The impact of eWOM on

consumer purchase intention, a

study on Instagram.

17016588

Dissertation submitted to Oxford Brookes University

for the partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN DIGITAL MARKETING

(September 2018)
WORD COUNT: 21379
 DECLARATION

This dissertation is a product of my own work and is the result of nothing

done in collaboration.

I consent to the University’s free use including online reproductions,

including electronically, and including adaptation for teaching and education
activities of any whole or part item of this dissertation

Carlijn ten Heggeler 2018

Faculty of Business

a
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor, professor Jie Meng. She has
been there during the whole process and has invested valuable time in
providing guidance and has supported me during the whole process.
Furthermore, I would like to thank my parents and boyfriend who were always
there for me during the whole project. They were always there when I needed
them! Thank you so much!

b
 ABSTRACT
Nowadays, consumers are more informed than ever before. This
information overload induced consumers to start consulting amongst each
other to discuss their options. Studies show that 20 to 50% of all purchase are
induced by electronic-worth-of-mouth (eWOM), e.g. in the form of product
reviews. A reason for trusting and acting up on eWOM, is because of the lack
of sales prerogative from the sender of the eWOM, something a marketeer
does have. Results indicate that eWOM has a substantial influence on
Purchase Intention in different environments, one of them being Social Media
(SM). This research focusses on a particular SM platform: Instagram, because
it has barely been researched before and Instagram has added a new feature
which makes it an interesting sales platform for companies. The aim of this
research is to investigate what the antecedents are that determine the attitude
towards information on Instagram and to understand how a consumers’ need
of information and pre-held belief moderates the eWOM adoption process and
purchase intention. This study used a deductive approach by which it
empirically validated a newly developed model, called: “the EWOM Information
Adoption Model (EIAM)” through a quantitative (survey) study with a sample
size of 190. The results showed that Information Quality, Information Crediblity
and Information Usefulness are the antecedents that determine a consumers’
Attitude Towards Information on Instagram. Attitude Towards Information is a
direct determinant for Purchase Intention and both moderaters (Need of
Information and Pre-held Belief) have been accepted. The findings also
indicated that most consumers are nowadays in high need of information, but
consumers with low need of information have a more positive attitude towards
the information. Meaning that with the right messages they are more inclined
to eventually have an intention to purchase. These findings were not predicted
by the researcher, as they contradict the findings from earlier research. Another
important finding was in regards to the moderator pre-held belief. As the results
indicated that 1 piece of contradicting eWOM information was not able to
change a consumers’ pre-held belief and thereby change the outcome of the
purchase intention. Thus, consumers who stated to like Apple, were still willing
to purchase Apple products after being confronted with negative eWOM and
vice versa. This research contributes to the literature of eWOM information and
the impact that it has on consumers’ Purchase Intention.

c
Table of Contents

Chapter Page

DECLARATION .......................................................................................................... A

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..............................................................................................B

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................. C

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1

1.1 CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND ............................................................................................1

1.2 RESEARCH MOTIVATION ..................................................................................................7
1.3 RESEARCH AIM AND OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................8
1.4 STRUCTURE OF DISSERTATION......................................................................................... 10

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................. 11

2.1 INTRODUCING THE EMERGENCE OF (E)WOM.................................................................... 11

2.2 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WOM AND EWOM ..................................................................... 14
2.3 EWOM AMONG MILLENNIAL CONSUMERS- AN OBSERVATION OF INSTAGRAM ........................ 16
2.4 THE EWOM MECHANISM- FROM AN INFORMATION CIRCULATION’S PERSPECTIVE .................... 18
2.5 EWOM’S EFFECT ON PURCHASE INTENTION..................................................................... 25
2.6 LITERATURE GAP......................................................................................................... 28
2.7 CONCEPTUAL MODEL CREATION..................................................................................... 29
2.8 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 35

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 36

3.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 36
3.2 RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY AND THEORY DEVELOPMENT .......................................................... 37
3.3 PURPOSE OF RESEARCH ................................................................................................. 38
3.4 RESEARCH STRATEGY .................................................................................................... 39
3.5 DATA ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 46
3.6 TIMESCALE ................................................................................................................. 47
3.7 ETHICAL CONSIDERATION .............................................................................................. 48
3.8 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................... 48
3.9 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 49

CHAPTER 4. FINDINGS.............................................................................................. 50

4.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 51
4.2 MAIN STUDY - DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ............................................................................ 53
4.3 RELIABILITY TEST & VALIDITY TEST .................................................................................. 54

d
 4.4 MAIN EFFECT TESTING .................................................................................................. 56
4.5 MODERATING EFFECT TESTING....................................................................................... 59
4.6 CORRELATION OF GROUPS ............................................................................................. 66
4.7 CONCLUDING REMARKS................................................................................................. 74

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION .......................................................................................... 78

2.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 78
2.2 WHAT MANAGERS AND MARKETEERS CAN DO ................................................................... 79
2.3 CONTINGENCY IN MARKETING........................................................................................ 87
2.4 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 88

CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 90

6.1 RESEARCH AIM AND OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................... 90

6.2 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS .................................................................................. 94
6.3 RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS ............................................................................................ 95
6.4 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................. 96

CHAPTER 7. REFERENCES ......................................................................................... 98

CHAPTER 8. APPENDICES ............................................................................................I

APPENDIX 8.1: QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................................................I

APPENDIX 8.2: CRONBACH ALPHA ................................................................................. XXVII
APPENDIX 8.4: T-TEST PRE-HELD BELIEF ......................................................................... XXXII
APPENDIX 8.5: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION PER GROUP .................................... XXXIV
APPENDIX 8.6: GROUP 2 CORRELATION ......................................................................... XXXIX

e
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
TABLE I EXAMPLES SOCIAL NETWORK SITES ..................................... 3
TABLE II SOCIAL NETWORK SITES EARLIER RESEARCH ................... 4
TABLE III SM EXAMPLES ........................................................................... 4
TABLE IV WORKING DEFINITION SOCIAL MEDIA .................................. 5
TABLE 5 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES .......................................................... 9
TABLE VI REASONS FOR BUSINESSES' TO USE PWOM ...................13
TABLE VII WOM vs. eWOM ......................................................................14
TABLE VIII INTENTIONS OF SM PLATFORMS ......................................16
TABLE IX EARLIER SOCIAL MEDIA RESEARCH ..................................17
TABLE X EWOM TRANSMISSION EXAMPLE ........................................18
TABLE XI REASONS FOR DISSEMINATING EWOM .............................19
TABLE XII REASONS FOR READIN EWOM ...........................................19
TABLE XIII EARLIER EWOM RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES .................20
TABLE XIV EWOM'S IMPACT ON PURCHASE INTENTION..................25
TABLE XV DETERMINANTS PURCHASE INTENTION ..........................27
TABLE XVI RESEARCH QUESTIONS .....................................................36
TABLE XVII RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ...................................................37
TABLE XVIII CONDITIONS CAUSALITY ..................................................39
TABLE XIX PRO'S AND CON'S QUESTIONNAIRE METHOD ................40
TABLE XX INSTRUMENT MEASUREMENTS .........................................42
TABLE XXI MODERATOR QUESTIONS ..................................................50
TABLE XXII GROUP DESCRIPTION........................................................51
TABLE XXIII DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS PILOT STUDY ......................51
TABLE XXIV CRONBACH'S ALPHA PILOT STUDY ...............................52
TABLE XXV DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS MAIN STUDY ........................53
TABLE XXVI CRONBACH'S ALPHA MAIN STUDY .................................55
TABLE XXVII HYPOTHESES....................................................................57
TABLE XXVIII MEAN AND STD. DEVIATION ..........................................58
TABLE XXIX COEFFICIENTS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE ...................58
TABLE XXX HYPOTHESES 5 AND 6 .......................................................60
TABLE XXXI DISTRIBUTION PER MODERATOR ..................................60
TABLE XXXII ALLOCATION GROUP NEED OF INFORMATION ...........61
TABLE XXXIII NEED OF INFORMATION MODERATES ATI ..................62

f
TABLE XXXIV ATTITUDE TOWARDS INFORMATION MODERATED BY
NEED OF INFORMATION .........................................................................62
TABLE XXXV ALLOCATION GROUP PRE-HELD BELIEF .....................63
TABLE XXXVI PRE-HELD BELIEF MODERATES ATI ............................63
TABLE XXXVII ATTITUDE TOWARDS INFORMATION MODERATED BY
PRE-HELD BELIEF ...................................................................................64
TABLE XXXVIII PRE-HELD BELIEF MODERATES PI ............................65
TABLE XXXIX PURCHASE INTENTION MODERATED BY PRE-HELD
BELIEF .......................................................................................................65
TABLE XL SUMMARY DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS GROUPS...............67
TABLE XLI MEAN VALUES AND STD. DEVIATION PER GROUP ........68
TABLE XLII GROUP 1 CORRELATION ...................................................69
TABLE XLIII GROUP 3 CORRELATION ..................................................71
TABLE XLIV GROUP 4 CORRELATION ..................................................72
TABLE XLV SUMMARY CORRELATION ANALYSIS ..............................73
TABLE XLVI OVERVIEW OF HYPOTHESIZED RELATIONSHIPS ........75
TABLE XLVII GROUP DESCRITPION .....................................................79
TABLE XLVIII OVERVIEW HYPOTHESES ..............................................80
TABLE XLIX RESEARCH QUESTIONS ...................................................90
TABLE L RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ........................................................91
TABLE LI ANTECEDENTS OF EWOM ADOPTION PROCESS..............91
TABLE LII MODERATORS AND THEIR DISTRIBUTION ........................92
TABLE LIII GROUP DISTRIBUTION.........................................................93
TABLE XLIX GROUP 2 CORRELATION ........................................... XXXIX

g
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
FIGURE 1 eWOM Communication ............................................................18
FIGURE 2 INFORMATION ADOPTION MODEL ......................................30
FIGURE 3 INFORMATION ACCEPTANCE MODEL ................................31
FIGURE 4 EWOM INFORMATION ADOPTION MODEL .........................32
FIGURE 5 RESEARCH DESIGN ..............................................................48
FIGURE 6 EIAM .........................................................................................56
FIGURE 7 VISUALISATION OF CORRELATION ANALYSIS 178
RESPONDENTS ........................................................................................59
FIGURE 8 EIAM .........................................................................................60
FIGURE 9 CORRELATION GROUP 1 ......................................................70
FIGURE 10 CORRELATION GROUP 3 ....................................................71
FIGURE 11 CORRELATION GROUP 4 ....................................................73
FIGURE 12 FINAL VERSION THE EIAM .................................................76
FIGURE 13 THE EIAM ..............................................................................79
FIGURE 14 ATITUDE TOWARDS INFORMATION MEAN VALUE .........83
FIGURE 15 PURCHASE INTENTION MEAN VALUE ..............................85
FIGURE 16 THE EIAM, AFTER EMPIRICAL VALIDATION .....................89
FIGURE 17 THE EIAM ..............................................................................94

h
 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter will act as an introduction to the subject of this dissertation. It
starts off explaining the context of the research by elaborating and introducing
several terms and definitions. Followed by the research motivation, research
aim and objectives. The last section will provide an overview of structure of this
dissertation.

1.1 Context and Background

A recent study (Alhidari, Iyer and Paswan, 2015) showed that 62% of all
consumers in the US consult product reviews before purchasing a product.
80% of those consumers are actually influenced by it in regards to their
purchase intentions. Another study (Fine, Gironda and Petrescu, 2017),
showed that 20 – 50% of all purchases is induced by electronic-word-of-mouth
(eWOM).
The sharing and researching of product information is not a new
phenomenon. Before the Internet people already shared their opinions about
products face to face, which is called Word-of-Mouth (WOM).
This study focusses on eWOM and the impact that it has on consumers’
purchase intention on Instagram.

1.1.1 Emergence of Word-Of-Mouth

Over the years, the amount of media consumers got to be exposed to,
increased exponentially (Bickart and Schindler, 2001; Godes and Mayzlin,
2004). Due to this, consumers got more informed, but it also increased the
difficulty of making product decisions due to information overload (Daugherty
and Hoffman, 2014; Moran and Muzellec, 2017). The information overload
induced consumers to consult amongst each other (Herr, Kardes and Kim,
1991; Fine, Gironda and Petrescu, 2017; Moran and Muzellec, 2017).
This is considered Word-Of-Mouth (WOM) (Arndt, 1967; Herr, Kardes and
Kim, 1991).

1.1.2 Definition of Word-Of-Mouth

Arndt was one of the first researchers investigating the impact of WOM
(1967). He defined WOM as: “oral, person-to-person communication between

1
a receiver and a communicator whom the receiver perceives as non-
commercial, regarding a brand, product or service” (Arndt, 1967).
Since then, WOM has been researched a lot (Richins, 1983; Johnson
Brown and Reingen, 1987; Anderson, 1998; Buttle, 1998; Stokes and Lomax,
2002) and has been proven to influence behaviour in several ways (Engel,
Kegerreis and Blackwell, 1969; Herr, Kardes and Kim, 1991; Bone, 1995).
Mahapatra and Mishra (2017), state in their research that a consumer is
four times more likely to purchase a product, if a positive consumer review is
written about the product.

1.1.3 Influence of WOM

The influence of WOM was first established in 1955 by Katz and Lazarfeld.
As they proved that WOM was the most influential source for finding
information on household items (1955).
WOM is even so influential that consumers are willing to disregard their
own opinion and opt for information provided by others (Godes and Mayzlin,
2004). Jung Kim et al., it (2016) even stated that two third of consumers act
upon WOM after reading. Hence, it’s significance.
A reason for trusting and acting up on WOM, is because of the lack of sales
prerogative from the sender of the WOM (Bickart and Schindler, 2001; Chen
and Xie, 2008; Kozinets et al., 2010). Something a marketeer does have, when
he is creating an alluring ad-campaign. Another reason why accepting WOM
comes easily to consumers, is because of the homogeneity between the
sender and receiver of the WOM (both consumers) (Bickart and Schindler,
2001; Brown, Brodererick and Lee, 2007).

1.1.4 Social Network Sites

Previously, WOM was face-to-face, but with rise of the Internet, WOM got
a whole new meaning to it (Subramani and Rajagopalan, 2003; Moran and
Muzellec, 2017). Social Network Sites (SNS) became a big hit, as they allowed
consumers to communicate to other consumers from all over the world (Chu
and Kim, 2011; Erkan and Evans, 2016). For e.g. of SNS see Table 1.

2
 TABLE I EXAMPLES SOCIAL NETWORK SITES

Social Network Sites

bulletin boards, retail website, shopping websites, electronically based
forums, blogs, review websites and Social Media (SM) websites” (Bickart
and Schindler, 2001; Bughin, Doogan and Vetvik, 2010).

Consumers can chat within those platforms, to familiar and unfamiliar

people, to share their experiences and ask questions (Bickart and Schindler,
2001; Moran and Muzellec, 2017). Meaning that WOM no longer is restricted
to familiar people that live close by (Dellarocas, 2003; Park, Lee and Han, 2007;
Schmäh, Wilke and Rossmann, 2017). This is referred to as eWOM (Cheung
and Thadani, 2012).

1.1.5 Electronic-Word-Of-Mouth
Henning-Thurau et al. (2004), defined eWOM as: “any positive or negative
statement made by potential, actual, or former customers about a product or
company, which is made available to a multitude of people and institutions via
the Internet”.
The Internet created the possibility to purchase products online. However,
consumers could no longer touch or see the actual product when purchasing it
online. That is why they had to start relying on eWOM (Jalilvand, Esfahani and
Samiei, 2011). EWOM (c.q. product reviews) is useful information which is
perceived to be trustworthy and supports consumers in their purchase
decisions (Chen and Xie, 2008; Hsu, Chuan‐Chuan Lin and Chiang, 2013).
EWOM allowed itself to be dispersed rapidly and could be stored on the
Internet. Consumers could read multiple reviews from people who had already
bought the product and used it, making them feel reassured and helping them
in their decision process (Cheung and Thadani, 2012; Barreto, 2014; Banerjee,
Bhattacharyya and Bose, 2017). Thus, eWOM has proven to be an influential
and effective tool, which can easily reach more consumers than the original
WOM (Erkan and Evans, 2016).
The relevance for researching eWOM separately from WOM, is because of
the significant difference between WOM and eWOM (offline versus online)
(Moran and Muzellec, 2017). Due to this, and the fact that eWOM has multiple
advantages (low cost, big reach) a lot of research has been done on the subject

3
(Elwalda, Lü and Ali, 2016; Erkan and Evans, 2016; Yan et al., 2016; Fine,
Gironda and Petrescu, 2017; Saleem and Ellahi, 2017).
As this chapter is the introduction of this research, the next paragraph will
only highlight a small piece of findings from earlier research. For a more in-dept
analysis of earlier research please see chapter 2.

1.1.6 eWOM research

A lot of research focusses on, the impact of eWOM on Purchase Intention
on SNS platforms, as this is important to both academics and marketeers
(Sotiriadis and Zyl, 2013). The impact of eWOM on Purchase Intention on the
following platforms has been researched intensely, see Table 2:

TABLE II SOCIAL NETWORK SITES EARLIER RESEARCH

Social Network Sites Research

- Blogs (Hsu, Chuan‐Chuan Lin and Chiang, 2013)
- Review websites (Zhang et al., 2010; Mauri and Minazzi, 2013;
Sotiriadis and Zyl, 2013)
- Retail websites (Park, Lee and Han, 2007; Jeong and Jang, 2011),
- Shopping websites (Cheung, Lee and Rabjohn, 2008).

Results indicate that eWOM has a substantial influence on Purchase

Intention on all SNS.

1.1.7 Social Media (SM)

Another platform which has been researched in regards to eWOM is: SM.
SM encompasses several individual platforms, for e.g. see Table 3.

TABLE III SM EXAMPLES

Social Media
Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and Snapchatt (Kerkhof, 2010;
Leonardi, Huysman and Steinfield, 2013).

Up until today, there is no official definition for “SM”. However, Brian Solis
has written a working definition for now, see Table 4.

4
 TABLE IV WORKING DEFINITION SOCIAL MEDIA

Working definition SM
“Any tool or service that uses the Internet to facilitate conversations” (Solis
and Breakenridge, 2009, p. xvii).

However, SM is a relatively new platform (Erkan and Evans, 2016; Moran

and Muzellec, 2017). Hence, fewer research has focused on it. Nonetheless,
there are some existing studies (Jansen et al., 2009; Kaplan and Haenlein,
2010; Canhoto and Clark, 2013; Leonardi, Huysman and Steinfield, 2013;
Sotiriadis and Zyl, 2013).

1.1.7.1 SM and eWOM

SM is perfect for the dissemination of eWOM, as the main purpose of the
platform is: connecting with friends, sharing content, exchanging content and
responding to content (Cheung, Lee and Rabjohn, 2008; Moran and Muzellec,
2017). It creates a new possibility within eWOM. As SM allows communication
with people’s current connections, opposed to SNS who allow people to
communicate anonymously with unfamiliar people.
Besides this, allow SM platforms to share more ‘rich’ content than other
platforms (Alhidari, Iyer and Paswan, 2015). Due to the fact that the content
can consist out of: voice recordings, video, text, livestream and/or photos
(Moran and Muzellec, 2017).
Posts can be either personal, brand related/ company oriented or
advertisements (Djafarova and Rushworth, 2017).
This research focusses on a particular SM platform: Instagram.

1.1.8 Instagram
Instagram is an online application for sharing photos and videos, founded
in 2010. It is used to stay connected with friends and fulfils a socializing role.
Users post content on Instagram for their own personal indulgence, as they
want to inform their followers about themselves and their endeavours (Ting and
Cyril De Run, 2015). Users search for content on Instagram to gratify their
spare time, social needs or informational needs (Phua, Venus Jin and Kim,
2017).

5
 Anybody can create an Instagram account meaning: consumers,
marketeers, company owners or anybody else who would want to. Users
manoeuvre through all the photos posted by their friends and/or people they
are interested in by scrolling down their stream, using their fingers to swipe
down their feed. The feed is determined by the individual’s swiping, liking and
commenting (Carah and Shaul, 2016).

1.1.8.1 Instagram and Businesses

Businesses use Instagram to share new products, stay top of mind and
engage with consumers (Ting and Cyril De Run, 2015). Instagram is the perfect
place for this, as the visual content adds an extra layer to it. Important indicators
on Instagram are the amount of ‘Likes’ and ‘Comments’ received on a post
(Erkan, 2015).

1.1.9 Instagram and eWOM

Consumers increasingly use Instagram to obtain information about
companies/brands they are unfamiliar with, as they perceive the information
provided by followers as more credible and trustworthy (Erkan, 2015). Users
can view what their friends have liked/commented on, even if they don’t follow
that particular account.
Research indicates that consumers progressively use SM platforms such
as Instagram to gather knowledge about unknown brands (Daugherty and
Hoffman, 2014; Moran and Muzellec, 2017). Thus, Instagram has proven to be
a great place to share and search for product related opinions (Cheung, Lee
and Rabjohn, 2008; Sotiriadis and Zyl, 2013). Earlier research (Moran and
Muzellec, 2017), indicates that consumers increasingly use these platforms for
searching eWOM, most often in the form of written reviews.
A consequence of this phenomena is that brands increasingly use SM to
interact and engage with (potential future) consumers (Michaelidou, Siamagka
and Christodoulides, 2011). A newly added feature on Instagram; instant-
purchase possibility, makes Instagram even more appealing for brands to
interact through this platform. As consumers can now instantly act upon eWOM
by hitting the “buy” button on the platform.
For these reasons is Instagram treated as a suitable platform for the
dissemination of eWOM as well as an interesting platform worth researching
(Erkan and Evans, 2016).

6
1.2 Research Motivation
Nowadays, consumers are more informed than ever before (Cheung, Lee
and Rabjohn, 2008). They used to only be able to rely on WOM from friends
and family or a sales representative in a physical store. However, now with the
rise of the Internet, this is no longer the case (Godes and Mayzlin, 2004).
Understanding the determinants that impact purchase intentions of
consumers is of serious importance to psychologists, market researchers and
marketeers in the field (Alhidari, Iyer and Paswan, 2015).
SM platforms are the perfect place for distributing eWOM, as previously
mentioned (Phua, Venus Jin and Kim, 2017). The behaviour of consumers on
SM platforms is an enormous responsibility for marketeers, as they have to
figure out how to cope with it, as well as know how to use these platforms to
their advantage (Al-Shibly and Mahadin, 2018). Marketeers need to use SM as
a marketing tool in addition to traditional media, in order to retain customers,
increase brand loyalty and nurture meaningful relationships with customers in
this online era (Wang et al., 2016).
It is expected that in 2020, approximately 2.95 billion active SM users will
exist world-wide (Al-Shibly and Mahadin, 2018). Hence, a lot of research has
been done on it, as this SM penetration is ever-increasing (Wang et al., 2016;
Sarmient Guede, Javier and Antonovica, 2017).
Researchers have investigated the impact of eWOM on SM on Purchase
Intention (Bataineh, 2015; Gunawan and Huarng, 2015; Erkan and Evans,
2016). However, it is crucial to examine SM platforms separately, as all
platforms have distinct intentions. Meaning that the adoption and acceptance
of eWOM could be influenced by different determinants and factors for each
platform individually (Erkan and Evans, 2016). This forms the foundation for
the motivation to research this topic in a new environment: Instagram.

1.2.1 Motivation for Instagram

This research focusses on a relatively new SM platform: Instagram.
Instagram is an upcoming SM platform, that differentiates itself from other
platforms by primarily focussing on content sharing through photographs (Ting
and Cyril De Run, 2015). Perfect for the distribution of eWOM, as consumers
can see pictures of the products, as well as read reviews on the quality off the
product, beneath the picture.

7
 Up until now, it was only possible to view the pictures, like them and/or
comment on them. Making it less attractive as a direct sales channel. However,
Instagram has been experiencing rapid growth and has therefore added a new
feature on the platform (Instagram Business Team, 2017; Shu, 2017; Hot,
2018). This new feature allows consumers to instantly buy the products they
see on their time line, making it an interesting marketing tool for marketeers
and influencers (Luca, 2016; Liu, 2017; Wallace, 2017).
Hence, due to the lack of research done on the antecedents and impact of
eWOM on Instagram on purchase intention, has this been the motivation for
focussing on this particular topic.

1.3 Research aim and objectives

The aim of this research is to investigate what the antecedents are that
determine the attitude towards information on Instagram and to understand
how a consumers’ need of information and pre-held belief moderates the
eWOM adoption process and purchase intention. The aim of this research
evolves from the lack of research done on Instagram and the impact that
eWOM has on purchase intention on Instagram. The goal is to investigate the
determinants of eWOM on Instagram and to investigate the consequence off
the eWOM on Purchase Intention.
This will be done through the development of a theoretical model and the
model will be empirically tested through a quantitative study. The model wil
indicate the specific antecedents of eWOM for Instagram, as antecedents vary
per SM platform. It will also indicate whether or not “Need of Information” and
“Pre-held Belief” moderate the outcome. Therefore, the following research
questions were developed:

1.3.1 Research Questions

RQ 1: To investigate the relation between a set of antecedents
(information characteristics) that determine the attitude towards
information on Instagram.
Besides findings out what the antecedents are for attitude towards
information formation, will the model also indicate whether or not Need of
Information and Pre-held Beliefs act as moderators or not for consumers’
Purchase Intention within the adoption process.
Hence, the following research question was developed:

8
 RQ 2: To understand how a consumers’ need of information adjusts
the eWOM adoption process and purchase intention.

RQ3: To understand how a consumers’ pre-held belief moderates the

eWOM adoption process and purchase intention.
Due to the rise in Instagram users and the new instant-purchase feature,
has Instagram become a valuable sales channel. Hence, it is important for
marketeers to understand the impact that eWOM has on Instagram on
Purchase Intention.

1.3.2 Research Objectives

To answer these research question four objectives have been set, see
Table 5:
TABLE 5 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

Source: Author
Research Objectives
1. To find out what the antecedents of eWOM adoption on Instagram
are from a information transmission perspective.
2. To identify if the eWOM adoption process is moderated by users’
“Need of Information” and “Pre-held Belief” on Instagram, and see
how it impacts consumers’ Purchase Intention on Instagram by
looking at the between group difference in their response.
3. To test the correlation in the conceptual model via an experimental
approach that suggests the proposed impact that eWOM has on
consumer’s Purchase Intention on Instagram.
4. To supply an empirically tested conceptual model in order to provide
understanding to marketers so they know which antecedents impact
the attitude towards the information and understand the impact that
eWOM has on consumers’ Purchase Intention on Instagram.

1.3.3 Relevance of research topic

This research topic is highly relevant for business practitioners, as they
currently do not know which factors/antecedents determine the attitude towards
the eWOM information on Instagram. If they understand and know which
factors are influential, they can use this to their advantage and start using
eWOM as a highly influential marketing tool. They will also be able to

9
understand the impact that eWOM has on Purchase Intention and whether or
not adoption of the eWOM has a significant effect.

1.4 Structure of dissertation

This chapter has acted as a concise introduction to the research- context,
problem, aim and objectives.
Chapter 2 encompasses the literature review. The chapter ends with the
literature gap and the conceptual model.
Chapter 3 represents the methodology used for this research.
Chapter 4 concerns the findings from the collected data and will discuss the
hypotheses.
Chapter 5 presents a discussion of the findings from this study in regards
to earlier studies.
Chapter 6 serves as the final conclusion of this dissertation.

