| Literature DB >> 32038413 |
Safdar Hussain1,2, Xi Song3, Ben Niu1,3.
Abstract
E-commerce offers an opportunity on web renounced in internet marketing, and the consumers' communication behavior has changed, which has taken the place of word of mouth (WOM). This study investigated consumers' motivational involvement in electronic word of mouth for online information adoption mediated by writers, motivations. Using a sample of 390 active Chinese internet users, it revealed that social tie and perceived risk are essential factors that influence consumers' behavior, occur unpleasant consequences, and the possibility of uncertainties during the decision making process. Online retailers should emphasize perceived risk mitigation enable to provide a quick response on the websites. Practitioners need to understand consumer behavior in the online shopping system for the expansion of the online marketplace to product varieties, online advertising, retail strategies, and market segmentation. Organizations should train their service provides to timely response, concentrate on monitoring the aspects of consumers' reviews, on creating choices among groups and individuals, which can improve the organization's business performance.Entities:
Keywords: consumer behavior; information quality; information usefulness; online opinions; perceived risk; social tie
Year: 2020 PMID: 32038413 PMCID: PMC6985457 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03055
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1The conceptual model.
eWOM organizational vs. consumers’ perspectives.
| Argument quality | Appropriate, reliable, up-to-date, values, applicable, fulfill a need, relevant, complete, accurate, consistent | |
| Source credibility | Knowledgeable, expertness, homophily, objectivity, trustworthiness, | |
| Information usefulness | Valuable, helpful, informative | |
| Response to eWOM | The intention, willingness, attitude, adoption, perceived credibility, perceived usefulness, actual use or purchase |
Confirmatory factor analysis, Cronbach’s alpha, average variance extracted, and composite reliability (n = 390).
| Experience | EX1 | 0.972 | 0.920 | 0.75 | 0.92 | Social tie | ST1 | 0.805 | 0.844 | 0.56 | 0.83 |
| EX2 | 0.830 | ST2 | 0.811 | ||||||||
| EX3 | 0.917 | ST3 | 0.698 | ||||||||
| EX4 | 0.718 | ST4 | 0.654 | ||||||||
| Prior knowledge | PK1 | 0.920 | 0.920 | 0.76 | 0.93 | Information quality | IQ1 | 0.936 | 0.940 | 0.70 | 0.94 |
| PK2 | 0.936 | IQ2 | 0.812 | ||||||||
| PK3 | 0.853 | IQ3 | 0.969 | ||||||||
| PK4 | 0.764 | IQ4 | 0.774 | ||||||||
| Perceived risk | PR1 | 0.945 | 0.895 | 0.69 | 0.91 | IQ5 | 0.808 | ||||
| PR2 | 0.698 | IQ6 | 0.822 | ||||||||
| PR3 | 0.804 | IQ7 | 0.698 | ||||||||
| PR4 | 0.759 | Information Credibility | IC1 | 0.875 | 0.936 | 0.70 | 0.94 | ||||
| PR6 | 0.850 | IC2 | 0.841 | ||||||||
| Information need | IN1 | 0.879 | 0.931 | 0.82 | 0.93 | IC3 | 0.961 | ||||
| IN2 | 0.932 | IC4 | 0.826 | ||||||||
| IN3 | 0.905 | IC5 | 0.872 | ||||||||
| Involvement | IT1 | 0.963 | 0.963 | 0.79 | 0.96 | IC6 | 0.639 | ||||
| IT2 | 0.909 | IC7 | 0.799 | ||||||||
| IT3 | 0.848 | Information usefulness | IU1 | 0.808 | 0.845 | 0.64 | 0.84 | ||||
| IT4 | 0.735 | IU2 | 0.757 | ||||||||
| IT5 | 0.947 | IU3 | 0.832 | ||||||||
| IT6 | 0.898 | Information adoption | IA1 | 0.829 | 0.806 | 0.68 | 0.81 | ||||
| IT7 | 0.914 | IA2 | 0.822 |
| The discriminant validity (n = 390).
| Information need | ||||||||||
| Prior knowledge | −0.03 | |||||||||
| Experience | 0.02 | 0.02 | ||||||||
| Perceived risk | −0.01 | 0.01 | 0.33 | |||||||
| Social tie | −0.02 | 0.02 | 0.44 | 0.34 | ||||||
| Involvement | −0.03 | 0.01 | 0.53 | 0.49 | 0.47 | |||||
| Information quality | −0.07 | 0.03 | 0.10 | 0.06 | 0.11 | 0.11 | ||||
| Information credibility | −0.32 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.17 | |||
| Information usefulness | −0.07 | −0.01 | 0.10 | −0.01 | 0.04 | −0.03 | 0.25 | 0.28 | ||
| Information adoption | −0.02 | −0.04 | −0.04 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.19 | 0.11 |
FIGURE 2The structural model: IN, information need; PK, prior knowledge; EX, experience; PR, perceived risk; ST, social tie; IT, involvement; IQ, information quality; IC, information credibility; IU, information usefulness; IA, information adoption.
Model fit indices.
| CMIN | 2112.176 | GFI | 0.811 |
| DF | 975 | AGFI | 0.890 |
| CMIN/DF | 2.166 | TLI | 0.925 |
| 0.000 | NFI | 0.876 | |
| RMSEA | 0.055 | CFI | 0.929 |
The regression weights of casual paths (n = 390).
| Social tie ← Information need | −0.020 | 0.024 | −0.831 | 0.406 | Not Supported |
| Social tie ← Prior knowledge | 0.003 | 0.025 | 0.112 | 0.911 | Not Supported |
| Social tie ← Experience | 0.391 | 0.038 | 10.281 | ∗∗∗ | Supported |
| Social tie ← Perceived Rrisk | 0.295 | 0.038 | 7.840 | ∗∗∗ | Supported |
| Involvement ← Social tTie | 0.959 | 0.081 | 12.851 | ∗∗∗ | Supported |
| Information quality ← Social tie | 0.197 | 0.062 | 3.178 | 0.001 | Supported |
| Information credibility ← Social tie | 0.038 | 0.052 | 0.743 | 0.457 | Not Supported |
| Information usefulness ← Information quality | 0.276 | 0.050 | 5.476 | ∗∗∗ | Supported |
| Information usefulness ← Involvement | −0.078 | 0.040 | −1.935 | 0.053 | Not Supported |
| Information usefulness ← Information credibility | 0.400 | 0.064 | 6.221 | ∗∗∗ | Supported |
| Information adoption ← Information usefulness | 0.166 | 0.063 | 2.627 | 0.009 | Supported |