Jansson&Zakharkina-Final632287/FULLTEXT01.pdf · people utilized brands’ official websites as their main online source for getting information about brands and products. (Ipsos

- So, why do you “like” that?

MasterThesis

2013

C h r i s t i n e J a n s s o n & P o l i n a Z a k h a r k i n a

S u p e r v i s e d b y S a b i n e G e b e r t ‐ P e r s s o n

Motives behind positive electronic Word-of-Mouth on social networking sites

MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs

I

Abstract

Consumers are increasingly engaging with brands on social networking sites (SNS) through

activitiessuchassharing,commenting, likingandrecommendingproductsorbrands toother

consumers. These types of recommendations are referred to as electronic word‐of‐mouth

(eWOM) and are proven to have a significant influence on consumers’ purchasing decisions.

Previous research has investigated motives for traditional WOM and motives for eWOM on

opinion platforms. This study proposes that eWOM on SNSs is a combination of traditional

WOMandeWOMonopinionplatforms.Byusingasampleof154SwedishFacebookusers,this

studyexploreswhyconsumersengageinpositiveeWOMcommunicationonSNSs.Thisisdone

bytesting6validatedmotivesthatareidentifiedinpreviousresearchinthenewcontext.The

resulting analysis suggests that consumers’ need for social interaction and desire to express

positive emotions are the primary drivers behind engagement in positive eWOM

communicationonSNSs.The findings confirm that eWOMonSNSs contains elementsofboth

traditionalWOMandeWOMonopinionplatformsandshould thusbeconsideredasaunique

contextwhereeWOMtakesplace.

Keywords:word‐of‐mouth;WOM;electronicword‐of‐mouth;eWOM;motivesforeWOM;socialnetworkingsites;SNS;Facebook


II

Acknowledgements

WewouldliketoshowourgratitudeandthankoursupervisorSabineGebert‐Perssonandour

colleagues for providing us with insightful comments that helped us to improve this paper

throughoutthewholeprocess.AspecialthanksgoestoFredrikAnderssonandViktorLiljafor

alwayscheeringusupwhenweneededitthemost.

ChristineJanssonandPolinaZakharkina

Uppsala,30052013


III

TableofContents

1.Background ......................................................................................................................................................................11.1Problemdiscussion .....................................................................................................................................................11.2Purposeandresearchquestion .............................................................................................................................4

2.Literaturereview...........................................................................................................................................................52.1WOM..................................................................................................................................................................................52.2eWOM................................................................................................................................................................................52.3MotivesforWOMandeWOMcommunication................................................................................................62.4SocialNetworkingSites(SNSs) ..........................................................................................................................112.5Facebook ......................................................................................................................................................................122.6DefinitionofeWOMonFacebook ......................................................................................................................132.7Conceptualmodel .....................................................................................................................................................13

3.Methodology................................................................................................................................................................. 153.1Researchdesign.........................................................................................................................................................153.2Constructmeasurement ........................................................................................................................................153.3Surveydesign..............................................................................................................................................................193.4DataCollectionMethod .........................................................................................................................................203.4.1Targetsample.........................................................................................................................................................203.4.2Distribution .............................................................................................................................................................21

4.Results ............................................................................................................................................................................. 224.1Samplesize ..................................................................................................................................................................224.2Datacleansing ...........................................................................................................................................................224.3DemographicsandengagementineWOMcommunication ..................................................................224.4Factoranalysis...........................................................................................................................................................234.5Reliabilityoffactors ................................................................................................................................................264.6Regressionanalysis..................................................................................................................................................27

5.Discussion...................................................................................................................................................................... 305.1eWOMinanSNScontext .......................................................................................................................................305.2Socialbenefitsandexpressingpositiveemotions–significantmotives...........................................325.3Selfenhancementandconcernforothers–nonsignificantmotives ...............................................335.4Messageintrigueandeconomicincentives–nonsignificantnegativemotives ..........................34

6.Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................................... 356.1Conclusion....................................................................................................................................................................35

7.ManagerialImplications,limitationsandfutureresearch ....................................................................... 377.1ManagerialImplications .......................................................................................................................................377.2Limitationsandfutureresearch ........................................................................................................................38

8.References ..................................................................................................................................................................... 40AppendixI–ExamplesofFacebookactivities.................................................................................................... 42AppendixII–Questionnairedesign ........................................................................................................................ 43AppendixIII–Itemoverview..................................................................................................................................... 44


C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 1

1.Background

Onceupon a time, a consumer could tell ten of his or her friends about a product or

service.Today, theeffecthasamplifiedandonesingle consumercan tellhundredsor

even thousands of people about a product or service thanks to social media. The

increased use of the Internet has revolutionized the way Word‐of‐Mouth (WOM)

processesoccur.(Mangold&Faulds,2009)Consumersincreasinglyusesocialmediaas

a platform for electronic WOM communication (referred to as eWOM hereafter) by

engagingwithbrandsor recommendingproducts. In the “oldendays”of the Internet,

people utilized brands’ official websites as their main online source for getting

information about brands and products. (Ipsos Socialogue, 2013a) Today, 44% of

people say they follow and engage with brands on social networking sites. People

actively connect with brands through activities such as “liking” a brand or product,

commentingonit,recommendingit,enteringcontestsand/orsharingthebrand’sposts

orlinks.Thisnumberisashighas55%amongthoseagedunder35.(IpsosSocialogue,

2013b)Suchrecommendationshavean influenceonconsumers'purchasingdecisions

andasmanyasoneinfourpeoplehaveboughtabrandbecauseafriendrecommended

orfollowedthebrandonline(IpsosSocialogue,2012).

CurrentresearchsupportstheclaimthateWOMcanhavemoreinfluenceonconsumers’

purchasing decisions compared to company generated persuasive messages. This is

mainly due to higher source reliability and trustworthiness of an independent third

party.(Buttle,1998)ThesignificanceofeWOMasamarketingtoolthereforemakesan

investigationofthephenomenonverytimelyandneeded(Shu‐Chuan&Yoojung,2011).

While the effect ofWOM communication on consumers’ purchasing behavior is well

known,itisstillmuchthatneedstobeexploredaboutwhatmakesconsumerswantto

spreadthewordaboutabrand. (Shu‐Chuan&Yoojung,2011)Thisstudywillexplore

consumers’ engagement in spreading brand‐ and product related information and

recommendationstotheir friendsonline.This isdoneinorderto identifythemotives

forpositiveeWOMcommunicationonsocialnetworkingsites.

1.1ProblemdiscussionWOM and eWOM communication is proven to have more significant impact on

consumers’ purchasing decisions than traditionalmarketing campaigns (cf. Cheung&

Thadani, 2012; Trusov, Bucklin & Pauwels, 2009). It is therefore important both to



prevent negative WOM/eWOM, as well as encourage positive WOM/eWOM. Much

research has focused on negative WOM, however the opportunity for companies to

influence consumers’ purchasing behavior by encouraging positiveWOM and eWOM

has been largely neglected in literature. It is of high importance for practitioners to

develop marketing strategies that will increase consumers’ engagement in positive

eWOMcommunication,asthiswillprovidemoretrustworthyandinfluentialmarketing

compared to traditional company generated persuasivemessages. Companies cannot

assume that satisfied consumers will naturally spread positive eWOM, rather the

motives for this behavior must be examined further. By understanding the motives

behindconsumers’engagementinpositiveeWOMcommunication,marketersarebetter

abletodevelopstrategiesthatencouragepositiveeWOM.(Gremler,Gwinner&Brown,

2001)

Previous research within the field of traditional WOM as well as eWOM has mainly

focusedonitsimpactonforinstanceproductsalesandattitudestowardsabrand(Shu‐

Chuan & Yoojung, 2011). Only a limited amount of research has been carried out in

order to investigate the underlying motives as to why consumers engage in WOM

communication(Hennig‐Thurau,Gwinner,Walsh&Gremler,2004;Sundaram,Mitra&

Webster,1998).Thereareprimarily fourprominentpublications thathaveaddressed

the motives for WOM communication. Dichter (1966) and Sundaram et al. (1998)

identifies the underlying motives to why consumers engage in traditional WOM

communicationbyusingaqualitativeapproach.ByreviewingexistingliteratureEngel,

Blackwell andMiniard (1993) verifies andmodernizesDichter’s (1966) findings. The

mostinfluentialstudyuptodateonmotivesbehindconsumers’willingnesstoengagein

eWOM is conducted byHennig‐Thurau et al. (2004) by applying a statisticalmethod.

Theirstudywascarriedoutbyexaminingconsumerswhosharetheirexperiencesand

opinionsaboutproductsorbrandsinanopinionplatform.Theresultsoftheseresearch

studies suggest that some motives are corresponding for both traditional WOM and

eWOM,howeveradditionalmotivesare includedwhenexaminingthephenomenon in

anonlinecontext.

TraditionalWOMoccurs ina social contextwhenconsumers recommendproductsor

shareconsumption‐relatedexperienceswith friendsoracquaintances.Asimilarsocial

context exists on social networking sites (hereafter referred to as SNSs) such as



Facebook,wherethemainobjectiveissocialinteractionbetweenfriends.Thissuggests

that themotives identified inearlierresearchforengaging intraditionalWOMshould

be applicable in this setting aswell. On the other hand, the online setting of the SNS

creates an amplifying effect, allowing eWOM to spread to a multitude of people

simultaneously, as it encourages sharing experiences through providing various

facilitating tools to spread eWOM, for instance by liking or sharing content. This

suggeststhatthemotivesforeWOMonSNSswilldifferfromtraditionalWOM.(Hennig‐

Thurauetal.,2004)

ThemotivesbehindspreadingeWOMonSNSsalsooughttobedifferenttothemotives

foreWOMcommunicationonotherplatforms,suchasopinionplatforms,eventhough

both types take place online. Consumers that engage in eWOM communication on an

opinionplatformdothisbysharing theirexperiencesandopinionsaboutproductsor

brands, i.e. post comments on a recommendation website such as tripadvisor.com.

Opinionplatformsprovideproductreviewsfromstrangers,whicharesolelydistributed

tootherconsumerssearchingfor informationof thatkind.This is incontrast toSNSs,

which revolve around the social interaction between friends and acquaintances. It is

thereforereasonabletobelievethatdifferentmotivesdriveeWOMinSNSenvironments

comparedtoopinionplatformsduetothedifferentnatureoftheonlineplatforms.

WearguethatanSNS,suchasFacebook,isanenvironmentthatcontainselementsfrom

bothtraditionalWOMandeWOM.AnSNSisthekindofonlineenvironmentthatismost

closely mimicking the real life situations where traditional WOM naturally occurs

betweenfriendsandacquaintances,howeverthistakesplaceinanonlinecontext.This

createswhollydifferentconditionsforeWOMtospreadastheonlineplatformcreates

theopportunitytoreachamultitudeofpeopleatonce.WethereforearguethateWOM

onSNSsneedstobeinvestigatedasanewphenomenonincontrasttotraditionalWOM

andeWOMonopinionplatforms.Forthisreasonitisimportanttoincludethemotives

to traditional WOM as well as making it necessary to consider the factors that are

specifictoanonlinecontext.(seeFigure1)



Figure1:ThisstudyproposesthateWOMonSNSsisacombinationoftraditionalWOMandeWOMonotherplatformssuchasopinionplatforms

Drawing on the conclusions of Dichter (1966), Engel et al. (1993), Sundaram et al.

(1998)andHennig‐Thurauetal. (2004) this studywill test the identifiedmotives for

spreading positiveWOM/eWOM by using an SNS, more specifically Facebook, as the

focal socialmedia platform. As a result, this study contributes to the development of

existing theoryaboutmotives foreWOMcommunicationbyexploringhowpreviously

identifiedmotives for positiveWOMand eWOMapply in a new setting, SNSs.Hence,

adding to the growing body of researchwithin the field of eWOM communication. In

addition,thisstudyalsoprovidesguidanceforcompaniesregardingwhattodoinorder

toincreasethepossibilitytocreatepositiveeWOMcommunicationonSNSs.