10
 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The aim of this chapter is to provide a perspective on the current literature
pertinent to this research. It starts with the emergence of (e)WOM. In this
paragraph the distinct difference between WOM and eWOM will be explained.
Then, the literature will focus on eWOM as this is the focus of the research.
Followed by, the reasons why consumers interact and engage with eWOM
explained according to secondary research. Next, is an overview of the effects
that eWOM has on Purchase Intention. Followed by, an elaboration on the
current literature gap and the development of the conceptual model. The
chapter ends with a summary.

2.1 Introducing the emergence of (e)WOM

WOM has an enormous impact on consumer behaviour. As it creates more
than 3.3 billion brand impression every day (Berger, 2014). It decides which
websites we visit and where we shop our clothes. The emergence of it, shall
now be explained.

2.1.1 Phenomena of Word-Of-Mouth

WOM is not a recent phenomenon, it is actually the oldest way of
transferring information (Engel, Kegerreis and Blackwell, 1969; Dellarocas,
2003; Martensen and Mouritsen, 2016; Huete-Alcocer, 2017; Srivastava and
Walia Sharma, 2017). There have been several definitions for WOM, and as
previously mentioned was Arndt (1967) one of the first to define it.

2.1.1.1 Empowered customer communication

WOM makes consumers more empowered. They can rely on fellow
opinions, who have used the product before and have no sales prerogative
(Kozinets et al., 2010). This induces the credibility and trustworthiness of the
information (Park and Kim, 2003; Ring, Tkaczynski and Dolnicar, 2014; Moran
and Muzellec, 2017). Multiple researchers indicate that this trust issue is the
main reason why traditional media is losing its persuasive power (Buttle, 1998;
Bickart and Schindler, 2001; Godes and Mayzlin, 2004). Thus, it is not strange
that consumers increasingly solicit WOM as their main information source,
when making a decision (Johnson Brown and Reingen, 1987; Godes and
Mayzlin, 2004).

11
2.1.1.2 Positive WOM and Negative WOM
There are two forms of WOM: Positive WOM (PWOM), which approves the
product/service and Negative WOM (NWOM), which disapproves of the
product/service (Anderson, 1998; Martensen and Mouritsen, 2016).
There are different opinions on which form impacts consumers more
(Anderson, 1998; Buttle, 1998). All researchers agree that both forms of eWOM
affect purchase intention of potential consumers (Nickerson, 1998; Ahluwalia,
2002; Godes and Mayzlin, 2004; Martensen and Mouritsen, 2016; Li et al.,
2018).
A recent study (Wang, Cunningham and Eastin, 2015), indicated that a
positive review has a bigger impact on a persons’ attitude towards the
information, than a negative review. However, Coker (2012), indicated that in
an experiment, which first showed PWOM about a brand followed by NWOM,
did influence the attitude formation towards the brand.
But the other way around; first NWOM followed by PWOM did not change
the attitude. These findings were backed-up by another experiment done by
Coker (2012), which indicated that the order that information is presented in,
impacts the way products are judged. Thereby, moderating the impact of
NWOM and PWOM. However, results are still inconclusive ass results about
the impact of PWOM and NWOM vary per researcher.
Other researchers (East, Hammond and Lomax, 2008), indicate that even
though NWOM might have a bigger impact on consumers product judgements
in a general sense, PWOM is more persuasive in regards to familiar brands.
This is caused by the fact consumers are already informed about the brand and
have made up their minds.

2.1.2 Emergence of eWOM

WOM evolved into eWOM as the online era arrived (Dellarocas, 2003;
Huete-Alcocer, 2017). Since then, it has been considered an effective
marketing tool as the online platforms create infinite possibilities for sharing-
and searching eWOM (Dellarocas, 2003; Subramani and Rajagopalan, 2003;
Godes and Mayzlin, 2004; Erkan, 2015; Erkan and Evans, 2016; Huete-
Alcocer, 2017; Moran and Muzellec, 2017; Phua, Venus Jin and Kim, 2017).
Multiple researchers (Bickart and Schindler, 2001; Dellarocas, 2003;
Hennig-Thurau and Walsh, 2003), have supported that eWOM changes
consumer behaviour and attitude.

12
2.1.2.1 Definition of eWOM
There are different definitions for eWOM (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004;
Litvin, Goldsmith and Pan, 2006). This research follows the definition stated by
Henning-Thurau et al. (2004), mentioned in 1.1.5 of this research.
The definition from Hennig-Thurau et al. (2004) refers to, and is thereby
different to the definition of WOM, in regards to the fact that consumers no
longer have to turn to friends face-to-face. Instead they can turn to online
written reviews (Huete-Alcocer, 2017).
EWOM is also known as “online word of mouth” (Awad and Ragowsky,
2008), “word of mouse” (Barreto, 2014) or “electronic word of mouth
communication” (Cheung and Thadani, 2012).

2.1.2.2 PWOM and Business

EWOM can also be sent and searched by marketeers (Park, Lee and Han,
2007; Jalilvand, Esfahani and Samiei, 2011). They use it for two reasons, see
Table 6.
TABLE VI REASONS FOR BUSINESSES' TO USE PWOM

PWOM for Business use

- Cost-effective way to introduce new products (Moran and Muzellec,
2017; Phua, Venus Jin and Kim, 2017).
- It can reach millions of people within minutes (Park, Lee and Han,
2007; Jalilvand, Esfahani and Samiei, 2011; Moran and Muzellec,
2017; Phua, Venus Jin and Kim, 2017).
- EWOM shows companies how their consumers really feel about their
product/service (Cheung, Lee and Rabjohn, 2008)
- Companies can learn to understand what drives consumers to
disseminate their opinions online (Kozinets et al., 2010; Huete-
Alcocer, 2017).

These factors create immense opportunities for marketeers and they also
form the foundation for why eWOM outperforms traditional media (Li et al.,
2018).
EWOM has even been acknowledged to be the most probable tool to
achieve direct sales (Arenas-Gaitán, Rondan-Cataluña and Ramírez-Correa,
2018). Hence, eWOM has become the main form of product marketing and is

13
the driving force behind most SM marketing strategies (Nieto, Hernández-
Maestro and Muñoz-Gallego, 2014; Hussain et al., 2017; Li et al., 2018).
However, it can also form a threat as NWOM can have catastrophic
consequences for the company (Park, Lee and Han, 2007; Huete-Alcocer,
2017).

2.1.2.3 NWOM and Business

The NWOM can negatively affect the adoption of new products as well as
negatively impact the sales of mature products (East, Hammond and Lomax,
2008). eWOM is particularly influential for immature categories and unfamiliar
brands, as consumers have not yet made up their minds about the
product/services. With mature categories consumers are not only influenced
WOM, but also by pre-held Beliefs, personal habits, preferences and external
factors such as marketing outings.
Fiske (1980) stated that NWOM is found less frequently for a multitude of
reasons, e.g. people don’t like to share they have made a mistake to others.
However, it is specifically for that reason, that NWOM often is regarded as more
useful by consumers. That is why Fiske (1980) and others (Rosnow and Arms,
1968; Chevalier and Mayzlin, 2006), state that NWOM has more effect on
product/brand judgement.
This can be explained by the gap between a person’s Pre-held Belief and
whether the NWOM confirms the Pre-held Belief or disconfirms it. Fiske(1980)
states, that it is possible that information that contradicts the persons’ Pre-held
Belief, can change their judgment on the product.

2.2 Difference between WOM and eWOM

Paragraph 2.1 focussed on the evolution of WOM in to eWOM. This
paragraph elaborates the differences between the two forms. See Table 7, for
an overview.

TABLE VII WOM vs. eWOM

Source: Author
Type WOM eWOM
Different Conversations happen Conversation happens in a
Environment face-to-face (oral) and they computer-oriented environment

14
 are often a private
conversation, according to
Fine, Gironda and Petrescu
(2017). It’s reach & volume
is low. WOM can only be
accessed through memory
(Anderson, 1998;
Dellarocas, 2003; Ring,
Tkaczynski and Dolnicar,
2014; Huete-Alcocer,
2017).
Different Conversation is with strong
Familiarity ties, thus people who know
each other. Hence, source
credibility is easy to assess
(King, Racherla and Bush,
2014).
Different Consumers have to take
Content the word of the sender.
Credibility Often the sender is a
familiar person. Therefore,
the credibility of the person
is easier to assess (Ring,
Tkaczynski and Dolnicar,
2014).
and anybody can read the
eWOM online. The reach big &
volume is high. Because, it can
be sent anonymously and/ or
signed by name over various
channels at the same time.
EWOM can be accessed
anywhere, anytime and can be
saved/stored online
(Dellarocas, 2003; Subramani
and Rajagopalan, 2003; Chu
and Choi, 2011; King, Racherla
and Bush, 2014; Ring,
Tkaczynski and Dolnicar, 2014;
Fine, Gironda and Petrescu,
2017; Huete-Alcocer, 2017).
Conversation can be between
weak ties. Thus, people who
are relatively unfamiliar with
each other. Hence, source
credibility is harder to assess
(King, Racherla and Bush,
2014; Moran and Muzellec,
2017).
Content is often accompanied
with pictures/video, making the
content more credible (Bickart
and Schindler, 2001;
Subramani and Rajagopalan,
2003; Park, Lee and Han,
2007; Ring, Tkaczynski and
Dolnicar, 2014).
15
 Different Difficult to trace and
Traceability perishes easily. As every
conversation happens in
private and is oral (Ring,
Tkaczynski and Dolnicar,
2014).
Easy to trace. Conversations
happen online and are visible
for everyone. Impact is easily
measured and is not
perishable as it is written down
(Hennig-Thurau and Walsh,
2003; Goldsmith and Horowitz,
2006; Chu and Kim, 2011;
Ring, Tkaczynski and Dolnicar,
2014).

2.3 eWOM among Millennial consumers- an observation of Instagram

Currently there are 105 different SM websites (Mehra, 2017). On the
surface the SM platforms might look the same (Ting and Cyril De Run, 2015;
Phua, Venus Jin and Kim, 2017). However, their user intentions, target group
and communication style differ extremely (Erkan, 2015; Phua, Venus Jin and
Kim, 2017).
Young adults are the most enthusiastic users as 91% of consumers
between 18 and 29 years old, use SM on their phone (Pittman and Reich,
2016). Thanks to SM, consumers can search for eWOM, which is not posted
anonymously. The previous anonymity had it perks though, as people felt
(more) comfortable sharing (Goldsmith and Horowitz, 2006), which
consequently induced the volume by which eWOM was being shared
(Chatterjee, 2000).
Assessing the source credibility has become easier since SM platforms
encouraged users to create profiles, making the eWOM to be perceived as
more reliable (Erkan, 2015; Ting and Cyril De Run, 2015).

2.3.1 Difference between SM platforms

TABLE VIII INTENTIONS OF SM PLATFORMS

Social Media platform

- Instagram focuses on pictures
- Twitter on 140-character tweets
- YouTube on videos
- Snapchatt on pictures/videos that disappear after 10 seconds
- Facebook has no limitation or particular focus (Erkan, 2015)

16
 Table 8, shows the different intentions of each SM platform. The eWOM
takes the appropriate form according to the platform.
Earlier research has focussed on some of these individual SM platforms,
see Table 9.
TABLE IX EARLIER SOCIAL MEDIA RESEARCH

Social Media Research

- Twitter (Jansen et al., 2009; Leung, Bai and Stahura, 2015)
- Facebook (Dehghani and Tumer, 2015; Al-Shibly and Mahadin,
2018)
- YouTube (Indriani Martawilaga and Sufiati Purwanegara, 2016).

All research focused on how eWOM impacted Purchase

Intention/behaviour. This research focusses on Instagram as this is a relatively
new platform.

2.3.2 Instagram
Instagram is a mobile application founded in 2010, which is free to
download in the App Store (Ting and Cyril De Run, 2015). Currently, Instagram
has 800 million monthly active users since the kick off in 2010 (Ting and Cyril
De Run, 2015; Balakrishnan and Boorstin, 2017; Statista, 2018b).
61% of the Instagram users are between 18 and 34 years old (Statista,
2018a). Thus, Instagram mainly speaks to a younger audience, as adolescent
users are more motivated to take pictures and share them instantly, than older
generations (Abbott et al., 2013; Ting and Cyril De Run, 2015; Pittman and
Reich, 2016). This is not a strange phenomenon, as young people are more at
ease using online communication tools than older people (Pittman and Reich,
2016).

2.3.3 Use of Instagram

Instagram’s main purpose is sharing (filtered) photographs, but videos are
also possible. All with the purpose to promote the user’s life by e.g. applying
filters. Instagram’s photo editing and filter possibilities are the main
differentiators, setting them apart from other SM platforms (Ting and Cyril De
Run, 2015). When users post photos of products they have bought/used, they
share information and participate in the dissemination of eWOM.

17
 Users interact with the photos posted by others by: liking, commenting or
sharing the content. This is what is referred to as eWOM on Instagram (Erkan,
2015; Carah and Shaul, 2016). The fact that the product experience/purchase
is accompanied with visual evidence (pictures), increases the credibility of the
eWOM (Pittman and Reich, 2016) and therefore has Instagram become the
preferred platform to share (product) information (Erkan, 2015; Ting and Cyril
De Run, 2015).

2.4 The eWOM mechanism- from an information circulation’s perspective

Within eWOM you have a sender and a receiver, see Figure 1. The same
consumer can be both for the same product.

Source: Author
FIGURE 1 eWOM Communication

For an example on how one consumer can be both sender and receiver,
see Table 10. Marketeers can also disseminate eWOM information via their
Instagram accounts. However, this research focusses on the mechanism of
consumer-to-consumer eWOM.
TABLE X EWOM TRANSMISSION EXAMPLE

Example eWOM transmission

E.g. during the pre-purchase faze the consumer could search for eWOM,
being a receiver at that time. Once the consumer has bought the product it
can be a sender of eWOM, to ventilate the consumption experience (Buttle,
1998).

Paragraph 2.4 forms the theoretic foundation for the development of the
conceptual model. Firstly, the reasons for disseminating (2.4.1) and reading
(2.4.2) eWOM will be discussed, in order to fully understand the information
circulation process of eWOM. Then, previous research perspectives will be
presented (2.4.3), followed by the research perspective for this study. Lastly,

18
the factors that determine the Attitude Towards Information are discussed, as
well as the factors that adjust the adoption process of eWOM.

2.4.1 Disseminating eWOM

EWOM has been researched from different perspectives. Earlier research
has focussed on e.g. the reasons to disseminate eWOM (Richard, Roland and
Varki, 1997; Buttle, 1998; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004; Cheung and Lee, 2012;
Hussain et al., 2018), they found that eWOM is disseminated by consumers
when expectations are disconfirmed.
The disconfirmation paradigm of consumer satisfaction vs. dissatisfaction
acknowledges these findings, as the paradigm states that PWOM is induced
by over performance and NWOM is induced by underperformance, both of
which are forms of disconfirmed expectations (Richard, Roland and Varki,
1997; Buttle, 1998). For more reasons to disseminate eWOM, see Table 11.

TABLE XI REASONS FOR DISSEMINATING EWOM

Reasons for disseminating

- Altruism (Anderson, 1998; Sundaram, Mitra and Webster, 1998;
Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004)
- Product-involvement (Sundaram, Mitra and Webster, 1998)
- Self-enhancement and/or helping the company (Anderson, 1998;
Sundaram, Mitra and Webster, 1998; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004)
- Emotion regulation (Berger, 2014)
- Social bonding (Berger, 2014)
- Persuading others (Berger, 2014)

2.4.2 Reading eWOM

Previous research has also investigated the reasons why consumer read
eWOM. For a summary of their reasoning see Table 12.

TABLE XII REASONS FOR READIN EWOM

Reasons for reading eWOM

- Risk reduction (Bickart and Schindler, 2001; Hennig-Thurau and
Walsh, 2003; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004).

19
 - Reducing search time (Pan and Chiou, 2011; Fine, Gironda and
Petrescu, 2017; Huete-Alcocer, 2017; Moran and Muzellec, 2017).
- Informing oneself about how to use new products (Huete-Alcocer,
2017; Moran and Muzellec, 2017).
- Minimizing incongruence caused by conflicting information. (Bickart
and Schindler, 2001; Hennig-Thurau and Walsh, 2003; Hennig-
Thurau et al., 2004; Pan and Chiou, 2011; Fine, Gironda and
Petrescu, 2017; Huete-Alcocer, 2017; Moran and Muzellec, 2017).

The independency of the sender, increases the reliability and credibility of

the eWOM (Srivastava and Walia Sharma, 2017).
Thus, eWOM provides trustworthy feedback, that describes specific
aspects of the product/service, consumers are interested in (Fine, Gironda and
Petrescu, 2017; Huete-Alcocer, 2017). The reason for this is because the
eWOM goes beyond the information provided by the company/ advertisement.
The eWOM is interactive and not pre-fabricated, nor is it 100% though out
(Groeger and Buttle, 2017; Huete-Alcocer, 2017).
Hence, it is treated as one of the most significant resources for information
(Fine, Gironda and Petrescu, 2017; Hussain et al., 2018).

2.4.3 Other perspectives

There have been many other research perspectives regarding eWOM
research, see Table 13:

TABLE XIII EARLIER EWOM RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES

Research perspectives
- The antecedents of consumers’ reading behaviour of eWOM
(Khammash and Griffiths, 2011; Srivastava and Walia Sharma, 2017;
Arenas-Gaitán, Rondan-Cataluña and Ramírez-Correa, 2018;
Hussain et al., 2018).
- Establishing information credibility and trustworthiness of eWOM
(Kim, Ferrin and Rao, 2008; Pan and Chiou, 2011; Fan et al., 2013;
Levy and Gvili, 2015; Banerjee, Bhattacharyya and Bose, 2017;
Moran and Muzellec, 2017; Zhao, Stylianou and Zheng, 2018).
- The acceptance of eWOM (Indriani Martawilaga and Sufiati
Purwanegara, 2016; Mahapatra and Mishra, 2017).

20
 - The adoption of eWOM (Fang, 2014; Teng et al., 2014; Erkan and
Evans, 2016; Yan et al., 2016).
- The overall implications of eWOM for consumer behaviour (Jalilvand,
Esfahani and Samiei, 2011; Sandes and Urdan, 2013; Huete-
Alcocer, 2017).
- The impact of eWOM on Purchase Intention (Alhidari, Iyer and
Paswan, 2015; Dehghani and Tumer, 2015; Jung Kim et al., 2016).

This research focusses on the information transmission perspective

regarding eWOM on Instagram. It aims to combine perspectives mentioned
above, whilst adding a new perspective. Namely: how pre-held beliefs adjust
the adoption process of eWOM when consumers are faced with eWOM which
contradicts their own personal Pre-held Beliefs regarding a brand.
Thus, this research concentrates on finding the antecedents that form a
persons’ attitude towards eWOM information on Instagram and how that
attitude impacts consumer Purchase Intention. Besides this, investigates this
research which factors moderate the eWOM adoption process. Sub-paragraph
2.4.4 researches the antecedents that determine the attitude towards the
eWOM information and sub-paragraph 2.4.5 investigates the components that
impact the eWOM adoption process.

2.4.4 Factors that determine the Attitude Towards Information

Attitude is an outcome of what consumers say, feel and know (Hussain et
al., 2018). There are several factors that determine a consumers’ attitude
towards eWOM information. A positive attitude towards eWOM information
means that the consumer accepts the eWOM. As well as the person believing
it to be trustworthy and truthful (Mahapatra and Mishra, 2017).
The link between attitude and Purchase Intention has been conclusively
supported and empirically justified in online consumer behaviour (Cheung and
Thadani, 2012). The attitude towards eWOM information is determined by
different antecedents. That is why this paragraph reviews the literature on
which factors determine the Attitude Towards Information. Earlier research has
identified factors that shape the Attitude Towards Information:

21
2.4.4.1 Information Quality
Factor A: Information Quality (Cheung, Lee and Rabjohn, 2008; Indriani
Martawilaga and Sufiati Purwanegara, 2016; Mahapatra and Mishra, 2017;
Hussain et al., 2018), as it is an important factor that determines the strength
of the eWOM according to earlier literature.
Information Quality is assessed according to its argument quality, argument
strength, overall quality and review helpfulness (Fang, 2014; King, Racherla
and Bush, 2014; Mahapatra and Mishra, 2017). However, also by its overall
strength, comprehensiveness, accuracy, timeliness and relevance (Delone and
Mclean, 2003). Various researchers have argued that argument quality impacts
the attitude towards the information in a SM context (Cacioppo, Petty and
Morris, 1983; Sia, Tan and Wei, 1999; Teng et al., 2014; Hussain et al., 2018).
Once the Information Quality is established and the content is deemed valid, it
is assumed that this will have positive relation towards the attitude (Teng et al.,
2014; Hussain et al., 2018).

2.4.4.2 Information Credibility

Factor B: Information Credibility (Cheung, Lee and Rabjohn, 2008; Fan et
al., 2013; Levy and Gvili, 2015; Mahapatra and Mishra, 2017; Hussain et al.,
2018), indicates the extent to which information is trustworthy, credible and
knowledgeable (Petty, Cacioppo and Goldman, 1981; Reichelt, Sievert and
Jacob, 2014).
Earlier research (Fang, 2014), confirms that credibility is assessed by
argument strength of the eWOM information content. Literature supports that
Information Credibility is extremely important for the acceptance of eWOM
(Erkan and Evans, 2016; Moran and Muzellec, 2017).

2.4.4.3 Information Usefulness

Factor C: Information Usefulness (Cheung, Lee and Rabjohn, 2008; Wang
and Yu, 2015; Banerjee, Bhattacharyya and Bose, 2017; Hussain et al., 2018)
refers to whether the eWOM is useful in the eyes of the consumer and if it will
enhance them in their decision making (Davis, 1989). Aspects that increase
the eWOM Information Usefulness are: averagely valanced reviews,
appropriate length of review, providing arguments for their reasoning and
describing the user experience (Li and Zhan, 2011; Pan and Zhang, 2011).
Earlier research has empirically validated that perceived usefulness has a

22
considerable impact on attitude (Chuan-Chuan Lin and Lu, 2000; Hsu and Lu,
2004; Hsu, Chuan‐Chuan Lin and Chiang, 2013).

2.4.4.4 Information Trustworthiness

Factor D: trustworthiness (Kim, Ferrin and Rao, 2008; Chu and Kim, 2011;
Pan and Chiou, 2011; Fan et al., 2013; King, Racherla and Bush, 2014) refers
to eWOM that is both valid and persuasive, due to the knowledge of the sender,
as has been discussed by multiple researchers (Dou et al., 2012; Lawrence,
Fournier and Brunel, 2013; Mahapatra and Mishra, 2017).
However, research points out that factor B (Information Credibility) and
factor D (trustworthiness) are used interchangeably, and that Information
Credibility is better suited for evaluating eWOM communication.
Especially, regarding the fact that this research perspective focusses on
the eWOM information and not the relationship/knowledge of the sender.
Hence, Information Credibility will be adopted for this research.

2.4.4.5 Information need

Factors A till D all describe characteristics that determine the attitude
towards the information. However, earlier research (Knoll, 2015) points out that
it is not only the information characteristics that determine the Attitude Towards
Information. It also determined by the consumers’ behaviour towards the
information, such as Need of Information. As it has been supported that people
who are in Need of Information, are more likely to form a positive attitude
towards it, as they are more inclined to read it (Hussain et al., 2018). This has
been empirically validated by earlier research (Erkan and Evans, 2016).

2.4.4.6 Other factors

Alongside with all the factors mentioned above, are there other factors
determining the attitude towards the eWOM. However, they are from a different
perspective. Namely, from a relations perspective and tribalism perspective
where they point out factors such as: homophily (Chu and Kim, 2011;
Mahapatra and Mishra, 2017; Srivastava and Walia Sharma, 2017; Arenas-
Gaitán, Rondan-Cataluña and Ramírez-Correa, 2018), tie strength (Hansen,
1999; Mahapatra and Mishra, 2017; Srivastava and Walia Sharma, 2017), trust
in the sender (Chu and Kim, 2011) and knowledge of the sender (Chu and Kim,

23
2011; Fang, 2014), and that all these factors impact the attitude towards the
information.
However, these factors focus on the information source, the person who is
sending the eWOM, rather than on the eWOM itself. This research focusses
on the eWOM information itself and will therefore not focus up on these factors
as they not fall within the scope of this research.

2.4.5 Factors that adjust the adoption of eWOM

Consumers thoughtfully assess eWOM, before choosing to adopt it (King,
Racherla and Bush, 2014). The adoption of eWOM is the most significant
outcome of eWOM communication for marketers (Fang, 2014). Adoption refers
to the persuasiveness of the eWOM, as well as the degree to which consumers
are inclined to depend on the eWOM in their purchase decision (Fan et al.,
2013). If consumers choose not to rely or consider the eWOM during their
purchase decision, the eWOM is of no value to them personally (Fang, 2014).
The eWOM adoption process is a dynamic procedure, which evolves
around the attitude towards the eWOM information presented, but also around
the consumers’ personal Pre-held Beliefs about the brand/product and other
demographic factors (Fang, 2014). Together, they impact the eWOM adoption
process and lead to future behavioural intention (Zhang, Abound Omran and
Cobanoglu, 2017).

2.4.5.1 Demographic factors

Earlier research indicates demographic factors that moderate the adoption
process e.g.: culture.
Culture has a deep influence on consumer behaviour and Purchase
Intention and thereby moderates the adoption process (Hussain et al., 2018),
but also: parenting-style (Zhang, Abound Omran and Cobanoglu, 2017),
ethnicity (Hussain et al., 2018), gender (Hwang, 2010; Abubakar, Ilkan and
Sahin, 2016), age (Liébana-Cabanillas and Alonso-Dos-Santos, 2017) and
social reference group (Zhang, Abound Omran and Cobanoglu, 2017; Hussain
et al., 2018) impact the adoption process (Duncan and Olshavsky, 1982).
However, this dissertations’ perspective focuses more on the eWOM
communication transmission process and the moderating effect of Pre-held
Beliefs on the adoption process. Hence, it will not take these moderating

24
demographic factors in to account, nor will it focus on the previously mentioned
relationship to the sender, tie strength and homophily.

2.4.5.2 Pre-held Beliefs

This research will take Pre-held Beliefs in to account as a moderating effect
for the eWOM adoption process. A Pre-held Belief is a motion that sends
information about the relationship between two factors (Duncan and
Olshavsky, 1982). Beliefs are subjective and do not have to be based up on
any theoretic knowledge. Consumers create their own beliefs through
experiences and socialization processes, such as the way people are raised
(Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975).
Earlier research (Fogg, 2002; Yee Cheung et al., 2009), indicates that
disconfirmation/confirmation with Pre-held Beliefs considerably impacts the
credibility of the received information. Thus, if the eWOM confirms a persons’
Pre-held Beliefs, the reader is more likely to believe the eWOM information and
use it for future Purchase Intentions (Alloy and Tabachnik, 1984). This can be
related back to the confirmation-bias theory (Nickerson, 1998).
However, research done by Fiske (1980), contradicts this as he states that
if eWOM contracts the persons’ Pre-held Belief, it can change the users’
judgement about the product/brand.
In conclusion, according to Reichelt, Sievert and Jacob (2014), are external
factors e.g.: the information characteristics and individual users, impacting the
user’s Pre-held Belief towards the product/brand. Hence, this research opts to
investigate how a person’s Pre-held Belief moderates the eWOM adoption
process.

