Jansson&Zakharkina-Finaluu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:632287/FULLTEXT01.pdf · 2013-06-24 ·...
Transcript of Jansson&Zakharkina-Finaluu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:632287/FULLTEXT01.pdf · 2013-06-24 ·...
- 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
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
II
Acknowledgements
WewouldliketoshowourgratitudeandthankoursupervisorSabineGebert‐Perssonandour
colleagues for providing us with insightful comments that helped us to improve this paper
throughoutthewholeprocess.AspecialthanksgoestoFredrikAnderssonandViktorLiljafor
alwayscheeringusupwhenweneededitthemost.
ChristineJanssonandPolinaZakharkina
Uppsala,30052013
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
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
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
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
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 2
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
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 3
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)
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 4
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
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 5
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
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 6
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
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 7
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
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 8
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.
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 9
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.
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 10
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.
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 11
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
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 12
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
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 13
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
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 14
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.
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 15
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
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 16
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
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 17
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
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 18
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).
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 19
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
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 20
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
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 21
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.
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 22
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.
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 23
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
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 24
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‐
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 25
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.
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 26
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)
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 27
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
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 28
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
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 29
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.
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 30
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
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 31
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.
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 32
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
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 33
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
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 34
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.
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 35
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
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 36
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.
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 37
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
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 38
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
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 39
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.
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 40
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.
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 41
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
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 42
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:
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 43
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
MotivesbehindpositiveelectronicWordofMouthonSNSs
C.Jansson&P.ZakharkinaUppsalaUniversityDepartmentofBusinessStudies 44
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