Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

In eWOM We Trust

Ein Modell zur Erklärung der Glaubwürdigkeit von eWOM

In eWOM We Trust

A Framework of Factors that Determine the eWOM Credibility

  • Aufsatz
  • Published:
WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK

Zusammenfassung

Electronic Word-of-Mouth (eWOM) stellt ein bedeutsames Mittel der Marketingkommunikation dar. Dies liegt vor allem darin begründet, dass Konsumenten eWOM-Botschaften in Form von Online-Kundenrezensionen eine höhere Glaubwürdigkeit beimessen als kommerziell verbreiteten Werbebotschaften. Während die positive Wirkung der eWOM-Glaubwürdigkeit auf die eWOM-Adoption bereits hinreichend bestätigt werden konnte, ist wenig bekannt über die Determinanten der Glaubwürdigkeit. Ziel des vorliegenden Beitrags ist es daher, wesentliche Determinanten der Glaubwürdigkeit von Onlinerezensionen aus Kundensicht zu identifizieren. Auf Grundlage der Dualen-Prozess-Theorie und der Source-Modelle werden Hypothesen zur Wirkung der einzelnen Einflussfaktoren abgeleitet und auf Basis einer Stichprobe von 634 Probanden anhand eines Strukturgleichungsmodells überprüft. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass die Expertise und die Vertrauenswürdigkeit des Senders sowie das aggregierte Rating die wahrgenommene Glaubwürdigkeit von Online-Kundenrezensionen positiv beeinflussen. Weiterhin wird deutlich, dass das Involvement die Stärke dieser Beziehung moderiert.

Abstract

Electronic Word-of-Mouth (eWOM) is an important factor in marketing communication. As more people use eWOM to assist them in making purchase decisions, the process by which they evaluate the credibility of these online recommendations becomes increasingly relevant. Although previous studies have recognized that credibility is one of the most important antecedents of eWOM adoption, little is known about the drivers of this credibility. Thus, this paper examines factors that influence the perceived credibility of consumer online recommendations. Drawing on dual process theory and source models, hypotheses were derived and tested with structural equation modeling on a basis of 643 consumers. Generally, the paper provides evidence that expertise, trustworthiness, and aggregate rating are the most significant factors of the perceived eWOM credibility. The study also demonstrates that involvement could moderate these relationships.

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

Abb. 1
Abb. 2

Notes

  1. Für alle Regressionsanalysen war die Voraussetzung der normalverteilten Residuen erfüllt (die Kolmogorov-Smirnov-Test-Werte waren unauffällig und nicht signifikant. Der Durbin-Watson-Test auf Autokorrelation zeigte ebenfalls akzeptable Werte (zwischen 1,98 und 2,003).

Literatur

  • Aiken LS, West SG (1991) Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Sage Publication, Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Asch SE (1951) Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American 193:31–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi RP, Yi Y (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16(1):74–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal HS, Voyer PA (2000) Word-of-mouth processes within a services purchase decision context. Journal of Service Research 3(2):166–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger J, Milkman KL (2012) What makes online content viral. Journal of Marketing Research 49(2):192–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacherjee A, Sanford C (2006) Influence processes for information technology acceptance: an elaboration likelihood model. MIS Quarterly 30(4):805–825