2.5 EWOM’s effect on Purchase Intention

Previous research has investigated eWOM’s effect on Purchase Intention
from different perspectives, see Table 14 for an overview:

TABLE XIV EWOM'S IMPACT ON PURCHASE INTENTION

EWOM’s effect on Purchase Intention

- EWOM’s influence on going to restaurants (Al-Shibly and Mahadin,
2018).
- Purchasing fashion products (Saleem and Ellahi, 2017).

25
 - The mediating effect of trust in eWOM and how that impacts
Purchase Intention (Kim, Ferrin and Rao, 2008; Hajli et al., 2017).
- The impact of celebrity endorsement on Purchase Intention
(Djafarova and Rushworth, 2017).
- The influence of positive and negative eWOM on Purchase Intention.
- How eWOM on SNS and SM impacts Purchase Intention (Park and
Kim, 2003; Park, Lee and Han, 2007; Gunawan and Huarng, 2015;
Erkan and Evans, 2016).

Overall, has Purchase Intention long been contemplated to be vital, in order

to understand the impact of eWOM (Bickart and Schindler, 2001; Park, Lee and
Han, 2007; Park and Lee, 2008; Erkan and Evans, 2016). Hence, Purchase
Intention is an important factor in this research.

2.5.1 Traditional influence VS eWOM influence on Purchase Intention

Earlier research has indicated that eWOMs’ influence is more significant,
than that of traditional media (Park and Kim, 2003; Lee and Youn, 2009;
Trusov, Bucklin and Pauwels, 2009; Bataineh, 2015). This is due to the fact
that consumers e.g. trust the recommendations more, as the eWOM better
fulfils their need than traditional advertising (Hsu, Chuan‐Chuan Lin and
Chiang, 2013).
Previous research has also established the relation between eWOM and
Purchase Intention. Hence, eWOM has been found to be one of the most
influential information sources, impacting Purchase Intention (Chen and Xie,
2008; Shu-Chuan and Yoojung, 2011; Ring, Tkaczynski and Dolnicar, 2014;
Teng et al., 2014; Alhidari, Iyer and Paswan, 2015; Fine, Gironda and Petrescu,
2017).

2.5.2 Platforms of eWOM and Purchase Intention

As previously mentioned, happens eWOM on different sorts of online
platforms. Barton (2006) points out that most often eWOM happens on
platforms where purchases can be made directly, such as ecommerce website.
In this manner can consumers directly take the eWOM into account, whilst
guiding them through their decision process. The newly added feature on
Instagram, which allows instant purchasing through the platform, makes

26
investigating eWOM’s effect on Purchase Intention on Instagram, even more
important.

2.5.3 Measuring the factors that impact Purchase Intention on Instagram

As previously mentioned has earlier research indicated that Information
Quality (Park, Lee and Han, 2007; Lee and Shin, 2014), Information Credibility
(Yee Cheung et al., 2009; Hussain et al., 2017; Moran and Muzellec, 2017) and
Informational Usefulness (Davis, 1989; Mudambi and Schuff, 2010; Erkan and
Evans, 2016) impact Purchase Intention.
However, measuring these determinants on Instagram has not been done
before. Based on earlier research, Table 15 was created, which shows several
examples on how the factors can be evaluated on Instagram. The word
“content” refers to both the picture and the caption written beneath it.

TABLE XV DETERMINANTS PURCHASE INTENTION

Source: Author
eWOM Measures
Information - Quality of the content (megapixels, angels shown
Quality of product).
- Quantity of the content.
- Persuasiveness of content.
- Providing stuffiest reasoning.
- Accuracy of content.
- Format of content.
- The strength or plausibility of persuasive
argumentation.
(Park, Lee and Han, 2007; Fang, 2014; King, Racherla
and Bush, 2014; Mahapatra and Mishra, 2017)
Information - Content shows no form of bias.
Credibility - Content is not sponsored in any way.
- Content is deemed reliable and honest.
- Content provides strong argumentation.
(Fang, 2014; Lu, Chang and Chang, 2014; Hajli, 2015)

Information - Content is relevant to consumer.

Usefulness - Content is of interest to consumer.

27
 - Content describes aspects off the product
consumer is interested in.
- Length of caption written is appropriate.
- Content provides useful/ helpful tips and
comments on the product experience/ usage.
(Park, Lee and Han, 2007; Li and Zhan, 2011; Pan and
Zhang, 2011; Casaló, Flavián and Ibáñez-Sánchez, 2017)

Together, these antecedents form the attitude towards the eWOM

information on Instagram. According to the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)
(Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) and the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)
(Schifter and Ajzen, 1985), does Attitude Towards Information directly influence
behavioural intention, which in this research refers to Purchase Intention.

2.6 Literature GAP

EWOM has long been a field of interest to many researchers (Herr, Kardes
and Kim, 1991; Park, Lee and Han, 2007; Chen and Xie, 2008; Zhang, Craciun
and Shin, 2010). Especially regarding its impact on consumer behaviour
(Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004; Katawetawaraks and Lu Wang, 2011).
The relationship between eWOM and Purchase Intention has extensively
been researched and validated, as mentioned earlier (Chen and Xie, 2008;
Amblee, 2012; Hsu, Chuan‐Chuan Lin and Chiang, 2013).
The impact on Purchase Intention has been investigated from different
research perspectives e.g. SNS (See-To and Ho, 2014; Lim et al., 2015; Relling
et al., 2016; Saleem and Ellahi, 2017), SM platforms (Erkan and Evans, 2016;
Yan et al., 2016), and also from an individual platform perspective, e.g.
Facebook (Boerman, Willemsen and Van Der Aa, 2017), blogs (Lu, Chang and
Chang, 2014), and YouTube (Indriani Martawilaga and Sufiati Purwanegara,
2016).
However, (individual) SM platforms have been researched far less
extensively than SNS (Cheung and Thadani, 2012), as SM platforms are
relatively new. A rather young SM platform is Instagram (2010). Research done
on this particular platform is limited. Even though some studies have
researched it (Ting and Cyril De Run, 2015; Carah and Shaul, 2016).
Nonetheless, had those perspectives a different focus e.g. consumer
behaviour/ consumers’ intention for using Instagram (Ting and Cyril De Run,

28
2015; Pittman and Reich, 2016; Phua, Venus Jin and Kim, 2017), measuring
celebrity influence on Purchase Intention (Djafarova and Rushworth, 2017) and
engagement on Instagram (Erkan, 2015).
Earlier research has not focussed on the determinants of eWOM on
Instagram and how they impact consumers’ Purchase Intention.
That is why this research focusses on finding the antecedents that form the
attitude towards eWOM information on Instagram. Thereby subsequently filling
the current literature gap.
However, this research does not only take information characteristics into
account, but also consumer behaviour towards the eWOM information. As
research done by Knoll (2015) states that both of these forces impact the
Attitude Towards Information and should both be considered when aiming to
understand the influence of eWOM on Instagram. That is why this research
chooses to empirically validate this statement from Knoll (2015).
Due to the incremental growth in Instagram usage, and the newly added
purchasing-feature, has it become increasingly important to investigate the
influence of eWOM on Purchase Intention, for both marketeers and academics.

2.7 Conceptual Model Creation

This chapter explains the theoretical background and hypotheses
development for the conceptual model developed for this research.

2.7.1 Introduction
This research has created a theoretical model which takes both the eWOM
characteristics and consumers’ behaviour towards eWOM in to account,
adjusted by two moderators within the process. This theoretical model
classifies the factors of eWOM information on Instagram which influence
consumers’ Purchase Intention.
This conceptual model is called “eWOM information Adoption Model”
(EIAM). It is based upon the Information Acceptance Model (IACM) (Erkan and
Evans, 2016) and Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) (Fishbein and Ajzen,
1975).
This research has chosen not to base its model on the Information Adoption
Model (IAM) (Sussman and Siegal, 2003). Sub-paragraph 2.7.2, will therefore
firstly explain the justification for not choosing to use IAM (Sussman and Siegal,
2003). The next sub-paragraph, explains the IACM (Erkan and Evans, 2016)

29
and provides justification for using this model as a foundation for the newly
developed EIAM. Then, the last sub-paragraph, introduces the proposed
conceptual model EIAM and the suggested hypotheses.

2.7.2 Information Adoption Model (IAM)

The IAM (Sussman and Siegal, 2003) is based upon the combination of the
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, Bagozzi and Warshaw, 1989)
and the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) (Petty, Cacioppo and Goldman,
1981). Sussman and Siegal (2003), explain how consumers are influenced by
information in a computer mediated environment. However, their model only
considers information characteristics (argument quality, source credibility and
Information Usefulness), as can be seen in Figure 2.

FIGURE 2 INFORMATION ADOPTION MODEL

Source: (Sussman and Siegal, 2003)

As previously mentioned, has research done by Knoll (2015), which

investigated earlier literature on eWOM in the SM environment, argued that
eWOM’s influence does not only rely on the information, but also on the
consumers’ behaviour towards the information.
Erkan and Evans (2016), have empirically tested Knoll’s (2015) argument,
by incorporating elements from TRA (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) in the IAM
(Sussman and Siegal, 2003), thereby creating their own conceptual model, the
Information Acceptance Model (IACM), see Figure 3.

30
 FIGURE 3 INFORMATION ACCEPTANCE MODEL

Source: (Erkan and Evans, 2016)

2.7.3 Information Acceptance Model (IACM)

Erkan and Evans’ (2016) research, has empirically validated that both
informational characteristics and consumers’ behaviour towards the
information, determine the influence of eWOM on SM. Their research results
indicate that all proposed hypotheses were supported, apart from one: “Attitude
Towards Information was not found to be influential on Information Usefulness”
(Erkan and Evans, 2016). This is also one of the reasons why the variable
‘Attitude Towards Information” has a different place within the newly developed
EIAM created for this research.
The research aim of Erkan and Evans (2016), has similarities to the
research aim of this study. Their objective was to examine the influence of
eWOM on SM on consumers’ Purchase Intention. This research, aims to exam
the influence of eWOM on Instagram on consumers’ Purchase Intention. This
study has evolved due to their recommendations regarding future research
possibilities.
Due to the supported results of Erkan and Evans study, this research
chooses to follow their path, regarding the fact that both the eWOM information
and consumers’ behaviour impact the influence of eWOM.
However, this research does modify their model to some extent, due to the
fact that the model for this study will be specifically for Instagram. Which will be
elaborated in greater detail in the following paragraph.

31
2.7.4 eWOM information Adoption Model (EIAM)
Figure 4 shows the proposed conceptual model for this research, displaying
the factors of eWOM information on Instagram which influence consumers’
Purchase Intention.

Source: Author

FIGURE 4 EWOM INFORMATION ADOPTION MODEL

This study proposes to take both the characteristic of eWOM information

and the consumers’ behaviour towards the eWOM information in to account.
Besides this, aims it to investigate the moderating effect of Need of Information
and Pre-held Beliefs. As previously mentioned are the words ‘credibility’ and
‘trustworthiness’ used interchangeable in the literature (Mahapatra and Mishra,
2017). Both are pertaining the same qualities. Hence, they have been grouped
together as: “Information Credibility”, for the development of this conceptual
model. Ultimately, the proposed conceptual model evaluates the connection
between the following variables: Information Quality, Information Credibility,
Information Usefulness, Need of Information, Attitude Towards Information,
Pre-held Belief and Purchase Intention. Each variable will now be justified and
the hypotheses will be presented.

2.7.4.1 Information Quality & Information Credibility

As anybody is allowed to disseminate eWOM on Instagram, assessing the
credibility and quality of the eWOM is crucial (Moran and Muzellec, 2017). Both
Information Quality and Information Credibility are factors originally derived
from the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) (Petty, Cacioppo and Goldman,

32
1981; Kitchen et al., 2014). But, both factors can also be found in e.g. the IAM
(Sussman and Siegal, 2003) and the IACM (Erkan and Evans, 2016) as
independent factors.
The ELM states that consumers can be persuaded to do something via two
routes: centrally and peripheral. If consumers consider argument quality, their
information processing goes through the central route. If consumers perform
little effort considering options, they e.g. assess the credibility, they use the
peripheral information processing route (Petty, Cacioppo and Goldman, 1981;
Kitchen et al., 2014). The ELM is a highly cited and renowned framework, which
is often used by researchers studying attitudinal change. Based on this, and
what is previously mentioned in sub-paragraph 2.4.4, such as: “if Information
Quality is established and the content is deemed valid, it is assumed that this
will have positive relation towards the attitude formation”. This research
predicts that the eWOM Information Quality could have an influence on Attitude
Towards Information.
H1. Information Quality is connected to attitude towards eWOM
information.

Furthermore, earlier research (Erkan and Evans, 2016; Moran and

Muzellec, 2017) has also supported the influence of Information Credibility on
attitude formation and acceptance of eWOM, as well as its influence on
Purchase Intention (Reichelt, Sievert and Jacob, 2014). According to Wathen
and Burkell (2002), Information Credibility forms the starting point for attitude
formation process. Based on all these findings, this research proposes that
Information Credibility has an influence on Attitude Towards Information.
H2. Information Credibility is connected to attitude towards eWOM
information.

2.7.4.2 Information Usefulness

Consumers encounter a lot of eWOM on Instagram. They are constantly
deciding whether or not that specific eWOM piece will enhance them in their
decision making, as not every piece of eWOM is as useful to each individual.
The TAM (Davis, Bagozzi and Warshaw, 1989), the IAM (Sussman and
Siegal, 2003) and the IACM (Erkan and Evans, 2016) all use the variable
‘(information) usefulness’ in their conceptual models. Both the IAM (2003) and
the IACM (2016) use ‘Information Usefulness’ as a direct determinant for

33
information adoption. However, this research looks at information adoption
from a different perspective, namely with a moderating factor added within the
process, that describes how the Attitude Towards Information is adjusted by
confirmed or disconfirmed Pre-held Beliefs.
On the other hand, uses the TAM (1989) the variable ‘perceived usefulness’
as one of the direct determinants for Attitude Towards Information. As the TAM
is used for explaining user acceptance of information systems, and both the
IAM (2003) and the IACM (2016) have used ‘Informational usefulness’ as
determinants for adoption, this research proposes that informational
usefulness influences Attitude Towards Information.
H3. Information Usefulness is connected to attitude towards eWOM
information.

2.7.4.3 Attitude Towards Information & Purchase Intention

Attitude Towards Information has been used by many researchers
(Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975; Davis, Bagozzi and Warshaw, 1989; Erkan and
Evans, 2016) as an antecedent for behavioural intention. The attitude towards
the information also determines whether the consumers chooses to use the
eWOM (Mahapatra and Mishra, 2017). This research proposes that Attitude
Towards Information has an influence on Purchase Intention.
H4. Attitude Towards Information is connected to Purchase Intention.

2.7.4.4 Need of Information

Need of Information is proposed as a moderating variable within the
conceptual model. A moderator adjusts the impact of the independent variable.
In this conceptual model there is one independent variable which this
moderator adjusts.
The reason that ‘Need of Information’ is added as a moderator is due to the
fact that earlier research (Erkan and Evans, 2016) indicates that consumers
who are in Need of Information are more inclined to form a positive attitude
towards the information. Therefore, it is expected that Attitude Towards
Information is affected by whether or not a consumer needs information.
Adding “Need of Information” as a moderator within this model, allows to
investigate how this “Need of Information” intervenes the attitude formation
towards the eWOM (MacKinnon, 2011).
H5. Need of Information moderates the Attitude Towards Information.

34
2.7.4.5 Pre-held Beliefs
The moderator Pre-held Belief is derived from TRA (1975). TRA stipulates
that Pre-held Beliefs about a brand/product impact a persons’ attitude towards
that behaviour, which therefore impacts behavioural intention (Mitchell and
Olson, 1981). This research proposes that Pre-held Beliefs towards a brand
will adjust the behaviour between the attitude towards eWOM information and
Purchase Intention.
H6. Pre-held Beliefs moderate the connection between Attitude
Towards Information and Purchase Intention.

2.8 Summary
This chapter has provided a review of existing literature regarding this
research, as well as identified the literature gap and conceptualised a theoretic
model, explaining the proposed hypotheses. Firstly, the emergence of WOM
was introduced, followed by the evolution from WOM into eWOM. Then, the
difference between both forms was explained. Next, eWOM amongst
millennials was elucidated, focussing on Instagram. Then, the literary
foundation for the conceptual model was presented, by explaining the factors
that determine the Attitude Towards Information, as well as the factors that
adjust the adoption process. Thereafter, eWOM’s effect on Purchase Intention
was explained followed by the literature gap and the conceptual model.

35
 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
This chapter explains the justification for the overall research design. First,
an introduction will explain the research aim and research questions. Then, the
adopted research philosophy and theory development will be told. Followed by,
the purpose of the research and the research strategy. Afterwards, the data
analysis is elucidated. Next, the timescale, ethical considerations and
limitations are discussed. Lastly, a summary of the complete chapter is
provided.

3.1 Introduction
The aim of this research is to understand how eWOM on Instagram
influences’ consumers’ Purchase Intention. That is why this research focusses
on finding the determinants that form and/ or adjust the attitude towards eWOM
information on Instagram and how this attitude influences Purchase Intention
of consumers on Instagram. The two research questions are shown in Table
16:

TABLE XVI RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Source: Author
Research Questions
1. To investigate the relation between a set of antecedents (information
characteristics) that determine the attitude towards information on
Instagram.
2. To understand how consumers’ need of information adjusts the
eWOM adoption process and purchase intention.
3. To understand how consumers’ pre-held belief moderates the eWOM
adoption process and purchase intention.

The overall approach to answer both research questions bared a

deductive nature as the research is going to empirically test the relationship
between variables, demonstrating a cause and effect. In order to answer both
research questions, 4 objectives were set, see Table 17:

36
 TABLE XVII RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

Source: Author
Research Objective
1. To find out what the antecedents of eWOM adoption on Instagram
are from an information perspective.
2. To identify if the eWOM adoption process is moderated by users’
“Need of Information” and “Pre-held Belief” on Instagram, and see
how it impacts consumers’ Purchase Intention on Instagram, by
looking at the between group difference in their response.
3. To test the correlation in the conceptual model via an experimental
approach that suggests the proposed impact that eWOM has on
consumer’s Purchase Intention on Instagram.
4. To supply an empirically tested conceptual model in order to provide
understanding to marketers so they know which antecedents impact
the attitude towards the information and understand the impact that
eWOM has on consumers’ Purchase Intention on Instagram.

The quantitative study will be conducted through the use of electronic

questionnaires. The following paragraphs will elaborate in-depth on the
theoretic reasoning and justification for choosing this approach.

3.2 Research philosophy and Theory development

The purpose of this research is to develop a foundation of knowledge on
how eWOM impacts Purchase Intention. Such a perspective is referred to as
‘basic research’ (Sekaran and Bougie, 2013, pag 5), as this research aims to
contribute to existing knowledge. The intention of the research findings are to
elaborate on how eWOM on Instagram influences consumers’ purchase
intention. Based on the results the proposed theory was empirically tested
(Sekaran and Bougie, 2013, p. 7).

3.2.1 Research Philosophy

Researchers have different theories on ‘what’ and ‘how’ certain things have
come to exist. More specifically with regards to how to measure or validate
such opinions and beliefs (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2012, p. 127). That
is why researchers have different research perspectives/philosophies, e.g.:

37
positivism, constructionism, critical realism, pragmatism (Sekaran and Bougie,
2013, p. 29).

3.2.1.1 Positivism
Positivism, believes that there is one impartial truth and that by the use of
a scientific approach the laws of cause and effect can be made evident
(Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2012, p. 134). Positivist are attentive to the
reliability and generalizability of their findings and are putting a lot of emphasis
on the replicability and rigor of their research (Sekaran and Bougie, 2013, p.
29). This study used a positivism research philosophy to uncover the research
topic. This research opted for a positivistic philosophy as it allows to test the
proposed hypotheses in an objective manner. Additionally, positivism research
is often used for survey/questionnaire research (Bryman and Bell, 2011, p. 15),
as the positivism perspective regards numerical data for their investigation of
behaviours.

3.2.2 Theory Development

Theory refers to the way events are explained (Bryman and Bell, 2011).
There are two fundamental approaches utilised within research, namely a
deductive- and inductive approach (Sekaran and Bougie, 2013). An inductive
approach is often used with qualitative studies (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill,
2012, p. 147), as theory is the result of the research findings (Woiceshyn and
Daellenback, 2018). Their goal is to understand rather than to proof something
(Bryman and Bell, 2011).

3.2.2.1 Deductive approach

The opposite approach is a deductive approach. A deductive approach
starts with the development of a theory and the creation of hypotheses
(Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2012, p. 145). Then, the study will empirically
validate the hypotheses. This approach is often linked with quantitative
research (Bryman and Bell, 2011). This research used a deductive approach
as it has empirically validated the proposed hypotheses.

3.3 Purpose of research

The purpose of this study is to describe and test hypotheses. A descriptive
study can be both qualitative and quantitative in nature (Sekaran and Bougie,

38
2013, p. 97). This research is quantitative by nature and wants to describe the
impact of eWOM on consumers’ purchase intention. It aims to validate this
impact, by empirically testing the proposed hypotheses. Due to the fact that a
lot of research has previously been done on eWOM it was possible to opt for a
descriptive study (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2012, p. 171).
However, this research aimed to go beyond describing, because it also
intended to explain the cause-and-effect relationship of the moderating effect
of: “Need of Information” and “Pre-held Belief” within the eWOM adoption
process. The causal research will be tested by an experimental design
incorporated in the questionnaire through an added skip-logic. In the
experimental design 3 important factors have been checked, see Table 18.

TABLE XVIII CONDITIONS CAUSALITY

Source: Author
Factors
1. Temporal sequence: The cause must happen before the effect
(Trabasso and van den Broek, 1985).
2. Concomitant variation: The change in the effect is caused by the
change in the moderator (Ragin and Zaret, 1983).
3. Non spurious association: ensuring that other factors are controlled
and not causing the effect (Brett, 2004).

3.4 Research Strategy

A research strategy means the general orientation of how the research is
going to be conducted (Bryman and Bell, 2011, pag 26). Firstly, the to be taken
research steps are discussed. Followed by, the pre-test phase and the main
quantitative study.

3.4.1. Research steps

The research bared a quantitative design as the focus was to utilise the
data to test theory. A survey strategy was applied, by conducting online
questionnaires (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2012). The study was divided
in two parts, namely: the pre-testing phase and the main quantitative phase.
The pre-testing phase, consisted of the questionnaire development,
deciding how the constructs were going to be measured, determining the

39
number of items for each scale and determining how validity and reliability were
going to be achieved.
The main study focused on determining the population, sample, sample
size and sampling strategy.

3.4.2. Pre-Test
3.4.2.1 Survey strategy
Surveys are often used when research bares a deductive approach
(Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2012, p. 176). Surveys are effective as they
allow the researcher to collect a large amount of data and test a proposed
theory (Bryman and Bell, 2011).
A survey strategy can apply different methods to acquire information e.g.
structured interview, structured observation or a questionnaire strategy
(Tharenou, Donohue and Cooper, 2007, p. 45). Determining which one is most
effective for the research, depends on the pros and cons of each method in
regards to the aim and objective of the research. As this research opts for
hypotheses testing, a large empirical investigation is necessary. Hence, this
research has used a questionnaire strategy, for more information on the other
methods see (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2012, p. 178).

3.4.2.2 Electronic questionnaire method

A questionnaire is an instrument which is used for data collection and it can
either be interviewer-completed or self-completed (Tharenou, Donohue and
Cooper, 2007, p. 102). Self-completed questionnaires allow the researcher to
collect a 1) large sample of standardised data in a 2) cost-effective way, which
can be 3) analysed easily by using different statistics and they allow 4) to test
hypotheses (Bryman and Bell, 2011; Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2012;
Sekaran and Bougie, 2013). These benefits, formed the foundation for
choosing for an online self-completed questionnaire method for this research.
Table 19, represents an overview of all the pros and cons of using a
questionnaire method.

TABLE XIX PRO'S AND CON'S QUESTIONNAIRE METHOD

Source: (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2012)

Questionnaire
Positive Negative

40
 - Low budget to distribute. - Data is not as rich as other
- Well suited for a large strategies.
sample. - Researcher can only put so
- Easy to use. many questions in a
- Quick results. questionnaire before
- User anonymity. respondents will become fed
- Coding is easy. up with the amount of
- Good for statistically questions.
validating hypotheses. - Respondents can be
dishonest in their answers,
or randomly fill something in.
- Respondents interpret the
questions wrong and can
skip questions.
- Response rate can be low.

Earlier literature has provided some instructions on how to create user-

friendly questionnaires, which increases the overall response rate (Bryman and
Bell, 2011). According to (Tharenou, Donohue and Cooper, 2007), you should:
1) clearly define the topic an explain what information you want, 2) do a pre-
test, 3) use easy and short questions, and 4) use a nice layout which increases
the user experience. This study has focussed on taking these
recommendations in to account during the design process of the questionnaire.
It has also payed a lot of attention towards how the variables were going to be
measured.

3.4.2.3 Develop Electronic Questionnaire

The questions in the questionnaire were provided with fixed answers. This
increased the consistency in the data and made it easier to analyse and
interpret (Sekaran and Bougie, 2013). They were measured by using a 5-point
Likert Scale (1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree) as this interval scale
(Sekaran and Bougie, 2013, p. 217) is most often solicited for this type of
research (Bryman and Bell, 2011; Erkan and Evans, 2016).
The design of the questionnaire is of the utmost importance, as it impacts
the reliability, validity and response rate (Bryman and Bell, 2011). Earlier
research indicates that the most important factors to consider when developing

41
an instrument are the reliability and validity of the collected data (Saunders,
Lewis and Thornhill, 2012). That is why Bryman and Bell (2011) advise
researchers to adopt existing measures, used and tested by previous
researchers, to increase reliability and validity. For this reason, were the
measures from this study adopted from earlier literature and adapted to fit the
current research aim and objective.

3.4.2.4 Measures used

“Need of Information” was assessed by a one-item scale which was altered
from the study of Shu-Chuan and Yoojung (2011) and Erkan and Evans (2016).
“Pre-held Belief” was measured by a one-item scale which was created by the
researcher and consulted on and approved by an expert.
The following constructs were all measured by a five-item scale, adapted
from different studies: “Information Quality” and “Attitude Towards Information”
were adapted from the study of Park, Lee and Han (2007), Bataineh (2015)
and Prendergast, Ko and Yuen (2010). “Information Credibility” was altered
from the study of Chen and Wells (1999), Park, Lee and Han (2007) and
Prendergast, Ko and Yuen (2010). “Information Usefulness”, was adapted from
research done by Park, Lee and Han (2007) and Casaló, Flavián and Ibáñez-
Sánchez (2017). Lastly, “Purchase Intention” was derived from Prendergast,
Ko and Yuen (2010) and Lu, Fan and Zhou (2016). Table 20 presents all the
measures used for this study.