1.2PurposeandresearchquestionThe purpose of this study is to explore how previously validated motives behind

positiveWOM communication aswell as positive eWOM communication applies in a

newsetting,namelysocialnetworkingsites.

Theresearchquestionistherefore:

– What drives consumers to engage in positive eWOM communication on social

networkingsites?

TraditionalWOM

eWOMonopinionplatforms

eWOMonSNSs



2.Literaturereview

In order to study the motives for consumers’ willingness to participate in positive

eWOMcommunicationonSNSs,onemust firstunderstandWOMingeneral,eWOMin

particularaswellastheSNScontext.Thesethreeareaswillthereforebeaddressedin

thissection.

2.1WOM The main idea behind word‐of‐mouth (WOM) is that information about products,

brandsorcompaniescanspreadfromoneconsumertoanother.WOMcommunication

thus takes place when consumers share their personal experiences with a certain

companyorproductwithotherconsumers.(Brown,Barry,Dacin&Gunst,2005)Arndt

(1967) was one of the earliest researchers investigating the influence of WOM and

defined WOM as “oral, persontoperson communication between a perceived non

commercial communicator and a receiver concerning a brand, a product or a service

offeredforsale”(Arndt,1967:190).ResearchhasshownthatWOMhasaneffectonthe

majority of all purchasing decisions (Kozinets, de Valck, Wojnicki & Wilner, 2010).

WOMhasbeenshowntohaveaninfluenceontheawareness,expectations,perceptions,

attitudesandbehaviorofconsumers.IthasbeenfoundthatWOMismoreinfluentialon

consumer behavior than company generated persuasive messages, which is mainly

explainedasbeingduetotheindependenceofthesourceinthecaseofWOM.(Buttle,

1998)WhileWOMcanbothbepositiveornegative,marketersarenaturallyinterested

inpromotingpositiveWOM,suchasrecommendationstoothers(Brownetal.,2005).

2.2eWOM eWOMisWOMcommunicationinanonlinecontextandisdefinedbyHennig‐Thurauet

al.(2004:39)as“anypositiveornegativestatementmadebypotential,actual,orformer

customersaboutaproductorcompany,whichismadeavailabletoamultitudeofpeople

andinstitutionsviatheInternet.”Nowadays,theInternetprovidesnumerousofdifferent

ways for consumers to share their views, preferences or experiences with other

consumers and the number of people one single consumer can reach out to have

increasedmassively.eWOMcommunicationcantakeplace throughvariousplatforms,

such asweb‐based opinion platforms, discussion forums and social networking sites.

(Trusov et al., 2009) Communication through the Internet has several distinct

characteristics. The communication can be directed towards multiple individuals at

once,itismadeavailabletoothersforanindefiniteperiodoftimeandtheusercanstay



relativelyanonymous.(Hennig‐Thurauetal.,2004)Furthermore,theInternetfacilitates

forconsumers toshare links,picturesand information,making iteasier topassalong

marketing messages between consumers. It is therefore more likely for eWOM than

traditionalWOMtocontainreferencestoadvertising.(Keller&Fay,2009)Theeaseof

spreadingcontentbetweenconsumersmakesWOMespecially suited to takeplaceon

theInternetandnewopportunitiesforfirmstotakeadvantageofWOMmarketinghave

therefore also arisen (Trusov et al., 2009). Companies are for instance allowed to

engage indirect consumer contact for a lower cost and at a higher level of efficiency

comparedtowhenusingtraditionalmarketingstrategies(Kaplan&Haenlein,2010).

2.3MotivesforWOMandeWOMcommunication Thereareonlyalimitedamountofpublishedstudiesthatexplicitlyaddressthemotives

underlyingWOMandeWOMbehavior.According to,amongothers,Dellarocas (2006)

aswellasTong,WangandTeo(2007)themostdominantpublicationsinthisfieldup‐

to‐datearepublishedbyDichter(1966),Engeletal.(1993),Sundarametal.(1998)and

Hennig‐Thurauetal.(2004).Thefollowingparagraphswillprovideanoverviewofeach

research’s findings respectively. The development and relatedness of the identified

motivesforpositiveeWOMcommunicationwillthereafterbeexplainedmoreindetail.

The earliest research on motives as to why consumers engage in positive WOM

communication ispublishedbyDichter(1966).Thisstudystill servesasa foundation

withinthefieldandisconsideredtobeoneofthemostprominentstudiesconcerning

motivesforWOM.(cf.Sundarametal.,1998;Hennig‐Thurauetal.,2004;Keller&Fay,

2012)In‐depthinterviewswereconductedwith255consumerswheretherespondents

were asked to recall theirWOM experiences. The findings show that consumers are

motivated to speak about a product or service in order to gain satisfaction and that

theserewardsalwaysarepurelypsychologicalandnotmaterial.Dichter(1966)group

thefindings infourmaincategoriesofmotivestowhyconsumerstalkaboutproducts

and services in a positive manner. These categories are Product involvement, Self

involvement,OtherinvolvementandMessageinvolvement.(Dichter,1966)

The factors originally identified byDichter (1966)were later updated by Engel et al.

(1993) in their review of WOM literature. The authors re‐named the same factors

referring to them as Involvement, Selfenhancement, Concern for Others andMessage

Intrigue.Intheirpublication,Dichter’s(1966)typologyismodernizedinordertobetter



capture the underlying meaning of the factors. Engel et al. (1993) confirm Dichter’s

(1966) original findings and refine the motives by explaining them in a more

comprehensiveandmodernway,thusshowingthatDichter’s(1966)frameworkisstill

applicableseveraldecadeslater.

The most comprehensive study to date on motives for WOM communication is

publishedbySundarametal.(1998).Theauthorsexaminetheunderlyingmotivesfor

consumerstoengageinword‐of‐mouthcommunication.Thestudywasexploratoryand

donebyconductingcritical‐incidentinterviewswith390consumers.Thefindingsfrom

theinterviewswereanalyzedbyusingacontentanalysisprocedureandresultedinfour

motives to why consumers engage in positive WOM behavior (altruism, product

involvement,self‐enhancementandhelpingthecompany).Threeofthesemotives,with

the exception of helping the company, correspond with factors that are originally

suggested inpreviousresearchbyDichter(1966),namelyother‐involvement,product

involvementandself‐involvement,whichwerelaterconfirmedbyEngeletal.(1993).In

contrasttoDichter(1966)andEngeletal.(1993),themotivemessageintriguewasnot

identifiedinthestudybySundarametal.(1998).

Hennig‐Thurau et al. (2004) examines the motives behind consumers’ decision to

engage ineWOMonweb‐basedconsumer‐opinionplatforms.Thiswasoneof thefirst

studiestoaddressmotivesforeWOMcommunicationandisoneofthemostinfluential

studieswithin the field. The study builds on identifiedmotives forWOM in previous

researchaswellasintegrateseconomicandsocialactivityfromamodeldevelopedby

BalasubramanianandMahajan (2001) inorder to capture the specific featuresof the

online context.Buildingon themotives for traditionalWOMandderivingmotives for

eWOMinparticular, theauthorspropose11potentialmotives foreWOM.Themotive

structurewastestedwithaprincipalcomponentanalysisandasaresult,eightfactors

wereextractedofwhich fivemeasurepositiveeWOM.The fivepositive factorsareas

follows; positive self‐enhancement, concern for others, social benefits, economic

incentives and helping the company. The results of the study confirm that social

benefits,economicincentives,concernforothersandself‐enhancementaretheprimary

reasonstowhyconsumersengageinpositiveeWOMonopinionplatforms,withsocial

benefits being themotive that has the greatest impact. (Hennig‐Thurau et al., 2004)

Hennig‐Thurauetal.(2004)arethusthefirsttoconfirmsocialbenefitsandeconomic



incentives asmotives forpositive eWOM.The factors concern forothers andpositive

self‐enhancement correspondwith the factors identifiedbyDichter (1966), i.e. other‐

involvementandself‐involvement,Engeletal. (1993), i.e.concern forothersandself‐

enhancement, and Sundaram et al. (1988), i.e. altruism and self‐enhancement. In

contrast to Sundaram et al,’s (1998) findings, Hennig‐Thurau et al. (2004) does not

confirmhelpingthecompanyasamotiveforpositiveeWOM.

The factors that have been identified as motives for positive WOM and eWOM

communication in previous studies published by Dichter (1966), Engel et al. (1993),

Sundarametal.(1998)andHennig‐Thurauetal.(2004)willbefurtherexplainedinthe

followingparagraphs.

Productinvolvement

Thefactorproductinvolvementregardssituationswheretheconsumerhasexperienced

a product or service that leads to such strong feelings that he or she feels a need to

expresstheexcitement.Talkingabouttheproduct/serviceisawayfortheconsumerto

relieve anddispose thepleasure that is obtained.Product involvement thus concerns

excitement that is created by products that are perceived highly important to the

consumerandWOMtakesplace inorder tovent thepositive feelings. (Dichter,1966;

Engeletal.,1993;Sundarametal.,1998)Thismotivehasbeenidentifiedinatraditional

setting.

Self‐enhancement

Selfenhancement is found to be a motive for positiveWOM when the consumer for

instance wants to gain attention, feel like a pioneer, gain confirmation of his or her

judgment fromothersor inorder to reach status.Overall itmeans that somekindof

self‐confirmation plays a major role in motivating consumers to engage in WOM.

(Dichter,1966;Engeletal.,1993)Self‐enhancementisthusamotiveforpositiveWOM

whenconsumerswant to enhance their imagebyprojecting themselvesas intelligent

shoppers in frontofothersand isbasedonone’sdesire forpositiverecognition from

others(Sundarametal.,1998;Hennig‐Thurauetal.,2004).Thismotivehasbeenfound

bothinatraditionalandonlinesetting.



Concernforothers

Themotive concern forothers is related to theneedand intentby consumers tohelp

othersandtoshareexperiencedbenefitswithothersinordertoassisttheminmaking

betterpurchasingdecisions(Dichter,1966;Engeletal.,1993).SimilartoDichter(1966)

andEngeletal. (1993),Sundarametal. (1998) identifiesaltruisticmotiveasamotive

for positiveWOM communication. Altruistic motive is described as “the act of doing

something for others without anticipating anything in return” and thus helping the

receiver tomake a satisfying purchase decision (Sundaram et al., 1998:529). Closely

relatedtotheconceptofaltruismdiscussedbySundarametal.(1998),Hennig‐Thurau

et al. (2004) conclude that eWOMmay be initiated because of a desire to help other

consumers with their buying decisions or to save others from negative experiences.

Thus,thismotivehasbeenconfirmedinbothatraditionalaswellasanonlinesetting.

Messageintrigue

MessageintrigueisamotivetopositiveWOMwhenthemessageinitselfisthereasonto

why consumers engage inWOMcommunication.Thismotive takesplace for instance

whentheentertainmentvalueororiginalityofacommercial,“clever”adsorverbalplay

of ads is the topicof the conversation. (Dichter, 1966)The factormessage intrigue is

thusamotivetopositiveWOMcommunicationwhenconsumersfinditentertainingto

talkaboutcertainadsorcompanygeneratedpersuasivemessages(Engeletal.,1993).

Thismotivehasbeenfoundinatraditionalsetting.

Socialbenefits

Thefactorsocialbenefitssuggeststhatwhenconsumersposttheiropinionsonasocial

media platform they are actively participating in and becoming part of a virtual

community. Consumers are therefore motivated to engage in positive eWOM

communication for social integration and belongingness in a virtual community of

platform users. This factor is derived by Hennig‐Thurau et al. (2004) building on

BalasubramanianandMahajan’s(2001)focus‐relatedutility,whichconcernstheutility

the consumer gains when providing value to a community through his or her own

contributions.Socialbenefits isthusamotivetopositiveeWOMcommunicationwhen

people want to strengthen social ties and gain benefits from socializing with others.

(Hennig‐Thurauetal.,2004)Thismotiveisfoundinanonlinesetting.