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanton H (2001) Evaluating the self in the context of another: the three-selves model of social comparison assimilation and contrast. In: Moskowitz GB (Hrsg) Cognitive social psychology: the Princeton symposium on the legacy and future of social cognition. Erlbaum, Mahwah, S 75–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Bone PF (1995) Word of mouth effects on short-term and long-term product judgements. Journal of Business Research 32(3):213–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer MB, Webber JG (1994) Self-evaluation effects of interpersonal versus intergroup social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66(2):268–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown J, Broderick AJ, Lee N (2007) Word of mouth communication within online communities: conceptualizing the online social network. Journal of Interactive Marketing 21(3):2–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Büttner OB, Göritz AS (2008) Perceived trustworthiness of online shops. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 7(1):35–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmines EG, McIver JP (1981) Analysing models with unobserved variables: analysis of covariance structures. In: Bohmstedt GW, Borgatta EF (Hrsg) Social measurement. Sage, Thousand Oaks, S 65–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Celsi RL, Olson JC (1988) The role of involvement in attention and comprehension processes. The Journal of Consumer Research 15(2):210–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen Y, Xie J (2008) Online consumer review: word-of-mouth as a new element of marketing communication mix. Management Science 54(2):477–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung CMK, Lee MKO, Rabjohn N (2008) The impact of electronic word-of-mouth. Internet Research 18(3):229–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chevalier JA, Mayzlin D (2006) The effect of word of mouth on sales: online book reviews. Journal of Marketing Research 43(3):345–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen JB, Golden E (1972) Informational social influence and product evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology 56(1):54–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Bruyn A, Lilien G (2008) A multi-stage model of word-of-mouth influence through viral marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing 25(3):151–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch M, Gerrard HB (1955) A study of normative and informational social influence upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 51(3):629–636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly AH, Chaiken S (1993) The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzsimons GJ (2008) Death to dichotomizing. Journal of Consumer Research 35(1):5–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18(1):39–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons FX, Gerrard M (1991) Downward comparison and coping with threat. In: Suls J, Wills TA (Hrsg) Social comparison: contemporary theory and research. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, S 317–345

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilly MC, Graham JL, Wolfinbarger MF (1998) A dyadic study of interpersonal information search. Academy of Marketing Science 26(2):83–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godes D, Mayzlin D (2004) Using online conversations to study word of mouth communication. Marketing Science 23(4):545–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckathorne W (2010) Speak now or forever hold your tweets. Two in five say they aim to influence others when they express their preferences online (Harris Interactive Poll). http://www.harrisinteractive.com/Insights/HarrisVault.aspx. Abruf am 2012-03-12

  • Hennig-Thurau T, Gwinner K, Walsh G, Gremler D (2004) Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing 18(1):38–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennig-Thurau T, Marchand A, Marx P (2012) Can automated group recommender systems help consumers make better choices? Journal of Marketing 76(5):89–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinz O, Skiera B, Barrot C, Becker JU (2011) Seeding strategies for viral marketing: an empirical comparison. Journal of Marketing 75(6):55–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hovland C, Weiss W (1951) The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly 15(4):635–650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hovland CI, Janis IL, Kelley HH (1953) Communication and persuasion. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu N, Liu L, Zhang J (2008) Do online reviews affect product sales? The role of reviewer characteristics and temporal effects. Information Technology and Management 9(3):201–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang JH, Chen YF (2006) Herding in online product choice. Psychology & Marketing 23(5):413–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones K (1996) Trust as an affective attitude. International Journal of Ethics 107(1):4–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan MF, Miller CE (1987) Group decision making and normative versus informational influence: effects of type of issue and assigned decision rule. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53(2):306–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroeber-Riel W, Weinberg P (2003) Konsumentenverhalten, 8. Aufl. Vahlen, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Laumann EO (1966) Prestige and association in an urban community, 2. Aufl. Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarsfeld PF, Merton RK (1964) Friendship as social process. A substantive and methodological analysis. In: Berger M, Abel T, Page CH (Hrsg) Freedom and control in modern society. Octagon, New York, S 18–66

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Leonard-Barton D (1985) Experts as negative opinion leaders in the diffusion of a technological innovation. Journal of Consumer Research 11(4):914–926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lord KR, Lee M-S, Choong P (2001) Differences in normative and informational social influence. Advances in Consumer Research 28(1):280–285

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackiewicz J (2008) Reviewer motivations, bias, and credibility in online reviews. In: Kelsey S, Amant K (Hrsg) Handbook of research on computer mediated communication. IGI Global, Hershey, S 252–266

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McCracken G (1989) Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsement process. Journal of Consumer Research 16(3):310–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCroskey J, Hamilton P, Weiner A (1974) The effect of interaction behavior on source credibility, homophily, and interpersonal attraction. Human Communication Research 1(1):42–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCroskey J, Young T (1981) Ethos and credibility: the construct and its measurement after three decades. The Central State Speech Journal 32(1):24–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire W (1985) Attitudes and attitude change. In: Gardner L, Elliott A (Hrsg) Handbook of social psychology, New York, Bd 2, S 233–346