TABLE XX INSTRUMENT MEASUREMENTS

Source: Author
“Based on the Information about the product which is shared by
your friend on Instagram”, answer the following questions:
Information Quality - IQ 1: I think they have sufficient reasons
(Park, Lee and Han, supporting their opinion.
2007; Bataineh, 2015) - IQ 2: I think the information is objective.
- IQ 3: I think the information is
understandable.
- IQ 4: I think the information is un-clear.
- IQ 5: I think the quality of the information is
high.

42
Information - IC 1: I think the information is convincing.
Credibility - IC 2: I think the information is credible.
(Chen and Wells, - IC 3: I think the information is
1999; Park, Lee and untrustworthy.
Han, 2007; - IC 4: I think I can rely on this piece of
Prendergast, Ko and information.
Yuen, 2010) - IC 5: I think the information is accurate.

Information - IU 1: I think in general that it is useful.

Usefulness - IU 2: I think in general that it is informative.
(Park, Lee and Han, - IU 3: I think in general I have obtained
2007; Casaló, Flavián benefits from reading this post.
and Ibáñez-Sánchez, - IU 4: I think in general it helps to visit a
2017) friends Instagram account to get ideas for
new products.
- IU 5: I think in general it helps me to visit a
friends Instagram account for product
suggestions.

Need of Information - NOI 1: In general, how important you think

(Shu-Chuan and it is to find information on a product, e.g.
Yoojung, 2011; Erkan product reviews, in order to make a
and Evans, 2016) smarter/better purchase decision?

Attitude Towards - ATI 1: I think in general they make me feel

Information secure.
(Park, Lee and Han, - ATI 2: I think in general they make me feel
2007; Prendergast, comfortable.
Ko and Yuen, 2010) - ATI 3: I think in general they make my
decision to buy difficult.
- ATI 4: I think in general they make me
irritated when I buy a product.
- ATI 5: I think in general they make me feel
confident in purchasing the product.

43
 Purchase Intention
(Prendergast, Ko and
Yuen, 2010; Lu, Fan
and Zhou, 2016)
- PI 1: I think it is very likely that I will buy the
product
- PI 2: I will purchase the Apple product next
time I need that product
- PI 3: I am more open to purchasing Apple
products
- PI 4: I will definitely try the Apple product
- PI 5: I will recommend the Apple product to
my friends

Pre-held Beliefs - PHB 1: Can you indicate to what extend

you like Apple?

3.4.2.5 Multiple-item approach

The design of the questionnaire demonstrates that each construct (expect
for the two moderators) is measured on a five-point item scale (Sekaran and
Bougie, 2013). That means that this questionnaire uses a multi-item approach.
The reason for doing this, is because it improves the validity and reliability of
the data (Bryman and Bell, 2011). A single indicator can incorrectly classify
individuals or maybe not comprehend0 the total concept. Hence, having a
multiple-item approach tremendously increases validity and reliability (Bryman
and Bell, 2011). The reason for only using a single indicator for the two
moderators is because both questions are relied up on to filter the respondents,
as they both act as moderators.

3.4.2.6 Validity
There are several important measures that determine the validity of a
research. Content validity refers to if there is an adequate number of measures
that represent the concept (Sekaran and Bougie, 2013, p. 226). An expert was
consulted for the scale development in order to check the face validity and the
construct validity of the questionnaire.
Internal- and face validity refer to whether or not the questions in the
questionnaire measure what the researcher wants it to measure (Saunders,
Lewis and Thornhill, 2012, p. 450). Construct validity establishes if two different
questions, measuring the same concept, score approximately the same and
are therefore highly correlated (Sekaran and Bougie, 2013, p. 227). This

44
research has used adapted measures from earlier research to ensure- and
increase the validity.

3.2.4.7 Reliability
Reliability refers to the steadiness or consistency of the measures, over
time (Bryman and Bell, 2011). The reliability of the used scales was tested by
examining the scales’ internal reliability. Internal consistency regards the
homogeneity of the items used in the scale (Sekaran and Bougie, 2013, p.
229). Thus, measuring if all the answers to the questions for a construct are
consistent (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2012, p. 451). A commonly used
test, to check internal reliability, is Cronbach’s Alpha (Bryman and Bell, 2011).
As proposed by (Bryman and Bell, 2011), the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient is
acceptable above the recommended level of 0.70. A score above 0.7 means
that the questions in the scale measure the same thing.

3.4.3 Main Quantitative Study

3.4.3.1 Population & Sample
Sampling strategy refers to the method used to obtain a sample of the total
population. The term “population” refers to the whole group (Easterby-Smith,
Thorpe and Jackson, 2008, p. 212). “Sample” refers to the group of
respondents whose actual data is collected (Bryman and Bell, 2011).
Considering the research aim and environment, the population of this study
regards all global Instagram users. However, it is not possible to conduct a
study on the whole population, due to time, access and money restraints
(Bryman and Bell, 2011). Therefore, a sample was selected and analysed.

3.4.3.2 Sampling strategy

There are two common sampling strategies, namely: probability and non-
probability (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Jackson, 2008, p. 216). With
probability design, each individual has an equal chance of being in the sample.
With non-probability the chance of being chosen is not known (Saunders, Lewis
and Thornhill, 2012). This research has used a non-probability sampling
design, using a convenience sampling strategy. This strategy allows to acquire
the easiest respondents within the researchers’ environment, such as students
and it is highly efficient in terms of time and money (Zikmund et al., 2010). The

45
sample will regard people of all ages, as long as they have an Instagram
account.
To ensure that no bias would occur the questionnaire was created in
English and no specific group of people was excluded from participating in the
questionnaire. Besides that, was electronic distribution deemed appropriate as
this research investigates, “the impact of eWOM on consumers’ Purchase
Intention on Instagram”, which is an online platform.
Besides the elimination of bias, is precision important to achieve a credible
sample (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Jackson, 2008, p. 213). Precision refers
to the sample size that is used for a study. Earlier research (Bryman and Bell,
2011), has pointed out that the sample size should be large enough to
represent the population. A larger sample allows for better generalization of the
results, as a larger sample better represents the population. Therefore, the
sample size of 111 was deemed appropriate as the minimum amount of
surveys to be conducted is “104+K”, according to van der Veen (2017). K
stands for the number of variables in the conceptual model.

3.4.3.3 Pilot testing

Before the main questionnaire was distributed a pilot study was conducted.
It was important to test the questionnaire, as it brings errors to light such as,
miss interpretation or the miss understanding of questions (Bryman and Bell,
2011; Sekaran and Bougie, 2013). Doing a pilot study increases the validity
and reliability of the main quantitative study (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and
Jackson, 2008). Therefore, has this study conducted a pilot study of 30
participants. Based on their responses and feedback, the questionnaire was
revised and the Cronbach alpha was checked.

3.5 Data Analysis

To fulfil the aim of this study, all questionnaire responses were assembled
for data analysis. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 25 (SPSS)
software was used for the statistical analysis. This software was used because
it is viewed as a specialist software, often utilized for academic purposes,
particularly in quantitative research (Bryman and Bell, 2011). SPSS creates
the possibility to present the data in a sophisticated manner, by means of tables
and different types of graphs.

46
 All the responses were coded and edited. For all interval data (items
measured with a 5-point linkerd scale) a scatterplot or boxplot was used to
check for outliers. Then, the data was checked for illegal codes. Illegal codes
are values which are not indicated in the coding instruction (Sekaran and
Bougie, 2013, p. 279).
To test the internal validity, Cronbach’s Alpha (a) was administered
(Bryman and Bell, 2011). A score of above 0.7 is deemed appropriate for this
test, as it indicates the consistency between the measures used (Sekaran and
Bougie, 2013, p. 293). All the negatively worded items in the questionnaire
have been reversed, before the items were submitted for the reliability test.
In order to test the proposed hypotheses multiple correlation analyses were
carried out. This type of analysis allows to assess the impact of an independent
variable on a dependent variable (Bryman and Bell, 2011). Due to this, this type
of analysis was deemed appropriate as the aim of this research is to investigate
the influence of eWOM on Instagram (independent variable) on consumers’
Purchase Intention (dependent variable). The means for the two groups:
positive Pre-held Belief and negative Pre-held Belief, as well as for the other
moderator: low and high Need of Information, have been analysed using an
independent sample T-tests.

3.6 Timescale
Timescale refers to the time horizon/ duration of this study (Saunders,
Lewis and Thornhill, 2012, p. 200). This research has gathered the data for the
main quantitative study over 1 period of time, namely: 16-07-18 till 18-07-18.
Before the main study, a pilot test was conducted in order to improve the validity
and reliability of the questionnaire. Hence, the time frame for this study is
referred to as “one-shot” (Sekaran and Bougie, 2013, p. 106).
Figure 5 shows the overall research design in terms for this study.

47
 Source: Author
FIGURE 5 RESEARCH DESIGN

3.7 Ethical Consideration

Ethical considerations refer to things which should be considered by the
researcher during the study (Bryman and Bell, 2011). This study has complied
with the university’s code of ethics. Besides this, state Sekaran and Bougie
(2013), that the researcher should treat 1) the information provided by the
respondents as strictly confidential, 2) clearly state the aim of the research, 3)
no intrusive information should be solicited, 4) the self-respect of the
respondents must not be violated, 5) participation should be voluntary, 6)
participants may never be exposed to any harmful situations, and 7) data may
not be misrepresented or distorted in any way. In summary, the results were
gathered in a correct and legal manner.

3.8 Limitations
This study, as many other studies, is unfortunately hindered by limitations.
Due to time constraints, only 190 responses were generated. This is a common
limitation associated with electronic questionnaires as response rates tend to
be low. Due to this, the generalisability of this study is limited. Additionally, due
to the fact that the questionnaire was online, some bias from the respondents
could have occurred without the researcher knowing it.
Lastly, due to the quantitative data collection method (survey), is the
information gathered not as rich as it could be, if a different data collection
method was used e.g. face-to-face interview (Sekaran and Bougie, 2013).

48
3.9 Summary
This chapter has outlined and explained the research methodology, which
was used to achieve the research objectives and research aim. The research
was guided by a positivism research philosophy that bared a deductive
approach. A survey strategy was used by means of self-completed electronic
questionnaires. Due to time and money constraints a non-probability sampling
strategy was used and had this study “one-shot” time horizon. In total 190
respondents took part in this study, leading to a shortfall of generalisability. The
research has obliged with all ethical considerations made by the University and
recommended by literature. Lastly, the limitations for this study were
considered.

49
 CHAPTER 4. FINDINGS
The data was analysed by using SPSS 25. The major statistical analyses
that were used during the data analysis were descriptive and correlational
analysis. Besides this, has a T-test been deployed and has the reliability been
checked.
Each respondent was asked to fill in an online questionnaire, see Appendix
1 for the full questionnaire. The questionnaire started with six questions, which
were all the same for all the respondents. Then, two questions followed, which
created the possibility to create 4 groups during the analysis. These two
questions are presented in Table 21:

TABLE XXI MODERATOR QUESTIONS

Moderator questions in questionnaire

Question 1 In general, how important do you think it is to find information
on a product, e.g. product reviews, in order to make a smarter/
better purchase decision?

Question 2 Can you indicate to what extend you like the brand Apple?

Both questions were answered on a 5-point Likert Scale. The first question
did not change anything for the respondents during the questionnaire, and is
referred to as a filter question. This question was only used during the analysis
part to divide the respondents in to different groups, by which they would
eventually have different experimental treatments.
Thus, respondents could answer question one and based on their answer
they would fall in category 1, low need or category 2, high need. By separating
the respondents based on their Need of Information the possible moderating
effect of Need of Information could be checked.
The answer to the second question determined if the respondents were
confronted with Positive eWOM or Negative eWOM. If they indicated to dislike
Apple, the respondents were confronted with Positive eWOM and if they
indicated to like Apple they were presented with Negative eWOM. Thus,
respondents were confronted with contradicting eWOM to their own Pre-held
Belief about Apple.
The reason for this experiment was induced due to the belief that if a
persons’ Pre-held Belief differs from the eWOM it is confronted with, it will

50
moderate the consumers’ Purchase Intention. That is why, the respondents
were divided in to two groups.
Then, after individually checking the moderating belief of both questions
separately, the answers to both questions were combined in order to create 4
groups. See Table 22. More information about the groups is presented in sub-
paragraph 4.6.

TABLE XXII GROUP DESCRIPTION

Group Description
1 Consists of people who indicated to have a positive Pre-held
Belief towards Apple and indicated to have a high Need of
Information.
2 Are people with a positive Pre-held Belief towards Apple, but
with a low Need of Information.
3 Are people with a negative Pre-held Belief towards Apple, with
a high Need of Information.
4 Are people with a negative Pre-held Belief towards Apple and a
low Need of Information.

4.1 Introduction
Before the main quantitative study was deployed, a small Pilot study of 30
respondents was conducted in order to check the Cronbach’s Alpha.

4.1.1 Results from pilot study

The descriptive statistics from the Pilot Study are shown in Table 23:

TABLE XXIII DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS PILOT STUDY

Source: Pilot study data

Frequency Percentage Cumulative
(%) Percentage (%)
Gender
Male 8 26.7% 26.7%
Female 22 73.3% 100%
Total 30 100%
Age
18-22 4 13.3% 13.3%

51
 23-27 21 70.0% 83.3%
28-32 3 10.0% 93.3%
<42 2 6.7% 100%
Total 30 100%
Education
Bachelor/ 138 48,76% 48,76%
Undergraduate
Masters/ 145 51,24% 100%
Postgraduate
Total 30 100%

After recoding all the negative questions (IQ4, IC3, ATI3 & ATI4) in to
positive questions, the Cronbach Alpha was checked for all measures, Table
24 shows the results.

TABLE XXIV CRONBACH'S ALPHA PILOT STUDY

Source: Pilot Study Data

Measure Cronbach’s Number of Items
Alpha
Information Quality .860 5
Information Credibility .875 5
Information Usefulness .914 5
Attitude Towards Information .804 5
Purchase Intention .851 5

The Cronbach’s Alpha measures internal consistency. This refers to how

closely related the items in a group are. A score off above 0.7 is recommended.
Overall, these results provided evidence for an acceptable reliability of the
scales of the data obtained in this Pilot study. Therefore, none of the questions
will be taken out for the main study.
In order to check face validity a professional was consulted who checked
how close the relation of the questions was, with the actual purpose of the
questions. The face validity was deemed acceptable by the professional and
the questions were relatable.

52
4.2 Main Study - Descriptive statistics
The sample for the main study consists of 190 respondents. Sub-paragraph
4.2.1 demonstrates the descriptive statistics for the main study in Table 26.

4.2.1 Descriptive Statistics

TABLE XXV DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS MAIN STUDY

Frequency Percentage Cumulative

(%) Percentage (%)
Gender
Male 60 31.6% 31.6%
Female 130 68.4% 100%
Total 190 100%
Age
>18 9 4.7% 4.7%
18-22 58 30.5% 35.3%
23-27 103 54.2% 89.5%
28-32 16 8.4% 97.9%
33-37 2 1.1% 98.9%
<42 2 1.1% 100%
Total 190 100%
Education
Highschool 7 3.7% 3.7%
Bachelor/ 112 58.9% 62.6%
Undergraduate
Masters/ 71 37.4% 100%
Postgraduate
Total 190 100%

53
 Reading reviews
Never 3 1.6% 1.6%
Sometimes 60 31.6% 33.2%
Half the time 47 24.7% 57.9%
Frequently 58 30.5% 88.4%
Always 22 11.6% 100%
Total 190 100%
Instagram account
No 12 6.3% 6.3%
Yes 178 93.7% 100%
Total 190 100%
Use Instagram
Very Rare 21 11.1% 11.8%
1 or 2 times a week 5 2.6% 14.6%
3-5 days a week 15 7.9% 23.0%
Everyday 137 72.1% 100%
Total 178 93.7%
Missing 12 6.3%
Total 190 100%

The survey was completed by 190 respondents. However, 12 respondents

(6.3%) stated that they did not have an Instagram account. These 12
respondents have only answered the descriptive questions. As this study
focusses on Instagram, these 12 respondents will not be taken in to account
for further analysis. Therefore, N = 178.
The table indicates that mainly females (68.4%) have filled in the
questionnaire and that most of the respondents (84.7%) are between 18 and
27 years old. More than half (58.9%) of the respondents has a Bachelor’s
degree as their highest form of education and 66.8% of the respondents reads
online product reviews at least half of time or more. Lastly, has the excessive
part of the respondents (72.1%) indicated to use Instagram every day.

4.3 Reliability Test & Validity Test

4.3.1 Reliability
The reliability of the used scales was tested by examining the scales’
internal consistency. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is acceptable above the

54
recommended level of 0.70. The Cronbach’s alpha of the constructs are shown
in Table 27:

TABLE XXVI CRONBACH'S ALPHA MAIN STUDY

Measure Cronbach’s Number of Items

Alpha
Information Quality (IQ) .695 5
Information Credibility (IC) .777 5
Information Usefulness (IU) .827 5
Attitude Towards Information (ATI) .703 4
Purchase Intention (PI) .863 5

ATI was .703 after ATI3 was deleted (I think in general they make my
decision to buy difficult”)
In summary, these outcomes provide evidence for an acceptable reliability
of the scales of the data obtained in this study. A more detailed output of the
reliability test can be found in Appendix 8.2.

4.3.2 Validity
Content validity refers to if there is an adequate number of measures that
represent the concept (Sekaran and Bougie, 2013, p. 226). An expert was
consulted for the scale development in order to check the face validity. Internal-
and face validity refer to whether or not the questions in the questionnaire
measure what the researcher wants it to measure (Saunders, Lewis and
Thornhill, 2012, p. 450). This research has used adapted measures from earlier
research to ensure- and increase the validity.

55
4.4 Main effect testing
Figure 6 shows the proposed conceptual model.

FIGURE 6 EIAM

Sub-paragraph 4.4.1 explains the meaning of correlation and how it is has

been measured. Sub-paragraph 4.4.2 shows the findings from the performed
analyses, not yet taking the moderators in to account. Then, paragraph 4.5
presents the findings from the individual moderators H5 and H6 and lastly,
paragraph 4.6 shows the results from the analysis per group, taking both
moderators in to account.

4.4.1 Introduction to correlation

Correlation refers to a relationship between two variables, and describes
the effect of two things which occur together, and are therefore connected
together (Zikmund et al., 2010).
The following 4 hypothesis have been tested, see Table 28:

56
 TABLE XXVII HYPOTHESES

Hypotheses
H1 Information Quality is connected to Attitude Towards eWOM
Information.
H2 Information Credibility is connected to Attitude towards eWOM
Information.
H3 Information Usefulness is connected to Attitude Towards eWOM
Information.
H4 Attitude Towards Information is connected to Purchase Intention.

4.4.1.1 Pearson’s R
When assessing correlation, one should look at Pearson’s R or Pearson’s
correlation. This measure represents the correlation coefficient and thereby
indicates how much two variables are correlated. The coefficient should be
between 0 and 1, the closer it is to 1 the more correlated it is (Saunders, Lewis
and Thornhill, 2012).
A positive R indicates a positive relationship between the variables (the
bigger A gets; the bigger B gets). A negative R indicates a negative relationship
(the bigger A, the smaller B). If R equals 0, then no relationship between the
variables exists (Bryman and Bell, 2011).

4.4.1.2 Significance
After checking the correlation coefficient, the Sig (2-tailed) should be
checked in order to assess if the relationship is significant. The relationship is
significant if 1* = <0.05 = significant. However, with 2** = <0.01 = very
significant.

4.4.2 Hypotheses testing

The sample consists out of 178 valid responses and the mean and std.
deviation for the metrics are shown in Table 29.

57
 TABLE XXVIII MEAN AND STD. DEVIATION

Mean SD
Mean IQ 3.3180 .59699
Mean IC 3.2371 .64953
Mean IU 3.1118 .78871
Mean ATI 3.3343 .67433
Mean PI 2.9978 .81622

The hypotheses were tested through correlation analysis. Table 29,

presents an overview of the coefficients and their significance.
Figure 7, presents a visualisation of all 4-correlation analysis.

TABLE XXIX COEFFICIENTS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE

Hypotheses Pearson Sig. (2-tailed) Significant

(178 1* = <0.05 = significant relationship
respondents) 2** = <0.01 = very
significant.
IQ and ATI .386** .000 Yes
IC and ATI .408** .000 Yes
IU and ATI .556** .000 Yes
ATI and PI .093 .218 No

Figure 7, presents a visualisation of all 4-correlation analysis. In compliance

with the expectations are H1 (top left), H2 (top right) and H3 (bottom left) found
to be significantly positively correlated and thereby accepting H1, H2 and H3.

58
 FIGURE 7 VISUALISATION OF CORRELATION ANALYSIS 178 RESPONDENTS

However, looking at H4 (bottom right), the correlation is just barely there as

can be seen in Figure 7. When looking at Table 29, the results indicate that the
relationship is not significant, thereby not accepting H4.
This is a strange finding, as it is not in line with earlier literature which has
empirically validated that there is a relation between these two variables.
Thus, in conclusion H1, H2 and H3 are accepted and H4 is not accepted.

4.5 Moderating Effect Testing

Figure 8 shows the proposed conceptual model.

59
 FIGURE 8 EIAM

As can be seen in the model, are H5 and H6 proposed as two moderators.

In order to check whether the means of the possible moderators are
significantly different from each other, an Independent sample T-test was
deployed to test the following hypotheses, See Table 30:

TABLE XXX HYPOTHESES 5 AND 6

Hypotheses
H5 Need of Information moderates the Attitude Towards Information
H6 Pre-held Beliefs moderate the connection between Attitude Towards
Information and Purchase Intention.

To test the moderating effect of both variables, respondents are divided in

to groups, based on their answers in the questionnaire. Table 31, presents an
overview of the allocation of the respondents based on their answers to the
moderating questions individually.

TABLE XXXI DISTRIBUTION PER MODERATOR

Variable Moderating Individually % Total

divided 100%
Need of Low Need 10 5.62% 178
Information High Need 168 94.38%
Pre-Held Dislike Apple 31 17.42% 178
belief Like Apple 147 82.58%

60
 What can be derived from these statistics is that almost all respondents
(94.38%) indicated to have a high Need of Information. This is in line with the
expectations and also what current literature stipulates. Namely, that
consumers nowadays are more informed than ever before (Daugherty and
Hoffman, 2014). However, this extreme difference in distribution was not
expected beforehand by the researcher. Nevertheless, after reviewing the
results from this study, can the extreme difference between high and low Need
of Information be caused by the fact that 89.4% of the respondents is 27 years
old, or younger. Being informed is a distinctive feature for younger consumers
(millennials and younger) as they have grown up in a world where Google has
always been there for them (Alhidari, Iyer and Paswan, 2015). It could very well
be that if the questionnaire was filled in by more older people the distribution
could have been less extreme.
Besides this, show the results that most respondents (82.58%) indicate to
like Apple. This means that the results from the group that indicated to dislike
Apple, will come from a small sample size.
Sub-paragraph 4.5.1 will discuss H5 and sub-paragraph 4.5.2 will discuss
the moderating effect of H6.

4.5.1 Moderating Effect of Need of Information

To identify whether there is a difference in terms of the attitude towards the
information moderated by Need of Information an independent T-test was
deployed. The respondents were divided in to two separate groups, see Table
32.
TABLE XXXII ALLOCATION GROUP NEED OF INFORMATION

Variable Groups Individually Total

divided
Need of 1 = Low Need 10 178
Information 2 = High Need 168

4.5.1.1 Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances

First, Levene’s Test for Equality of Variance (LTEV) was used, to check for
homogeneity of the variance between the groups. This test shows if the shape
of the graph is equal or not. If P =  .05, then the shape is significantly different

61
between the 2 groups. If P = > .05 then the shape of the distribution is not
significantly different, this is the favourable outcome.

4.5.1.2 T-test for Equality of Means

Then, looking at the t-test for equality of means, Sig. (2-tailed) indicates
whether or not the differences in the mean is significant or not. If the Sig. (2-
tailed) is <.05 then the difference is significant. This means that the factor
deployed is adjusting the outcome as expected.

4.5.1.3 Results Attitude Towards Information moderated by Need of Information

LTEV shows that equal variances can be assumed for ATI1, 2 and 4. And
that heir means are significantly different, see Table 33:

TABLE XXXIII NEED OF INFORMATION MODERATES ATI

Item LTEV T-Test for Equality of

Means
ATI1 F=.923, Sig=.338 (Sig. 2-tailed =.016)
ATI 2 F=.013, Sig=.908 (Sig. 2-tailed = .026)
ATI 4 F=.167, Sig=.683 (Sig. 2-tailed = .102)

Table 34, shows that group 1 (Low Need) have a constant higher mean
then group 2. This indicates that even if a person is not particularly in Need of
Information, his or hers attitude towards that information is more positive than
for the group who is in high Need of Information.

TABLE XXXIV ATTITUDE TOWARDS INFORMATION MODERATED BY NEED OF

INFORMATION

Group Mean SD
ATI1 1 = Low Need 3.90 1.101
2 = High Need 3.17 .920
ATI2 1 = Low Need 3.90 .994
2 = High Need 3.26 .875
ATI4 1 = Low Need 4.00 1.054
2 = High Need 3.54 .868
ATI5 1 = Low Need 3.40 1.430
2 = High Need 3.26 .962

62
 See Appendix 8.3 for a more the detailed output. These results imply that
that the variability in the groups is significantly different for 3 out of 4 items
measured. Thus, it can be concluded that there is a statistically significant
differences between the mean values of the group of people with low Need of
Information and high Need of Information. Thereby accepting: H5.

4.5.2 Moderating Effect of Pre-held Belief

In order to investigate and validate hypotheses 6 an independent T-test
was used. The respondents were categorised in two groups, see Table 35:

TABLE XXXV ALLOCATION GROUP PRE-HELD BELIEF

Variable Group Individually Total

divided
Pre-Held 1 = Don’t Like Apple 31 178
belief 2 = Like Apple 147

The reason for choosing Apple as a brand, is because Apple is a familiar

brand to almost all people. It is a brand which sells products that are of interest
to both males and females.

4.5.2.1 Results Attitude Towards Information and Pre-held Belief

Even though, the moderating relationship between Pre-held Belief and
Attitude Towards Information was not hypothesised at the beginning of this
study, the results from the T-test indicated some significant differences.
Hence, these results are presented first, see Table 36.

TABLE XXXVI PRE-HELD BELIEF MODERATES ATI

Item LTEV T-Test for Equality of

Means
ATI 2 F=.462, Sig=.498, Sig. 2-Tailed = .004
ATI 4 F=5.489, Sig=.020, Sig. 2-Tailed = .000

These results indicate that Pre-held Belief significantly moderates the

outcome for these two items measured as their means are significantly
different.

63
 Table 37, shows the results for all ATI items measured and also shows that
the Mean value for group 1is higher amongst all items measured. However, for
only 2 items measured (ATI2 and ATI4) is it truly significant. As only 2 out of 4
items show significantly different means, should the results be regarded as
somewhat inconclusive.