Economicincentives

ThefactoreconomicincentivesisdistinctforpositiveeWOMcommunicationandmeans

that consumers can receive rewards for sharing brand‐related content. Economic

incentives thus concern themotivational effect a reward canhave onpositive eWOM

communication.Thisfactorsuggestthatthepossibilitytoreceiveareward,forinstance

win a contest, canmotivate consumers to engage in positive eWOM communication.

ThisfactorisderivedbyHennig‐Thurauetal.(2004)buildingonBalasubramanianand

Mahajan’s (2001) approval utility, which concerns a consumer’s satisfaction when

others approve of his or her own contributions. An economic reward for eWOM is

arguedtobeaformofapprovalbyothers,whichmotivatestheconsumertoengagein

positiveeWOMcommunication.(Hennig‐Thurauetal.,2004)Thismotiveisidentifiedin

anonlinesetting.

Helpingthecompany

The factor helping the company is a motive to positive WOM when consumers are

satisfiedwithaproductandhaveasubsequentdesiretohelpthecompanybysharing

theirpositiveexperience(Sundarametal.,1998).Theconsumersarethusmotivatedto

engage in WOM communication in order to support the company after a good

experience. Building on the results of Sundaram et al. (1998), Hennig‐Thurau et al.

(2004)testedthefactor,howevertheirresultsdonotconfirmhelpingthecompanyasa

motive to eWOM communication.Hence, thismotive is found in a traditional setting,

howeveritisrejectedasamotiveforeWOMwhentestedinanonlinecontext.

Table1summarizesthemostdominantresearchthathavebeenpublishedconcerning

motives forpositiveWOMandeWOMcommunicationup todate (seeTable1).Fields

marked as green are factors that have been validated as motives to positive

WOM/eWOM in the studies.The fieldmarkedas redhasbeen identified as amotive,

howeverlaterbecamediscardedasamotivetoeWOMcommunicationinmorecurrent

research.Thetableillustratesthatfindingsfrompreviousresearchstudieshaveserved

as afoundation for subsequent studies and that several of the tested factors are

correspondingtoeachother.



Table1–SummaryofidentifiedmotivesforpositiveWOMandeWOMcommunication

MotivesforpositiveWOM

Motives forpositiveeWOM

Dichter(1966)

Engeletal.(1993)

Sundarametal.(1998)

HennigThurauetal.(2004)

Description

Product‐involvement

Involvement Product‐involvement

Whenconsumershaveastrongpositiveconsumptionexperience,pressurebuildsuptosharingtheiropinions

Self‐involvement

Self‐enhancement

Self‐enhancement

Positiveself‐enhancement

Theconsumerenhancestheirimageamongotherconsumersbyprojectingthemselvesasintelligentshoppers

Other‐involvement

Concernforothers

Altruism Concernforothers

Desiretohelpothersmakingagoodpurchasingdecision

MessageInvolvement

MessageIntrigue

Discussionstimulatedbytheentertainmentvalueand/ororiginalityofthemarketingmessage

SocialBenefits Enjoymentfromengaginginconversationswithfriendsandacquaintances

EconomicIncentives

Responsetoeconomicincentives

Helpingthecompany

Helpingthecompany*

Desiretosupportthecompanyorproductafterapositiveexperience

* Note:Themotive“Helpingthecompany”wasnotfoundtohaveasignificantimpactonpositiveeWOMcommunicationinthestudybyHennig‐Thurauetal.(2004)

This study will explore how the motives identified in previous research for positive

WOM/eWOM communication apply in an SNS setting. The following paragraphs will

describethecontextinfurtherdetail.

2.4SocialNetworkingSites(SNSs) SocialNetworkingSitesarewebsitesthatencouragesocialinteractionbyallowingusers

toestablishandmaintainanetworkoffriendsforsocialorprofessionalinteraction.The

coreofSNSsisbuiltaroundpersonalizeduserprofilesandincontrasttoseveralother

Internetplatforms,SNSsrelyonuser‐generatedcontent toretain itsusers. (Trusovet

al., 2005) Boyd and Ellison (2008:1) define SNSs as ”webbased services that allow

individuals to (1) constructapublicor semipublicprofilewithinabounded system, (2)

articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and

traversetheirlistofconnectionsandthosemadebyotherswithinthesystem.”According



toarecentreportpublishedbyNielsen,SNSsrepresentthemostpopularonlineactivity

amongInternetuserstoday(Nielsen,2011).

According to Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) SNSs allow the users to reveal personal

informationsuchasthoughts,feelings,likesanddislikestoahighdegree.Thissuggests

thattheusersareabletoprojectadesiredimagetoothersthroughSNSs.Thelevelof

intimacy and immediacy of the communication that takes place on SNSs further

suggests that users have an influence on each other's behavior to a certain degree

throughinteractionwitheachother(Kaplan&Haenlein,2010).Hence,SNSsrepresent

anidealtoolforeWOMtooccur,asconsumersareallowedtofreelycreateandspread

brand‐related information within their social networks composed of friends and

acquaintances. An important characteristic that differentiates SNSs from other online

platformsisthattheusers’contactsontheSNSaremembersoftheusers’existingreal‐

lifesocialnetworksandarethereforeperceivedasmoretrustworthyandcrediblethan

unknownstrangers.ThismakesSNSsan important sourceofproduct information for

consumers, which facilitates and accelerates eWOM. (Shu‐Chuan & Yoojung, 2011)

According to Shu‐Chuan andYoojung (2011), eWOMon SNSs occurwhen consumers

provideorsearchforinformalproduct‐relatedinformationthroughtheapplicationsof

thesesites.

2.5FacebookThe most popular social networking site is Facebook with over 150 million unique

visitors(Nielsen,2011).Facebookbringstheuser’sexistingsocialnetworkonline.The

emphasis isonusingtheuser’sreal identityandallowsinformationsharingprimarily

between people who the user has approved as friends. Sociability on Facebook thus

becomes an extension of the user’s real life connections. (Keenan & Shiri, 2009) In

additiontocreatingaprivateandfamiliarsocialenvironment,Facebookoffersavariety

of interactive services that facilitate information sharing. The users can for instance

post status updates, upload pictures, “like” brands and check–in at real life locations

online.(Keenan&Shiri,2009)Theseinformation‐sharingtoolsallowpeopletospread

eWOM that appears on all their Facebook friends’ newsfeed. The private social

environment andbuilt‐in information sharing toolsmakes Facebook an ideal channel

forspreadingeWOM.ThepresenceofcompanyprofilesandadvertisingonSNSsfurther

enable consumers to engage in social interactions by commenting, liking or passing



along the brand‐related information to their social connections. Through these

interactions,consumersvoluntarilydisplaytheirbrandpreference,whichcanstimulate

eWOMcommunication.(Shu‐Chuan&Yoojung,2011)OnedifferencebetweenFacebook

andothertypesofonlineforumsisthatanindividual’slikingofaproductorcompany

by“liking”/joiningthespecificcompanypagebecomesknowledgethatcanbeseenby

everyone in the newsfeed of the SNS. For instance, every time an individual

post/share/like/check‐inonFacebookitisautomaticallyforwardedtotheirnetworkof

friendsbyshowingupinthenewsfeed.(Coulter&Roggeveen,2012)

2.6DefinitionofeWOMonFacebookThere is no pre‐existing definition of eWOM on Facebook. The concept of traditional

WOM is clear andwell defined.Thisdefinitionhowever cannotbedirectly translated

into an SNS setting as eWOM on Facebook can occur in a number of differentways.

BuildingonHennig‐Thurauetal.’s(2004)definitionofeWOMonopinionplatformsas

well as Shu‐Chuan&Yoojung’s (2011) argument that any voluntary display of brand

preferenceonlinestimulateseWOMcommunicationweproposeourowndefinition.In

thispaperwewilldefinepositiveeWOMonFacebookasanypositivepublicstatement

(post content/share/like/checkin) made by a Facebook user involving a company or

brandwhich is made available to amultitude of people via the social networking site.

Hence,allactivitiesonFacebookwhereanindividualpubliclydisplayshisorherbrand

preferences will be regarded as positive eWOM because it will automatically be

published in the newsfeed of that person’s connections. Thus, making the brand

preferencevisibleforallcontactsintheindividual’ssocialnetwork.

2.7Conceptualmodel

OurreviewofpreviouslypublishedliteratureonWOMandeWOMcommunicationhas

ledustosuggest6motivesforconsumerstoengageinpositiveeWOMcommunication

on SNSs: concern for other consumers, self‐enhancement, economic incentives,

expression of positive emotions, social benefits received and message intrigue (see

Table2).Thisisduetothefactthatthesemotiveshavebeenidentifiedandvalidatedin

previousresearchstudies.Wehavechosentoexcludethe factorhelpingthecompany

whichwas identified by Sundaram et. al. (1998) as itwas discarded inmore current

researchbyHennig‐Thurauet.al.(2004),whereitwastestedusingastatisticalmethod.

Themotiveisexcludedinordertominimizetheriskofnegativeimpactontheresults



fromproblematic variables. For this reasonwe only chose to include those variables

thathavebeenconfirmedstatisticallyaswellastestingtwovariables,whichhavenot

yetbeentestedstatistically,i.e.messageintrigueandproduct‐involvement.Inthisstudy

we have chosen to refer to the motive product‐involvement as expressing positive

emotionsinordertobetterdescribetheunderlyingmeaningofthemotive.

Table2–Conceptualmodelofthestudy

Motives Theoreticalorigin WOM eWOM

Concernforothers Dichter(1966);Engeletal.(1993);Sundaram

etal.(1998);Hennig‐Thurauetal.(2004)X X

Selfenhancement Dichter(1966);Engeletal.(1993);Sundaram

etal.(1998);Hennig‐Thurauetal.(2004)X X

Economic

Incentives

Hennig‐Thurauetal.(2004) X

Expressing positive

emotions

Dichter(1966);Engeletal.(1993);Sundaram

etal.(1998)X

Socialbenefits Hennig‐Thurauetal.(2004) X

Messageintrigue Dichter(1966);Engeletal.(1993) X

The study published by Hennig‐Thurau et al. (2004) constitutes the basis for the

conceptual model of the current study as it is theoretically sound and uses a

comprehensivesetoffactorstostatisticallyexploremotivesforeWOMcommunication

by building on previous influential studies onmotives forWOM communication (see

Appendix III). In addition to validatedmotives in the research conducted byHennig‐

Thurauetal. (2004),motives from traditionalWOMcommunication literaturewillbe

included in the model. While not having been statistically tested up‐to‐date, these

motivesoughttobehighlyrelevantinanSNSsetting,asthissettingcontainselements

muchaliketraditionalWOM.



3.Methodology

3.1ResearchdesignThe following section will classify the research design of this study. The aim of this

study is to explore howpreviously validated theory applies in a new setting, namely

motives for positive eWOM communication on SNSs. This research is therefore of an

exploratorytype,astherearenopreviousstudiesregardingmotivestoeWOMthathave

been conducted in this particular context, i.e. SNSs and specifically Facebook. A

deductive reasoning is applied and previously validated factors for participation in

positiveWOMandeWOMcommunicationservesasafoundationforourresearchstudy.

A quantitative data collectionmethodwas used in order to enable us to statistically

examinetherelationshipbetweentheidentifiedmotivesforeWOMcommunicationand

actual eWOM communication behavior, through an online survey. A quantitative

methodisappropriateasitallowsustoverifyand/ordiscardthepreviouslyidentified

motivesforeWOMcommunicationinanewsetting.Furthermore,itgivesusaccesstoa

large data set, which increases the reliability of our results. A factor analysis, which

identifies the underlying factors that explain the correlation within a set of survey

items,wasperformed.Thiswasdoneinordertoscreenthefactorspriortosubsequent

analysistoensurethattheitemsmeasurewhattheysetouttomeasure.(Pallant,2005)

In order to confirm the factor structure that was extracted in the factor analysis a

confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted. The CFA is necessary in order to

establish convergent and discriminant validity as well as reliability. If the extracted

factorsdonotdemonstrateacceptablereliabilityandvalidity themodel is inadequate

formovingontothefollowinganalysis.(Hair,Black,Babin,Anderson&Tatham,2006)

Oncethefactorshavebeenthoroughlyscreened,aregressionanalysiswasperformed.

