| Literature DB >> 35800953 |
Zhuo Liu1,2, Suihuai Yu2, Fangmin Cheng2, Rida Waheed3.
Abstract
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) information can be effectively disseminated via social media in a variety of industries, including the hospitality sector. In the same way, the media has a significant impact on CSR because the news media helps companies achieve their CSR goals. Prior research has not examined the main factors that influence electronic word of mouth (eWOM) on media coverage of CSR issues via social networking websites. For the purpose of examining the most significant predictors of intention to share or comment on negative CSR news reported by one media outlet on a specific social networking site (SNS). 677 Wechat users in China were surveyed in order to test the proposed model empirically. According to the findings of the study, eWOM intentions are positively influenced by environmental CSR content, and advertisement related CSR content. It also confirmed that the value of information is positively influenced by the credibility of the source. The variables interpersonal influencer impact and privacy concerns had no significant relationship, nor did they have any significant relationship with the intentions to share and comment on Wechat. Further the study findings suggest the theoretical and managerial policy recommendation for decision makers.Entities:
Keywords: CSR; China; Wechat; eWOM; social networking sites; structural model
Year: 2022 PMID: 35800953 PMCID: PMC9256499 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.924779
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Measurement scale.
| Dimensions | Source | Constructs | Explanation |
| Impact of influencers |
| IMI 1 | In my opinion, it has valuable information. |
| Social awareness |
| SOAW 1 | Posting personal experiences related to CSR activities on SNSs |
| Environmental Awareness |
| ENA 1 | Customers are more concerned about environmental issues and relationships with suppliers. |
| Information Sharing |
| INSA 1 | Posting from your SNS friends |
| Attitudes |
| ATU 1 | Online CSR communications are valuable and educational. Using the Internet for corporate social responsibility (CSR) messaging is beneficial. |
Demographic attributes.
| Variables | Category/Distribution | Frequency | % |
| Gender | Male | 402 | 59% |
| Female | 275 | 41% | |
| Total | 677 | 100% | |
| Age | > 24 | 42 | 6% |
| 25–30 | 156 | 23% | |
| 31–35 | 261 | 39% | |
| 36–40 | 165 | 24% | |
| < 40 | 53 | 8% | |
| Total | 677 | 100% | |
| Work Experience | > 5 | 63 | 9% |
| 10-May | 184 | 27% | |
| 11–15 | 242 | 36% | |
| 16–20 | 141 | 21% | |
| < 20 | 47 | 7% | |
| Total | 677 | 100% | |
| Education level | Bachelor’s degree | 161 | 24% |
| Diploma | 275 | 41% | |
| High School | 158 | 23% | |
| Master’s degree | 59 | 9% | |
| Others | 24 | 4% | |
| Total | 677 | 100% | |
| Job title | Senior Manager | 29 | 4% |
| Middle Manager | 62 | 9% | |
| First-line Manager | 139 | 21% | |
| Non-Managerial Employee | 345 | 51% | |
| Others | 102 | 15% | |
| Total | 677 | 100% |
Reliability and validity.
| Latent construct(s) | Cronbach’s alpha | CR | AVE |
| Impact of influencers | 0.863 | 0.894 | 0.514 |
| Social awareness | 0.72 | 0.827 | 0.545 |
| Environmental Awareness | 0.871 | 0.896 | 0.561 |
| Information Sharing | 0.801 | 0.858 | 0.503 |
| Attitude | 0.71 | 0.838 | 0.633 |
Correlations among latent constructs.
| Latent constructs | Impact of influencers | Social awareness | Environmental awareness | Information sharing | Attitudes |
| Impact of influencers | 1 | ||||
| Social awareness | 0.796 | 1 | |||
| Environmental Awareness | 0.866 | 0.81 | 1 | ||
| Information Sharing | 0.836 | 0.78 | 0.843 | 1 | |
| Attitude | 0.784 | 0.709 | 0.764 | 0.759 | 1 |
Correlations among observed variables/indicator correlations matrix.