TABLE XXXVII ATTITUDE TOWARDS INFORMATION MODERATED BY PRE-HELD

BELIEF

Group Mean SD
ATI1 1 = Don’t Like 3.55 1.179
2 = Like 3.14 .873
ATI2 1 = Don’t Like 3.71 1.006
2 = Like 3.20 .843
ATI4 1 = Don’t Like 4.17 .703
2 = Like 3.44 .861
ATI5 1 = Don’t Like 3.29 1.395
2 = Like 3.27 .886

Wang, Cunningham and Eastin (2015), indicated that PWOM has a bigger
impact on a person’s attitude, than NWOM. Meaning that NWOM is less likely
to change the attitude than PWOM.
The group who indicated to dislike Apple (1) at the start of the
questionnaire, after being confronted with PWOM, have a higher mean for all
items, compared to the group who indicated to like Apple (2). Thus, group 1’s
attitude is more positive than group 2’s.
To further clarify, Group 2, who indicated to have a positive Pre-held Belief
towards Apple, was presented with NWOM. Group 2’s mean value is lower than
that off Group 1, but is still between 3 and 4 on a 5-point Likert Scale, thereby
indicating they are between “neutral” and “agree” with all the items measured.
Thus, Group 2’s attitude is still on the positive side even though they were
presented with negative eWOM.
Wang, Cunningham and Eastin (2015), say this is particularly normal and
highly excepted when dealing with “familiar brands”. Because consumers have
already formed their personal opinion and attitude about that brand, one
negative opinion is not likely going to change that. As Apple is classified as a
highly familiar brand the statements made by Wang, Cunningham and Eastin
(2015) could apply for this study.

64
 However, only 2 out of 4 items had a statistically significant different mean
and that is not enough evidence that Pre-held Belief moderates’ Attitude
Towards Information in all cases. More research should be done on this matter
in order to do so. See Appendix 8.4, for more in-depth output.

4.5.2.2 Results Purchase Intention and Pre-held Belief

In the original model, H6 proposes that Pre-held Belief moderates Purchase
Intention. In order to test this, LTEV and the T-test for Equality of Means were
deployed and Table 38 shows that for all items measured an equal variance
and significantly different means are measured.

TABLE XXXVIII PRE-HELD BELIEF MODERATES PI

Item LTEV T-Test for Equality of

Means
PI 1 F=.474, Sig.=.492, Sig. 2-Tailed= .000
PI 2 F=.345, Sig.=.558, Sig. 2-Tailed = .000
PI 3 F=.177, Sig.=.674 Sig. 2-Tailed= .000
PI 4 F=.2.460, Sig.=.119 Sig. 2-Tailed= .001
PI 5 F=2.944, Sig.=.088 Sig. 2-Tailed= .000

Table 39, shows that group 1 (Don’t Like Apple) has a significantly lower
mean for all items measured.

TABLE XXXIX PURCHASE INTENTION MODERATED BY PRE-HELD BELIEF

Group Mean SD
PI1 1 = Don’t Like 2.19 .833
2 = Like 2.99 .910
PI2 1 = Don’t Like 1.94 1.031
2 = Like 3.23 .937
PI3 1 = Don’t Like 2.16 1.128
2 = Like 3.09 .957
PI4 1 = Don’t Like 2.58 1.119
2 = Like 3.21 .893
PI5 1 = Don’t Like 2.45 1.234
2 = Like 3.24 .953

65
 These results indicate that even though Group 2 was presented with
NWOM, their Purchase Intention is still significantly higher compared to Group
1. This is in-line with the findings from sub-paragraph 4.5.2.1. As these results
indicate that a person’s Pre-held Belief is stronger, than the feedback/review
from 1 friend, about such a familiar brand as Apple.
Thus, Group 2, is significantly more likely to purchase an Apple product
than Group 1 (don’t like Apple), even though they were presented with
contradicting WOM to their own personal belief. Thereby, is this research
accepting H6, as the results demonstrate that both groups have significantly
different means. For more in-depth results see Appendix 8.4.

4.6 Correlation of Groups

After general correlation analysis were deployed in paragraph 4.4 and the
moderators were accepted in paragraph 4.5, the data was separated in to 4
groups taking both moderators in to account.
Before, explaining the different groups and their demographic features, the
experimental element is explained in paragraph 4.6.1.

4.6.1 Experimental element

This research added an experimental element in the questionnaire by
showing people contradicting eWOM information to their own personal Pre-
held Belief. Thus, if people indicated to like Apple, they were shown negative
eWOM. If they indicated to dislike Apple, they were confronted with Postive
eWOM.
The eWOM the respondents were confronted with was about an Apple
MacBook. A laptop was chosen as the product for the experimental eWOM
post. Reason for choosing a laptop is because electronic products are gender
neutral. Besides this, are they frequently bought through online platforms and
consumers tend to rely on reviews (Park and Lee 2008).
Both forms of eWOM stayed away from emotional content. Instead they
focussed on product specific pluspoints for the positive post and negative
product specific points for the negative post. Reasons for this were because
literature pointed out that emotional eWOM was less likely to be accepted by
users (Fang, 2014; King, Racherla and Bush, 2014; Mahapatra and Mishra,
2017).

66
 This research wanted to investigate whether the group indicating to dislike
Apple, after seeing the positive eWOM, had intentions to purchase Apple
products in the future. It also wanted to investigate whether the group who
indicated to like Apple, was still willing to purchase Apple products after being
shown the negative eWOM.
The reason for incorporating this experimental element is because of the
findings from earlier literature done by e.g. Fiske (1980). Fiske states that if
eWOM contradicts a persons’ Pre-held Belief, it can change that persons’
judgement about the product/brand. This research wants to empirically
investigate and validate what happens to a person’s Purchase Intention after
being presented with contradicting eWOM to one’s own Pre-held Belief.

4.6.2 Demographic information groups

Table 40, present an overview of the demographic factors for the 4 groups.
It also explains the experimental prerequisites for each group. E.g. respondents
in group 1 have all indicated to have a positive Pre-held Belief towards Apple
and indicated to have a high Need of Information.
Important to understand is that for the following analyses both moderators
have been taken in to account. For a more in-depth demographic analysis per
group, see Appendix 8.5.

TABLE XL SUMMARY DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS GROUPS

Question Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

Like Apple Like Don’t Don’t
& Apple & Like Apple Like Apple
High Need Low Need & High & Low Need
Information Information Need Information
Information
N 144 3 24 7

Gender 70.1% Female 100% 54.2% 71.4%

Female Female Female

Age 89.6% 18-27 100% 70.8% 100%

years 18-27 years 18-27 years <22 years

67
 Education 67.4% 67% 79.2% 28.6%
Bachelor’s Bachelor’s Masters Bachelor’s

Read 58% read 67% 79.1% 100%

Reviews half the time or read read read reviews
frequently reviews sometimes half the time
sometimes or half the
time

Use 87.5% use 67% use 54.2% 100%

Instagram Instagram daily Instagram use use
daily Instagram Instagram
daily rarely

Overall, an inequality in sample size for the different groups can be derrived
from these findings.

4.6.2.1 Mean Value and Std. Deviation for groups

Table 41, shows the mean values for all the variables, categorized by
group. It also indicates the standard deviation.

TABLE XLI MEAN VALUES AND STD. DEVIATION PER GROUP

Source: Data Main Study

Variable Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4
Information Mean 3.3347 3.2667 3.1667 3.5143
Quality Std. .59500 .30551 .58285 .77337
Deviation
Information Mean 3.2736 3.3333 2.9917 3.2857
Credibility Std. .65920 .41633 .53236 .81533
Deviation
Information Mean 3.1229 3.2667 3.0000 3.2000
Usefulness Std. .79840 .30551 .74600 .95917
Deviation
Attitude Mean 3.2656 3.0000 3.5521 4.1429
Towards Std. .64043 .86603 .63835 .83986
Information Deviation
Purchase Mean 3.14303 3.7333 2.2667 2.2571
Intention Std. .73971 .80829 .76821 .77213
Deviation

68
 The following sub-paragraphs present the findings from the correlation
analysis for hypotheses 1 to 4, categorized per group. (To check the
hypotheses, see paragraph 4.4.1.)
Correlation analyses were performed, first, with Pearson’s R, as this is the
correlation coefficient. Then, the Sig (2-tailed) is checked, to see whether or
not the relationship is significant. The relationship is significant if 1* = <0.05 =
significant. However, with 2** = <0.01 = very significant.

4.6.3 Group 1
Group 1 consists of people with a positive Pre-held Belief towards Apple
and who indicated to have a high Need of Information. N = 144.
Table 42, presents an overview of the analysis and also shows that all the
tested relationships are positively correlated.

TABLE XLII GROUP 1 CORRELATION

Group 1 Pearson Sig. (2-tailed) Significant

(144 1* = <0.05 = significant relationship
respondents) 2** = <0.01 = very
significant.
IQ and ATI .340** .000 Yes
IC and ATI .397** .000 Yes
IU and ATI .572** .000 Yes
ATI and PI .186* .026 Yes

69
 Thus, based on these findings, are all the proposed hypotheses accepted,
for Group 1. Figure 9 shows a visualisation of the correlation analysis.

FIGURE 9 CORRELATION GROUP 1

In compliance with the expectations, is the effect found to be statistically

significant for H1 (top left), H2 (top right), H3 (bottom left) and H4 (bottom
right). Thus, for group 1 are all the hypotheses accepted.

4.6.4 Group 2
Group 2 consists of people with a positive Pre-held Belief towards Apple
and who indicated to have a low Need of Information. Only 3 respondents
represent this group. Therefore, the results, cannot be definitive as the sample
is too small. Pearson’s R correlation has been used for this group, see
Appendix 8.6 for the results. Only H4 is significantly correlated. However, the
relationship between ATI and PI is negative, meaning that if ATI increases, PI
decreases and vice versa.
Nevertheless, due to the size of sample, the researcher has chosen not to
put the findings in the main text as 3 respondents cannot sustain any statistical
test and the findings are therefore not reliable.

70
4.6.5 Group 3
Group 3 consists of respondents who indicated to have a negative Pre-held
Belief towards Apple, with a high Need of Information. This group had 24
respondents.
Table 43, presents an overview of the analysis and also indicates that all
the relationships tested for Group 3 are positively correlated.

TABLE XLIII GROUP 3 CORRELATION

Group 3 Pearson Sig. (2-tailed) Significant

(24 1* = <0.05 = significant relationship
people) 2** = <0.01 = very significant.
IQ and ATI .665** .000 Yes
IC and ATI .596** .002 Yes
IU and ATI .635** .001 Yes
ATI and PI .547** .006 Yes

Based on the results from Table 43 and the visualisation of the correlations
in Figure 10, H1 (top left), H2 (top right), H3 (bottom left) and H4 (bottom right)
are all statistically significantly correlated. Thereby accepting all hypotheses for
group 3.

FIGURE 10 CORRELATION GROUP 3

71
 Thus, based on these findings All the proposed hypotheses are accepted,
for Group 3.

4.6.6 Group 4
Group 4 consists of respondents who indicated to have a negative Pre-held
Belief towards Apple, and have a low Need of Information. This group consists
out of 7 respondents. As this is a very small sample the reliability of the results
limited and the results should be considered inconclusive due to the small
sample size.
Table 45, presents an overview of the analysis and also indicates that 3 out
of 4 of the tested relationships for Group 4 are significantly positively correlated.

TABLE XLIV GROUP 4 CORRELATION

Group 4 Pearson Sig. (2-tailed) Significant

(7 1* = <0.05 = significant relationship
people) 2** = <0.01 = very
significant.
IQ and ATI .894** .007 Yes
IC and ATI .916** .004 Yes
IU and ATI .890** .007 Yes
ATI and PI .474* .283 No

Based on the results from Table 45 and the visualisation of Figure 11, H1
(top left), H2 (top right) and H3 (bottom left) are accepted. However, H4 (bottom
right) is not accepted as the relationship is not found to be significant.

72
 FIGURE 11 CORRELATION GROUP 4

Thus, based on these findings 3 out of 4 the proposed hypotheses are

accepted, for Group 4.

4.6.7 Conclusion of Group correlation

Table 46, visualises an overview of the results from the group correlation
analysis and summarizes the research hypotheses, the expected relationships
and if they are empirically validated.

TABLE XLV SUMMARY CORRELATION ANALYSIS

Group H Hypothesized Expected Empirical

relationship Relationship conclusion
Group 1 H1 IQ → ATI Positive Supported
N = 144 H2 IC → ATI Positive Supported
H3 IU → ATI Positive Supported
H4 ATI → PI Positive Supported
Group 2 H1 IQ → ATI Positive Inadequate sample
N=3 H2 IC → ATI Positive Inadequate sample
H3 IU → ATI Positive Inadequate sample
H4 ATI → PI Positive Inadequate sample
Group 3 H1 IQ → ATI Positive Supported
N = 24 H2 IC → ATI Positive Supported
H3 IU → ATI Positive Supported
H4 ATI → PI Positive Supported
Group 4 H1 IQ → ATI Positive Supported
N=7 H2 IC → ATI Positive Supported
H3 IU → ATI Positive Supported
H4 ATI → PI Positive Not Supported

73
 Based on these findings the hypotheses for group 1 and 3 are empirically
validated and thereby accepted. However, Group 2 and 4 have a very small
sample size (respectively: 3 and 7), and due to the limited sample size are the
tests not reliable.

4.7 Concluding remarks

The results from the pilot study demonstrated that the respondents
understood the questions well and showed strong internal consistency due to
the results from the Cronbach’s Alpha, which were all above .7 for each
measure.
The main study consisted of 190 respondents of which 12 were deemed
invalid due to the fact that those 12 respondents did not have an Instagram
account. Important metrics which indicated that the sample was appropriate for
this research were e.g.: 72.1% of the 178 participants indicated to use
Instagram on a daily bases and only 1.6% indicated to never read a review
online. These two indicators were important for this research as this research
focused on eWOM on Instagram. Thereby approving the sample as
representative and adequate enough to take part in this research.
The reliability, measured through the Cronbach’s Alpha, was still above .7
for the main study.

4.7.1 Hypotheses testing

First, the total sample was analyzed and thereby testing the hypotheses,
without taking the moderators in to account. The results indicated that H1, H2
and H3 were accepted due to the results from the correlation analysis.
However, H4 was not accepted. The relationship was not significant and it
showed a negative correlation, instead of the expected positive correlation.
This was not in line with the expectations due to findings from earlier literature.
Then, the two moderators were tested by means of an Independent sample
T-test. The results showed significantly different mean values for both
moderators and thereby accepting H5 and H6.
What had previously not been hypothesized, but did come forward during
the analysis, was the fact that Pre-held Belief also moderates the Attitude
Towards Information for 2 out of 4 items measured. The results showed that
the group who indicated to dislike Apple had a higher mean value for all ATI
items measured (of which 2 were also significant), compared to the group who

74
indicated to like Apple. Meaning that the group who had indicated to dislike
Apple, now after seeing the eWOM, had a more positive attitude towards that
information compared to the group who indicated to like Apple.
This is an interesting finding and worth researching more in the future as
earlier research done by Wang, Cunningham and Eastin (2015) had indicated
that PWOM has a bigger impact on a person’s attitude, than NWOM. The
results from this study, would tend to agree on this matter. However, as this
has not been the main focus of this study is their need for more empirical
validation before being able to make a sustainable claim about this matter.
Lastly, the respondents were allocated in to 4 different groups, based on
the answers they provided to the two moderating questions in the
questionnaire. Hypothesis 1 to 4 were tested for each group individually, in
order to see whether or not the hypotheses apply in all 4 experimental
environments.
The results from the 4 groups indicate that for group 1 (High Need & Like
Apple, N=144) all the hypotheses can be accepted. For group 2 (Low Need &
Like Apple, N=3), the results are inconclusive as there are only 3 participants
in this group. Therefore, none of the hypotheses can be supported. The results
from group 3 (High need & Dislike Apple, N=24) show, that all the hypotheses
are supported. Lastly, group 4 (Low need & Dislike Apple, N=7) shows that H1,
H2, H3 can be supported. However, H4 cannot be supported for this group.
Nonetheless, group 4 only has 7 respondents and therefore the results should
be considered as inconclusive as the sample size is not reliable for the whole
population. Table 47, presents an overview of the hypothesized relationships
for the individual groups and for the whole sample.

TABLE XLVI OVERVIEW OF HYPOTHESIZED RELATIONSHIPS

Group H Hypothesized Expected Empirical

relationship Relationship conclusion
Group 1 H1 IQ → ATI Positive Supported
N = 144 H2 IC → ATI Positive Supported
H3 IU → ATI Positive Supported
H4 ATI → PI Positive Supported
Group 2 H1 IQ → ATI Positive Inadequate sample
N=3 H2 IC → ATI Positive Inadequate sample
H3 IU → ATI Positive Inadequate sample
H4 ATI → PI Positive Inadequate sample
Group 3 H1 IQ → ATI Positive Supported
N = 24 H2 IC → ATI Positive Supported
H3 IU → ATI Positive Supported
H4 ATI → PI Positive Supported

75
 Group 4 H1 IQ → ATI Positive Supported
N=7 H2 IC → ATI Positive Supported
H3 IU → ATI Positive Supported
H4 ATI → PI Positive Not Supported
All H1 IQ → ATI Positive Supported
respondents H2 IC → ATI Positive Supported
N = 178 H3 IU → ATI Positive Supported
H4 ATI → PI Positive Not Supported

Based on these findings the final EIAM model is shown in Figure 12.

FIGURE 12 FINAL VERSION THE EIAM

4.7.2 Limitation
What can be concluded based on the un-equal dispersion of high and low
Need of Information, is that most consumers are in high Need of Information
nowadays. They want to be informed before deciding. However, because of
this un-equal dispersion a limitation has occurred during the analysis phase.
As only 5.6% of all the respondents has indicated to have a low Need of
Information. Meaning that Group 2 and 4, who both have low Need of
Information as a metric, have a very small sample size. Respectively 3 and 7.
This in-equality was not caused due to bias in the sampling method.
However, it was induced due to the difficult experimental factor (low Need of
Information) assigned to both group 2 and 4.
This in-equality in sample size makes the results unreliable. Hence, further
research should be done to make the results more reliable. The sample should
increase tremendously, e.g. 2000 respondents, to makes sure that the groups
with the experimental factor ‘low Need of Information’ are adequately
represented in the sample.

76
 However, the current results for group 2 and 4 do provide preliminary
insights in to the set experimental environment. The results indicate that e.g.
consumer X, who is not looking for information and who does not like Apple,
will not significantly be influenced by PWOM in terms of her Attitude Towards
Information, which subsequently will not significantly influence her Purchase
Intention. Thus, targeting people like consumer X, who represents group 4, will
be less beneficial than targeting people who indicate to dislike Apple but are
open to information, people who represent group 3.

77
 CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION
This chapter presents a discussion of the literature review (secondary data)
and the findings from the online questionnaire (primary data). The aim of this
chapter is to investigate the differences between the findings from this research
and the results from earlier research. It also provides suggestions for
marketeers on how to use the findings in their advantage.
The aim of this research is to understand the effect of eWOM on Instagram
on consumers’ Purchase Intention. Thereby, taking the moderating effect of
“Need of Information” and “Pre-held Belief” in to account.

2.1 Introduction
The impact of eWOM on consumers’ Purchase Intentions has long been of
interest to academics and has been empirically validated by many researchers
(See-To and Ho, 2014; Lim et al., 2015; Relling et al., 2016; Saleem and Ellahi,
2017). Earlier literature (Erkan and Evans, 2016; Indriani Martawilaga and
Sufiati Purwanegara, 2016; Yan et al., 2016; Boerman, Willemsen and Van Der
Aa, 2017), has also investigated the influence of eWOM on Social Media on
consumers’ Purchase Intention.
This study has investigated that consumers’ Need of Information and Pre-
held Belief can adjust the relationship between Attitude Towards Information
and Purchase Intention, within the eWOM adoption process.
This study thereby focussed on the information transmission perspective
regarding eWOM on Instagram and how contradicting Pre-held Beliefs
adjusted the adoption process. This research has investigated this through its
tested EIAM model.
The EIAM is created by integrating the Information Acceptance Model
(IACM) (Erkan and Evans, 2016) and Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)
(Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975).
This findings from this research point out that the antecedents for a
person’s attitude towards eWOM information on Instagram, are: Information
Quality, Information Credibility and Information Usefulness. The Attitude
Towards Information is moderated by a persons’ Need of Information. It also
shows that Attitude Towards Information is a determinant for Purchase
Intention and the relationship between Attitude Towards Information and
Purchase Intention is moderated by a persons’ Pre-held Belief.

78
 Due to the two moderators: Need of Information and Pre-held Belief, the
findings could be categorized in 4 groups, see Table 48.

TABLE XLVII GROUP DESCRITPION

Group Description
1 Consists of people who indicated to have a positive Pre-held
Belief towards Apple and indicated to have a high Need of
Information.
2 Are people with a positive Pre-held Belief towards Apple, but
with a low Need of Information.
3 Are people with a negative Pre-held Belief towards Apple, with
a high Need of Information.
4 Are people with a negative Pre-held Belief towards Apple and a
low Need of Information.

Paragraph 5.2 will discuss the results. First the individual results from the
moderators will be discussed. 5.2.1 discusses the findings regarding the
moderator: ‘Need of Information’. 5.2.2 discusses the findings for the moderator
‘Pre-held Belief’. Then the results from the groups will be discussed.

2.2 What managers and marketeers can do

This research hypothesised 6 relationships between variables, presented
in Figure 13.

FIGURE 13 THE EIAM

79
 The findings from this study indicated the following results, see Table 49.

TABLE XLVIII OVERVIEW HYPOTHESES

Group H Hypothesized Expected Empirical

relationship Relationship conclusion
Group 1 H1 IQ → ATI Positive Supported
N = 144 H2 IC → ATI Positive Supported
H3 IU → ATI Positive Supported
H4 ATI → PI Positive Supported
Group 2 H1 IQ → ATI Positive Inadequate sample
N=3 H2 IC → ATI Positive Inadequate sample
H3 IU → ATI Positive Inadequate sample
H4 ATI → PI Positive Inadequate sample
Group 3 H1 IQ → ATI Positive Supported
N = 24 H2 IC → ATI Positive Supported
H3 IU → ATI Positive Supported
H4 ATI → PI Positive Supported
Group 4 H1 IQ → ATI Positive Supported
N=7 H2 IC → ATI Positive Supported
H3 IU → ATI Positive Supported
H4 ATI → PI Positive Not Supported
All H1 IQ → ATI Positive Supported
respondents H2 IC → ATI Positive Supported
N = 178 H3 IU → ATI Positive Supported
H4 ATI → PI Positive Not Supported

These findings shall now be discussed, thereby focussing on what

marketeers and managers can do to use these findings to their advantage. First
the communication is discussed (5.2.1), followed by how to better understand
the consumer (5.2.2) and lastly how to improve the accumulated brand image
(5.2.3). The researcher is looking forward to investigate the experimental
environment more intensely of respondents in group 2, when there is a wider
range of samples available, as no statistical tests could be deployed on such a
small sample.

5.2.1 Marketing Communication

The results indicate that better information- quality, credibility and
usefulness, lead to a more positive Attitude Towards Information. These three
hypotheses are supported within group 1, 3, 4 and for the general analysis with
all the respondents (N=178).
So, no matter what the circumstances are, in-terms of a respondents’ ‘Need
of Information’ and ‘Pre-held Belief’ towards the brand, those three variables
always influence the respondents’ attitude towards the information. Due to the

80
fact that the relationship between the variables is positive, it creates a ripple
effect which means that if a marketeer focusses on improving those three
variables, the attitude towards the information will also become more positive.
E.g. If a marketeer facilitates high quality eWOM information, the
respondents’ attitude towards the information will instantly become more
positive. Which will then affect them in their process of considering that piece
of information in regards to their decision-making process (Teng et al., 2014;
Hussain et al., 2018). These results were to be expected, as many researchers
have previously researched this in different environments and empirically
validated it (Cacioppo, Petty and Morris, 1983; Sia, Tan and Wei, 1999; Teng
et al., 2014; Hussain et al., 2018).
To improve and increase Information Quality, should marketeers focus on:
improving argument quality and argument strength. Because, research shows
that emotional arguments are perceived as less truthful and therefore decrease
quality, opposed to rational arguments (Fang, 2014; King, Racherla and Bush,
2014; Mahapatra and Mishra, 2017). Earlier literature (Cacioppo, Petty and
Morris, 1983; Sia, Tan and Wei, 1999; Teng et al., 2014; Hussain et al., 2018),
has stipulated that argument quality impacts the Attitude Towards Information
and the findings from this research back those findings up, hence the
acceptance of the hypothesis.
The same applies for the second variable (Information Credibility). Thus,
the results were as expected, as many academics have already researched
the relationship between Information Credibility and Attitude Towards
Information in different environments (Erkan and Evans, 2016; Moran and
Muzellec, 2017). This research empirically validates that the same relationship
applies in an Instagram-environment. Marketeers should aim to increase their
Information Credibility, when distributing eWOM information, by e.g. presenting
knowledgeable information that comes across as trustworthy (Petty, Cacioppo
and Goldman, 1981; Reichelt, Sievert and Jacob, 2014). Other research (Fang,
2014), also states that argument strength increases the credibility of the eWOM
information. Thus, if marketeers focus on the argument strength of their eWOM
information, will this improve both their eWOM quality and credibility.
The third variable (Information Usefulness) also showed the predicted
results. Once again, this is not strange, as eWOM is a vigorously researched
topic and Information Usefulness has already proven to be, in different
environments, influential for determining the Attitude Towards Information
(Chuan-Chuan Lin and Lu, 2000; Hsu and Lu, 2004; Hsu, Chuan‐Chuan Lin

81
and Chiang, 2013). Nevertheless, are these findings still a contribution to
current literature as this research has tested the relationships in an Instagram
environment, which has never been done before from this perspective.
Marketeers can increase the usefulness of eWOM information by providing
arguments for their reasoning, describing a real user experience with the
product/service and by ensuring that the review is averagely valanced. Most
importantly, must the piece of eWOM information enhance the consumers’
decision-making process, because then they will form a positive attitude
towards the information.
The fourth hypothesis, Attitude Towards Information impacts Purchase
Intention, is only supported when a respondent has indicated to have a high
Need of Information (check Table 49 as a reference).
Nevertheless, were these findings in contrast to most of the literature, as
the findings of this study show a not significant relationship when the Need of
Information is low. This was not expected as two very renowned theories: TRA
(Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) and TPB (Schifter and Ajzen, 1985), have
empirically validated that Attitude Towards Information directly influences
behavioural intention, which in this research refers to consumers’ Purchase
Intention. But, the results from this research demonstrate that this only applies
when consumers are in high Need of Information.

5.2.2 How to understand the consumer

Literature indicates that over the years, consumers have gotten exposed
to an increasing amount of media (Bickart and Schindler, 2001; Godes and
Mayzlin, 2004). This information overload has made it more difficult for
consumers to make choices on their own (Hennig-Thurau and Walsh, 2003;
Godes and Mayzlin, 2004; Martensen and Mouritsen, 2016; Ford, 2017). Thus,
consumers increasingly start to consult with each other to discuss the options
available (Herr, Kardes and Kim, 1991; Moran and Muzellec, 2017). These
statements have been backed up by the findings from this research, as only 10
respondents out of 178 (17.8%) have indicated to have a low Need of
Information. This shows that most people now a days are in high Need of
Information. This result is in line with the expectations from the literature
(Kozinets et al., 2010). Hence, consumers now a days are in high need of
valuable information, which helps them simplify their decision-making process.

82
5.2.2.1 Need of Information
This research hypothesised that Need of Information would adjust the
Attitude Towards Information, based on findings from earlier research done by
Knoll (2015). The findings from this research are in compliance with findings
form earlier literature as the T-test pointed out that the means are significantly
different for both groups, see Table 33 in sub-paragraph 4.5.1.3.
However, an interesting finding from the results are the fact that the mean
value for the group with low Need of Information is significantly higher, for 3 out
of 4 items measured, see Figure 14, for a graphic visualisation.

ATI Mean Value

4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
ATI1 ATI2 ATII4 ATI5

ATI Low Need ATI High Need

FIGURE 14 ATITUDE TOWARDS INFORMATION MEAN VALUE

Thus, most consumers are nowadays in high Need of Information, but the
consumers with low Need of Information have a more positive Attitude Towards
Information. Meaning that with the right messages they are more inclined to
eventually have an intention to purchase, as this study has shown that Attitude
Towards Information is positively correlated with Purchase Intention.
These findings were not predicted by the researcher, as they contradict the
findings from earlier research done by e.g. Hussain et al., (2018). Because,
one would expect that consumers with high Need of Information are more open
to accepting new information and have a more positive Attitude Towards
Information. But the findings from this research show that consumers with low
Need of Information have a more positive Attitude Towards Information.

83
 A possible reason for this could be that consumers with low Need of
Information, are more easily seduced/persuaded by marketeers and eWOM
marketing, due to the fact that they are in less Need of Information and are
therefore less critical and sceptical. Consumers are overthrown with
information on a daily basis. Therefore, have they learned to filter this
information and only consider the bits and pieces they find useful, especially
when they are looking for a specific type of information which helps them with
their decision-making process (Chen, Shang and Kao, 2009). If consumers are
not looking specifically for information, c.q. they are in low Need of Information,
it could very well be that they are more open and less sceptical, as they are
less likely to be in an ‘information overload’ modus. Thus, a good first
impression is more easily made with consumers with a low Need of Information
than with consumers with a high need.
Nevertheless, call these discrepancies for a closer investigation in the
future. Because, when marketeers know where a consumer stands, they can
adapt their town of voice accordingly, to better facilitate the needs of the
consumer. For a person who is in high Need of Information a different message
applies, opposed to someone who is in low Need of Information. For the latter
one, a message which induces their need would better apply. So, if a marketeer
changes the way he/she communicates, a consumer could realize that it needs
information, even though it previously did not think so beforehand, thereby
inducing their Purchase Intention.

5.2.3 Accumulated brand image

The past two paragraphs have focussed on suggestions that managers and
marketeers can implement, and which can show instant result. This paragraph
suggests that companies should also focus on their accumulated brand image,
as this is a highly influential variable which impacts Purchase Intention.
Because eWOM advice/information only goes so far within the decision-making
process of consumers’ Purchase Intention. This research demonstrates that a
consumers’ Pre-held Belief adjusts the decision-making process.

5.2.3.1 Discussing the findings of Pre-held Belief

A Pre-held Belief is a personal opinion that represents the relationship
between two things. Consumers create Pre-held Beliefs themselves, through
experiences and their social environment (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). Based

84
on the TRA model, which shows that the “attitude towards a behaviour” is
determined by “beliefs about the outcome of that behaviour”, Pre-held Belief
was added as a moderator within the EIAM (Mitchell and Olson, 1981).
Thus, this research hypothesised that Pre-held Belief would moderate the
relationship between Attitude Towards Information and Purchase Intention.
The results in Table 38 (sub-paragraph 4.5.2.2) demonstrate that indeed the
mean values are significantly different for both people with a positive Pre-held
Belief and people negative Pre-held Belief.
These findings are in compliance with earlier literature from Fishbein and
Ajzen (1975), and Mitchell and Olson’s (1981) findings. Thus, H6 is accepted.
When looking at the mean value and standard deviation of both groups,
see Figure 15, it can be seen that Group 1 (don’t like Apple) have a lower mean
for all items, compared to Group 2 (like Apple).

PI Mean
3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
PI 1 PI 2 PI 3 PI 4 PI 5

PI Don't Like Apple PI Like Apple

FIGURE 15 PURCHASE INTENTION MEAN VALUE

Group 2 (Like Apple)

Group 2, who were presented with NWOM, were at the end of the
questionnaire still ‘neutral’ (3.0) or ‘agree’ (4.0) in terms of their Purchase
Intention after seeing the negative post on Instagram measured on a 5-point
Likert scale (see Figure 15). This is in-line with the findings from Wang,
Cunningham and Eastin (2015) as they argue that NWOM has less of an effect
than PWOM. Respondents were still willing to purchase after being presented
with NWOM, thereby indicating that the effect is not that extreme.

85
 Besides this, explain Wang, Cunningham and Eastin (2015) that ‘brand
familiarity’ plays pivotal role in the process of deciding whether or not to take
the eWOM in to consideration. If a brand is unfamiliar, or someone has never
previously purchased from that brand eWOM can be really influential. It helps
the customer to understand the quality of the brand better and the eWOM
manages their expectations. E.g. “The clothes are really cheap, with fast
delivery, however they rip easily. For a cheap new look for a night out is it the
brand perfect” {PICTURE on INSTAGRAM}.
This eWOM post is highly descriptive and manages expectations for future
consumers. They know what they can expect and it could be very well that this
eWOM could be the decisive factor in their decision-making process.
However, this research has used Apple as a brand. One of the most
renowned brands in the world. It is therefore very likely that the eWOM is less
influential. E.g. what could have happened, is that respondents thought that
one Instagram post from a friend was not enough for them to completely
change their mind about purchasing Apple products in the future. Especially
because they are already so familiar with the brand and have already made up
their minds on the brand. This means that respondents felt that their own
opinion about the brand (Pre-held Belief) was more influential than one
conflicting eWOM post. However, it does not mean that if there was an
abundance of NWOM from friends, all regarding the same Apple product, that
their own Pre-held Belief would still hold up and be more influential than the
NWOM from friends. Nonetheless, has this not been tested in this research, as
respondents were only presented with 1 eWOM post and therefore this is just
a suggestion of what could be the reason for this outcome.

Group 1 (Don’t Like Apple)

Then, if you look at the results from Group 1, indicate the results that the
mean value is either disagree (2.0) or neutral (3.0) for this group, after being
presented with PWOM. Implying that consumers who first indicated to dislike
Apple, still have a negative/ somewhat neutral opinion in terms of their
Purchase Intention for Apple products after being presented with PWOM. Thus,
the PWOM has impacted the decision-making process for respondents to now
be a bit less negative, but they are still not positive in terms of their Purchase
Intention.
These results are not in-line with the theories and findings from Wang,
Cunningham and Eastin (2015). As they state that a positive message is more

86
persuasive, thereby implying that group 2 (dislike Apple) would have a positive
mean value in terms of Purchase Intention after being confronted with the
PWOM, which is not the case.

5.2.3.2 What should marketeers do

Thus, to summarize: incompliance with the expectations, are consumers
still willing to buy Apple products after being confronted with negative eWOM
about the brand, meaning that a persons’ Pre-held Belief weighs stronger than
1 conflicting eWOM post. The same goes for consumers who indicated to
dislike Apple, after begin confronted with PWOM, as they are still not positive
in terms of their Purchase Intention. Meaning that their own personal Pre-held
Belief still sways their Purchase Intention.
Marketeers should focus on finding out what consumers currently think of
the brand; do they have a positive connotation with the brand or not. Focussing
on consumers with a negative connotation, finding out what caused this and
trying to resolve it, will in the long run have a worthwhile outcome for the brand.
Especially for familiar brands applies this rule, because consumers have made
up their minds about the brand and this will not change just because one friend
has spoken controversially to their own personal Pre-held Belief. If a consumer
thinks badly of your brand it will take some time to change this belief. But it is
worthwhile to invest in changing this belief, as results show that a negative Pre-
held Belief is not easily changed by eWOM. It will take time to constructively
rebuild the trust of that consumer in the brand. For unfamiliar brands is eWOM
highly influential and will sway a consumer more easily. Therefore, it is
important to invest time and resources in creating a positive Pre-held Belief
when starting a new brand.

2.3 Contingency in Marketing

This research has set a certain context by which it explains how the eWOM
adoption process is adjusted by Need of Information and Pre-held Belief. It
demonstrates empirical results that Attitude Towards Information is a direct
determinant for Purchase Intention and that Attitude Towards Information is
impacted by: information- quality, credibility and usefulness. Thereby indicating
the impact of eWOM information on Instagram on consumers’ Purchase
Intention on Instagram.

87
 However, it would be naïve to think that these are the only factors impacting
and determining the adoption process of eWOM. Factors which have not been
considered in this research, but have been considered in other researchers’
studies are factors regarding the relationship between the sender and the
receiver of the eWOM. This research has only specified to the respondents that
the eWOM was from a friend. However, it is very likely that consumers rely on
different friends for different product categories in terms of advice. E.g. I value
Alexandra’s opinion relating fashion queries, my brother’s opinion is of grave
importance when choosing a new car and when I am deciding between two
Universities I value my parents’ opinion. This example clearly shows that a
persons’ opinion is valued based on more than the relationship with that
person.
This considering, would mean that factors such as, knowledge of sender
(Chu and Kim, 2011; Fang, 2014), and tie strength (Hansen, 1999; Mahapatra
and Mishra, 2017; Srivastava and Walia Sharma, 2017), impact how much a
respondent trusts and values the information from the sender (Chu and Kim,
2011). As the questionnaire didn’t specify what type of friend it was, just that it
was a friend, could it be that some respondents thought of the friend to be
knowledgeable and other respondents could have thought of the eWOM to be
from a random friend with little knowledge on the product. This could have
altered the findings for this research, if these factors would have been taking in
to account.
Another factor which has not been taken in to account is volume and
valance of the eWOM information (Cheung and Thadani, 2012). Earlier
literature (Duan, Gu and Whinston, 2008), has stipulated that both these factors
impact the eWOM adoption process. E.g. Cheung and Thadani (2012) state
that, consumers pay more attention to NWOM and that this form of eWOM also
impacts the decision making process more, opposed to PWOM. Hence, these
factors could have altered the findings for this research, if they would have
been considered.

2.4 Conclusion
Thus, in conclusion, the findings from this research present a new
empirically validated model, called the EIAM.

88
 FIGURE 16 THE EIAM, AFTER EMPIRICAL VALIDATION

Above Figure 16 shows the EIAM after being empirically validated and
partially tested. There is one remark and that is that even though “Need of
Information” is adopted as a moderator for Attitude Towards Information
supported by literature, it has only been empirically validated within the
experiment for people with high Need of Information. In order to validate the
model with low Need of Information a much bigger sample size would be
necessary.
Marketeers and manager should focus on improving the Information
Quality, credibility and usefulness as this will positively influence the attitude
and thereby subsequently influence Purchase Intention.
What is interesting and what was not expected beforehand, was the fact
that the group of respondents who indicated to have a low Need of Information
(10 respondents) had a more positive attitude towards the information than the
group who indicated to have high Need of Information (168).
Lastly, marketeers should really aim to invest in consumers that have
negative Pre-held Belief towards their brand. Pre-held Belief is a strong
influential factor that adjusts consumers’ Purchase Intention and is therefore in
the long run really worth investing time and money in. As the results have
shown that Pre-held Belief is more influential than eWOM that contradicts their
own beliefs for familiar brands, such as Apple.

89
 CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION
This chapter will form the overall conclusion for this dissertation and
thereby provide a synopsis of the findings from this study. First, the research
aim and objectives are discussed. Followed by, the research findings build
which answer the research questions. Thereafter, the research contributions
are summarized and practical recommendations are suggested. Lastly, the
research limitations are discussed and future research recommendations are
made.

6.1 Research aim and objectives

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of eWOM
information on consumers’ Purchase Intention on Instagram. Even though,
eWOM is a heavenly investigated matter, it had not yet been investigated from
an information transmission perspective taking place on Instagram, up until this
study. That is why this research focussed on finding the antecedents that form
the attitude towards eWOM information on Instagram and investigates how
they impact consumers’ Purchase Intention. Subsequently, thereby filling the
literature gap.
To achieve this goal, two research questions were developed, see Table
50.
TABLE XLIX RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Number Research Questions

1 To investigate the relation between a set of antecedents
(information characteristics) that determine the attitude
towards information on Instagram.
2 To understand how consumers’ need of information adjusts
the eWOM adoption process and purchase intention.
3 To understand how consumers’ pre-held belief moderates the
eWOM adoption process and purchase intention

In order to answer these two research questions, 4 objectives were set,

which allowed the two research questions to be answered, see Table 51, for
the objectives.

90
 TABLE L RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

Research Objectives
1. To find out what the antecedents of eWOM adoption on Instagram
are from an information transmission perspective.
2. To identify if the eWOM adoption process is moderated by users’
“Need of Information” and “Pre-held Belief” on Instagram, and see
how it impacts consumers’ Purchase Intention on Instagram, by
looking at the between group difference in their response.
3. To test the correlation in the conceptual model via an experimental
approach that suggests the proposed impact that eWOM has on
consumer’s Purchase Intention on Instagram.
4. To supply an empirically tested conceptual model in order to provide
understanding to marketers so they know which antecedents impact
the attitude towards the information and understand the impact that
eWOM has on consumers’ Purchase Intention on Instagram.

The findings for those 4 objectives are now going to be discussed in the
following sub-paragraphs 6.1.1 till 6.1.4.

6.1.1 Objective 1
This research found the following antecedents to influence the eWOM
adoption process, See Table 52:

TABLE LI ANTECEDENTS OF EWOM ADOPTION PROCESS

Antecedents of eWOM adoption

- Information Quality
- Information Credibility
- Information Usefulness
- Attitude Towards Information
- Need of Information
- Pre-held Belief
These factors all impact the behavioral intention, which for this research
refers to Purchase Intention.

91
6.1.2 Objetive 2
In order to check if the eWOM adoption process is moderated by the two
variables “Need of Information” and “Pre-held Belief” they were first individually
analyzed, See Table 53 for the distribution.

TABLE LII MODERATORS AND THEIR DISTRIBUTION

Variable Moderating Individually % Total

divided 100%
Need of Low Need 10 5.62% 178
Information High Need 168 94.38%
Pre-Held Dislike Apple 31 17.42% 178
belief Like Apple 147 82.58%

The eWOM adoption process is indeed moderated by “Need of Information”

and “Pre-held Belief”. Both factors have been accepted within the model, as
the individual T-test indicated significantly different means for both moderators.
But, an overall in-equality in the distribution for both moderators is present.
However, regarding Need of Information, only high Need of Information has
been empirically validated due to un-equal distribution of the sample.

6.1.3 Objective 3
First, the results were analyzed all together, meaning all 178 valid
respondents. Those findings implicated that 3 out of 4 relationships were
significantly correlated. Thereby accepting 3 out 4 hypotheses. However, this
research hypothesized that two factors would moderate the process, namely:
Need of Information and Pre-held Belief. I

6.1.3.1 Moderators
Before these two moderators could be taken in to account they had to be
tested. The previous paragraph has pointed out that both are accepted.

6.1.3.2 Groups
Then, the respondents were categorized in to 4 groups, taking both the
moderators in to account. The following groups were created, See Table 54:

92
 TABLE LIII GROUP DISTRIBUTION

Question Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

Like Apple Like Apple Don’t Like Don’t Like
& High & Low Need Apple & Apple &
Need Information High Need Low Need
Information Information Information

N 144 3 24 7

Then, statistical tests were deployed in order to check the relationship for
the proposed hypotheses, for each group individually.

6.1.3.3 Results
The results showed that Group 1 and 3 accept all the hypotheses. The
conditions set for Group 2, (Like Apple and Low Need of Information) were to
exceptional, and therefore was the researcher unable to reach a big enough
sample size to perform statistical tests for this Group.
Group 4 (Don’t like Apple and Low Need of Information), had a somewhat
bigger sample size (7), but was still very limited. Three out of four hypotheses
were accepted for this group. However, both Group 2 and 4 have ‘low Need of
Information’ as a condition set within their experiment and the distribution
between 5.62% Low Need versus 94.38% High Need of Information, made it
clear that a much bigger sample size is needed in order to create a big enough
sample for Group’s 2 and 4.
Besides this show the results that Pre-held belief has a stronger influence
on Purchase Intention than 1 contradicting piece of eWOM information on
Instagram. It is therefore important for marketeers to investigate what
consumers currently think of their brand.

6.1.4 Objective 4
This research provides an empirically tested model, which demonstrates
the factors that impact the eWOM adoption process from an information
transmission perspective. Marketeers now know which factors they should
focus on, when improving their eWOM Marketing, namely: Information Quality,
Credibility and Usefulness. Besides this, should they focus on investigating the

93
current Pre-held Belief of consumers towards the brand and check whether this
need improving, see Figure 17 for the model.

FIGURE 17 THE EIAM

6.2 Summary of research findings

Both research questions are answered by the findings from this research
(see Table 50 for the research questions).
• This research found that Information Quality, Information
Credibility, Information Usefulness, Attitude Towards Information,
Need of Information and Pre-held Belief are all determinants which
impact a consumers’ Purchase Intention on Instagram.
• Thereby showing the direct positive correlation between
Information- Quality, Credibility and Usefulness for a consumers’
Attitude Towards Information.
• The results also indicate that Knoll (2015) was indeed correct. As
not only characteristics of eWOM information impact the adoption
process, but also the consumers’ behavior towards the eWOM
impacts the process, which in this research is present as “Need of
Information”.
• A consumers’ Need of Information moderates the Attitude Towards
the Information and the relationship between Attitude Towards

94
 Information and Purchase Intention is adjusted by a consumers’
Pre-held Belief.
• This research has found that eWOM information on Instagram has
indeed a significant impact on consumers’ Purchase Intention.
However, a consumers’ Pre-held Belief for a familiar brand weights
stronger in the adoption process, than one piece of contradicting
eWOM information.
• This study has created a new model, called the EIAM, which is
based on the IACM (Erkan and Evans, 2016) and TRA (Fishbein
and Ajzen, 1975), and has been empirically validated through
correlation analysis of 178 valid questionnaires.

6.3 Research contributions

The findings from this study complement those of earlier studies and
contribute with additional evidence that suggests that ‘Need of Information’ and
‘Pre-held Belief’ moderate the eWOM adoption process on Instagram.
Thus, this research contributes to the literature of eWOM information and
the impact that it has on consumers’ Purchase Intention.
It presents empirical evidence for two new moderators within the eWOM
adoption process. Besides this, contributes this research by providing an
empirically validated model (the EIAM), that visualises the determinants of
eWOM information on Instagram which influence consumers’ Purchase
Intention. The model can be used by both marketeers and academics.
The results present that there are three main antecedents that determine a
consumers’ Attitude Towards Information on Instagram, namely: Information
Quality, Credibility and Usefulness. Attitude Towards Information is a direct
precursor for Purchase Intention if a consumers’ Need of Information is high.
Another important finding was the fact that a persons’ Pre-held Belief has
a strong influence on the outcome ‘Purchase Intention’. In some cases, this
factor is even more influential than eWOM information. It is therefore
noteworthy for marketeers to investigate what consumers currently think of
their brand. As a negative Pre-held Belief is not likely going to be changed
overnight by 1 positive eWOM poste from a friend.
Lastly, this research contributes the literature with a mayor empirical study.
Backed up by collected data to support the research with strong external
validity.

95
6.4 Limitations and future research recommendations
As with other research, this study has had some limitations. These should
be considered while interpreting the results. However, most of them offer
promising possibilities for further research.
First of all, the data is limited to respondents who have an Instagram
account. This is an obvious limitation, as this research focused on eWOM on
Instagram. Nevertheless, is it worth mentioning as the researcher had to
exclude some respondents from the analysis due to the fact that they did not
have an Instagram account.
The second thing that should not be overlooked and can definitely have
impacted the results in this study, is the inadequate distribution of sample size
across the four groups during the final analysis part. There is an un- equal
distribution of respondents who indicated to like Apple (82.58%) versus who
don’t like Apple (17.42%). And the same goes for Need of information. As there
were only 10 out of 178 respondents who indicated to be in low Need of
Information. This in-equality in terms of sample size was not caused by the
researcher by e.g. biased sampling. This has to do with the fact that consumers
are generally nowadays more in high Need of Information. In order to overcome
this limitation, a much bigger sample should be used.
However, it also means that the analysis done for the groups with low need
(Group 2 and 4) are not very reliable. Thus, the representativeness is
questionable.
That being said, this research has accepted Need of Information as a
moderator. However, it has only empirically validated the relationship of high
Need of Information within the model, due to the small sample size of “Low
Need of Information” respondents. Because of this, was it impossible to
perform statistical tests on respondents in Group 2 (Like Apple & low Need of
Information). Moreover, further research could aim for a larger sample size and
thereby have more respondents that qualify for Group 2. Thus, allowing this
group to be submitted for statistical tests.
Another possible limitation is the fact that this research has used a highly
familiar brand (Apple) to test Pre-held Belief. As literature has pointed out that
there is a big difference in terms of the impact that eWOM has, regarding
familiar versus unfamiliar brands, is this worth investigating in the future to see
if an unfamiliar brand generates the same findings.

96
 Lastly, the questionnaire only indicated that the eWOM post was from ‘a
friend’. It did not specify what type of friend; how close the respondents were
with the friend in question, nor did it specify if that friend was knowledgeable
about the subject.
Thus, respondents can have either assumed the friend in question to be an
informed friend, or they can have assumed the friend to be a random friend.
This can have impacted the results. As people tend to rely on different types of
friends for different product- /service categories. It would be interesting to
investigate the difference between both types of friends in an Instagram
environment. Thus, one group who views a post from a knowledgeable friend,
and the other group who views the post from a random friend (who has no
specific knowledge or affinity with the product or service).

Future research could further develop the EIAM by increasing the sample
size, taking other factors in to account, such as: relationship with sender,
knowledge of sender, the volume of eWOM information and testing the
difference between familiar brands and unfamiliar brands. Besides this, could
future research also incorporate an improved experimental design, such as
factorial design or Solomon four group design.

97
 CHAPTER 7. REFERENCES

Abbott, W. et al. (2013) ‘An Instagram is worth a thousand words: an industry

panel and audience Q&A’, Library Hi Tech News, 30(7), pp. 1–6. doi:
10.1108/LHTN-08-2013-0047.

Abubakar, A. M., Ilkan, M. and Sahin, P. (2016) ‘eWOM, eReferral and gender
in the virtual community’, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 34(5), pp. 692–
710. doi: 10.1108/MIP-05-2015-0090.

Ahluwalia, R. (2002) ‘How Prevalent Is the Negativity Effect in Consumer

Environments?’, Journal of Consumer Research, 29(2), pp. 270–279. doi:
10.1086/341576.

Al-Shibly, M. S. and Mahadin, B. K. (2018) ‘The Influence of eWOM on

Facebook on the Jordanian Consumers ’ Intentions Towards Restaurants’,
International journal of Applied Business and Economic Research, 15(22 (part-
III)), pp. 67–85.

Alhidari, A., Iyer, P. and Paswan, A. (2015) ‘Personal level antecedents of

eWOM and purchase intention, on social networking sites’, Journal of
Customer Behaviour, 14(2), pp. 107–125. doi:
10.1362/147539215X14373846805707.

Alloy, L. B. and Tabachnik, N. (1984) ‘Assessment of Covariation by Humans

and Animals: The Joint Influence of Prior Expectations and Current Situational
Information’, Psychological Review, 91(I), pp. 112–149. Available at:
http://content.ebscohost.com/ContentServer.asp?T=P&P=AN&K=1984-
08251-
001&S=L&D=pdh&EbscoContent=dGJyMNLe80SeqLY4yOvsOLCmr1CeprV
Ssai4TbWWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGstE23p65PuePfgeyx44Dt6fI
A (Accessed: 28 June 2018).

98
Amblee, N. (2012) ‘Harnessing the Influence of Social Proof in Online
Shopping: The Effect of electronic word of mouth on sales of digital
microproducts’, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 16(2), pp. 91–
113. doi: 10.2753.

Anderson, E. W. (1998) ‘Customer Satisfaction and Word of Mouth’, Journal of

Service Research, pp. 5–17. doi: 10.1177/109467059800100102.

Arenas-Gaitán, J., Rondan-Cataluña, F. J. and Ramírez-Correa, P. E. (2018)

‘Antecedents of WOM: SNS-user segmentation’, Journal of Research in
Interactive Marketing, 12(1), pp. 105–124. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-07-2017-0052. (Accessed: 12 June 2018).

Arndt, J. (1967) ‘Role of Product-Related Conversations in the Diffusion of a

New Product’, Source Journal of Marketing Research, 4(3), pp. 291–295.
Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3149462 (Accessed: 8 November
2017).

Awad, N. F. and Ragowsky, A. (2008) ‘Establishing Trust in Electronic

Commerce Through Online Word of Mouth: An Examination Across Genders’,
Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(4), pp. 101–121. doi:
10.2753/MIS0742-1222240404.

Balakrishnan, A. and Boorstin, J. (2017) Instagram says it now has 800 million
users, up 100 million since April, CNBC. Available at:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/25/how-many-users-does-instagram-have-
now-800-million.html.

Banerjee, S., Bhattacharyya, S. and Bose, I. (2017) ‘Whose online reviews to

trust? Understanding reviewer trustworthiness and its impact on business’,
Decision Support Systems, 96, pp. 17–26. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2017.01.006.

99
Barreto, A. M. (2014) ‘The word-of-mouth phenomenon in the social media era’,
International Journal of Market Research, 56(5), pp. 1–21. doi: 10.2501/IJMR-
2014-043.

Barton, B. (2006) ‘Ratings, Reviews &amp; ROI: How Leading Retailers Use
Customer Word of Mouth in Marketing and Merchandising’, Journal of
Interactive Advertising, 7(1), pp. 1–6. Available at:
http://content.ebscohost.com/ContentServer.asp?T=P&P=AN&K=23266236&
S=R&D=bth&EbscoContent=dGJyMNLe80SeqLY4yOvsOLCmr1Cep7BSsKm
4SbeWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGstE23p65PuePfgeyx44Dt6fIA
(Accessed: 28 June 2018).

Bataineh, A. Q. (2015) ‘The Impact of Perceived e-WOM on Purchase

Intention: The Mediating Role of Corporate Image’, International Journal of
Marketing Studies, 7(1), pp. 126–137. doi: 10.5539/ijms.v7n1p126.

Berger, J. (2014) ‘Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: A review

and directions for future research’, Journal of Consumer Psychology. Society
for Consumer Psychology, 24(4), pp. 586–607. doi:
10.1016/j.jcps.2014.05.002.

Bickart, B. and Schindler, R. M. (2001) ‘Internet forums as influental sources of

consumer information’, Journal of interactive marketing, 15(3), pp. 31–40.
Available at:
http://web.b.ebscohost.com.oxfordbrookes.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfvi
ewer?vid=1&sid=8678e6da-4467-4e1d-b49d-
593bc73d47de%40sessionmgr101 (Accessed: 24 October 2017).

Boerman, S. C., Willemsen, L. M. and Van Der Aa, E. P. (2017) ‘“This Post Is
Sponsored”: effects of sponsorship disclosure on persuasion knowledge and
electronic word of mouth in the context of Facebook’, Journal of Interactive
Marketing. Direct Marketing Educational Foundation, Inc. dba Marketing
EDGE, 38, pp. 82–92. doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2016.12.002.

100
Bone, P. F. (1995) ‘Word-of-mouth effects on short-term and long-term product
judgments’, Journal of Business Research, 32(3), pp. 213–223. doi:
10.1016/0148-2963(94)00047-I.

Brett, M. T. (2004) ‘When is a correlation between non-independent variables

“Spurious”?’, Oikos, 105(3), pp. 647–656.

Brown, J., Brodererick, A. J. and Lee, N. (2007) ‘Word of mouth communication

within online communities: Conceptualizing the online social network’, Journal
of interactive marketing, 21(3), pp. 1–20. doi: 10.1002/dir.

Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2011) Business Research Methods. 3rd Editio. Oxford
Press.

Bughin, J., Doogan, J. and Vetvik, O. J. (2010) A new way to measure word-
of- mouth marketing, McKinsey Quarterly. Available at:
http://vandymkting.typepad.com/files/2010-4-mckinsey-a-new-way-to-
measure-word-of-mouth.pdf (Accessed: 9 November 2017).

Buttle, F. A. (1998) ‘Word of mouth : understanding and managing referral

marketing’, Journal of Strategic Marketing, 6, pp. 241–254. doi:
10.1080/096525498346658.

Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E. and Morris, K. J. (1983) ‘Effects of need for

cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion’, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 45(4), pp. 805–818. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.45.4.805.

Canhoto, A. I. and Clark, M. (2013) ‘Customer service 140 characters at a time :

The users ’ perspective’, Journal of Marketing management 2013, 29(October
2014), pp. 37–41. doi: 10.1080/0267257X.2013.777355.

101
Carah, N. and Shaul, M. (2016) ‘Brands and Instagram: Point, tap, swipe,
glance’, Mobile Media and Communication, 4(1), pp. 69–84. doi:
10.1177/2050157915598180.

Casaló, L. V, Flavián, C. and Ibáñez-Sánchez, S. (2017) ‘Antecedents of

consumer intention to follow and recommend an Instagram account’, Online
Information Review, 41(7), pp. 1046–1063. Available at: https://www-
emeraldinsight-com.oxfordbrookes.idm.oclc.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/OIR-09-
2016-0253 (Accessed: 29 June 2018).

Chatterjee, P. (2000) ‘Online Reviews : Do Consumers Use Them ?’, 28, pp.

129–134.

Chen, Q. and Wells, W. D. (1999) ‘Attitude toward the Site’, Journal of

Advertising Research, 39(5), pp. 27–37. doi: 10.1007/BFb0110117.

Chen, Y. C., Shang, R. A. and Kao, C. Y. (2009) ‘The effects of information

overload on consumers’ subjective state towards buying decision in the internet
shopping environment’, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications.
Elsevier B.V., 8(1), pp. 48–58. doi: 10.1016/j.elerap.2008.09.001.

Chen, Y. and Xie, J. (2008) ‘Online Consumer Review: Word-of-Mouth as a

New Element of Marketing Communication’, Management Science, 54(3), pp.
477–491. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20122400 (Accessed: 25
October 2017).

Cheung, C. M. K. and Lee, M. K. O. (2012) ‘What drives consumers to spread

electronic word of mouth in online consumer-opinion platforms’, Decision
support systems, 53(1), pp. 218–225.

Cheung, C. M. K., Lee, M. K. O. and Rabjohn, N. (2008) ‘The impact of

102
electronic word-of-mouth: The adoption of online opinions in online customer
communities’, Internet Research, 18(2), pp. 229–247. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240810883290 (Accessed: 13 June 2018).

Cheung, C. M. K. and Thadani, D. R. (2012) ‘The impact of electronic word-of-

mouth communication: A literature analysis and integrative model’, Decision
Support Systems, 54, pp. 461–470. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2012.06.008.

Chevalier, J. A. and Mayzlin, D. (2006) ‘The effect of word of mouth on sales:

Online book reviews’, Journal of marketing research, 43(3), pp. 345–354.

Chu, S.-C. and Choi, S. M. (2011) ‘Electronic Word-of-Mouth in Social

Networking Sites: A Cross-Cultural Study of the United States and China’,
Journal of Global Marketing, 24, pp. 263–281. doi:
10.1080/08911762.2011.592461.

Chu, S.-C. and Kim, Y. (2011) ‘Determinants of consumer engagement in

electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites’, International
Journal of Advertising, 30(1), pp. 47–75. doi: 10.2501/IJA-30-1-047-075.

Chuan-Chuan Lin, J. and Lu, H. (2000) ‘Towards an understanding of the

behavioural intention to use a web site’, International Journal of Information
Management, 20(3), pp. 197–208. doi: 10.1016/S0268-4012(00)00005-0.

Coker, B. L. S. (2012) ‘Seeking the opinions of others online: Evidence of

evaluation overshoot’, Journal of Economic Psychology. Elsevier B.V., 33(6),
pp. 1033–1042. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2012.06.005.

Daugherty, T. and Hoffman, E. (2014) ‘eWOM and the importance of capturing

consumer attention within social media’, Journal of Marketing
Communications, 20(1–2), pp. 82–102. doi: 10.1080/13527266.2013.797764.

103
Davis, F. D. (1989) ‘Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User
Acceptance of Information Technology’, MIS Quarterly, 13(3), p. 319–340. doi:
10.2307/249008.

Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P. and Warshaw, P. R. (1989) ‘User Acceptance of

Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models’, Source:
Management Science, 35(8), pp. 982–1003. Available at:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2632151 (Accessed: 29 November 2017).

Dehghani, M. and Tumer, M. (2015) ‘A research on effectiveness of Facebook

advertising on enhancing purchase intention of consumers’, Computers in
Human Behavior. Elsevier Ltd, 49, pp. 597–600. doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.051.

Dellarocas, C. (2003) ‘The Digitization of Word of Mouth: Promise and

Challenges of Online Feedback Mechanisms’, Management Science, 49(10),
pp. 1407–1424. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.49.10.1407.17308.

Delone, W. H. and Mclean, E. R. (2003) ‘The DeLone and McLean Model of

Information Systems Success: A ten-year update’, Journal of Management
Information Systems, 19(4), pp. 9–30. doi: 10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748.

Djafarova, E. and Rushworth, C. (2017) ‘Exploring the credibility of online

celebrities’ Instagram profiles in influencing the purchase decisions of young
female users’, Computer in Human Behavior, 68, pp. 1–7. doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.009.

Dou, X. et al. (2012) ‘Does source matter? Examining source effects in online
product reviews’, Computers in Human Behavior. Elsevier Ltd, 28(5), pp. 1555–
1563. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.015.

Duan, W., Gu, B. and Whinston, A. B. (2008) ‘Do online reviews matter? - An

104
empirical investigation of panel data’, Decision Support Systems, 45, pp. 1007–
1016. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2008.04.001.

Duncan, C. P. and Olshavsky, R. W. (1982) ‘External Search: The role of

consumer Belief’, Journal of Marketing Research, 19(1), pp. 32–43. Available
at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3151528 (Accessed: 29 June 2018).

East, R., Hammond, K. and Lomax, W. (2008) ‘Measuring the impact of positive
and negative word of mouth on brand purchase probability’, International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 25(3), pp. 215–224. doi:
10.1016/j.ijresmar.2008.04.001.

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Jackson, P. R. (2008) Management

Research. 3rd Editio. Sage.

Elwalda, A., Lü, K. and Ali, M. (2016) ‘Perceived derived attributes of online
customer reviews’, Computers in Human Behavior, 56, pp. 306–319. doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.051.

Engel, J. F., Kegerreis, R. J. and Blackwell, R. D. (1969) ‘Word-of-Mouth

Communication by the Innovator’, Journal of Marketing, 33(3), pp. 15–19. doi:
10.2307/1248475.

Erkan, I. (2015) ‘Electronic word of mouth on Instagram: customers’

engagements with brands in different sectors’, International Journal of
Management, Accounting and Economics, 2(12), pp. 1435–1444. doi:
10.1177/2050157915598180.

Erkan, I. and Evans, C. (2016) ‘The influence of eWOM in social media on

consumers’ purchase intentions: An extended approach to information
adoption’, Computers in Human Behavior, 61, pp. 47–55. doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.003.

105
Fan, Y.-W. et al. (2013) ‘Establishing the Adoption of Electronic Word-of-Mouth
through Consumers’ Perceived Credibility’, International Business Research,
6(3). doi: 10.5539/ibr.v6n3p58.

Fang, Y.-H. (2014) ‘Beyond the Credibility of Electronic Word of Mouth:

Exploring eWOM Adoption on Social Networking Sites from Affective and
Curiosity Perspectives’, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 18(3),
pp. 67–101. doi: 10.2753/JEC1086-4415180303.

Fine, M., Gironda, J. and Petrescu, M. (2017) ‘Prosumer motivations for

electronic word - of - mouth communication behaviors’, Journal of Hospitality
and Tourism Technology. doi: 10.1108/JHTT-09-2016-0048.

Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975) ‘Introduction chapter 1’, in Belief, Attitude,

Intention, and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research. 1stt edn,
pp. 1–18. Available at: http://people.umass.edu/aizen/pubs/book/ch1.pdf
(Accessed: 24 November 2017).

Fiske, S. T. (1980) ‘Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of

negative and extreme behavior’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
38(6), pp. 889–906. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.38.6.889.

Fogg, B. (2002) ‘Computers as Persuasive Social Actors’, Persuasive

Technology, December, pp. 90–115. Available at:
http://delivery.acm.org.oxfordbrookes.idm.oclc.org/10.1145/770000/763957/b
_fogg_1.pdf?ip=154.59.124.76&id=763957&acc=OPEN&key=BF07A2EE685
417C5.13739C7233DD5C1D.4D4702B0C3E38B35.6D218144511F3437&__
acm__=1530206587_b86baba1631201c457f1da0ac1913892 (Accessed: 28
June 2018).

Ford, J. B. (2017) ‘Coming in June: advances in research on word-of-mouth in

advertsing’, Journal of advertising research, 4(March).

106
Godes, D. and Mayzlin, D. (2004) ‘Using Online Conversations to Study Word-
of-Mouth Communication’, Marketing Science, 23(4), pp. 545–560. doi:
10.1287/mksc.1040.0071.

Goldsmith, R. E. and Horowitz, D. (2006) ‘Measuring motivations for online

opinion seeking’, Journal of interactive advertising, 6(2), pp. 2–14.

Groeger, L. and Buttle, F. (2017) ‘Who says what to whom in what channel? A
rules theoretic perspective on word-of-mouth marketing’, Journal of Marketing
Management, 33, pp. 1035–1059. doi: 10.1080/0267257X.2017.1325390.

Gunawan, D. D. and Huarng, K.-H. (2015) ‘Viral effects of social network and
media on consumers’ purchase intention’, Journal of Business Research,
68(11), pp. 2237–2241. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.004.

Hajli, N. (2015) ‘Social commerce constructs and consumer’s intention to buy’,

International Journal of Information Management. Elsevier Ltd, 35(2), pp. 183–
191. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.12.005.

Hajli, N. et al. (2017) ‘A social commerce investigation of the role of trust in a

social networking site on purchase intentions’, Journal of Business Research,
71, pp. 133–141. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.10.004.

Hansen, M. T. (1999) ‘The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties

in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits’, Administrative Science
Quarterly, 44(1), p. 82. doi: 10.2307/2667032.

Hennig-Thurau, T. et al. (2004) ‘Electronic WOM via consumer-opinion

platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet?’,
Journal of interactive marketing, 18(1), pp. 38–52. doi: 10.1002/dir.10073.

107
Hennig-Thurau, T. and Walsh, G. (2003) ‘Electronic Word-of-Mouth: Motives
for and Consequences of Reading Customer Articulations on the Internet’,
International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(2), pp. 51–74. doi:
10.1504/IJECRM.2008.020411.

Herr, P. M., Kardes, F. R. and Kim, J. (1991) ‘Effects of Word-of-Mouth and

Product-Attribute Information on Persuasion: An Accessibility-Diagnosticity
Perspective’, Source Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), pp. 454–462.
Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2626839 (Accessed: 26 November
2017).

Hot, A. (2018) Nieuw: Instagram Shopping in Nederland, NEOSEM. Available

at: https://www.neosem.nl/instagram-shopping-in-nederland/.

Hsu, C., Chuan‐Chuan Lin, J. and Chiang, H. (2013) ‘The effects of blogger
recommendations on customers’ online shopping intentions’, Internet
Research, 23(1), pp. 69–88. doi: 10.1108/10662241311295782.

Hsu, C. L. and Lu, H. P. (2004) ‘Why do people play on-line games? An

extended TAM with social influences and flow experience’, Information and
Management, 41(7), pp. 853–868. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2003.08.014.

Huete-Alcocer, N. (2017) ‘A Literature Review of Word of Mouth and Electronic

Word of Mouth: Implications for Consumer Behavior’, Frontiers in Psychology,
8(July), pp. 1–4. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01256.

Hussain, S. et al. (2017) ‘eWOM source credibility, perceived risk and food
product customer’s information adoption’, Computers in Human Behavior.
Elsevier Ltd, 66, pp. 96–102. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.034.

Hussain, S. et al. (2018) ‘Consumers’ online information adoption behavior:

Motives and antecedents of electronic word of mouth communications’,
Computers in Human Behavior. Elsevier Ltd, 80, pp. 22–32. doi:

108
10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.019.

Hwang, Y. (2010) ‘The moderating effects of gender on e-commerce systems

adoption factors: An empirical investigation’, Computers in Human Behavior.
Elsevier Ltd, 26(6), pp. 1753–1760. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.002.

Indriani Martawilaga, A. and Sufiati Purwanegara, M. (2016) ‘Information

acceptance of electronic word of mouth (Ewom) and purchase intention
through haul videos Youtube’, Journal of Business and management, 5(5), pp.
651–660. Available at:
http://journal.sbm.itb.ac.id/index.php/jbm/article/viewFile/2006/1081
(Accessed: 25 October 2017).

Instagram Business Team (2017) Bringing Shopping on Instagram to more

countries, Business Instagram. Available at:
https://business.instagram.com/blog/shopping-on-instagram-goes-global.

Jalilvand, M. R., Esfahani, S. S. and Samiei, N. (2011) ‘Electronic word-of-

mouth: challenges and opportunities’, Procedia Computer Science, 3, pp. 42–
46. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2010.12.008.

Jansen, B. J. et al. (2009) ‘Twitter Power: Tweets as Electronic Word of Mouth’,

Journal of American Society For Information Science and Technology, 60(11),
pp. 2169–2188. doi: 10.1002/asi.21149.

Jeong, E. H. and Jang, S. C. S. (2011) ‘Restaurant experiences triggering

positive electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) motivations’, International Journal
of Hospitality Management. Elsevier Ltd, 30(2), pp. 356–366. doi:
10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.08.005.

Johnson Brown, J. and Reingen, P. H. (1987) ‘Social Ties and Word-of-Mouth

referral Behavior’, Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), pp. 350–362. doi:

109
10.1007/sl0869-007-9037-x.

Jung Kim, S. et al. (2016) ‘Understanding a fury in your words: The effects of
posting and viewing electronic negative word-of-mouth on purchase
behaviors’, Computers in Human Behaviour, 54, pp. 511–521. doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.015.

Kaplan, A. M. and Haenlein, M. (2010) ‘Users of the world, unite! The

challenges and opportunities of Social Media’, Business horizons, 53, pp. 59–
68. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003.

Katawetawaraks, C. and Lu Wang, C. (2011) ‘Online Shopper Behaviour:

Influences of Online Shopping Decision’, Asian Journal of Business Research,
1(2). Available at:
http://www.magscholar.com/joomla/images/docs/ajbr/ajbrv1n2/Online
Shopper Behavior Influences.pdf (Accessed: 20 October 2017).

Katz, E. and Lazarfeld, P. F. (1955) ‘Social Forces’, Law Journal, 34, p. 383.
Available at:
http://heinonline.org.oxfordbrookes.idm.oclc.org/HOL/Page?public=false&han
dle=hein.journals/josf34&page=383&collection=journals (Accessed: 25
October 2017).

Kerkhof, P. (2010) Merken en social media.

Khammash, M. and Griffiths, G. H. (2011) ‘“Arrivederci CIAO.com, Buongiorno

Bing.com” - Electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM), antecedences and
consequences’, International Journal of Information Management. Elsevier Ltd,
31(1), pp. 82–87. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.10.005.

Kim, D. J., Ferrin, D. L. and Rao, H. R. (2008) ‘A trust-based consumer

decision-making model in electronic commerce: The role of trust, perceived

110
risk, and their antecedents’, Decision Support Systems, 44(2), pp. 544–564.
doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2007.07.001.

King, R. A., Racherla, P. and Bush, V. D. (2014) ‘What we know and don’t know
about online word-of-mouth: A review and synthesis of the literature’, Journal
of Interactive Marketing. Elsevier B.V., 28(3), pp. 167–183. doi:
10.1016/j.intmar.2014.02.001.

Kitchen, P. J. et al. (2014) ‘The elaboration likelihood model: Review, critique

and research agenda’, European Journal of Marketing, 48(11–12), pp. 2033–
2050. doi: 10.1108/EJM-12-2011-0776.

Knoll, J. (2015) ‘Advertising in social media: a review of empirical evidence’,

International Journal of Advertising, 35(2), pp. 266–300. doi:
10.1080/02650487.2015.1021898.

Kozinets, R. V et al. (2010) ‘Networked Narratives: Understanding Word-of-

Mouth Marketing in Online Communities’, Journal of Marketingn , 74(2), pp.
71–89. Available at:
http://www.jstor.org.oxfordbrookes.idm.oclc.org/stable/pdf/20619091.pdf?refr
eqid=excelsior%3A08d4de5943f187b2a28f838234487ae8 (Accessed: 25
October 2017).

Lawrence, B., Fournier, S. and Brunel, F. (2013) ‘When companies don’t make
the ad: A multimethod inquiry into the differential effectiveness of consumer-
generated advertising’, Journal of Advertising, 42(4), pp. 292–307. doi:
10.1080/00913367.2013.795120.

Lee, E.-J. and Shin, S. Y. (2014) ‘When do consumers buy online product
reviews? Effects of review quality, product type, and reviewer’s photo’,
Computers in Human Behavior, 31, pp. 356–366. doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.050.

111
Lee, M. and Youn, S. (2009) ‘Electronic word of mouth (eWOM) How eWOM
platforms influence consumer product judgement’, International Journal of
Advertising, 28(3), pp. 473–499.

Leonardi, P. M., Huysman, M. and Steinfield, C. (2013) ‘Enterprise social

media: Definition, history, and prospects for the study of social technologies in
organizations’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(1), pp. 1–
19. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12029.

Leung, X. Y., Bai, B. and Stahura, K. A. (2015) ‘The Marketing Effectiveness

of Social Media in the Hotel Industry: A Comparison of Facebook and Twitter’,
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 39(2), pp. 147–169. doi:
10.1177/1096348012471381.

Levy, S. and Gvili, Y. (2015) ‘How credible is e-word of mouth across digital-
marketing channels? The roles of social capital, information richness, and
interactivity’, Journal of Advertising Research, 55(1). doi: 10.2501/JAR-55-1-
095-109.

Li, J. and Zhan, L. (2011) ‘Online persuasion: How the written word drives
WOM -evidence from consumer- generated product reviews’, Journal of
Advertising Research, 51(1), pp. 239–258. doi: 10.2501/JAR-51-1-239-257.

Li, P. et al. (2018) ‘The modeling and analysis of the word-of-mouth marketing’,
Physica A, 493, pp. 1–16. doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2017.10.050.

Liébana-Cabanillas, F. and Alonso-Dos-Santos, M. (2017) ‘Factors that

determine the adoption of Facebook commerce: The moderating effect of age’,
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 44, pp. 1–18. doi:
10.1016/j.jengtecman.2017.03.001.

Lim, B. H. et al. (2015) ‘#mytweet via Instagram: Exploring User Behaviour

112
across Multiple Social Networks’. doi: 10.1145/2808797.2808820.

Litvin, S., Goldsmith, R. and Pan, B. (2006) ‘Electronic Word-of-Mouth in

Hospitality and Tourism Management’, Tourism Management, 29(3), pp. 458–
468. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2011.06.012.

Liu, L. (2017) Instagram Continues Its Mind-Blowing Rise, Entrepreneur.

Available at: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/294949 (Accessed: 14
November 2017).

Lu, B., Fan, W. and Zhou, M. (2016) ‘Social presence, trust, and social
commerce purchase intention: An empirical research’, Computers in Human
Behavior. Elsevier Ltd, 56, pp. 225–237. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.057.

Lu, L.-C., Chang, W.-P. and Chang, H.-H. (2014) ‘Consumer attitudes toward
blogger’s sponsored recommendations and purchase intention: The effect of
sponsorship type, product type, and brand awareness’, Computers in Human
Behavior, 34, pp. 258–266. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.007.

Luca, A. (2016) The Rise and Rise of Instagram in 2016, Buffer Stories.
Available at: https://stories.buffer.com/the-rise-and-rise-of-instagram-in-2016-
4e7679777ba0 (Accessed: 14 November 2017).

MacKinnon, D. P. (2011) ‘Integrating mediators and moderators in research

design’, Research on Social Work Practice, 21(6), pp. 675–681. doi:
10.1177/1049731511414148.

Mahapatra, S. and Mishra, A. (2017) ‘Acceptance and forwarding of electronic

word of mouth’, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 35(5), pp. 594–610.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-01-2017-0007 (Accessed: 13 June
2018).

113
Martensen, A. and Mouritsen, J. (2016) ‘Using the power of Word-Of-Mouth to
leverage the effect of marketing activities on consumer responses’, Total
Quality Management and Business Excellence, 27(7–8), pp. 927–943. doi:
10.1080/14783363.2016.1187996.

Mauri, A. G. and Minazzi, R. (2013) ‘Web reviews influence on expectations

and purchasing intentions of hotel potential customers’, International Journal of
Hospitality Management. Elsevier Ltd, 34(1), pp. 99–107. doi:
10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.02.012.

Mehra, G. (2017) 105 Leading Social Networks Worldwide,

PracticalEcommerce. Available at: https://www.practicalecommerce.com/105-
leading-social-networks-worldwide.

Michaelidou, N., Siamagka, N. T. and Christodoulides, G. (2011) ‘Usage,

barriers and measurement of social media marketing: An exploratory
investigation of small and medium B2B brands’, Industrial Marketing
Management. Elsevier Inc., 40(7), pp. 1153–1159. doi:
10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.09.009.

Mitchell, A. A. and Olson, J. C. (1981) ‘Are Product Attribute Beliefs the Only
Mediator of Advertising Effects on Brand Attitude?’, Journal of Marketing
Research, 18(3), p. 318. doi: 10.2307/3150973.

Moran, G. and Muzellec, L. (2017) ‘eWOM credibility on social networking sites:

A framework’, Journal of Marketing Communications, 23(2), pp. 149–161. doi:
10.1080/13527266.2014.969756.

Mudambi, S. M. and Schuff, D. (2010) ‘What makes a helpful online review? A

study of customer reviews on Amazon.com’, MIS Quarterly, 34(1), pp. 185–
200. Available at:
http://content.ebscohost.com/ContentServer.asp?T=P&P=AN&K=48478363&
S=R&D=bth&EbscoContent=dGJyMNLr40Sep7c4yOvsOLCmr1CeprVSsqm4

114
SrOWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGstE23p65PuePfgeyx44Dt6fIA
(Accessed: 19 June 2018).

Nickerson, R. S. (1998) ‘Confirmation bias: A unique phenomenon in many

guises’, Review of General Psychology, 2(2), pp. 175–220. Available at:
http://landman-psychology.com/ConfirmationBias.pdf.

Nieto, J., Hernández-Maestro, R. M. and Muñoz-Gallego, P. A. (2014)

‘Marketing decisions, customer reviews, and business performance: The use
of the Toprural website by Spanish rural lodging establishments’, Tourism
Management. Elsevier Ltd, 45, pp. 115–123. doi:
10.1016/j.tourman.2014.03.009.

Pan, L. Y. and Chiou, J. S. (2011) ‘How Much Can You Trust Online
Information? Cues for Perceived Trustworthiness of Consumer-generated
Online Information’, Journal of Interactive Marketing. Direct Marketing
Educational Foundation, Inc., 25(2), pp. 67–74. doi:
10.1016/j.intmar.2011.01.002.

Pan, Y. and Zhang, J. Q. (2011) ‘Born Unequal: A Study of the Helpfulness of

User-Generated Product Reviews’, Journal of Retailing. New York University,
87(4), pp. 598–612. doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2011.05.002.

Park, C.-H. and Kim, Y.-G. (2003) ‘Identifying key factors affecting consumer
purchase behavior in an online shopping context’, International Journal of
Retail & Distribution Management. Emerald, 31(1), pp. 16–29. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1108/09590550310457818351 (Accessed: 25 October
2017).

Park, D.-H. and Lee, J. (2008) ‘eWOM overload and its effect on consumer
behavioral intention depending on consumer involvement’, Electronic
Commerce Research & Applications, 7, pp. 386–398. doi:
10.1016/j.elerap.2007.11.004.

115
Park, D.-H., Lee, J. and Han, I. (2007) ‘The Effect of On-Line Consumer
Reviews on Consumer Purchasing Intention’, International Journal of
Electronic Commerce, 11(4), pp. 125–148. Available at:
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.oxfordbrookes.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfvi
ewer?vid=1&sid=989d2fb2-35b9-46bb-b850-
d212fb7fe457%40sessionmgr4010 (Accessed: 24 October 2017).

Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T. and Goldman, R. (1981) ‘Personal involvement as

a determinant of argument-based persuasion’, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 41(5), pp. 847–855. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.41.5.847.

Phua, J., Venus Jin, S. and Kim, J. (Jay) (2017) ‘Gratifications of Using
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or Snapchat to follow brands: the moderating
effect of social comparison, trust, tie strength, and network homophily on brand
identification, brand engagement, brand commitment, and membership
intentio’, Telematics and Informatics, 34, pp. 412–424. doi:
10.1016/j.tele.2016.06.004.

Pittman, M. and Reich, B. (2016) ‘Social media and loneliness: Why an

Instagram picture may be worth more than a thousand Twitter words’,
Computers in Human Behavior. Elsevier Ltd, 62(September), pp. 155–167. doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.084.

Prendergast, G., Ko, D. and Yuen, S. Y. V. (2010) ‘Online word of mouth and
consumer purchase intentions’, International Journal of Advertising, 29(5), p.
2. doi: 10.2501/S0265048710201427.

Ragin, C. and Zaret, D. (1983) ‘Theory and Method in Comparative Research :

Two Strategies’, Oxford University Press, 61(3), pp. 731–754.

Reichelt, J., Sievert, J. and Jacob, F. (2014) ‘How credibility affects eWOM
reading: The influences of expertise, trustworthiness, and similarity on

116
utilitarian and social functions’, Journal of Marketing Communications, 20(1–
2), pp. 65–81. doi: 10.1080/13527266.2013.797758.

Relling, M. et al. (2016) ‘Each can help or hurt: Negative and positive word of
mouth in social network brand communities’, International Journal of Research
in Marketing, 33, pp. 42–58. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2015.11.001.

Richard, L., Roland, T. and Varki, S. (1997) ‘Customer delight Foundations,

findings, and managerial insight’, Journal of Retailing, 73(3), pp. 311–336.

Richins, M. L. (1983) ‘Negative Word-of-Mouth by Dissatisfied Consumers : A

pilot study’, American Marketing Association, 47(1), pp. 68–78.

Ring, A., Tkaczynski, A. and Dolnicar, S. (2014) ‘Word-of-Mouth Segments:

Online, Offline, Visual or Verbal?’, Journal of Travel Research, 55(4), pp. 1–12.
doi: 10.1177/0047287514563165.

Rosnow, R. L. and Arms, R. L. (1968) ‘Adding versus averaging as a stimulus-

combination rule in forming impressions of groups’, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 10(4), pp. 363–369. doi: 10.1037/h0026820.

Saleem, A. and Ellahi, A. (2017) ‘Influence of Electronic Word of Mouth on

Purchase Intention of Fashion Products on Social Networking Websites’,
Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, 11(2), pp. 597–622.
Available at: http://www.jespk.net/publications/384.pdf (Accessed: 15
November 2017).

Sandes, F. S. and Urdan, A. T. (2013) ‘Electronic Word-of-Mouth Impacts on

Consumer Behavior: Exploratory and Experimental Studies’, Journal of
International Consumer Marketing, 25(3), pp. 181–197. doi:
10.1080/08961530.2013.780850.

117
Sarmient Guede, J. R., Javier, D. E. C. and Antonovica, A. (2017) ‘Viral
communication through social media: analysis of its antecedents’, Revista
Latina de Comunicación Social, 72, pp. 69–86.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2012) Research Methods for

business Students. 6h edition. Pearson.

Schifter, D. E. and Ajzen, I. (1985) ‘Intention, Perceived Control, and Weight

Loss: An Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior’, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 49(3), pp. 843–851. Available at:
http://content.ebscohost.com/ContentServer.asp?T=P&P=AN&K=1986-
03768-
001&S=L&D=pdh&EbscoContent=dGJyMNLe80SeqLY4yOvsOLCmr1Cep7B
Srqi4S7SWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGstE23p65PuePfgeyx44Dt6fI
A (Accessed: 28 June 2018).

Schmäh, M., Wilke, T. and Rossmann, A. (2017) ‘Electronic Word-of-Mouth: A

Systematic Literature Analysis’, in Alexander Rossmann and Alfred
Zimmermann (eds) Lecture Notes in Informatics. Bonn: Digital Enterprise
Computing, pp. 147–158. Available at:
https://dl.gi.de/bitstream/handle/20.500.12116/112/paper13.pdf?sequence=1
&isAllowed=y (Accessed: 26 November 2017).

See-To, E. W. K. and Ho, K. K. W. (2014) ‘Value co-creation and purchase

intention in social network sites: The role of electronic Word-of-Mouth and trust
- A theoretical analysis’, Computers in Human Behavior, 31, pp. 182–189. doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.013.

Sekaran, U. and Bougie, R. (2013) Research Methods for Business. sixts edit.
United Kingdom: WILEY.

Shu-Chuan, C. and Yoojung, K. (2011) ‘Determinants of consumer

engagement in electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites’,

118
International Journal of Advertising, 30(1), pp. 47–75. Available at:
http://oxfordbrookes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.
aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=59258234&site=ehost-live.

Shu, C. (2017) Instagram opens its shoppable posts feature to retailers on

Bigcommerce’s platform, TechCrunch. Available at:
https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/02/instagram-opens-its-shoppable-posts-
feature-to-retailers-on-bigcommerces-platform/ (Accessed: 14 November
2017).

Sia, C. L., Tan, B. C. Y. and Wei, K. K. (1999) ‘Can a GSS stimulate group
polarization? An empirical study’, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and
Cybernetics, 29(2), pp. 227–237. doi: 10.1109/5326.760567.

Solis, B. and Breakenridge, D. (2009) Putting the public back in public relations:
How social media is reinventing the aging business of PR, Director. doi: -.

Sotiriadis, M. and Zyl, C. (2013) ‘Electronic word-of-mouth and online reviews

in tourism services: the use of twitter by tourists’, Electronic Commerce
Research, 13(1), pp. 103–124. doi: 10.1007/s10660-013-9108-1.

Srivastava, D. and Walia Sharma, R. (2017) ‘Developing a model for studying

the antecedents and effects of word of mouth (WOM) and e-WOM Marketing
based on Literature review’, Journal of Business Research, 6(1), pp. 25–43.
Available at:
http://journals.sagepub.com.oxfordbrookes.idm.oclc.org/doi/pdf/10.1177/2278
682117700307 (Accessed: 12 June 2018).

Statista (2018a) Distribution of Instagram users worldwide as of January 2018,

by age group, Statista. Available at:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/325587/instagram-global-age-group/.

119
Statista (2018b) Number of monthly active Instagram users from January 2013
to September 2017 (in millions), Statista. Available at:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/253577/number-of-monthly-active-
instagram-users/.

Stokes, D. and Lomax, W. (2002) ‘Taking control of word-of-mouth marketing:

the case of an entrepreneurial hotelier’, Journal of Small Business and
Enterprise Development, 9(4), pp. 349–357.

Subramani, M. R. and Rajagopalan, B. (2003) ‘Knowledge-Sharing and

Inlfuence in Online Social Networks via Viral Marketing’, Communications of
the ACM, 46(12), pp. 300–307.

Sundaram, D. S., Mitra, K. and Webster, C. (1998) ‘Word-of-Mouth

Communications: A Motivational Analysis’, Advances in Consumer Research,
25, pp. 527–531. Available at:
http://content.ebscohost.com/ContentServer.asp?T=P&P=AN&K=83386489&
S=R&D=bth&EbscoContent=dGJyMNLr40Sep7c4yOvsOLCmr1CeprRSs6m4
SK6WxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGstE23p65PuePfgeyx44Dt6fIA
(Accessed: 19 June 2018).

Sussman, S. W. and Siegal, W. S. (2003) ‘Informational influence in

organizations: An integrated approach to knowledge adoption’, Information
systems research, 14(1), pp. 47–65.

Teng, S. et al. (2014) ‘Examining the antecedents of persuasive eWOM

messages in social media’, Online Information Review, 38(6), pp. 746–768.
doi: 10.1108/OIR-04-2014-0089.

Tharenou, P., Donohue, R. and Cooper, B. (2007) Management Research

Methods. 1st Editio. Cambridge University Press.

120
Ting, H. and Cyril De Run, E. (2015) ‘Beliefs about the Use of Instagram : An
Exploratory Study’, International Journal of Business and Innovations, 2(2).

Trabasso, T. and van den Broek, P. (1985) ‘Causal thinking and the
representation of narrative events’, Journal of Memory and Language, 24(5),
pp. 612–630. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(85)90049-X.

Trusov, M., Bucklin, R. E. and Pauwels, K. (2009) ‘Effects of Word-of-Mouth

versus Traditional Marketing: Findings from an Internet Social Networking Site’,
Source Journal of Marketing, 73(5), pp. 90–102. Available at:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20619048 (Accessed: 29 June 2018).

van der Veen, R. (2017) ‘SPSS class 2’. Oxford.

Wallace, T. (2017) How to Sell on Instagram with Instagram Shopping,

Bigcommerce. Available at: https://www.bigcommerce.com/blog/instagram-
shopping/ (Accessed: 14 November 2017).

Wang, S., Cunningham, N. R. and Eastin, M. S. (2015) ‘The Impact of eWOM

Message Characteristics on the Perceived Effectiveness of Online Consumer
Reviews’, Journal of Interactive Advertising, 15(2), pp. 151–159. doi:
10.1080/15252019.2015.1091755.

Wang, T. et al. (2016) ‘What drives electronic word-of-mouth on social

networking sites? Perspectives of social capital and self-determination’,
Telematics and Informatics, 33, pp. 1034–1047. doi:
10.1016/j.tele.2016.03.005.

Wang, Y. and Yu, C. (2015) ‘Social interaction-based consumer decision-

making model in social commerce: The role of word of mouth and observational
learning’, International Journal of Information Management. Elsevier Ltd, 37(3),
pp. 179–189. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.11.005.

121
Wathen, C. N. and Burkell, J. (2002) ‘Believe it or not: Factors infl uencing
credibility on the Web’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science
and Technology, 53(2), pp. 134–144.

Woiceshyn, J. and Daellenback, U. (2018) ‘Evaluating inductive vs deductive

research in management studies: implications for authors, editors, and
reviewers’, Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An
International Journal, 13(2), pp. 183–195. doi: 10.1108/QROM-07-2015-1307.

Yan, Q. et al. (2016) ‘E-WOM from e-commerce websites and social media:
Which will consumers adopt?’, Electronic Commerce Research and
Applications, 17, pp. 62–73. doi: 10.1016/j.elerap.2016.03.004.

Yee Cheung, M. et al. (2009) ‘Credibility of Electronic Word-of-Mouth:

Informational and Normative Determinants of On-line Consumer
Recommendations’, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 13(4), pp.
9–38. doi: 10.2753/JEC1086-4415130402.

Zhang, J. Q., Craciun, G. and Shin, D. (2010) ‘When does electronic word-of-
mouth matter? A study of consumer product reviews’, Journal of Business
Research, 63, pp. 1336–1341. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.12.011.

Zhang, T. C., Abound Omran, B. and Cobanoglu, C. (2017) ‘Generations Y’s

positive and negative eWOM: use of social media and mobile technology’,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(7), pp.
732–761. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-10-2015-0611
(Accessed: 28 June 2018).

Zhang, Z. et al. (2010) ‘The impact of e-word-of-mouth on the online popularity

of restaurants: A comparison of consumer reviews and editor reviews’,
International Journal of Hospitality Management. Elsevier Ltd, 29(4), pp. 694–
700. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.02.002.

122
Zhao, K., Stylianou, A. C. and Zheng, Y. (2018) ‘Sources and impacts of social
influence from online anonymous user reviews’, Information & Management,
55, pp. 16–30. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2017.03.006.

Zikmund, W. et al. (2010) Business Research Methods. 8th Editio. South

Western Cengage Learning.

123
 CHAPTER 8. APPENDICES

APPENDIX 8.1: Questionnaire

Project EWOM

Start of Block: BLOK 1

Dear Respondent

You are invited to participate in a study undertaken by me, Carlijn ten

Heggeler, a MSc. student at Oxford Brookes University. This research aims to
investigate the impact of electronic word of mouth (eWOM) on consumers’
Purchase Intention on Instagram. I sincerely invite you to participate in the
research and fill in this questionnaire, as you will thereby help me conduct my
research. It will only take 5 minutes of your time and participation is ofcourse
voluntary. The questionnaire is anonymous and the responses will be
analysed at an aggregate level, not individually. The results are used for the
completion of this research and will only be used for academic purposes. It is
possible to stop at any moment during the questionnaire. However, I would
really appreciate your participation. Thank you for your cooperation, and for
any questions or further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Carlijn ten Heggeler

Oxford Brookes University Oxford, UK
Email: 17016588@brookes.ac.uk

I
Q1 What is your gender?

o Male

o Female

o Prefer not to say

Q2 What is your age?

o >18

o 18-22

o 23-27

o 28-32

o 33-37

o 38-42

o <42

II
 Q3 What is your level of education?

o Highschool

o Bachelor/ Undergraduate

o Masters / Postgraduate

Q4 How often do you read online customer reviews before making a

purchase?

o Never

o Sometimes

o Half the time

o Frequently

o Always

Q5 Do you have an Instagram account?

o No

o Yes

III
 Q6 How often do you use Instagram

o Never

o Very rare

o Ones or twice a week

o 3-5 days a week

o Everyday

Page
Break

IV
 Q7 Product Reviews

Not Less So- Very

Important
important important So important

In
general,
how
important
do you
think it is to
find
information
on a
product,
o o o o o
e.g.
product
reviews, in
order to
make a
smarter/
better
purchase
decision?

V
 Q8
Apple products

Not Not Very

Undecided Somewhat
at all really much

Can
you
indicate
to what
extend
o o o o o
you like
the
brand
Apple?

Page
Break

End of Block: BLOK 1

Start of Block: BLOCK 3 shows Positive eWOM

VI
 Q9 Dear participant,
Below an Instagram post is shown. Please imagine that the post is posed
by a friend of yours.
Your friend is reviewing Apple in the Instagram post.
Please go over the Instagram post, thus:
- the picture,
- the caption written by your friend,
- the likes it received,
- and the comments written underneath the picture. Then answer the
following 5 questions, keeping this Instagram post in mind.

VII
Evaluate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following
statements, based on this Instagram post from your friend.
Strong
Disagr Neutr Agre Strong
ly
ee al e ly agree
disagree

I think
they have
sufficient
reasons for o o o o o
supporting
their opinion

I think the
information is
o o o o o
objective

I think the
information is
understanda o o o o o
ble

I think the
information is
o o o o o
un-clear

I think the
quality of the
information is o o o o o
high

VIII
 Q10 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements,
based on the Instagram post from your friend
Strong
Disagr Neutr Agre Strong
ly
ee al e ly agree
disagree

I think
the
information
o o o o o
is
convincing

I think
the
information o o o o o
is credible

I think
the
information
is o o o o o
untrustwort
hy

I think I
can rely on
this piece of o o o o o
information

I think
the
information o o o o o
is accurate

IX
 Q11 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements,
based on the Instagram post from your friend

X
 Strongl Disagre Neutr Agre Strongl
y disagree e al e y agree

I think
in general
that it is o o o o o
useful

I think
in general
that it is o o o o o
informative

I think
in general
I have
obtained
benefits o o o o o
from
reading
this post

I think
in general
it helps to
visit a
friends
Instagram o o o o o
account to
get ideas
for new
products

XI
 I think
in general
it helps me
to visit a
friends
Instagram o o o o o
account
for product
suggestion
s

XII
 Q12 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements,
based on the Instagram post from your friend

XIII
 Strongl Disagre Neutr Agre Strongl
y disagree e al e y agree

I think
in general
they make
o o o o o
me feel
secure

I think
in general
they make
me feel o o o o o
comfortabl
e

I think
in general
they make
my
o o o o o
decision to
buy
difficult

I think
in general
they make
me
irritated o o o o o
when I
buy a
product

XIV
 I think
in general
they make
me feel
confident
o o o o o
in
purchasin
g the
product

XV
 Q13 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements,
based on the Instagram post from your friend
Strongl Disagre Neutr Agre Strongl
y disagree e al e y agree

I think
it is very
likely that I
will buy o o o o o
the
product

I will
purchase
the Apple
product
o o o o o
next time I
need that
product

I am
more open
to
purchasin o o o o o
g Apple
products

I will
definitely
try the
o o o o o
Apple
product

I will
recommen
d the
Apple o o o o o
product to
my friends

XVI
 End of Block: BLOCK 3 shows Positive eWOM

Start of Block: BlOCK 2 shows NWOM

Q9 Dear particpant,

Below an Instagram post is shown. Please imagine that the post is posed by
a friend of yours.
Your friend is reviewing Apple in the Instagram post.
Please go over the Instagram post, thus:
- The photo,
- The caption written by your friend underneath the photo,
- The likes it received,
- And the comments written underneath the photo

Then answer the following 5 questions, keeping this Instagram post in mind.

XVII
Evaluate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements,
based on this Instagram post from your friend.
Strong
Disagr Neutr Agre Strong
ly
ee al e ly agree
disagree

I think
they have
sufficient
reasons for o o o o o
supporting
their opinion

I think the
information is
o o o o o
objective

I think the
information is
understanda o o o o o
ble

I think the
information is
o o o o o
un-clear

I think the
quality of the
information is o o o o o
high

XVIII
 Q10 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements,
based on the Instagram post from your friend
Strong
Disagr Neutr Agre Strong
ly
ee al e ly agree
disagree

I think
the
information
o o o o o
is
convincing

I think
the
information o o o o o
is credible

I think
the
information
is o o o o o
untrustwort
hy

I think I
can rely on
this piece of o o o o o
information

I think
the
information o o o o o
is accurate

XIX
 Q11 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements,
based on the Instagram post from your friend

XX
 Strongl Disagre Neutr Agre Strongl
y disagree e al e y agree

I think
in general
that it is o o o o o
useful

I think
in general
that it is o o o o o
informative

I think
in general
I have
obtained
benefits o o o o o
from
reading
this post

I think
in general
it helps to
visit a
friends
Instagram o o o o o
account to
get ideas
for new
products

XXI
 I think
in general
it helps me
to visit a
friends
Instagram o o o o o
account
for product
suggestion
s

XXII
 Q12 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements,
based on the Instagram post from your friend

XXIII
 Strongl Disagre Neutr Agre Strongl
y disagree e al e y agree

I think
in general
they make
o o o o o
me feel
secure

I think
in general
they make
me feel o o o o o
comfortabl
e

I think
in general
they make
my
o o o o o
decision to
buy
difficult

I think
in general
they make
me
irritated o o o o o
when I
buy a
product

XXIV
 I think
in general
they make
me feel
confident
o o o o o
in
purchasin
g the
product

XXV
 Q13 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements,
based on the Instagram post from your friend
Strongl Disagre Neutr Agre Strongl
y disagree e al e y agree

I think
it is very
likely that I
will buy o o o o o
the
product

I will
purchase
the Apple
product
o o o o o
next time I
need that
product

I am
more open
to
purchasin o o o o o
g Apple
products

I will
definitely
try the
o o o o o
Apple
product

I will
recommen
d the
Apple o o o o o
product to
my friends

XXVI
End of Block: BlOCK 2 shows NWOM

APPENDIX 8.2: Cronbach Alpha

8.2.1 Information Quality

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
Based on Standardized
Items
.695 .699 5

8.2.2 Information Credibility

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
Based on Standardized
Items
.777 .780 5

8.2.3 Information Usefulness

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
Based on Standardized
Items
.827 .827 5

8.2.4 Attitude Towards Information

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
Based on Standardized
Items
.703 .700 4

8.2.5 Purchase Intention

Reliability Statistics

XXVII
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
Based on Standardized
Items
.863 .862 5

XXVIII
 APPENDIX 8.3: T-test for Need of Information

8.3.1 T-test: Information Quality

Independent Samples Test

Levene's t-test for Equality of Means
Test for
Equality of
Variances
F Sig. t df S Mean
ig. Differenc
(2- e
taile
d)
IQ Equal 1.30 .255 -1.287 176 .200 -.346
1 variances 7
assumed
IQ Equal .287 .593 .684 176 .495 .229
2 variances
assumed
I Equal .240 .625 1.487 176 .139 .404
Q variances
3 assumed
I Equal 1.198 .275 .570 176 .569 .157
Q variances
4 assumed
I Equal .120 .729 .695 176 .488 .204
Q variances
5 assumed

8.3.2 T-test: Information Credibility

Independent Samples Test

Levene's t-test for Equality of Means
Test for
Equality of
Variances
F Sig. t df Sig. Mean
(2- Differenc
tailed e
)

XXIX
IC1 Equal .003 .95 .01 176 .991 .004
variance 8 2
s
assume
d
IC2 Equal 4.354 .038 -.662 11.43 .521 -.126
variance 4
s not
assume
d
IC3 Equal 5.204 .024 -.356 9.471 .730 -.152
variance
s not
assume
d
IC Equal .112 .73 2.197 176 .029 .687
4 variances 8
assumed
IC5 Equal .189 .66 -.293 176 .770 -.079
variance 4
s
assume
d

8.3.3 T-test: Information Usefulness

Independent Samples Test

Levene's t-test for Equality of Means
Test for
Equality of
Variances
F Sig. t df Sig. Mean
(2- Difference
tailed)
IU1 Equal .019 .890 .464 176 .644 .144
variances
assumed
IU2 Equal .355 .552 .691 176 .491 .208
variances
assumed

XXX
IU3 Equal .477 .491 .264 176 .792 .089
variances
assumed
IU4 Equal .988 .321 .728 175 .468 .274
variances
assumed
IU5 Equal .043 .835 - 175 .761 -.112
variances .305
assumed

8.3.4 T-test: Attitude Towards Information

Independent Samples Test

Levene's t-test for Equality of Means
Test for
Equality of
Variances
F Sig. t df Sig. Mean
(2- Difference
tailed)
ATI Equal .923 .338 2.422 176 .016 .733
1 variances
assumed
ATI Equal .013 .908 2.244 176 .026 .644
2 variances
assumed
ATI Equal .167 .683 1.642 175 .102 .467
4 variances
assumed
Equal 5.294 .023 .301 9.491 .770 .138
variances
not
assumed
ATI
5

XXXI
 APPENDIX 8.4: T-Test Pre-held Belief
8.4.1 T-test: Attitude Towards Information

Independent Samples Test

Levene's t-test for Equality of Means
Test for
Equality of
Variances
F Sig. t df Sig. Mean
(2- Differenc
tailed e
)
ATI 1 Equal 6.747 .010 1.84 37.24 .073 .412
variance 4 1
s not
assumed
ATI Equal .462 .49 2.92 176 .004 .506
2 variance 8 9
s
assumed
ATI 4 Equal 5.489 .020 5.00 48.795 .000 .731
variance 8
s not
assumed
ATI 5 Equal 27.09 .000 .096 35.27 .924 .025
variance 7 0
s not
assumed

8.4.2 Purchase Intention

Independent Samples Test

Purchase Intention Levene's t-test for Equality of Means
Test for
Equality of
Variances
F Sig. t df Sig. Mean
(2- Difference
tailed)

XXXII
PI1 Equal .474 .492 - 176 .000 -.800
variances 4.507
assumed
PI2 Equal .345 .558 - 176 .000 -1.296
variances 6.876
assumed
PI3 Equal .177 .674 - 176 .000 -.927
variances 4.745
assumed
PI4 Equal 2.460 .119 - 176 .001 -.630
variances 3.409
assumed
PI5 Equal 2.944 .088 - 176 .000 -.786
variances 3.953
assumed

XXXIII
 APPENDIX 8.5: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION PER GROUP

8.5.1 Group 1
GROUP 1 Frequency Percentage Cumulative
N=144 (%) Percentage (%)
Gender
Male 43 29.9% 29.9%
Female 101 70.1% 100%
Total 144 100%
Age
>18 1 .7% .7%
18-22 44 30.6% 31.3%
23-27 85 59.0% 90.3%
28-32 12 8.3% 98.6%
33-37 2 1.4% 100%
Total 144 100%
Education
Highschool 4 2.8% 2.8%
Bachelor/ 97 67.4% 70.1%
Undergraduate
Masters/ 43 29.9% 100%
Postgraduate
Total 144 100%

XXXIV
 Reading reviews
Never 1 .7% .7%
Sometimes 41 28.5% 29.2%
Half the time 33 22.9% 52.1%
Frequently 52 36.1% 88.2%
Always 17 11.8% 100%
Total 144 100%
Instagram account
No 0 0% 0%
Yes 144 100% 100%
Total 144 100%
Use Instagram
Very Rare 1 .7% .7%
1 or 2 times a week 5 3.5% 4.2%
3-5 days a week 12 8.3% 12.5%
Everyday 126 87.5% 100%
Total 144 100%

8.5.2 Group 2
GROUP 2 Frequency Percentage Cumulative
N=3 (%) Percentage (%)
Gender
Female 3 100% 100%
Total 3 100%
Age
18-22 2 66.7% 66.7%
23-27 1 33.3% 100%
Total 3 100%
Education
Bachelor/ 2 66.7% 66.7%
Undergraduate
Masters/ 1 33.3% 100%
Postgraduate
Total 3 100%

XXXV
 Reading reviews
Sometimes 2 66.7% 66.7%
Frequently 1 33.3% 100%
Total 3 100%
Instagram account
Yes 3 100% 100%
Total 3 100%
Use Instagram
3-5 days a week 1 33.3% 33.3%
Everyday 2 66.7% 100%
Total 3 100%

8.5.3 Group 3
GROUP 3 Frequency Percentage Cumulative
N=24 (%) Percentage (%)
Gender
Male 11 45.8% 45.8%
Female 13 54.2% 100%
Total 24 100%
Age
>18 5 20.8% 20.8%
18-22 8 33.3% 54.2%
23-27 9 37.5% 91.7%
28-32 2 8.3% 100%
33-37 0 0% 100%
Total 24 100%
Education
Highschool 0 0% 0%
Bachelor/ 5 20.8% 20.8%
Undergraduate
Masters/ 19 79.2% 100%
Postgraduate
Total 24 100%

XXXVI
 Reading reviews
Never 0 0% 0%
Sometimes 8 33.3% 33.3%
Half the time 11 45.8% 79.2%
Frequently 3 12.5% 91.7%
Always 2 8.3% 100%
Total 24 100%
Instagram account
No 0 0% 0%
Yes 24 100% 100%
Total 24 100%
Use Instagram
Very Rare 13 54.2 % 54.2%
1 or 2 times a week 0 0% 54.2%
3-5 days a week 2 8.3% 62.5%
Everyday 9 37.5% 100%
Total 24 100%

8.5.4 Group 4
GROUP 4 Frequency Percentage Cumulative
N=7 (%) Percentage (%)
Gender
Male 2 28.6% 28.6%
Female 5 71.4% 100%
Total 7 100%
Age
>18 3 42.9% 42.9%
18-22 4 57.1% 100%
23-27 0 0% 100%
28-32 0 0% 100%
33-37 0 0% 100%
Total 7 100%
Education
Highschool 2 28.6% 28.6%
Bachelor/ 2 28.6% 57.1%
Undergraduate

XXXVII
Masters/ 3 42.9% 100%
Postgraduate
Total 7 100%
Reading reviews
Never 2 28.6% 28.6%
Sometimes 3 42.9% 57.1%
Half the time 2 28.6% 100%
Frequently 0 0% 100%
Always 0 0% 100%
Total 7 100%
Instagram account
No 0 0% 0%
Yes 7 100% 100%
Total 7 100%
Use Instagram
Very Rare 7 100% 100%
1 or 2 times a week 0 0% 100%
3-5 days a week 0 0% 100%
Everyday 0 0% 100%
Total 7 100%

XXXVIII
 APPENDIX 8.6: Group 2 Correlation
Group 2 consists of people who indicated to like Apple and have a low Need
of Information. Only 3 respondents fitted these criteria and therefore is the
sample size for this group extremely small.

8.6.1 Pearson’s R correlation

Only one of the relationships is found to be significant in group 2, namely
the relationship between ATI and PI: r = -1.000, n = 3, p = .000. However, the
relationship is negatively correlated. Meaning that, when ATI increases, PI
decreases and vice versa. Table 54, present an overview of the data.

TABLE LIV GROUP 2 CORRELATION

Group 2 Pearson Sig. (2-tailed) Significant

(3 people) 1* = <0.05 = significant relationship
2** = <0.01 = very
significant.
IQ and ATI -.756 .454 No
IC and ATI .971 .154 No
IU and ATI -.756 .454 No
ATI and PI -1.000** .000 Yes

As there are only 3 respondents in this group, the results are not reliable
as the sample does not properly represent the population. Therefore, no
definitive statements can be made about the hypothesis.

XXXIX