The regression analysis tests if the identifiedmotivational factors for engagement in

eWOM communication have an influence on actual eWOM communication behavior.

Hence, in theanalysis, themotivational factorsareusedas the independentvariables

and eWOM communication is represented by the two dependent variables, eWOM

activitiesandeWOMfrequency.Thiswillbeexplainedinfurtherdetailinthefollowing

section.

3.2ConstructmeasurementIn this section the items for measuring the variables will be defined. All identified

motivesforeWOMcommunicationaremeasuredona7‐pointLikertscale,rangingfrom



1 (stronglydisagree) to7 (stronglyagree).Therespondentsareasked to indicate the

extentoftheiragreementordisagreementwitheachitem.Allitemsusedinthestudyby

Hennig‐Thurauetal.(2004)weremeasuredwithaLikertscale,whichiswhyaLikert

scale will be applied also in this study. The 7‐point scale is also chosen in order to

secureagooddiscriminationamonglevelsofagreement,asmanypeopletendtoavoid

selectingchoicesateachendofthescale(Saunders,Lewis&Thornhill,2009).Fourof

thesixconstructsrepresentingthemotivesaremeasuredwiththreeitems,whiletwoof

the constructs aremeasuredwith two items,which corresponds toHennig‐Thurauet

al.’s (2004) items.As theconstructmeasurements in this studyarebuiltonHenning‐

Thurauetal.’s(2004)researchitisthusadvantageoustostayascloseaspossibletothe

items testedandconfirmed in their study.Usingpreviously testedscales increase the

reliabilityoftheconstructmeasurementsasithasbeenconfirmedinpreviousresearch

thattheymeasurewhattheyaresupposedtomeasure(Bryman&Bell,2007).

Concernforothers

Wearguethatconcernforothers(originallyother‐involvement)isapplicableinanSNS

settingasthemessagewillbespreadamongasocialnetworkconsistingoffriendsand

acquaintances, who the consumers are likely to care for. This construct assesses the

influence of consumers’ desire to assist and help others on their eWOM behavior.

ConcernforothersismeasuredwithtwoitemsoriginallydevelopedbyHennig‐Thurau

et al. (2004)(see Appendix II). The first item assesses the consumer’s engagement in

positive eWOM communication because of their wish to help other consumers by

sharingtheirownpositiveexperiences,whiletheseconditemassessestheinfluenceof

consumers desire to help other consumers to buy the right product on their eWOM

behavior.

Self‐enhancement

Selfenhancement (originally self‐involvement) ought to be highly relevant in an SNS

contextasconsumersareabletoexpresstheiridentityandupholdaparticularimageby

posting brand‐related messages. Self‐enhancement is measured by three items

originally developed by Hennig‐Thurau et al. (2004)(see Appendix II). The construct

measurestheeffectofpersonalbenefitstheconsumersexpecttogainfromengagingin

eWOMcommunicationontheirbehavior.Thefirstitemassessesengagementinpositive

eWOM communication due to a feeling of satisfaction of telling others about the



consumer’sbuyingsuccess.Theseconditemassessestheconsumer’sinclinationtotell

others about a great experience, while the third item measures the influence of

consumers’ desire to show others that they are clever consumers on their eWOM

behavior.

Economicincentives

We argue that the presence of company profiles on Facebook makes the construct

economic incentives applicable in an SNS setting as consumers are given economic

incentives by the companies to share content, by for instance entering contests.

Economic incentives is measured with two items originally developed by Hennig‐

Thurau et al. (2004)(see Appendix II). This construct measures the influence that

economic incentives have on eWOM communication. The first item measures

engagement in positive eWOM due to an incentive, while the second item assesses

engagementineWOMcommunicationinexchangeforareward.

Expressingpositiveemotions

We argue that the construct expressing positive emotions (originally product‐

involvement) is applicable in an SNS setting because Facebook provides facilitating

tools that encourage users to display their likes and dislikes. Expressing positive

emotionsismeasuredwiththreeitems.Asnopreviouslyvalidateditemsforthismotive

exist,wehavedevelopeditemsusingwordingsascloseaspossibletothewordingofthe

items used by Hennig‐Thurau et al. (2004). The three items are based on how the

motive isdescribedbyDichter(1966),Engeletal. (1993)andSundarametal.(1998)

(see Appendix II). The construct measures the influence of product or purchase

experiences that are above expectation on the consumer’s eWOM behavior. The first

itemmeasures engagement in positive eWOMdue to a desire to express joy about a

goodpurchasingexperience.TheseconditemassesseseWOMcommunicationduetoa

wish to share enthusiasm after a satisfactory purchase. The third itemmeasures the

influence that excitement to share positive feelings following a pleasant purchasing

experiencehasoneWOMbehavior.

Socialbenefits

The construct social benefits ought to be relevant in an SNS setting as eWOM

communication isaneasyway toupholdandmaintain relationshipswith friendsand



acquaintances. “Social benefits” ismeasuredwith three itemsoriginallydevelopedby

Hennig‐Thurauetal. (2004)(seeAppendix II).Thisconstruct ismeant tomeasure the

influence of the social benefits that consumers expect to gain from eWOM

communication on their behavior. The first item measures engagement in positive

eWOMcommunicationduetopleasurefromengaginginconversationswithfriendsin

thesocialnetwork.TheseconditemassessesengagementineWOMcommunicationdue

to the entertainment from communicating with friends in this way. The third item

measures engagement in positive eWOM because it is a good way to maintain

relationshipswithfriendsandacquaintances.

Messageintrigue

The construct message intrigue (originally message involvement) suggests that the

entertainmentvalueofthead,itsoriginalityorclevernesscanbecomethetopicofthe

conversationbetween consumers.Thismotiveought tobeparticularly relevant in an

SNS setting as Facebook provides facilitating tools for sharing company generated

persuasivemessages.Message intrigue ismeasuredwith three items.As thereareno

previously validated items for this motive, we have constructed original items using

wordingsascloseaspossibletothewordingoftheitemsusedbyHennig‐Thurauetal.

(2004).The three itemsarebasedonhow themotive isdescribedbyDichter (1966)

andEngeletal.(1993)(seeAppendixII).Thisconstructismeanttomeasuretheeffect

of the advertising message on eWOM communication. The first item measures

engagementinpositiveeWOMcommunicationduetotheentertainmentvalueofanad.

The second item assesses engagement in eWOM communication because of the

originalityofanad.Thethirditemmeasurestheinfluencethattheclevernessofanad

hasoneWOMbehavior.

eWOMCommunication

Engagement ineWOMcommunication is representedby the twodependentvariables

eWOM activities and eWOM frequency. eWOM activities measures how many eWOM

communication activities on Facebook the respondent engages in, i.e.

post/share/like/check‐in.Engagementinonetypeofactivityreceivesanassignedvalue

of1;engagementintwotypesofactivitiesreceivesanassignedvalueof2andsoforth

withamaximalvalueof4.eWOMfrequencymeasuresthefrequencyofengagementin

eWOMcommunicationonanordinalscale,adaptedfromHennig‐Thurauetal.(2004).



Thecategoriesrangefromoneormorecontributionsperweek(assignedavalueof4),

onecontributioneverytwoweeks(3),onecontributionamonth(2)andlessthanone

contributionpermonth(1)(seeAppendixII).

3.3SurveydesignWehavechosentoconductthesurveywithSwedishrespondents,inordertominimize

theeffectculturaldifferencespotentiallycouldhaveontheresults.Forthisreasonthe

questionnaire is phrased in Swedish. In addition, the survey is designed to be non‐

specifictoanyparticularindustryasouraimistoexplaineWOMbehavioronageneral

level. Furthermore,while there is a possibility that theremight be differences in the

motives for eWOM communication depending on the activity of brand preference

display, i.e. post content/share/like/check‐in, we are not making any distinctions

betweenthedifferentactivities,asthisisnotwithinthescopeofthisstudy.Thepurpose

of thisresearchstudy is toseewhyconsumersengage inpositiveeWOMbehavioron

Facebookonagenerallevel.

Structureofthequestionnaire

In order to ensure that the respondents understand the definition of positive eWOM

communicationonFacebookinthisstudy,thequestionnairebeginswithaninstruction

page. This page consists of written instructions asking the respondent to think of a

situation where he or she engages in positive eWOM communication about a

product/service/brand. To ensure that the respondent always answers the questions

fromapositiveeWOMperspectivetheseinstructionsarerepeatedoneverypageofthe

questionnaire.Inaddition,toclearlyillustratetheapplieddefinitionofpositiveeWOM

onFacebook,examplesofactualFacebookeWOMpostsare included.Theseexamples

showcaseall definedeWOMactivitiesonFacebook, i.e. posting content (photo, status

updateetc.),sharingcontent,likingapageandcheckingin.(seeAppendixI)Moreover,

the purpose of the study is unknown for the respondents in order to minimize the

influence thisknowledgecouldhaveon their responses.The initialpartof thesurvey

consistsof backgroundquestions that serve as screeningvariables to ensure that the

respondent is part of the targeted sample and engages in eWOM communication on

Facebook.Thescreeningvariablesincludeage,frequencyofFacebookusage,thetypeof

eWOMactivitiestherespondentengagesin,ifany,aswellasfrequencyofengagement

in these activities. In case the respondent does not pass the screening questions, the



respondent is disqualified from further participation in the questionnaire. Once the

respondent has passed the screening questions, access is gained to the main

questionnairethatconsistsoftheitemsfortheindependentvariables.(seeAppendixII)

The position of each item in the questionnaire is randomized in order to make the

respondent assess each item on its ownwithout it becoming apparent that the item

belongstoacertainconstruct,e.g.concernforothersetc.Thisincreasesthereliabilityof

the theoreticalmodel if the subsequent analysis shows that the items belonging to a

certain underlying construct have internal consistency despite being assessed

separatelyinthequestionnaire.

Translation

AllitemswerecarefullytranslatedfromEnglishtoSwedish.Inordertoensurethatthe

originalmeaningispreservedintheSwedishversion,aback‐translationtechniquewas

used. The source questionnaire was first translated to Swedish by the authors and

thereaftertranslatedbackintoEnglishbyanativeEnglishspeakerwhoisnotinvolved

intheresearchstudy.Theresultshowednosignificantdifferenceinmeaningbetween

the translated items and the original wordings of the items. (Saunders et al., 2009)

Whereslightdifferencewasdetectedthewordingswereadjustedtobetterpreservethe

originalmeaning.

3.4DataCollectionMethodThis sectionwill describe the data collection method in more detail, specifying the

characteristicsofthetargetedsampleanddistributionofthesurvey.

3.4.1TargetsampleAs the aim of the study is to understand what motivates consumers to engage in

positiveeWOMonFacebook,thesamplemustfulfillonerequirement;therespondents

have to be activeusers of Facebook. For this reason the targeted respondents of this

studyare in theagegroup18‐34,withthepersonalhabitofusingFacebook.Thisage

group is chosen, as it is the age group that is most concentrated on SNSs (Nielsen,

2011). In order to ensure that the sample is activeonFacebook, theonline survey is

distributed through this platform. To further ensure that the respondents fulfill our

selection criteria the screening questions measuring age and engagement in eWOM

communicationdisqualifiesthoseparticipantsthatarenotpartofourtargetedsample.

Respondentsthatarenotintheagegroup18‐34ordonotengageinanytypeofeWOM



communicationonFacebookarethusdisqualified.Consequently,onlyrespondentsthat

meetourselectioncriteriaareallowedtoparticipateinthestudy.

Acombinationofaconveniencesampleandchainreferralsampleisusedasaselection

tool for respondents to this study.This technique is likely tobeprone tobias, as the

cases appear in the sample based on the ease of obtaining them. This problem is

however less significant when there is little variation in the population, i.e. the

population is relatively homogenous. (Saunders et al., 2009) As we study a clearly

defined population of Facebook users, in terms of age and eWOM frequency, this

samplingmethodisvalidinthisparticularcase.Thescreeningquestionsensurethata

relatively homogenous sample participate in the study, thusminimizing the variation

amongtherespondents.

3.4.2DistributionApilot studywith12 selected respondents, bothwithin andoutsideof the academia,

was conducted in order to test the online survey for comprehensibility andpotential

flaws.Theresultsof thepilotstudysuggestedsomeminoradjustments to thecontrol

variables, e.g. adding more frequent visits on Facebook as a response option. After

ensuring that the wordings of the survey items were clear and comprehensible, the

actualonlinesurveywasdistributedtothebothauthors’respectivesocialnetworkson

FacebookthroughaFacebookevent.Initially330individualswereinvitedtoparticipate

in thestudy. Inadditionto this,several individuals in theauthors’socialnetworkson

Facebook were identified and asked to spread the online survey to their respective

social networks. These individuals were chosen based on different backgrounds and

representation of different age groups. A good spread in backgrounds and ages of

respondents suggests that the questionnaire can reach multiple social networks and

consequently a larger number of respondents that are unrelated to the authors. As a

result,atotalof770respondentswereinvitedtoparticipateinthesurveythroughthe

Facebookevent.

The respondents were ensured that their responses would be treated anonymously.

Thiswasdoneinordertoencouragethemtoexpresstheirhonestopinionsandactual

behavior, thus mitigating the risk of the respondents answering in a “socially

appropriate”way.



4.Results

4.1SamplesizeAtotalof255responseswerereceived,providingaresponserateof33%giventhatall

770respondentsinvitedtoparticipateinthestudythroughtheFacebookeventinfact

acknowledged the survey. The response rate is deemed satisfactory for an online

survey.Thisisduetothefactthatself‐completionquestionnairesarecommonlyprone

to have low response rates (Bryman&Bell, 2007). 42 of the 255 responses received

were disqualified due to not falling within the range of the targeted respondents.

Another39responseswereonlypartiallycompletedandthuswereremovedfromthe

sample. As a result, 174 complete responseswere retained. A common guideline for

performinga factoranalysis is thatthesamplesizeshouldhavearatioofat least five

casesforeachoftheitems,i.e.5*16itemsrequireasampleofatleast80respondents.

Thusoursamplesizeissatisfactoryforthistypeofanalysis.(Pallant,2005)

4.2DatacleansingPriortoconductingananalysisofthecollecteddata,outliersthatmayaffecttheresults

of the analysis were removed from the data set (Pallant, 2005). This was done by

assessingthenormalityof thedata.Theskewnessandkurtosismeasuresarebelow1

for all variables, which suggests that the data is suited for a regression analysis. In

addition, histograms and normality plots were examined in order to identify and

remove outliers. As a result 20 caseswere removed as outliers, leaving uswith 154

responsesfortheanalysis.

4.3DemographicsandengagementineWOMcommunicationOftheretainedresponses,35%oftherespondentsaremale,while65%arefemale.The

majority, 89%, of the respondents are between the ages 23 and 30, with fewer

respondents at the ends of the age‐scale. Concerning Facebook usage, 84% of the

respondentsuseFacebookmorefrequentlythanonceaday,13%useFacebookoncea

dayand3%useFacebookmorefrequentlythanonceaweek.WhenitcomestoeWOM

activities,74%oftherespondentsusuallypostbrand‐relatedcontentonFacebook,54%

checks‐inat real‐life locations,81% likebrand‐relatedcontentand37%sharebrand‐

relatedcontentwiththeirfriends.Regardingfrequency,36%oftherespondentsengage

in these eWOM communication activities at least once a week, 33% engage in such

activitiesatleasteverytwoweeks,22%engageineWOMcommunicationonceamonth

and9%performtheseactivitieslessfrequentlythanonceamonth.



4.4FactoranalysisAfterassessing thenormalityof thedata, a factoranalysiswasperformed inorder to

ensurethatthequestionsthatareaskedrelatetotheconstructthattheyareintendedto

measure.Factoranalysisisanexploratorytool,whichservesasaguideforresearchers

toidentifyrelationshipsbetweenthevariablesandisusedasatoolfordecision‐making.

(Pallant,2005)

Tobeginwith,theinter‐correlationbetweenthevariableswasexamined.Variablesthat

are highly correlated make it impossible to establish the unique contribution each

variable has to a factor and one of the problematic variables should therefore be

eliminatedfromfurtheranalysis.Nohighmulticollinearityorsingularitywasfoundin

thecorrelationmatrix.Hence,novariableswereexcludedatthisstage.(Field,2005)

AKaiser‐Meyer‐Olkin(KMO)measureofsamplingadequacywasperformed,inorderto

ensure that factor analysis is appropriate for these data. The KMO measure for our

datasetwas0.792,whichexceedsKaiser’srecommendation,i.e.valuesthataregreater

than0.5areacceptable.Avaluecloseto1showsthatthepatternsofcorrelationsamong

the items are relatively compact, which means that the factor analysis will result in

distinctandreliablefactors.(Field,2005)

In addition, Bartlett’s test of sphericity was conducted, which tests whether the

correlationmatrixisanidentitymatrix.Ifthisisthecase,allcorrelationcoefficientsare

zero. For the analysis to be appropriate it is necessary that some relationships exist

between the variables. For our data, the Bartlett’s test of sphericity was highly

significant at 0.000,whichmeans that our data is appropriate for the factor analysis.

(Field,2005)

A principal component analysis was used when extracting the factors. A principal

componentanalysisestablisheswhichlinearcomponentsexistwithinthedataandhow

aparticular variable contributes to that component (Field, 2005).We chose to retain

factorsusingthecumulativeproportionofvarianceexplained,which isrecommended

to be 70%‐80% (Pallant, 2005). 5 of the factors explain 71% of the total variance,

whereas6factorsexplain78%ofthetotalvariance.Thisledustoretain6factors,asa

meaningful amount of variance is explained by the 6th factor. Retaining a 6‐factor

solutionalsoprovidesuswithabetterfitwiththetheoreticalmodel.4oftheextracted



factorscorrespondperfectlytothetheoreticalmodel,whilethevariablesbelongingto

theconstructself‐enhancementloadedbothonthefactorexpressingpositiveemotions

and self‐enhancement. In order to test the stability of the model with 6 factors, we

conductedanadditionalfactoranalysisusingonlytheproblematicvariablesexpressing

positive emotions and self‐enhancement, extracting a 2‐factor solution. The analysis

confirmedthatself‐enhancementisaseparatefactorthatshouldberetained.(seeTable

3)

Table3:RotatedComponentMatrixa–Two‐factorsolution

Component

Isharebecause: 1 2

I’msosatisfiedwiththeproduct/serviceIpurchasedthatIwanttosharemyenthusiasm

,816

Iwanttoexpressmyjoyaboutagoodpurchasingexperience ,790

IfeelgoodwhenIcantellothersaboutmybuyingsuccess ,744

theproduct/servicegivesmesomuchpositivefeelingsthatIcan’twaittotellothersaboutit

,732

Icantellothersaboutagreatexperience ,712

mycontributionsshowothersthatI’maclevercustomer ,944

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 3 iterations.

Toimprovethe interpretabilityof thefactors,arotatedsolutionwasused,asrotation

maximizestheloadingofeachitemononeoftheextractedfactorswhileminimizingthe

loadingoftheitemonallotherfactors.Asthefactorsaretheoreticallyindependent,we

performedanorthogonalrotation,usingthevarimaxrotationmethod,whichmakesit

easier to understand and interpret the results. This illustrates the factor loadings for

eachitemontoeachitem,i.e.howtheitemscluster.(Pallant,2005)Wehavechosento

excludefactorloadingsthatarelessthan0.4,inordertofacilitateinterpretationbynot

displayinginsignificantfactorloadings.(seeTable4)Byinterpretingthefactorloadings

on each extracted factor,we are able to determinewhether the itemsmeasurewhat

they are intended to measure (Field, 2005). In this process, one of the items was

removed, i.e. I share because I can tell others about a great experience, due to cross‐



loadings on two factors, expressingpositive emotions (0.428) and concern for others

(0.466),asitdoesnotcontributemeaningfullytojustonefactor.

Table4:RotatedComponentMatrixa–Six‐factorsolution

Component

Isharebecause:1 2 3 4 5 6

Iwanttoexpressmyjoyaboutagoodpurchasingexperience ,836

I’msosatisfiedwiththeproduct/serviceIpurchasedthatIwanttosharemyenthusiasm

,805

IfeelgoodwhenIcantellothersaboutmybuyingsuccess ,727

theproduct/servicegivesmesomuchpositivefeelingsthatIcan’twaittotellothersaboutit

,678

anadisclever ,896

Ithinkanadisfunny ,848

Iamintriguedbyanad(itissodifferent/original) ,819

itisfuntocommunicatethiswaywithfriendsinmysocialnetwork

,837

Ibelieveachatwithfriendsinmysocialnetworkisanice

thing

,813

itisagoodwaytomaintainmyrelationshipswithfriendsandacquaintances

,789

Igetarewardforwriting(moneyoffcoupon) ,915

oftheincentivesIreceive(possibilitytowinacompetition) ,892

Iwanttohelpotherswithmyownpositiveexperiences ,823

Iwanttogiveotherstheopportunitytobuytherightproduct ,818

mycontributionsshowothersthatI’maclevercustomer ,886

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.



4.5ReliabilityoffactorsIn order to assess the stability of the model a confirmatory factor analysis was

performed, which tests whether the data fit the theoretically derived model. The

goodness‐of‐fitmeasures show thatanacceptable fit existsbetweenourdataand the

proposedmodel.Valuescloseto1generallyindicateagoodfit.(goodness‐of‐fitindex=

0.910,normedfitindex=0.891,adjustedgoodness‐of‐fit=0.860,comparativefitindex

= 0.953) The RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) value should be

below0.1.ForourdatatheRMSEAvalueis0.065,whichindicatesanacceptablefit.The

chi‐square/degreesoffreedomratioisbelow2(CMIN/DF=1.642)andthusrepresents

anadequatefit.(Hairetal.,2006)

The extracted factors were then checked for convergent and discriminant validity,

which is necessary in order to establish the validity and reliability of the constructs.

Convergentvaliditymeansthatthevariablescorrelatewellwitheachotherwithinthe

construct they set out to measure. This is tested by calculating Cronbach’s Alpha,

compositereliability,aswellasaveragevarianceextracted(AVE).Discriminantvalidity

meansthatthevariablesbelongingtothesameconstructdonotcorrelatemorehighly

with variables outside the construct they are set out to measure. This is done by

assessing the square root of the AVE in relation to the correlation of the constructs.

(Hairetal.,2006)Asthefactorself‐enhancementisonlymeasuredbyoneitem,acheck

for convergent and discriminant validity is not necessary. In order to confirm the

reliabilityoftheextractedfactors,theywerefirstcheckedforinternalconsistencyusing

Cronbach’salpha.Allfactorsshowavaluelargerthan0.7,whichmeansthattheyshow

strong intercorrelations among the items and thus have an appropriate degree of

reliability. In addition, composite reliability was calculated for each construct, which

show values larger than 0.7 for all constructs. This confirms the reliability of the

extracted factors. (Hair et al., 2006) To further confirm that the constructs have

convergentvalidity,averagevarianceextracted(AVE)wasmeasured.ThevalueofAVE

for each construct should be greater than 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). All tested

constructsmeetthiscriterionandthushaveconvergentvalidity.(seeTable5)



Table5:InternalConsistencyassessment

Factor

Cronbach’sα CompositeReliability

AVE

ConcernforOthers 0,744 0,739 0,586ExpressingPositiveEmotions 0,863 0,859 0,604EconomicIncentives 0,799 0,983 0,971SocialBenefits 0,736 0,749 0,506MessageIntrigue 0,885 0,885 0,720Self‐Enhancement N/A N/A N/A

Inadditiona testofdiscriminantvaliditywasconducted,whichassesseswhether the

constructs are unrelated to each other. Discriminant validity exists when the square

root of the AVE is greater than the correlation the construct shares with other

constructs. (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) All tested constructs meet this criterion. (see

Table 6) Our constructs thus have discriminant validity, meaning that they measure

differentmotives.