    Google Scholar 

  • McKnight DH, Chervany NL (2002) What trust means in e-commerce customer relationships: an interdisciplinary conceptual typology. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 6(2):35–59

    Google Scholar 

  • McKnight DH, Kacmar C (2006) Factors of information credibility for an internet advice site. In: Proc. 39th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Hawaii, S 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller DT, Hoppe RA (1973) The effect of regional similarity-dissimilarity on communicator credibility. Language and Speech 16(3):211–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, MTV, VW (2010) Me public. A global study on social media youth: executive summary. http://www.viacombrandsolutions.de/media/6_research/studien_pdfs/. Abruf am 2012-03-12

  • O’Reilly K, Marx S (2011) How young, technical consumers assess online WOM credibility. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 14(4):330–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohanian R (1991) The impact of celebrity spokespersons ’perceived image on consumers’ intention to purchase. Journal of Advertising Research 31(1):46–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Petty RE, Cacioppo J, Schumann D (1983) Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research 10(10):135–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty RE, Cacioppo JT (1986) Elaboration likelihood model. In: Berkowitz L (Hrsg) Advances in experimental social psychology, San Diego, S 123–205

    Google Scholar 

  • Petty RE, Priester J, Brinol P (2002) Mass media attitude change: implications of the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: Bryant J, Zillmann D (Hrsg) Media effects: advances in theory and research. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, S 155–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff N, Organ D (1986) Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. Journal of Management 12(4):531–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method bias in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(5):879–903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price LL, Feick LF (1984) The role of interpersonal sources in external search: an informational perspective. Advances in Consumer Research 11:250–255

    Google Scholar 

  • Qiu L, Li D (2010) Effects of aggregate rating on eWOM acceptance: an attribution theory perspective. In: Proc PACIS 2010

    Google Scholar 

  • Rafaeli S, Raban DR (2005) Information sharing online: a research challenge. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning 1(2):62–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of innovations. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherif M, Hovland CI (1965) Social judgement: assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change, 2. Aufl. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith T, Coyle JR, Lightfoot E, Scott A (2007) Reconsidering models of influence: the relationship between consumer social networks and word-of-mouth effectiveness. Journal of Advertising Research 47(4):387–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparkman R, Locander W (1980) Attribution theory and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Research 7(7):219–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sussman SW, Siegal WS (2003) Informational influence in organizations: an integrated approach to knowledge adoption. Information Systems Research 14(1):47–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tseng S, Fogg BJ (1999) Credibility and computing technology. Communications of the ACM 42(5):39–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Wangenheim F, Bayón T (2004) The effect of word-of-mouth on services switching: measurement and moderating variables. European Journal of Marketing 38(9/10):1173–1185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh G, Mitchell VW (2010) The effect of consumer confusion proneness on word of mouth, trust, and customer satisfaction. European Journal of Marketing 44(6):838–859

    Google Scholar 

  • Wathen CN, Burkell J (2002) Believe it or not: factors influencing credibility on the web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 53(2):134–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson EJ, Sherrell DL (1993) Source effects in communication and persuasion research: a meta-analysis of effect size. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 22(2):101–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yale LJ, Gilly MC (1995) Dyadic perceptions in personal information search. Journal of Business Research 32(3):225–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaichkowsky JL (1985) Measuring the involvement construct. The Journal of Consumer Research 12(3):341–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Medienmanagement, Colonel-Kleinmann-Weg 2, 55128, Mainz, Deutschland

    Bettina Lis

Authors
  1. Bettina Lis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bettina Lis.

Additional information

Angenommen nach zwei Überarbeitungen durch Prof. Dr. Spann.

This article is also available in English via http://www.springerlink.com and http://www.bise-journal.org: Lis B (2013) In eWOM We Trust. A Framework of Factors that Determine the eWOM Credibility. Bus Inf Syst Eng. doi: 10.1007/s12599-013-0261-9.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lis, B. In eWOM We Trust. Wirtschaftsinf 55, 121–134 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11576-013-0360-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11576-013-0360-8

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation