| Literature DB >> 28642215 |
Ni Zhang1, Shelly Campo2, Jingzhen Yang3, Petya Eckler4, Linda Snetselaar2, Kathleen Janz2, Emily Leary5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electronic word-of-mouth on social network sites has been used successfully in marketing. In social marketing, electronic word-of-mouth about products as health behaviors has the potential to be more effective and reach more young adults than health education through traditional mass media. However, little is known about what motivates people to actively initiate electronic word-of-mouth about health behaviors on their personal pages or profiles on social network sites, thus potentially reaching all their contacts on those sites.Entities:
Keywords: physical activity; social marketing; social media
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28642215 PMCID: PMC5500781 DOI: 10.2196/jmir.7017
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Internet Res ISSN: 1438-8871 Impact factor: 5.428
Figure 1EWOM (electronic word-of-mouth) path model.
Figure 2Conceptual framework.
Spearman correlation, mean, and standard deviation for variables of interest.
| N=394 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mean | SD |
| 1. Affective involvement | 1.00 | 15.26 | 3.89 | ||||||||
| 2. Cognitive involvement | .73 | 25.31 | 4.41 | ||||||||
| 3. Perceived strength of ties | .06 | −.02 | 11.73 | 3.54 | |||||||
| 4. Ratio of strong ties | .06 | .05 | .18a | 18.02 | 25.46 | ||||||
| 5. LTPA participation | .31a | .32a | −.06 | .02 | 1.86 | 1.44 | |||||
| 6. Opinion providing | .23a | .18a | .27a | −.00 | .09 | 6.56 | 3.26 | ||||
| 7. Opinion seeking | .12* | .04 | .29a | −.00 | −.01 | .53a | 5.78 | 3.01 | |||
| 8. Forwarding | .13a | .08 | .27a | −.01 | .09 | .54a | .62a | 10.54 | 5.45 | ||
| 9. Chatting | .25a | .19a | .34a | .06 | .10b | .68a | .71a | .70a | 1.00 | 10.69 | 5.15 |
aCorrelation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
bCorrelation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Parameter estimates for causal paths.
| Hypotheses | Causal Pathsa | Path coefficient estimatesb | Standard errorb | |
| H1a | Affective involvement →Opinion providing | .175 | .058 | .003 |
| H1b | Affective involvement →Opinion seeking | .058 | .049 | .24 |
| H2a | Cognitive involvement →Opinion providing | .018 | .052 | .73 |
| H2b | Cognitive involvement →Opinion seeking | −.080 | .044 | .07 |
| H3a | Perceived strength of ties →Opinion providing | .281 | .043 | <.001 |
| H3b | Perceived strength of ties →Opinion seeking | .110 | .038 | .004 |
| H4a | Ratio of strong ties →Opinion providing | −.054 | .068 | .43 |
| H4b | Ratio of strong ties →Opinion seeking | −.040 | .057 | .49 |
| H5a | LTPA participation →Opinion providing | −.051 | .106 | .63 |
| H5b | LTPA participation →Opinion seeking | −.099 | .089 | .26 |
| H6a | Opinion providing →Forwarding | .642 | .083 | <.001 |
| H6b | Opinion providing →Chatting | .591 | .059 | <.001 |
| H7a | Opinion seeking →Forwarding | .702 | .087 | <.001 |
| H7b | Opinion seeking →Chatting | .501 | .063 | <.001 |
| H8 | Opinion providing →Opinion seeking | .497 | .043 | <.001 |
| H9 | Forwarding → Chatting | .317 | .034 | <.001 |
aGoodness-of-fit statistics: CFI=0.990; RMSEA=0.054.
bResults controlled for age, gender, race/ethnicity, length of SNS membership, and frequency of using SNSs.
Figure 3Path model with significant path coefficients only.