Table6:DiscriminantValidityassessmentwithsquarerootofAVEonthediagonal

SocialBenefits

ExpressingPositiveEmotions

ConcernforOthers

EconomicIncentives

MessageIntrigue

SocialBenefits 0,711 ExpressingPositiveEmotions 0,183 0,777 ConcernforOthers 0,103 0,726 0,766 EconomicIncentives ‐0,009 0,145 0,046 0,986 MessageIntrigue 0,119 0,606 0,419 0,161 0,849Note:ThistableshowsthefactorcorrelationmatrixwiththesquarerootoftheAVEonthediagonal.Thefactorself‐enhancementisnotincludedasisitisonlymeasuredbyoneitem.

4.6RegressionanalysisFollowing the factor analysis and the subsequent test of reliability and validity, we

computedcompositescoresforeachfactorusingthemeanvalue.Thecompositescores

foreachoftheextractedfactorswereusedasindependentvariablesintheregression

equation. Two regressionmodels were conducted using eWOM activities and eWOM

frequency as the dependent variables. The regression functions were significant for

bothregressionmodels.(seeTable7)

The model using eWOM activities as a dependent variable was highly significant at

0.000 and explains 19% of engagement in eWOM activities. Standardized regression



coefficientsweresignificantfortwoofthesixmotives.Thestrongestpositiveimpacton

consumers’ engagement in eWOM activities was by the motive expressing positive

emotions (β= 0.31). The motive social benefits (β= 0.16) was also found to have a

significantpositiveimpactonengagementineWOMactivities.Standardizedregression

coefficients for the remaining motives: concern for others, economic incentives,

messageintrigueandself‐enhancementwerenotfoundtohaveasignificantimpacton

eWOMactivities.Interestingtonoteisthattheimpactoftwoofthemotives,economic

incentives andmessage intrigue,wasnegative.This suggests that consumers that are

drivenbythesemotivestendtoengageinfewereWOMactivities.

ThemodelusingeWOMfrequencyasadependentvariablewassignificantat0.014and

explains10%ofeWOMfrequency.Thestandardizedregressioncoefficientwasfoundto

be significant for one of the six factors, social benefits (β= 0.26). The standardized

regression coefficients for the remaining motives: expressing positive emotions,

concernforothers,economic incentives,message intrigueandself‐enhancementwere

not found tohavea significant impactoneWOM frequency.The impactof twoof the

motives,economicincentivesandmessageintrigue,suggestsanegativeimpactalsoin

thiscase,indicatingthatconsumersdrivenbythesemotivestendtoengagelessoftenin

eWOM communication. In addition, self‐enhancement suggests a negative impact on

eWOMfrequencyaswell.

Table7:Regressionresults

eWOMActivities eWOMFrequency Regression

Coefficient(Standardized)

Sig. RegressionCoefficient(Standardized)

Sig.

Factor1:ExpressingPositiveEmotions

,310 ,004** ,101 ,363

Factor2:ConcernforOthers ,061 ,519 ,123 ,218Factor3:EconomicIncentives ‐,047 ,534 ‐,078 ,330Factor4:SocialBenefits ,161 ,034* ,260 ,001**Factor5:MessageIntrigue ‐,045 ,616 ‐,125 ,189Factor6:Self‐Enhancement ,113 ,180 ‐,078 ,381 R2 ,190 ,101Modelsig. ,000** ,014*

**Significantatp<.005*Significantatp<.05



TheresultsshowthatsocialbenefitshaveastrongimpactonbotheWOMactivitiesand

particularly eWOM frequency. This shows that the same independent variable, social

benefits,hasanimpactonboththedependentvariables.Thissuggeststhatconsumers

drivenbythemotivesocialbenefitsengagethemostineWOMcommunicationonSNSs.

However, consumersdrivenby themotive expressingpositive emotions are theones

thatengageineWOMcommunicationinthemostkindsofways,i.e.usesthemosttypes

ofactivitiessuchaspost,share,likeandcheck‐in.



5.Discussion

Theresultsofthisstudyhaveprovidedinsightintowhichmotivesleadtoengagement

inpositiveeWOMcommunicationinanSNSsetting.Thefindingsconfirmsocialbenefits

and expressing positive emotions as motives for engagement in positive eWOM

communicationonSNSs.Themotivesconcern forothers, self‐enhancement,economic

incentivesandmessageintriguewerenotfoundtohaveasignificantimpactoneWOM

behavior on SNS. While not significant, the latter two motives did however show a

negativerelationship toeWOMcommunication.The followingparagraphswilldiscuss

thefindingsinfurtherdetail.

5.1eWOMinanSNScontextTheresultsofthisstudyshowcleardifferencesbetweenmotivesforpositiveeWOMon

SNSscomparedtomotives forbothpositiveWOMinatraditionalsettingandpositive

eWOMonopinionplatforms.The twomotives thatwere found tohave an impact on

positiveeWOMcommunicationonSNSsinthisstudyaresocialbenefitsandexpressing

positiveemotions.Accordingtotheory,expressingpositiveemotions is identifiedasa

motivewhenresearchingtraditionalWOMcommunication(Dichter,1966;Engeletal.,

1993;Sundarametal.,1998).Themotivesocialbenefitsisaddedwhenthemotivesare

testedinanonlinesettingandhavebeenfoundtoleadtoeWOMonopinionplatforms

(Hennig‐Thurauetal.,2004).TheresultsthusstrengthentheargumentthateWOMon

SNSscontainselementsofbothtraditionalWOMandeWOMonopinionplatformsand

shouldthereforebeconsideredasauniquecontextwhereeWOMtakesplace.

SNSscloselymimicreal‐lifesocialinteractionsandfocusesoncommunicationbetween

the users real‐life connections. However, eWOM on SNSs takes place in an online

setting, which creates more opportunities for consumers to share brand‐related

content.Thisleadstoincreasedpossibilitiesforcompaniestotapintotheconversations

that take place between friends in their social environment and encourage positive

eWOMcommunication.TheresultsshowthatcompaniesshouldnotthinkofeWOMon

SNSsasneitherthesameastraditionalWOMnoreWOMonopinionplatforms.Rather

theyhavetoconsiderthespecificnatureoftheSNScontext,whichwillbeexplainedin

detailinthefollowingparagraphs.

ThemaindifferenceoftheSNSsettingcomparedtotraditionalWOMisthatwhatyou

postonFacebookremainsthere foran infiniteperiodof time. Inaddition itreachesa



multitude of people simultaneously, in an instant. The unique characteristics of the

online setting of SNSs results in other motives for engagement in eWOM

communication, compared to traditional WOM. Out of the motives that have been

confirmedinatraditionalsettinginpreviousresearch,i.e.expressingpositiveemotions,

self‐enhancement, concern for others andmessage intrigue, only expressing positive

emotionswas found tohaveasignificant impactoneWOMcommunication ingeneral

and eWOM activities in particular, in an SNS setting. Facebook provides many

facilitating tools for sharing content and expressing emotions. Through Facebook the

consumer is enabled to share their positive emotions instantly with a multitude of

people simultaneously through various kinds of activities. Facebook is thus a setting

thatisespeciallysuitedforeWOMcommunicationforconsumersdrivenbythismotive.

ThesettingoftheSNSalsodifferssignificantlyfromopinionplatforms,whichresultsin

othermotivesforengagementineWOMcommunicationonSNSs,comparedtoopinion

platforms.OfthemotivesthathavebeenconfirmedforengagementinpositiveeWOM

communication on opinion platforms, i.e. social benefits, concern for others, self‐

enhancementandeconomicincentives,onlysocialbenefitsisfoundtohaveasignificant

impact on eWOM communication on SNSs, both in terms of frequency and kinds of

activities.ThemaindifferenceoftheSNSsettingcomparedtoopinionplatformsisthe

focalpointof theplatform.Onopinionplatforms the focusof thediscussion ispurely

commercial,asusersvisitopinionplatformswiththeobjectiveofgivingandreceiving

advice on products. SNSs, on the other hand, focus on sociability and interaction

betweenusers.Inaddition,usersareallowedtostayrelativelyanonymousonopinion

platforms, in contrast to SNSs where the user can be identified through their user‐

profile. Peopledrivenby themotive social benefits thus engage inpositive eWOMon

SNSsinordertostrengthenandmaintainrelationshipswithintheirsocialnetwork.

Themotives concern for others, self‐enhancement, economic incentives andmessage

intrigue have not been found to have a significant impact on engagement in positive

eWOM communication on Facebook, in contrast to findings that have been made in

previous research, both for engagement in positive WOM and positive eWOM on

opinion platforms. Eachmotive and the potential explanations for the resultswill be

furtherdiscussedindetailinthefollowingsections.



5.2Socialbenefitsandexpressingpositiveemotions–significantmotivesThe findings of this study have confirmed that the motives social benefits and

expressing positive emotions have a significant impact on engagement in positive

eWOM communication on SNSs. Hence, companies should focus on encouraging

sociabilityandfacilitateforconsumerstosharetheirpositiveexperiences.

InlinewiththefindingsmadebyHennig‐Thurauetal.(2004)thisstudyconfirmsthat

social benefits have the strongest impact on eWOM communication. This motive is

foundtohaveanimpactonprimarilyeWOMfrequencyandtoalesserextentoneWOM

activitiesinanSNSsetting.Consumersthataredrivenbythismotivearethusengaging

in eWOM communication on SNSs more frequently and through more activities,

comparedtoconsumersdrivenbyothermotives.Thisfindingsuggeststhatconsumers

sharetheirbrandpreferenceswithotherusersonFacebookbecausetheywanttogain

benefits from socializing with others (Hennig‐Thurau et al., 2004). As activities that

stimulatesociabilityarefoundtohavethestrongestimpactonconsumers’engagement

ineWOMbehavior,asuccessfulstrategyforcompaniesinanSNSsettingshouldinclude

a social dimension and promote communication between friends. Furthermore, the

results of this study together with the results from Hennig‐Thurau et al.’s (2004)

research,whichalsoconfirmsocialbenefitsasamotive,strengthentheargumentthat

SNSs is a favorable setting for eWOM to occur. Facebook is primarily used for

communication and interaction between friends and acquaintances and the results

showthatconsumersareprimarilymotivatedtospreadbrand‐relatedcontentintheir

networksinordertostrengthensocialties.

The motive expressing positive emotions is found to have a significant impact on

engagementineWOMactivities.Theconsumersthataredrivenbythismotivearethus

foundtousethemostkindsofwaystocommunicatetheirjoyoveragoodpurchasing

experience, i.e. posting, sharing, liking and checking‐in.The consumersdrivenby this

motive solelywant to communicate their joy and thus engage in eWOM through the

most appropriate activity for that specific situation, consequently leading to eWOM

communication through a broader variety of activities. This finding suggests that

companies should facilitate for consumers to express their positive emotions post‐

purchasebycreatingvariousopportunitiestosharetheirexperiencewithotherusers

on the SNS. Expressing positive emotions is however not found to have a significant



impact on eWOM frequency. In contrast to social benefits,which is amotive that can

takeplaceatanytimewhenfriendsareinteracting,expressingpositiveemotionsistoa

largerextentrestrictedtosituationsdirectlyfollowingapositivepurchasingexperience,

as the consumer feels a need to dispose the satisfaction that is obtained. Themotive

expressingpositiveemotionsthushasamorelimitedimpactoneWOMfrequencyasit

assumes a preceding positive purchasing experience directly in conjunctionwith the

eWOMcommunication.

5.3Self‐enhancementandconcernforothers–non‐significantmotivesIncontrasttopreviousresearchfindings,themotivesself‐enhancementandconcernfor

otherswerenot found tohave a significant impact onpositive eWOMbehavior in an

SNS context. Theoretically, the motive self‐enhancement should have an impact on

eWOM behavior, as Facebook allows its users to create their profile‐page and show

their identity to other users through for instance liking certain company pages or

sharingcontentaboutaparticularbrand.Throughthisbehaviortheuserisenabledto

createtheirimageandcommunicatetheirstatustootherusers.Theresultsofthestudy

howeverdonotconfirmself‐enhancementasamotiveforeWOMcommunication.One

possibleexplanationforthiscouldbethateWOMonSNSsisautomaticallyforwardedto

all contacts within the user’s network, meaning that it is difficult to fabricate an

inconsistentimageamongdifferentindividualsasitisvisibleforallcontacts.Thisisin

contrasttotraditionalWOM,wherewhatyousaytooneindividualcandifferfromwhat

you say to another individual. Hence, it is less credible for individuals to enhance

themselves on an SNS, which consequentlymeans that themotive has no significant

impactoneWOM.Anotherpossibleexplanationcouldbethatthestudywasconducted

withSwedishrespondents.Self‐enhancementisconsideredtobeanunattractivequality

intheSwedishculturalcontext(sw.“Jante‐lagen”),whichcouldbethereasonastowhy

self‐enhancement is not found to have a significant impact on engagement in eWOM

communication in this study. Important to note is that self‐enhancement is only

measuredbyoneiteminthisstudy,whichcanpotentiallyunderestimatetheimpactof

thismotiveonengagementineWOMcommunicationonSNSs.

Themotiveconcernforotherswasnotfoundtohavesignificantimpactonengagement

in positive eWOM communication, in contrast to previous research findings.

Theoretically, themotiveconcernforothers isdescribedasadesiretohelpothersby



sharingexperiencedbenefitswiththem.Theresultsofthisstudyhoweversuggestthat

whenconsumerssharebrand‐relatedcontentwith their friendsonanSNS, theusers’

motive is togain socialbenefits and strengthen social tieswithin thenetwork, rather

thanaltruism.ThespecificnatureoftheSNS,wherethecoreideaissociabilitybetween

theuserscouldthereforeexplain this finding.Whengivingadviceandhelping friends

onSNSstheconsumersaredrivenbysocialbenefits,ratherthanpureconcernfortheir

friendsaccordingtotheresultsofthisstudy.

5.4Messageintrigueandeconomicincentives–non‐significantnegativemotivesWhilethemotivesmessageintrigueandeconomicincentiveswerenotfoundtohavea

significant impact on eWOM behavior, hence one should be careful drawing strong

conclusions, the motives showed a negative impact on both eWOM frequency and

eWOMactivities.Thissuggeststhatconsumersdrivenbythesetwomotivesengageless

frequently in eWOM communication and in fewer eWOM activities. Interestingly

enough,thesemotivesaretheonesthataretheeasiesttocontrolbycompaniesandare

therefore commonly used in marketing strategies. Companies have always tried to

create interesting persuasivemessages and ads, aswell as give consumers economic

incentives to join competitions. The results of this study, however, indicate that such

traditional marketing strategies do not translate well into an SNS context. On the

contrary, the results suggest that these motives have a negative impact on eWOM

behavior. One possible explanation behind this finding is that there is a clear

commercialinterestbehindbothmessageintrigueandeconomicincentives.Thereason

behind eWOM being credible is that an independent third party communicates it.

However, in the case of these two motives it is apparent for the consumers that a

company is the initial source of the eWOM. Hence, the eWOM message loses its

trustworthiness, consequently creating an adverse effect. The findings therefore

indicate thatcompaniesshouldbecautiouswhenapplying traditional strategies, such

as attempting to create message intrigue and give economic incentives, in an SNS

context.Rather,itismoreadvantageousforcompaniestodevelopnewstrategieswhen

entering into an SNS environment, which are better suited for encouraging positive

eWOMcommunicationinthisparticularplatform.Companiescannotassumethattheir

regularstrategiesthatareeffectiveinreal‐lifewillbeequallyeffectiveinanSNSsetting.

Rather companies must adapt their strategies for the specific platform in order to

succeedwiththeirmarketingefforts.



6.Conclusion

6.1ConclusionThisstudyhasaimedtoaddvaluetoexistingliteratureonmotivesforpositiveeWOM

communicationbytestingpreviouslyidentifiedmotivesinanSNScontext.Inprevious

research the motives concern for others, self‐enhancement, expressing positive

emotions and message intrigue have been found to lead to positive WOM

communication in a traditional setting. When researched in an online context, the

motivesconcernforothers,self‐enhancement,economicincentivesandsocialbenefits

havebeenfoundtoleadtopositiveeWOMonopinionplatforms.Themainargumentof

thisstudyisthateWOMonSNSsisauniquephenomenonwhichcontainselementsof

both traditional WOM and eWOM on opinion platforms. A framework originally

developedbyHennig‐Thurauetal.(2004)totestmotivesforeWOMcommunicationon

opinion platforms served as a basis for this study. However, as the purpose was to

explore themotives in anewsetting, additionalmotives fromresearchon traditional

WOM were included. The conceptual model that was tested in this study thus

incorporatedthefollowingmotives;expressingpositiveemotions,concernforothers,self

enhancement,economic incentives,socialbenefitsandmessage intrigue.PositiveeWOM

communicationwas represented by the two parameters eWOM frequency and eWOM

activities. By using a quantitative method all factors were subjected to a regression

analysis.Theresultsshowthatsocialbenefitsandexpressingpositiveemotionshavea

significant impact on positive eWOM communication on SNSs, while no significant

relationship was found between the motives concern for others, self‐enhancement,

economic incentives andmessage intrigue and engagement in eWOM communication

on SNSs. The findings show that social benefits drive both eWOM frequency and the

amount of eWOM activities consumers engage in. eWOM communication is thus

primarilydrivenbytheconsumer’sneedtosharetheirpositiveexperiencesinorderto

gain social benefits, such as strengthening social ties and maintaining relationships.

PeopledrivenbythismotivebothengageineWOMcommunicationmostfrequentlyand

in a number of different types of ways. Practitioners should therefore encourage

conversationbetweenconsumersandfacilitatesharingtheirexperiencesinaneasyand

funwaywith their social networks. An additional finding from our study shows that

consumers driven by themotive expressing positive emotions aremost likely to use

differenttypesofactivitiestoexpresstheirjoy.Thissuggeststhatpractitionersshould



encourage and create possibilities for consumers to engage in positive eWOM

communicationeverywherebothinanonlineandofflinesetting.

Fromatheoreticalperspectivethisstudyhasalsocontributedwiththedevelopmentof

the construct measurements by testing previously used scales and developing own

measurements for variables that have not up until now been tested statistically, i.e.

expressing positive emotions and message intrigue. All constructs were tested by

conducting a factor analysis and confirmed by performing a confirmatory factor

analysis.Theresultssuggestthattheitemsforthemotiveself‐enhancementneedstobe

furtherdevelopedasthefactoranalysiseliminatesoneoftheitems(“IsharebecauseI

can tell others about a great experience”), groups one of the items to the motive

expressingpositiveemotions(“IsharebecauseIfeelgoodwhenIcantellothersaboutmy

buying success”) andconsequentlyonly leavesone item tomeasurewhat it setout to

measure (“I share becausemy contributions show others that I’m a clever customer”).

Furthermore, the factor analysis confirmed that the self‐developed items for the

constructsexpressingpositiveemotionsandmessageintrigueshowagoodfitwiththe

theoreticallyderivedmodelandmeasurewhattheyintendtomeasure.

In summary, this study contributes to theory by demonstrating that the motives for

engagementinpositiveeWOMonSNSsisneitherthesameasthemotivestotraditional

WOM nor eWOM on opinion platforms, rather it should be considered as a unique

context. Fromapractitioner’s perspective the results of this study suggest thatwhen

entering SNSs newmarketing strategies need to be developed in order to encourage

eWOMcommunication.Asthemotivessocialbenefitsandexpressingpositiveemotions

arefoundtobethemaindriversofpositiveeWOMcommunicationonSNSs,companies

needtofocustheirmarketingeffortsonactivitiesthatstrengthensocialtieswithinthe

networkandencouragebrand‐relatedconversationbetween friendsbyofferingmore

typesofwaystoeasilyexpresspositiveemotions.



7.ManagerialImplications,limitationsandfutureresearch

7.1ManagerialImplicationsThepurposeofthisstudyhasbeentoexplorethemotivesconsumershaveforengaging

inpositiveeWOMcommunicationonSNSs.Byusingasampleof154SwedishFacebook

users who are actively engaging in eWOM on Facebook, this study tests previously

identified motives for positiveWOM as well as eWOM communication and provides

insightintowhichofthemotivesdriveeWOMcommunicationonSNSsspecifically.For

practitioners, the findings from this study provide a timely account of motives for

positiveeWOMcommunicationinasettingthathasupuntilnowbeenratherneglected

inresearch.Byidentifyingsuchmotives,marketersarebetterequippedtodesigntheir

marketingstrategiesinawaythatencourageseWOMcommunicationtoalargerextent

by focusing on specific reasons as to why consumers engage in this type of

conversations on SNSs. The results of this study show that social benefits and

expressingpositiveemotionsaretheprimaryreasonsconsumersengage ineWOMon

Facebook.Basedontheseresults,marketerscandevelopstrategies,whichappealtothe

motives that drive eWOM communication and thereby increase the positive eWOM

abouttheirproductsandbrands.

For instance, as social benefits is found to have the largest impact on engagement in

positiveeWOMcommunicationonSNSs,companiesshouldfocustheirmarketingefforts

onactivitiesthatstrengthensocialtieswithinthenetwork.Morespecifically,asbrand‐

relatedconversationsonSNSsaredrivenbytheconsumersdesireforsocialintegration

andstrengtheningofrelationships,companiesshouldintegrateactivitiesthatstimulate

conversationbetweenfriendsintotheirmarketingefforts.Asuccessfulstrategyshould

encourageandfacilitateconversationsbetweenconsumersbyofferingafunandsocial

way to discuss brand‐related content. Companies should build a sense of community

around the brand by extending the conversation to include areas of interest in

connectiontotheproduct.Forexample,acompanysellingsportswearcouldencourage

theirconsumerstoshareadviceonexercisesandhealthyeatingamongeachother.The

central thing to consider is what the consumers want to tell their friends about.

Practitionersshouldputtheproductintoperspectiveandconsiderhowtheconsumers

usetheproduct,inwhatcontextandwithwhomandencourageconversationaroundit.

Another finding from this study is that brand‐related conversations on SNSs are also



driven by the consumers’ need to share excitement and positive emotions post‐

purchasewiththeirsocialconnections.Companiesshouldthereforeencouragebrand‐

relatedconversationbetweenfriendsbyofferingmoretypesofwaystoeasilyexpress

positive emotions. Sharing content should be easy and fun for the consumer.

Opportunities for consumers to engage in eWOM communication should be offered

everywhere. The consumer should not only be encouraged to share content on

Facebook,rathereWOMshouldbeencouraged inallspacesconnectedto theproduct,

namelyinstores,thecontextinwhichtheproductisusedandinconjunctionwiththe

purchasingexperience.Manyconsumerstodayhavesmartphonesandcaneasilyengage

ineWOMcommunicationandsharecontentanywhereatany time.Companiesshould

makeiteasierforconsumerstosharetheirpositivebrandexperiencesbyforinstance

incorporating QR‐codes with direct links to the brand’s Facebook page or provide

opportunities in‐storetosharecontentdirectlytotheconsumer’sFacebookpage.The

key takeaway is that marketers should encourage and create opportunities for

consumerstoengageinpositiveeWOMeverywhere,notonlyonline.

Theseareonlyafewexamplesofhowtheidentifiedmotivesinthisstudycouldbeused

inordertodevelopstrategiestoencouragepositiveeWOMcommunicationonSNSs.

7.2LimitationsandfutureresearchThestudyisassociatedwithafewlimitations,whichcanprovideguidelinesforfuture

research. First, the results of this study show that a refinement of the scales for

measuringmotivesforpositiveeWOMcommunicationisneeded,mainlyregardingthe

itemsforthemotiveself‐enhancementforwhichthisstudycouldonlyconfirmoneitem.

Inaddition, as the items for twoof themotives, i.e. expressingpositiveemotionsand

message intrigue,areself‐developed furthervalidationcouldbenecessary inorder to

confirmthereliabilityofthesemeasures.Consequently,futureresearchshouldfurther

improvetheconstructsandvalidatetheitemsthathavebeentestedforthefirsttimein

this study. Second, a Swedish sample was used in this study, whichmight affect the

impactthemotiveshaveoneWOMcommunicationduetoculturalvalues.Aspreviously

noted, the impact of self‐enhancement on eWOM communication on SNSs might be

under‐estimatedduetothemotivebeinganundesirablequalityintheSwedishsociety.

This suggests that future research should replicate the study in different cultural

contexts.Third,thisstudywasconductedonagenerallevel,whichmakesitdifficultto



detectpotentialdifferencesinthemotivesforeWOMcommunicationdependingonthe

activityofbrandpreferencedisplay,i.e.post,share,like,check‐in.Itmightbeofvaluein

futureresearchtomakedistinctionsbetweenthedifferenteWOMactivitiesinorderto

establishwhetherdifferentmotivesdrivedifferent activities.Finally, the theoretically

derivedmodelwasabletoexplain19%ofengagementineWOMactivitiesand10%of

eWOM frequency. This suggests that eWOM communication on SNSs is a complex

phenomenon and that there might be additional motives, which explain eWOM

communication,thatcouldbeaddedandtestedinthemodelinfutureresearch.



8.References

Arndt,J.(1967).“WordofMouthAdvertisingandInformalCommunication”inCox,D.(Ed.),RiskTakingandInformationHandlinginConsumerBehaviour,DivisionofResearch,HarvardUniversity,Boston,MA,pp.188‐239.Balasubramanian,S.&Mahajan,V.(2001).TheEconomicLeverageoftheVirtualCommunity.InternationalJournalofElectronicCommerce,5(3),pp.103‐138.Boyd,D.&Ellison,N.(2008).SocialNetworkSites:Definition,History,andScholarship.JournalofComputerMediatedCommunication,13(1),pp.210‐230.Brown,T.,Barry,T.,Dacin,P.&Gunst,R.(2005).SpreadingtheWord:InvestigatingAntecedentsofConsumers’PositiveWord‐of‐MouthIntentionsandBehaviorsinaRetailingContext.JournaloftheAcademyofMarketingScience,33(2),pp.123‐138.Bryman,A.&Bell,E.(2007).BusinessResearchMethods.(2ed.).Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Buttle,F.(1998).Wordofmouth:understandingandmanagingreferralmarketing.JournalofStrategicMarketing,6(3),pp.241–254.Cheung,C.&Thadani,D.(2012).TheImpactofElectronicWord‐of‐MouthCommunication:ALiteratureAnalysisandIntegrativeModel.DecisionSupportSystems,54(1),pp.461‐470.Coulter,K.&Roggeveen,A.(2012).“LikeitorNot”ConsumerResponsestoWord‐of‐MouthCommunicationinOn‐lineSocialNetworks.ManagementResearchReview,35(9),pp.878‐899.Dellarocas,C.&Narayan,R.(2006).WhatMotivatestoReviewaProductOnline?AStudyoftheProduct‐SpecificAntecedentsofOnlineMovieReviews.InProceedingsoftheInternationalConferenceonWebInformationSystemsEngineering(WISE’06).Dichter,E.(1966).HowWord‐of‐MouthAdvertisingWorks.HarvardBusinessReview,44(6),pp.147‐160.Engel,J.,Blackwell,R.&Miniard,P.(1993).ConsumerBehavior.(7thed.).FortWorth:Dryden,pp.157‐158.Field,A.(2005).DiscoveringStatisticsUsingSPSS:(andsex,drugs&rock’n’roll).(2.ed.).London:SAGE.Fornell,C.&Larcker,D.(1981).EvaluatingStructuralEquationModelswithunobservableVariablesandMeasurementError. JournalofMarketingResearch,18(1),pp.39‐50.Gremler, D., Gwinner, K. & Brown, S. (2001). Generating Positive Word‐of‐Mouth CommunicationThroughCustomer‐EmployeeRelationships.InternationalJournalofServiceIndustryManagement,12(1),pp.44‐59.Hair,J.,Black,W.,Babin,B.,Anderson,R.&Tatham,R.(2006).Multivariatedataanalysis.(6thed.)UpperSaddleRiver,N.J.:PearsonEducation.Hennig‐Thurau,T.,Gwinner,K.,Walsh,G.&Gremler,D.(2004).ElectronicWord‐of‐MouthviaConsumer‐opinionplatforms:WhatMotivatesConsumerstoArticulateThemselvesontheInternet?.JournalofInteractiveMarketing,18(1),pp.38‐52.Kaplan,A.&Haenlein,M.(2010)Usersoftheworld,unite!ThechallengesandopportunitiesofSocialMedia.BusinessHorizons,53(1),pp.59—68.Keenan,A.&Shiri,A.(2009).Sociabilityandsocialinteractiononsocialnetworkingwebsites.LibraryReview,58(6),pp.438–450.



Keller,E.&Fay,B.(2009).TheRoleofAdvertisinginWordofMouth.JournalofAdvertisingResearch,49(2),pp.154‐158.Keller,E.&Fay,B.(2012).Word‐of‐MouthAdvocacy–AnewKeytoAdvertisingEffectiveness.JournalofAdvertisingResearch,52(4),pp.459‐464.Kozinets,R.,deValck,K.,Wojnicki,A.,&Wilner,S.(2010).NetworkedNarratives:UnderstandingWord‐of‐MouthMarketinginOnlineCommunities.JournalOfMarketing,74(2),pp.71‐89.Mangold,G.,Faulds,D.(2009).Socialmedia:Thenewhybridelementofthepromotionmix.BusinessHorizons,52(1),pp.357‐365.Nielsen(2011).StateoftheMedia:TheSocialMediaReport.Incite,Q3,2011.Pallant,J.(2005).SPSSSurvivalManual:astepbystepguidetodataanalysisusingSPSSforWindows(Version12).(2.ed.)Buckingham:OpenUniversityPress.Saunders,M.,Lewis,P.&Thornhill,A.(2009).ResearchMethodsforBusinessStudents.(5.ed.).Harlow:FinancialTimesPrenticeHall.Shu‐Chuan,C.&Yoojung,K.(2011).DeterminantsofConsumerEngagementinElectronicWord‐of‐Mouth(eWOM)inSocialNetworkingSites.InternationalJournalofAdvertising,30(1),pp.47–75.Sundaram,D.,Mitra,K.&Webster,C.(1998).Word‐of‐MouthCommunications:AMotivationalAnalysis.AdvancesinConsumerResearch,25(1),pp.527‐531.Tong,Y.,Wang,X.&Teo,H.(2007).UnderstandingtheIntentionofInformationContributiontoOnlineFeedbackSystemsfromSocialExchangeandMotivationCrowdingPerspectives.InSystemSciences,2007.40thAnnualHawaiiInternationalConference(HICSS‘07).Trusov,M.,Bucklin,R.,&Pauwels,K.(2009).EffectsofWord‐of‐MouthVersusTraditionalMarketing:FindingsfromanInternetSocialNetworkingSite.JournalOfMarketing,73(5),pp.90‐102.

Internetpublications:

IpsosSocialogue(2013a).ItPaysToBeSocial!.IpsosNews&Polls:http://www.ipsos‐na.com/news‐polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=5974.Retrieved:20February2013

IpsosSocialogue(2013b).SoManyEngagementsandNotaRinginSight.IpsosNews&Polls:http://www.ipsos‐na.com/news‐polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=5959.Retrieved:20February2013

Ipsos Socialogue (2012).My Friend “Likes” a Brand. Hmmm… Ipsos News & Polls: http://www.ipsos‐na.com/news‐polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=5671.Retrieved:20February2013



AppendixI–ExamplesofFacebookactivities

When you respond to the following statements please consider a situation that involves apost/share/like/check‐in where a company, brand or product is mentioned or seen in apositivecontext.ExamplesofsuchFacebookactivitiesarepresentedbelow.PleasekeepinmindthattheseexamplesonlyillustrateafewcasesandmaythereforedifferfromtheonesthatyoumayhavedoneonFacebook.Checkin:

Like:

Status update:

Share:

Photo:



AppendixII–Questionnairedesign

Screeningquestions1.Gender2.Age[Ifnot1834=disqualified]3.DoyouuseFacebook?[Ifno=disqualified]4.HowoftendoyouuseFacebook?[Iflessfrequentlythanonceamonth=disqualified]5.WhichofthefollowingactivitiesdoyouregularlyengageinonFacebook?(postcontent/share/like/checkin)[Ifnoneoftheabove=disqualified]

6.Howoftendoyouengageintheactivitiesdescribedinthepreviousquestion?(i.e.postcontent/share/like/checkin)[Ifnotapplicable=disqualified]

InstructionsWhenyourespondtothefollowingstatementspleaseconsiderasituationthatinvolvesapost/share/like/check‐inwhereacompany,brandorproductismentionedorseeninapositivecontext.PleaserespondbasedonhowyouusuallyreasonwhenyouengageintheFacebookactivitiesthatyouselectedinthepreviousquestion. Concernforothers1.IsharebecauseIwanttohelpotherswithmyownpositiveexperiences2.IsharebecauseIwanttogiveotherstheopportunitytobuytherightproductSelfenhancement1.IsharebecauseIfeelgoodwhenIcantellothersaboutmybuyingsuccess2.IsharebecauseIcantellothersaboutagreatexperience3.IsharebecausemycontributionsshowothersthatI’maclevercustomerEconomicincentives1.IsharebecauseoftheincentivesIreceive(possibilitytowinacompetition)2.IsharebecauseIgetarewardforwriting(moneyoffcoupon)Expressingpositiveemotions1.IsharebecauseIwanttoexpressmyjoyaboutagoodpurchasingexperience2.IsharebecauseI’msosatisfiedwiththeproduct/serviceIpurchasedthatIwanttosharemyenthusiasm3.Isharebecausetheproduct/servicegivemesomuchpositivefeelingsthatIcan’twaittotellothersaboutitSocialbenefits1.IsharebecauseIbelieveachatwithfriendsinmysocialnetworkisanicething2.Isharebecauseitisfuntocommunicatethiswaywithfriendsinmysocialnetwork3.IsharebecauseitisagoodwaytomaintainmyrelationshipswithfriendsandacquaintancesMessageintrigue1.IsharebecauseIthinkanadisfunny2.IsharebecauseIamintriguedbyanad(itissodifferent/original)3.Isharebecauseanadisclever



AppendixIII–Itemoverview

Variable No.ofitems

Theoreticaloriginofitems

Concernforothers 2 Hennig‐Thurauetal.(2004)

Self‐enhancement 3 Hennig‐Thurauetal.(2004)

EconomicIncentives 2 Hennig‐Thurauetal.(2004)

Expressingpositiveemotions

3 Self‐developedbasedonDichter(1966),Engeletal.(1993)andSundarametal.(1998)

Socialbenefits 3 Hennig‐Thurauetal.(2004)

Messageintrigue 3 Self‐developedbasedonDichter(1966)andEngeletal.(1993)

eWOMfrequency

1

Hennig‐Thurauetal.(2004)

eWOMactivities

1 Self‐developed

Documents

Jansson&Zakharkina-Final632287/FULLTEXT01.pdf · people utilized brands’ official websites as their main online source for getting information about brands and products. (Ipsos