| IMI 1 | IMI 2 | IMI 3 | SOAW 1 | SOAW 2 | SOAW 3 | ENA 1 | ENA 2 | ENA 3 | ENA 4 | INSA 1 | INSA 2 | INSA 3 | INSA 4 | ATU 1 | ATU 2 | ATU 3 | |
| IMI 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
| IMI 2 | 0.534 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
| IMI 3 | 0.514 | 0.417 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| SOAW 1 | 0.49 | 0.437 | 0.37 | 1 | |||||||||||||
| SOAW 2 | 0.512 | 0.391 | 0.447 | 0.371 | 1 | ||||||||||||
| SOAW 3 | 0.456 | 0.402 | 0.308 | 0.326 | 0.379 | 1 | |||||||||||
| ENA 1 | 0.545 | 0.498 | 0.45 | 0.392 | 0.472 | 0.361 | 1 | ||||||||||
| ENA 2 | 0.542 | 0.538 | 0.476 | 0.412 | 0.442 | 0.378 | 0.491 | 1 | |||||||||
| ENA 3 | 0.499 | 0.428 | 0.421 | 0.399 | 0.369 | 0.354 | 0.408 | 0.418 | 1 | ||||||||
| ENA 4 | 0.421 | 0.412 | 0.349 | 0.343 | 0.337 | 0.359 | 0.383 | 0.414 | 0.309 | 1 | |||||||
| INSA 1 | 0.507 | 0.444 | 0.429 | 0.394 | 0.384 | 0.347 | 0.455 | 0.451 | 0.378 | 0.34 | 1 | ||||||
| INSA 2 | 0.543 | 0.488 | 0.433 | 0.399 | 0.419 | 0.377 | 0.502 | 0.49 | 0.419 | 0.429 | 0.471 | 1 | |||||
| INSA 3 | 0.467 | 0.421 | 0.364 | 0.309 | 0.363 | 0.348 | 0.442 | 0.374 | 0.325 | 0.283 | 0.375 | 0.417 | 1 | ||||
| INSA 4 | 0.501 | 0.422 | 0.403 | 0.395 | 0.369 | 0.351 | 0.435 | 0.393 | 0.38 | 0.369 | 0.391 | 0.475 | 0.364 | 1 | |||
| ATU 1 | 0.466 | 0.422 | 0.417 | 0.38 | 0.358 | 0.324 | 0.412 | 0.4 | 0.37 | 0.38 | 0.413 | 0.411 | 0.293 | 0.42 | 1 | ||
| ATU 2 | 0.504 | 0.445 | 0.43 | 0.394 | 0.37 | 0.347 | 0.487 | 0.489 | 0.409 | 0.401 | 0.426 | 0.465 | 0.376 | 0.437 | 0.415 | 1 | |
| ATU 3 | 0.597 | 0.532 | 0.479 | 0.486 | 0.455 | 0.403 | 0.52 | 0.502 | 0.455 | 0.414 | 0.507 | 0.517 | 0.409 | 0.46 | 0.452 | 0.511 | 1 |
Results of discriminant validity analysis.
| Impact of influencers | Social awareness | Environmental awareness | Information sharing | Attitude | |
| Impact of influencers | 0.87 | ||||
| Social awareness | 0.35 | 0.86 | |||
| Environmental awareness | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.92 | ||
| Information sharing | 0.21 | 0.19 | 0.11 | 0.67 | |
| Attitude | 0.1 | 0.09 | 0.12 | 0.09 | 0.85 |
Cross loading values.
| Impact of influencers | Social awareness | Environmental awareness | Information sharing | Attitudes to share content | |
| IMI 1 |
| 0.67 | 0.733 | 0.714 | 0.655 |
| IMI 2 |
| 0.601 | 0.651 | 0.623 | 0.61 |
| IMI 3 |
| 0.555 | 0.613 | 0.575 | 0.533 |
| SOAW 1 | 0.577 |
| 0.59 | 0.56 | 0.526 |
| SOAW 2 | 0.527 |
| 0.533 | 0.506 | 0.454 |
| SOAW 3 | 0.598 |
| 0.605 | 0.593 | 0.52 |
| ENA 1 | 0.542 | 0.478 |
| 0.522 | 0.476 |
| ENA 2 | 0.573 | 0.549 |
| 0.564 | 0.504 |
| ENA 3 | 0.557 | 0.533 |
| 0.534 | 0.498 |
| ENA 4 | 0.609 | 0.577 |
| 0.581 | 0.53 |
| INSA 1 | 0.562 | 0.498 | 0.533 |
| 0.511 |
| INSA 2 | 0.573 | 0.547 | 0.577 |
| 0.536 |
| INSA 3 | 0.523 | 0.471 | 0.547 |
| 0.459 |
| INSA 4 | 0.642 | 0.621 | 0.652 |
| 0.554 |
| ATU 1 | 0.624 | 0.562 | 0.621 | 0.609 |
|
| ATU 2 | 0.656 | 0.588 | 0.628 | 0.622 |
|
| ATU 3 | 0.59 | 0.542 | 0.572 | 0.58 |
|
Bold values indicate the cross loading values.
FIGURE 1Structural path analysis. Goodness of Fit indices for the proposed research model. ***Means 1% significance level.
Results of structural equation modeling.
| Hypothesis | Paths | β-coefficient | |
| 1 | Environmental awareness → Environmental CSR content | 0.180 | 1.748 |
| 2 | Social awareness → Environmental CSR content | 0.174 | 1.674 |
| 3 | Influencer impact → Environmental CSR content | 0.212 | 2.353 |
| 4 | information sharing → Environmental CSR content | 0.118 | 1.087 |
| 5 | Environmental awareness → Advertisement related content | 0.326 | 3.341 |
| 6 | Social awareness → Advertisement related content | 0.227 | 2.159 |
| 7 | Influencer impact → Advertisement related content | 0.129 | 1.141 |
| 8 | Information sharing → Advertisement related content | 0.285 | 2.670 |
| 9 | Environmental CSR content → Attitude to share content | 0.302 | 3.155 |
| 10 | Advertisement related content → Attitude to share content | 0.184 | 1.941 |
**, *** means 5% and 1% significance level.
Calculation of Goodness of Fit (GoF) index.
| Latent construct(s) | AVE |
|
| Impact of influencers | 0.514 | |
| Social awareness | 0.545 | 0.708 |
| Environmental Awareness | 0.561 | 0.751 |
| Information Sharing | 0.503 | 0.727 |
| Attitudes | 0.633 | 0.643 |
| Average Scores | 0.551 | 0.707 |
| AVE × R2 | 0.390 | |
| GoF = √(AVE × | 0.624 | |
GoFsmall = 0.1; GoFmedium = 0.25; GoFlarge = 0.36.