731.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Qiu, L., Pang, J., & Lim, K. H. (2012). Effects of conflicting aggregated rating on eWOM review credibility and diagnosticity: The moderating role of review valence. Decision Support Systems, 54(1), 631–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Seock, Y., & Bailey, L. R. (2008). The influence of college students’ shopping orientations and gender differences on online information searches and purchase behaviours. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(2), 113–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Singh, J., & Widing, R. E. (1991). What occurs once consumers complain? European Journal of Marketing, 25(5), 30–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Sobel, Michael E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Sotiriadis, M., & Zyl, C. (2013). Electronic word-of-mouth and online reviews in tourism services: The use of twitter by tourists. Electronic Commerce Research, 13(1), 103–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Sparks, B. A., & Browning, V. (2010). Complaining in cyberspace: The motives and forms of hotel guests’ complaints online. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 19(7), 797–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Sponcil, M., & Gitimu, P. (2013). Use of social media by college students: Relationship to communication and self-concept. Journal of Technology Research, 4, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Sussman, S. W., & Siegal, W. S. (2003). Informational influence in organizations: An integrated approach to knowledge adoption. Information Systems Research, 14(1), 47–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Truong, Y., & Simmons, G. (2010). Perceived intrusiveness in digital advertising: Strategic marketing implications. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 18(3), 239–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Tsao, W. C. (2014). Which type of online review is more persuasive? The influence of consumer reviews and critic ratings on moviegoers. Electronic Commerce Research, 14(4), 559–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Tsao, W. C., Hsieh, M. T., Shih, L. W., & Lin, Tom M. Y. (2015). Compliance with eWOM: The influence of hotel reviews on booking intention from the perspective of consumer conformity. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 46, 99–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Utz, S., Kerkhof, P., & Van den Bos, J. (2012). Consumers rule: How consumer reviews influence perceived trustworthiness of online stores. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 11(1), 49–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Wang, R. W., & Strong, D. M. (1996). Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data consumers. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(4), 5–33.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  74. Wortzel, L. (1979). Multivariate analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Xia, L., & Bechwati, N. N. (2008). Word of mouse: The role of cognitive personalization in online consumer reviews. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 9(1), 108–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Xue, F., & Phelps, J. E. (2004). Internet-facilitated consumer-to-consumer communication: The moderating role of receiver characteristics. International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising, 1(2), 121–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Zeithaml, V. A. (1981). How consumer evaluation processes differ between goods and services. In J. Donnelly & W. George (Eds.), Marketing of services. Chicago: American Marketing Association.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Zhao, L., Lu, Y., Wang, B., Chau, P. Y., & Zhang, L. (2012). Cultivating the sense of belonging and motivating user participation in virtual communities: A social capital perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 32(6), 574–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Administration, National Chin-Yi University of Technology, No. 57, Sec. 2, Zhongshan Rd. Taiping Dist., Taichung 411, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC

    Wen-Chin Tsao

  2. Department of Business Administration, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, No. 43, Sec. 4, Keelung Rd., Da’an Dist., Taipei 106, Taiwan, ROC

    Ming-Tsang Hsieh

Authors
  1. Wen-Chin Tsao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ming-Tsang Hsieh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wen-Chin Tsao.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Questionnaire

Appendix 2.1: Online consumer reviews/traditional Chinese version (high quality/independent platform/search goods)

Appendix 2.2: Online consumer reviews/English version (high quality/independent platform/search goods)

Appendix 3.1: Online consumer reviews/traditional Chinese version (low quality/independent platform/search goods)

Appendix 3.2: Online consumer reviews/English version (low quality/independent platform/search goods)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tsao, WC., Hsieh, MT. eWOM persuasiveness: do eWOM platforms and product type matter?. Electron Commer Res 15, 509–541 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-015-9198-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-015-9198-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation