Asia Pacific Paper 3

Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics
Electronic word-of-mouth generation and regulatory focus

Muhammad Sohaib, Umair Akram, Peng Hui, Hassan Rasool, Zohaib Razzaq, Muhammad Kaleem
Khan,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Muhammad Sohaib, Umair Akram, Peng Hui, Hassan Rasool, Zohaib Razzaq, Muhammad Kaleem
Khan, (2019) "Electronic word-of-mouth generation and regulatory focus", Asia Pacific Journal of
Marketing and Logistics, https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-06-2018-0220
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-06-2018-0220
Downloaded by University Library At 02:48 21 June 2019 (PT)
Downloaded on: 21 June 2019, At: 02:48 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 87 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:485088 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-5855.htm
eWOM
Electronic word-of-mouth generation and
generation and regulatory focus regulatory
focus
Muhammad Sohaib
School of Economics and Management,
Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, China
Umair Akram Received 13 June 2018
Guanghua School of Management, Peking University, Beijing, China Revised 20 October 2018
14 December 2018
Peng Hui 25 February 2019
12 April 2019
School of Economics and Management, Accepted 15 April 2019
Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, China
Hassan Rasool
Department of Business Studies, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics,

Islamabad, Pakistan
Zohaib Razzaq
Hailey College of Commerce, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan, and
Muhammad Kaleem Khan
Department of Management Sciences,
COMSATS University Islamabad (Sahiwal Campus), Sahiwal, Pakistan
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) motivations of
regulatory-focused customers with positive and negative consumption experiences.
Design/methodology/approach – An online survey is conducted in Beijing and Shanghai. A random sampling
technique is used to collect data from 854 respondents. Two scenarios of eWOM communication – positive and
negative consumption experiences – are randomly assigned to each respondent. This study employs the structural
equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis techniques. However, it uses ordinary least squares and logistic
regression to analyze 137 participants in the experimental study.
Findings – Promotion-focused customers that aim for self-enhancement and obtaining social benefits are
motivated to spread positive eWOM on social networking sites. However, prevention-focused customers are driven
by vengeance and anxiety, revealing higher intentions to post negative eWOM on review sites. eWOM generation
is subject to gender, as promotion-focused male customers spread it more than both prevention-focused and
promotion-focused female customers. Moreover, platform assistance (PA) has a significant positive impact upon
regulatory-focused customers and eWOM (positive vs negative) relationships.
Practical implications – This study provides a deeper understanding of motivational factors of eWOM
communication. Specifically, in case of product or service failure, negative consumption experiences drive
prevention-focused customers to generate negative eWOM. Thus, using various tactics, marketers need to
shift customers from focusing on prevention to focusing on promotion. For example, redeemable free coupons
can shift customer attention and generate positive eWOM.
Originality/value – This study provides unique insights about eWOM motivation across genders.
It examines regulatory focus, positive vs negative consumption experiences and moderation of PA.
Keywords Regulatory focus, SNSs, eWOM motivations, Platform assistance, Review sites
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Word of mouth (WOM) has long been a vital area of research among practitioners and
researchers for its significant effect on purchase behavior (Chong Lim and Chung, 2014; Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing
and Logistics
Dinh and Mai, 2016; Fu et al., 2015; Tercia and Teichert, 2016). It is a prevailing factor in the © Emerald Publishing Limited
1355-5855
market and the perfect tool to study customer relations (Bendapudi and Berry, 1997). DOI 10.1108/APJML-06-2018-0220
APJML The internet and the subsequent popularity of customer opinion websites lead to the
emergence of WOM in an electronic format, or electronic word of mouth (eWOM). eWOM is
considered to be a more influential, prompt and convenient process than traditional word of
mouth (tWOM) (Sun et al., 2006). However, the earlier form of eWOM lacked characteristics
such as an interpersonal nature (De Matos and Rossi, 2008) and face-to-face conversation
( Jeong and Jang, 2011), which make WOM influential. Anonymous reviews make it
challenging for potential customers to determine informational credibility (Park and Lee,
2009) because such information may be generated by the merchant or another related entity
( Jeong and Jang, 2011).
The earlier forms of eWOM lacked several features of original WOM, including
credibility, due to the anonymity of the reviewer and perceived personal feeling. However,
these shortcomings have been addressed with the growing use of social networking sites
(SNSs). SNSs enable quick and easy dissemination of eWOM communication among
different groups (Xue Yang, 2019). The primary reason for this change is that SNSs enable
users to create personal profiles with real-life features, such as personal preferences and
photos (Akram, Hui, Khan, Yan and Akram, 2018). SNSs serve as interactive platforms for
senders, receivers and seekers of eWOM (Chu and Kim, 2011), and information can be
tailored according to the needs of users (Daugherty et al., 2008). These users have different
motivations for writing online reviews (Sohaib et al., 2019).
Previous studies have exhaustively researched the motivation to spread eWOM
(Chu et al., 2019; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004; Reimer and Benkenstein, 2016; Sundaram et al.,
1998). However, the large and fragmented nature of the field makes it difficult to
comprehend the full extent of the eWOM literature. The motivational factors in this study
can be divided into two categories: individual inspirations and consumption experiences.
Individual customers motivated by self-enhancement seek opportunities to acquire fame by
sharing positive eWOM (Yap et al., 2013). Social benefits also motivate them to share their
consumption experiences with their friends and the public (Daugherty et al., 2008). Negative
consumption experiences drive individuals to seek vengeance from organizations
(Ward and Ostrom, 2006). Moreover, venting negative emotions by articulating negative
eWOM helps reduce their anxiety and frustration (Carver, 2004). These motivations can be
associated with individual regulatory focus (Zhang et al., 2010).
The regulatory focus theory states that individuals are motivated to seek opportunities
with two different intentions: promotion and prevention. Promotion refers to intentions of
self-enhancement and social benefits and is inclined toward positive end states. Prevention
focuses on vengeance and anxiety reduction, and preventing others from negative end
states. Furthermore, promotion-focused customers post more positive eWOM than
prevention-focused ones (Higgins, 1997). Hennig-Thurau et al. (2004) explained that platform
assistance (PA) motivates both promotion-focused and prevention-focused customers
because of advantages such as aspiration, social benefits and ease of complaining. PA
may motivate both groups of customers to articulate positive and negative eWOM.
Promotion-focused customers intend to communicate via eWOM on SNSs, rather than on
review sites (Fu et al., 2015; Shin et al., 2014). SNSs are designed to support only the
socialization aspects, and review websites aim to support the consumption-related
experiences of individual customers (Shin et al., 2014).
Previous literature documented gender-related differences in eWOM motivations
(Fan and Miao, 2012; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004; Kempf and Palan, 2006). Males tend to be
dominant in conversation with others, craving social benefits and presenting themselves as
“expert shoppers” to others (Kim and Benbasat, 2003). Females are more likely to develop
social relationships and get expert advice from their friends (Tannen, 1995). They tend to
have strong sympathy for others and focus more on processing information in detail than
males (Tercia and Teichert, 2017). On the other hand, both males and females deal with
injustices in daily life. Bad consumption experiences cause negative emotions (Venkatesh eWOM
and Morris, 2000), and males with such negative emotions are likely to resolve the conflict generation and
with the company through eWOM, while also aiming to improve their social status regulatory
(Shen et al., 2014). This suggests that different genders have different motivations and
exhibit distinct behaviors concerning eWOM under regulatory focus. focus
First, this is among the few studies that integrate the regulatory focus theory with
internal and consumption-related motivational factors, which are self-enhancement, social
benefits, vengeance and anxiety reduction. Second, individual customers may have different
motivations for posting eWOM (positive or negative) on SNSs or online review sites
(Ananda et al., 2019; Chen and Kirmani, 2015; Sohaib, Hui, Akram, Akram and Bilal, 2018;
Yen and Tang, 2015). Third, different genders may exhibit different motivations for
spreading eWOM. Fourth, consistent with the results of existing literature, this study finds
PA to be a significant motivational factor. PA seems to be a moderating factor between the
association of regulatory focus and eWOM.
The results provide theoretical insights on the determinants of eWOM. The proposed
research model significantly contributes to the existing literature in the field. From a
managerial viewpoint, it provides deeper understanding of the different facets of eWOM
communication, eWOM behavior across genders, and media choice between SNSs and
online review sites, based on different motivations. Moreover, this study is useful for
marketers in determining strategies for eWOM motivations.
This study addresses the following research questions:
RQ1. Are eWOM motivations associated with regulatory focus?
RQ2. How does regulatory focus impact eWOM?
RQ3. How does PA moderate the association between regulatory focus and eWOM?
RQ4. Are eWOM motivations different across genders?
RQ5. Which type of online media platform will customers choose under regulatory
focus?
2. Theoretical background and hypotheses

The evolutionary nature of the internet has transformed tWOM into eWOM. Hennig-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.” eWOM communication can take place on various
online media platforms, for example, blogs, online review sites, discussion platforms and
SNSs (Goldsmith and Horowitz, 2006). It allows customers to exchange information rapidly
and conveniently (Cheung and Lee, 2012).
eWOM content creation is an integrative process resulting from an individual’s
motivation concerning an incident or stimulus that is realized in online media (Gvili and
Levy, 2018; Levy and Gvili, 2015). Previous studies found that customers who had positive
consumption experiences were more likely to disseminate positive eWOM (Royo-Vela and
Casamassima, 2011; Shin et al., 2014). Conversely, bad experiences or emotions, such as
dissatisfaction, anger and frustration, lead to negative eWOM with the intention to warn
others or exact revenge on organizations (Boo and Kim, 2013; Royo-Vela and Casamassima,
2011). Consumption experiences (positive or negative) with different eWOM motivations
lead to the selection of relevant media (Fine et al., 2017; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004).
eWOM media choice varies with customer motivation (Schindler and Bickart, 2005) and
the type of online media is an important factor in deciding where to write online reviews
(Bronner and De Hoog, 2011). Therefore, online media choice and eWOM content are
APJML fundamentally linked (Wilson et al., 2012). Researchers argued that media choice is linked to
customer intentions based on various motives (Yen and Tang, 2019; Chen and Kirmani,
2015; Yen and Tang, 2015). Promotion-focused individuals desiring social benefits and self-
enhancement tend to communicate their consumption-related experiences among friends on
SNSs to build, maintain or restore relationships (Chu et al., 2019; Fu et al., 2015; Yap et al.,
2013). However, prevention-focused individuals with motives such as reducing anxiety and
exacting revenge from an organization tend to post eWOM on review sites (Gorman et al.,
2012; Johnson and Chang, 2008; Shin et al., 2014).
2.1 eWOM motivations

Motivation is perceived as a critical element of general behavior concerning the
dissemination of eWOM and is defined as “an inner desire to make an effort” (Reimer and
Benkenstein, 2016). The existing literature illustrates that motivational factors can be
categorized into two clusters. Motives for engaging in positive eWOM communication differ
from those for negative eWOM (Sundaram et al., 1998). The intentions of customers to post
positive eWOM mainly correlate with the following four elements: self-enhancement, social
benefits, altruism and economic incentives (Gvili and Levy, 2018; Gorman et al., 2012;
Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004; Sundaram et al., 1998).
Four motives contribute to negative eWOM communication: anxiety reduction,
vengeance, altruism and advice seeking (Carver, 2004; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004;
Sundaram et al., 1998). This study included motivations that fit into the context of the
research and findings based on SNSs (Chu and Kim, 2011; Munar and Jacobsen, 2014) and
incorporated review sites (Cheung and Lee, 2012; Yen and Tang, 2015). The four essential
eWOM motivations for this study are described below (see Table I).
2.1.1 Self-enhancement. Self-enhancement is defined as the tendency to present oneself as
an intelligent shopper to enhance one’s image among other customers (Sundaram et al., 1998).
eWOM Online media

Motivation investigated Key studies Description settings
Self-enhancement Positive Cheung and Lee (2012), Heighten the self-image among SNSs, review
eWOM Hennig-Thurau et al. (2004), other customers by sites
Sundaram et al. (1998) representing oneself as an
intelligent shopper
Social benefits Positive Cheung and Lee (2012), Customers initiate eWOM SNSs, review
eWOM Daugherty et al. (2008), communication with aim to get sites
Hennig-Thurau et al. (2004), social identification and
Yap et al. (2013) integration
Anxiety Negative Carver (2004), Fu et al. Customers are likely to share Review sites
eWOM (2015), Sundaram et al. their negative consumption
(1998) experiences to get relief from
anxiety that can lessen anger
and frustration related with
events
Vengeance Negative Johnson and Chang (2008), Customers with negative Review sites
eWOM Sundaram et al. (1998), consumption experiences may
Yap et al. (2013) tend to influence other
customers through their strong
emotional language to punish
Table I.
the offending organization
eWOM motivations
identified in Note: The “Motivation” column explains this study’ classification of eWOM motivation factors based on the
previous literature literature review
Another study discussed individual aspiration to boost self-image (Eisingerich et al., 2015). eWOM
According to the self-enhancement theory, individuals are motivated to enhance their generation and
feelings of self-worth. In comparison to their peers, individuals with negative self-image regulatory
lack self-esteem and will likely attempt to enhance self-esteem through self-views. The
theoretical formulations state that individuals display two different views. Individuals with focus
positive self-esteem provide positive feedback, since they want to think highly of
themselves. On the other hand, individuals with negative self-esteem tend to provide negative
feedback (Cast and Burke, 2002). Furthermore, individuals with higher levels of
self-enhancement intention tend to receive gains rather than losses (Wang and Lee, 2006).
Previous studies also found that self-enhancement motivation leads to seeking opportunities
to enhance self-esteem, which influence an individual’s tendencies to share positive eWOM
(Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004; Tan et al., 2017; Yap et al., 2013). Furthermore, self-enhancement
motivates customers to provide recommendations (Chu et al., 2019) and spread
positive eWOM (Kim et al., 2015). These discussions imply that self-enhancement can
play an important role in association to regulatory focus. This study attempts to
investigate the association between self-enhancement and regulatory focus. This leads to the
following hypothesis:
H1. Self-enhancement is positively associated with promotion focus and negatively
associated with prevention focus.
2.1.2 Social benefits. Social benefits are an individual’s motivation for recognition and social
association within society (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004). Research has identified various
motives for eWOM communication, including attachment and social presence. Attachment to
a group or community motivates individuals to participate in activities that provide them
opportunities to stay connected with friends and the public (Daugherty et al., 2008; Lin et al.,
2014). Furthermore, customers share their consumption experiences through eWOM
communication to validate their presence in society (McWilliam, 2000). Some individuals are
likely to share their consumption experiences with online communities (Beuchot and Bullen,
2005) and express promotion-focused emotions (Higgins, 1989). Customers with intentions of
posting eWOM for social benefit are likely to receive social benefits (Gorman et al., 2012). This
would motivate promotion-focused and prevention-focused customers to engage in positive or
negative eWOM communication. Accordingly, the next hypothesis is as follows:
H2. Social benefits are positively associated with promotion focus and negatively
associated with prevention focus.
2.1.3 Vengeance. A customer who had a negative consumption experience or feelings of
injustice due to service failure wants to “punish” the organization by convincing others to stop
supporting the offending company (Sundaram et al., 1998; Ward and Ostrom, 2006). Generally,
customers who reported a negative consumption experience tend to be pessimistic, as a bad
experience leads to negative emotions, prevention focus and sensitivity to punishment
( Johnson and Chang, 2008). Prevention-focused customers who had a negative consumption
experience want to express their rage, frustration and annoyance in eWOM communication to
hit back at the culprit company (Craciun et al., 2017; Shin et al., 2014). Another study found
that injustice or negative consumption experience leads to the expression of negative feelings
and the use of emotional language in eWOM messages (Yap et al., 2013) and triggers lower
purchase intention (Hsu et al., 2017). The discussions reveal that vengeance would positively
associate with prevention-focused customers and negatively relate to promotion-focused
customers. Therefore, the next hypothesis is as follows:
H3. Vengeance is positively associated with prevention focus and negatively associated
with promotion focus.
APJML 2.1.4 Anxiety. Anxiety or feelings of anxiousness, apprehension or worry are primary
forces that customers experience, as they compose eWOM in response to bad consumption
experiences (Wakefield and Wakefield, 2018). Customers with high anxiety levels exhibit
cautious decision making and perceive events as more threatening, than customers with low
anxiety levels (Carver, 2004). It motivates customers to seek relief from anxiety through
catharsis (Alicke et al., 1992). Expressing negative feelings can help customers reduce
anxiety and frustration (Sundaram et al., 1998) and lower the negative outcomes (Gorman
et al., 2012) by warning others (De Matos and Rossi, 2008). In summary, anxiety is positively
related to prevention focus and negatively related to promotion focus. This leads to the
next hypothesis:
H4. Anxiety is positively associated with prevention focus and negatively associated
with promotion focus.
2.2 Regulatory focus and eWOM

According to the regulatory focus theory, individuals seek their objectives through two
different means of the self-regulatory system: promotion focus or prevention focus (Higgins,
1997). When individuals focus on their primary objectives, aspirations or ideals, they
display promotion focus and are motivated by behavioral strategies aimed at positive end
states (Hsu et al., 2017). Conversely, when focusing on obligatory objectives (e.g. social
welfare or accountability), they display prevention focus characterized by attentive
strategies to avoid negative consequences (Haws et al., 2010). These two different objectives
can be supported by distinct strategic means; that is, promotion focus uses an approach
strategy to attain the goal, while prevention focus uses an avoidance strategy for this
purpose (Higgins, 2002; Lee and Koo, 2012).
Prior research has shown that the regulatory focus and attitude of customers toward
marketing information (promotion being positive and prevention being negative) can
enhance the state of motivations and develop optimism in assessing the existing
information (Zhang et al., 2010). Promotion-focused customers are inclined toward behavior
that generates positive outcomes. Therefore, promotion-focused customers with positive
consumption experiences display higher intentions to post positive eWOM (Shin et al., 2014),
and these positive reviews have a stronger effect on behavioral intentions (to recommend
and visit) (Pentina et al., 2018). On the contrary, prevention-focused customers tend toward
behavior that prevents negative consequences and are more likely to spread negative
consumption experiences through negative eWOM (Shin et al., 2014). From this perspective,
it is reasonable to argue that promotion focus and prevention focus encourage customers to
engage in eWOM communication. Thus, the next hypotheses are as follows:
H5a. Promotion focus has a positive impact on eWOM.
H5b. Prevention focus has a negative impact on eWOM.
2.3 Platform assistance as moderator

Online platforms such as review sites and SNSs enable customers to share their consumption-
related experiences with others conveniently and rapidly (Goldsmith and Horowitz, 2006). PA
brings a unique motivation into the eWOM setting. Customers motivated toward eWOM
communication post their grievances using online media, help others and raise their
self-enhancement levels (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004). Another study revealed that customers
motivated toward eWOM because of self-, other-, and company-focused reasons, and that
experience valance (positive or negative) influences such motives. Furthermore, PA leverages
such motives to attract more individuals to share online reviews, thereby enhancing eWOM
intentions (Kim, 2017). PA also moderates the influence of eWOM quality on purchase eWOM
intention (Tsao and Hsieh, 2015). Previous studies did not consider the moderating role of PA generation and
in regulatory focus (promotion focus and prevention focus) eWOM. From this perspective, it is regulatory
reasonable to argue that PA influences the association between self-regulatory elements
(promotion focus and prevention focus) and eWOM. Hence, the next hypotheses are as follows: focus
H6a. PA moderates the association between promotion focus and positive eWOM.
H6b. PA moderates the association between prevention focus and negative eWOM.
2.4 eWOM behavior across genders

Previous studies explained that different genders exhibit different motivations to generate
eWOM (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004; Fan and Miao, 2012), since males and females
communicate differently (Kempf and Palan, 2006). Females are more likely to consider all the
available information and try to find related or unrelated differences among the various
information sources (Putrevu, 2001). They process information more comprehensively and
focus on the details (Meyers-Levy and Maheswaran, 1991). Conversely, males often rely on
heuristics and focus on useful information rather than all the available information
(Meyers-Levy and Maheswaran, 1991). Females are more concerned with social relationships
than males and often seek advice from close friends on social media (Shi et al., 2016).
Specifically, product-related recommendations from friends have a more significant influence
on the online buying intentions of females than that of males. Another study has confirmed
that external drivers such as the opinion of others have a significant influence on the reaction
of females to eWOM communication (Tercia and Teichert, 2017).
There are differences between oral and online written communication across genders
(Venkatesh and Morris, 2000; Gefen and Straub, 1997). Researchers found that males and
females have different motivations (e.g. self-enhancement, social benefits, vengeance and
anxiety) for engaging in eWOM (Reimer and Benkenstein, 2016; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004;
Sundaram et al., 1998). Females communicate with the objective of collaborating with others
(Tannen, 1995), while males communicate with the objective of raising their social standing
among others (Kim and Benbasat, 2003; Tannen, 1995). Therefore, males tend to dominate
the conversation by sharing their experiences, aiming to receive social benefits through
eWOM communication (Awad and Ragowsky, 2008).
On the other hand, both genders often deal with injustices and communicate in different
ways (Venkatesh and Morris, 2000). Hence, eWOM motivations have dissimilar values and
importance for different genders (Shen et al., 2014). Males focus on competition and their status
in society (Tannen, 1990). For example, bad consumption experiences will motivate them to
convince others of their viewpoint by posting emotional eWOM messages (Ward and Ostrom,
2006). In contrast, females prefer to resolve their disputes in more private ways. This indicates
that males are more motivated to engage in eWOM to discuss conflicts with the company and
boost their social status (Shen et al., 2014). From these discussions, it can be proposed that
promotion-focused males spread much more eWOM than females, although prevention-focused
females will share less eWOM than males. The next hypotheses are as follows:
H7a. Promotion-focused males spread more eWOM than females.
H7b. Prevention-focused females spread less eWOM than males.
2.5 eWOM motivations and media choice

Hennig-Thurau et al. (2004) concluded that writing reviews on and the frequency of site
visits of different media platforms are associated with different motivations. This means
that the eWOM behavior of individuals may vary with different motivations and
APJML media choices. Schindler and Bickart (2005) verified that customers with differing
motivations select different media platforms for reading eWOM. Since review writers are
also readers, media choice plays a significant role in the poster’s decision-making process
when writing online reviews (Bronner and De Hoog, 2011). eWOM content is intrinsically
linked to where it is posted (Wilson et al., 2012). It is found that tie strength, homophily,
social benefits and self-enhancement are important eWOM determinants. Specifically,
customers whose motivation is to establish and maintain social relationships mostly post
online reviews on SNSs (Chu and Kim, 2011; Yen and Tang, 2015). Another study found that
sharing consumption experiences – especially positive ones – with friends is positively
associated with choosing SNSs (Wilson et al., 2012).
Wilson et al. (2012) argued that posting on review sites is positively associated with
customers who had bad consumption experiences. These customers likely want to warn
others rather than express satisfaction. Moreover, customers with bad consumption
experiences may experience depression (Daugherty et al., 2008), leading them to seek
revenge. Therefore, review sites that are unrestricted to the public would be a more effective
media channel than SNSs. If customers were encouraged to post eWOM because of these
motivations, the review sites would be their choice of media. However, media choice varies
with preferred review platform (Fine et al., 2017). Examining motivations provides a clear
picture of motives that drive customers to post online reviews on SNSs or review sites.
Therefore, the next hypotheses are as follows:
H8a. Promotion-focused customers with positive consumption experience are more
likely to post eWOM on SNSs than on review site
H8b. Prevention-focused customers with negative consumption experience are more
likely to post eWOM on review sites than on SNSs.
3. Research design
3.1 Methodology
3.1.1 Sampling. To gauge the supposed associations among the variables in the proposed
conceptual model, interviews were conducted with respondents to measure the
psychometric properties of constructs in the first phase. In the second phase, the original
construct elements (in English) were translated into Chinese before the survey was
conducted. It was then translated back into English with the help of linguistics experts.
Next, an online survey was conducted in two large Chinese cities: Beijing and Shanghai.
The survey asked respondents to recall a recent positive or negative consumption
experience. One of two scenarios (either positive or negative) was randomly assigned to the
respondents. In each scenario, respondents were asked to respond to different situations. In
the negative consumption scenario group, respondents were asked to recall a recent
negative consumption experience before responding to the prevention-related questionnaire.
In the positive consumption scenario group, respondents were required to recall a recent
positive consumption experience before answering the promotion-related questionnaire.
They were asked to answer all the questions, while keeping in the mind their recently shared
positive or negative reviews related to their consumption experiences.
The data were collected over two months from August to September 2017. The data were
treated separately for each scenario. To encourage the survey participants, red envelopes
(红包） – a traditional type of monetary gift – were given. The initial number of responses
was 854 (465 for the positive consumption scenario and 389 for the negative consumption
scenario). Of these, 35 responses were disregarded as the respondents took less than 2 min to
fill the online survey form. The final sample size was 819 (441 in the positive scenario and
378 in the negative scenario) and was considered acceptable. According to Bagozzi and
Yi (1988), each latent variable must be measured with five cases. Therefore, the sample size eWOM
is considered appropriate for this study. Table II shows the sample characteristics. generation and
3.1.2 Measurement. The construct measurement scales were adapted from published regulatory
studies to quantify the proposed relationships among the variables. The face and content
validity of these adapted measures were empirically validated and slight adjustments were focus
made according to the current study’s requirements. The motivations of eWOM – self-
enhancement, social benefits, vengeance and anxiety – were measured with the 14 items
adapted from Hennig-Thurau et al.’s (2004) study. The eight items measuring regulatory
focus were adapted from Lockwood et al.’s (2002) study. PA was assessed as a moderating
variable with the four items adapted from Hennig-Thurau et al.’s (2004) study. Finally, to
examine the eWOM (positive vs negative), three construct items were adapted from Ajzen’s
(2002) study. All of these items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
To test the psychometric properties of the constructs, the reliability and validity of the
construct items were examined using a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The convergent
validity was verified with the composite reliability (CR) and the average variance extracted
(AVE). The results of these measures explained the internal consistency and the
associations among the items. Table III shows items with a loading greater than the
minimum acceptable level of 0.70. The CR of each variable is more than 0.80 and the AVE of
each observed variable is higher than 0.60. The minimum acceptance level of CR is 0.70 and
that of the AVE is 0.50, which shows that convergent validity is achieved (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981). The measures of the goodness of fit indices meet the minimum threshold
values with the positive scenario results being χ2(df ) (709) ¼ 1,281.340, GFI ¼ 0.948, AGFI
¼ 0.929, CFI ¼ 0.964, IFI ¼ 0.957, NFI ¼ 0.952, NNFI ¼ 0.961, RMSEA ¼ 0.043 and the
Positive eWOM (n ¼ 441) Negative eWOM (n ¼ 378)

N % N %
Gender
Male 202 45.80 181 47.88
Female 239 54.20 197 52.12
Age
18–25 165 37.41 136 35.98
26–35 131 29.71 121 32.01
36–45 123 27.89 87 23.02
46 and above 22 4.99 34 8.99
Internet experience
Less than 1 year 4 0.91 2 0.53
1–2 years 9 2.04 7 1.85
2–4 years 17 3.85 13 3.44
More than 4 years 411 93.20 356 94.18
eWOM posting experience
Never 96 21.77 88 23.28
Few (1–2 times) 158 35.83 131 34.66
Frequently (2–3 times) 145 32.88 102 26.98
Often (more than 3 times) 42 09.52 57 15.08
Where to post eWOM
Never 52 11.79 44 11.64
SNSs 306 69.39 79 20.90 Table II.
Review sites 83 18.82 255 67.46 Demographics
Table III.
APJML
Measurement model
Positive eWOM scenario Negative eWOM scenario
Construct Items Mean Loading CR AVE Construct Items Mean Loading CR AVE
Self-enhancement (SE) se01 4.85 0.87 0.90 0.72 Self-enhancement (SE) se01 2.61 0.91 0.86 0.64
se02 4.68 0.82 se02 2.44 0.87
se03 4.89 0.91 se03 2.52 0.85
Social benefits (SB) sb01 4.61 0.93 0.91 0.74 Social benefits (SB) sb01 2.93 0.94 0.92 0.75
sb02 4.39 0.88 sb02 2.86 0.89
sb03 4.26 0.85 sb03 2.82 0.90
Vengeance (VG) vg01 3.52 0.74 0.88 0.69 Vengeance (VG) vg01 4.84 0.82 0.90 0.71
vg02 3.63 0.81 vg02 4.61 0.87
vg03 3.42 0.85 vg03 4.78 0.89
vg04 3.90 0.82 vg04 4.73 0.84
vg05 3.76 0.89 vg05 4.75 0.88
Anxiety (AN) an01 2.53 0.90 0.93 0.76 Anxiety (AN) an01 4.23 0.92 0.95 0.79
an02 2.61 0.93 an02 4.31 0.96
an03 2.44 0.91 an03 4.44 0.91
Promotion focus (PM) pm01 4.57 0.87 0.89 0.71 Promotion focus (PM) pm01 3.91 0.78 0.84 0.61
pm02 4.68 0.92 pm02 3.87 0.77
pm03 4.46 0.85 pm03 3.88 0.75
pm04 4.41 0.83 pm04 3.86 0.79
Prevention focus (PV ) pv01 3.79 0.92 0.92 0.73 Prevention focus (PV ) pv01 5.33 0.86 0.89 0.67
pv02 3.56 0.95 pv02 5.26 0.74
pv03 3.43 0.89 pv03 5.41 0.82
pv04 3.67 0.91 pv04 5.48 0.85
Platform assistance (PA) pa01 5.49 0.88 0.94 0.77 Platform assistance (PA) pa01 5.21 0.92 0.96 0.83
pa02 5.19 0.93 pa02 5.14 0.94
pa03 5.28 0.95 pa03 5.37 0.95
pa04 5.34 0.96 pa04 5.43 0.98
Positive eWOM (PW) pw01 4.64 0.92 0.96 0.81 Negative eWOM (NW) nw01 4.66 0.91 0.93 0.74
pw02 4.79 0.95 nw02 4.92 0.93
pw03 4.39 0.93 nw03 4.58 0.94
negative scenario results being χ2(df ) (788) ¼ 1,364.322, GFI ¼ 0.933, AGFI ¼ 0.928, CFI ¼ eWOM
0.964, IFI ¼ 0.956, NFI ¼ 0.949, NNFI ¼ 0.953, RMSEA ¼ 0.048. All values of the CFA generation and
supported the goodness of fit of the model. regulatory
Furthermore, the discriminant validity explains that the variance shared by a variable is
more associated with its items than with other variables and does not reflect the other focus
measures. To achieve discriminant validity, the square root of the AVE must be greater
than the inter-item associations (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Tables IV and V show the
diagonal items as the square root of the AVE for each variable. These values are higher than
the other correlation coefficients, or the off-diagonal items. This indicates that discriminant
validity is achieved.
3.2 Results
Structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed to examine the proposed causal
relationships among exogenous and endogenous factors. The structural model was
measured using data of distinct subgroups (i.e. males and females separately). The path
coefficients of each subgroup are shown in Table VI. The coefficients explain the significant
differences between the paths of the data sets (male and female). The given path in one set
(males) was fixed and the coefficients changed to be as expected to assess the other
set ( females). To measure the changes, the model was again assessed for the given data set
(males). Furthermore, the χ2 of the models were compared for a given path fixed relative to a
given path free model. If the χ2 are significantly different, the paths between males and
females are considerably different. The values of the fixed paths are shown in parenthesis in
the last paragraph of this section. Table VI also shows the standardized paths. This also
summarizes the differences in the subgroups (males and females) and the corresponding
outcomes of H7a and H7b are summarized in the last column.
SE SB VG AN PM PV PA PW
SE (0.85)
SB 0.23 (0.86)
VG 0.12 0.21 (0.83)
AN 0.09 0.17 0.32 (0.87)
PM 0.46 0.55 0.21 0.18 (0.84)
PV 0.13 0.18 0.29 0.25 0.48 (0.85) Table IV.
PA 0.38 0.43 0.30 0.26 0.58 0.37 (0.88) Correlation matrix
PW 0.60 0.58 0.29 0.24 0.61 0.23 0.56 (0.90) (positive eWOM
Note: Diagonal elements are the squared root of AVE for each construct scenario)
SE SB VG AN PM PV PA NW
SE (0.80)
SB 0.31 (0.87)
VG 0.23 0.31 (0.84)
AN 0.13 0.26 0.47 (0.89)
PM 0.08 0.12 −0.24 −0.17 (0.78)
PV −0.13 −0.22 0.41 0.56 −0.61 (0.82) Table V.
PA 0.31 0.29 0.43 0.48 0.39 0.62 (0.91) Correlation matrix
NW −0.33 −0.31 0.48 0.51 −0.33 0.49 0.57 (0.86) (negative eWOM
Note: Diagonal elements are the squared root of AVE for each construct scenario)
APJML The outcomes of the SEM analysis illustrated that all values fall within the defined level,
which indicates an acceptable model fit in the positive scenario with χ2(731) ¼ 1,348.759,
GFI ¼ 0.943, AGFI ¼ 0.927, CFI ¼ 0.966, IFI ¼ 0.949, NFI ¼ 0.951, NNFI ¼ 0.945,
RMSEA ¼ 0.046, as well as the negative scenario with χ2(846) ¼ 1,574.322, GFI ¼ 0.935,
AGFI ¼ 0.924, CFI ¼ 0.953, IFI ¼ 0.951, NFI ¼ 0.948, NNFI ¼ 0.947 and RMSEA ¼ 0.052.
The positive and negative scenario variance is explained by R2 for the promotion and
prevention focus, which are 44 and 53 percent, respectively. The coefficients between self-
enhancement and promotion focus are β ¼ 0.286, p-valueo0.01, and that between self-
enhancement and prevention focus are β ¼ −0.134, p-valueo0.01, confirming that H1 is
supported. The associations between social benefits and promotion focus are β ¼ 0.177,
p-valueo0.01, and that between social benefits and prevention focus are β ¼ −0.267,
p-valueo0.01, confirming that H2 is also supported. The coefficients between vengeance and
promotion focus are β ¼ −0.131, p-valueo0.01, and that between vengeance and prevention
focus are β ¼ 0.309, p-valueo0.01, showing that H3 is supported. The associations between
anxiety and promotion focus are β ¼ −0.086, p-valueo0.01, and that between anxiety and
prevention focus are β ¼ 0.241, p-valueo0.01, signifying that H4 is supported. The variance for
intention to spread positive eWOM and negative eWOM is explained by R2, and is 57 and
66 percent, respectively. Promotion focus seems to be a stronger predictor for positive eWOM
than negative eWOM (β ¼ 0.367, p-valueo0.01); therefore, H5a is supported. Contrastingly,
prevention focus significantly influences the intention to disseminate negative eWOM (β ¼ 0.323,
p-valueo0.01), which supports H5b. Figures 1 and 2 provide the summarized results.
Hierarchical regression analyses were performed to test the moderating effect of PA in
the positive and negative scenarios. Regarding promotion and prevention focus, variables
were placed into the model in subsequent order. The first step included the main effects of
independent variables: promotion and prevention focus (PM, PV ). The second step added
the moderator, PA and the third step considered the interactive impact of the independent
and moderating variables (PM × PA, PV × PA). Tables VII and VIII demonstrate the
results of the hierarchical regression analyses. Regarding PA in the positive scenario, the
results revealed that positive and significant moderating effects existed between promotion
focus and positive eWOM (β ¼ 0.766, ΔR2 ¼ 0.017). Therefore, H6a is supported.
Additionally, PA outcomes in the negative scenario illustrated positive and significant
moderating influences between the association of prevention focus and negative eWOM
(β ¼ 0.698, ΔR2 ¼ 0.021). Thus, H6b is supported.
In support of H7a, males exhibit a more positive association between promotion
focus and eWOM, and the difference between the two subgroups was significant
( χ2 difference ¼ −32.04, p o0.01). In support of H7b, males with prevention focus are more
likely to spread eWOM than females ( χ2 difference ¼ −19.53, p o0.01). This illustrates
clearly the significant differences between promotion focus and prevention focus in the
subgroups (males and females); see Table VI.
Males Females
Difference
Path Estimate Significance Estimate Significance Difference in χ2 Results
H7a: promotion 0.438 ** 0.265 ** Males: more + −32.04** Supported

focus–eWOM
Females: + H7a
Table VI. H7b: prevention 0.311 ** 0.182 ** Males: more+ −19.53* Supported
Standardized path
focus–eWOM
coefficients and
corresponding Females: + H7b
hypotheses outcomes Notes: *po 0.01; **p o0.001
Platform eWOM
Self-
assistance generation and
R2 = 0.017
enhancement regulatory
focus
0.286
(3.756) 0.766
(2.093)
Social benefits 0.177
(1.770) Promotion focus 0.367 Positive eWOM
R2 = 0.435 (4.286) R2 = 0.569
–0.131
(2.532)
Vengeance
–0.086
(1.997)
Anxiety
Figure 1.
Results of SEM
analysis (positive
Note: 2 (731) = 1,348.759, GFI = 0.943, AGFI = 0.927, CFI = 0.966, IFI = 0.949, NFI = 0.951, eWOM)
NNFI = 0.945, RMSEA = 0.046
Platform
Self- assistance
enhancement R2 = 0.021
–0.134
(2.569) 0.698
(2.897)
Social benefits –0.267
(3.482) Prevention focus 0.323 Negative eWOM
R2 = 0.527 (3.866) R2 = 0.663
0.309
(6.771)
Vengeance
0.241
(3.095)
Anxiety
Figure 2.
Results of SEM
analysis (negative
Note: 2 (846) = 1,574.322, GFI = 0.935, AGFI = 0.924, CFI = 0.953, IFI = 0.951, NFI = 0.948, eWOM)
NNFI = 0.947, RMSEA = 0.052
β t-value F R2 Adjusted R2 ΔR2
PM 0.367*** 4.286 17.131*** 0.138 0.13 0.138***

PA 0.326** 3.918 17.687*** 0.247 0.25 0.109** Table VII.
PM× PA 0.766* 2.093 13.346*** 0.264 0.26 0.017* Moderation analysis
Notes: PM, promotion focus; PA, platform assistance. F-statistics for overall models. Dependent variable ¼ of platform assistance
positive eWOM. *p o 0.05; **p o0.01; ***p o0.001 with promotion focus
APJML 3.2.1 Experimental study. An experimental study was conducted to confirm H8a and H8b.
These hypotheses are related to the impact of regulatory focus on eWOM media platform
selection. The selection between SNSs and review sites was represented by the choice
between WeChat and DianPing, as these are the most suitable sources of eWOM in China
(Akram, Hui, Kaleem Khan, Tanveer, Mehmood and Ahmad, 2018). The exponential
growth of Chinese social media use has made WeChat the most influential social media
platform (Gong et al., 2018). It attracts more than 900m users globally (Sohaib, Hui and
Akram, 2018). WeChat users can interact with each other through instant messaging and
can share information in their circle of friends. DianPing is an emerging review site that
has been valued at $30bn (Bloomberg, 2017). It has more than 300m transacting users with
an annual increase of 20 percent (Guo, 2018). This site not only facilitates the exchange of
unfiltered and unedited reviews by customers, but also provides restaurant rankings with
food classifications.
3.3 Design
The experimental study used a two between-subject design (positive consumption

experience vs negative consumption experience). Participants were chosen by a random
sampling technique. A pilot study with 32 participants was conducted to measure the
instrument validity. After reviewing the responses, the final questionnaire was revised
several times to improve clarity. In the final study, 137 respondents participated. Of these,
51.43 percent were males with ages ranging from 18 to 45 years old. Among the participants,
71 with positive experiences responded to the promotion focus and 66 participants with
negative experiences responded to the prevention focus.
Instructions were provided to each participant, and they were asked to read and think
about given scenarios explaining a restaurant consumption experience. The consumption
experience was manipulated to provide a positive or negative scenario. The scenarios are
included in Appendix.
According to the scenarios, the participants were requested to respond to the following
variables. First, regulatory focus (promotion focus and prevention focus) was measured
with eight items adopted from Lockwood et al.’s (2002) work. These items were measured on
a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Second,
eWOM media selection was determined by three items. The first two items evaluated the
likelihood of respondents posting their experience on WeChat and DianPing, respectively.
The third item measured the choice of respondents between WeChat and DianPing if they
were forced to choose only one media platform. To record the responses, a binary code was
used for a variable, with WeChat being 1 and DianPing 0. All of these items were measured
on a seven-point Likert scale from 1 (very likely) to 7 (very unlikely).
The association between the choice of media and eWOM motivation was measured using
an ordinary least squares (OLS) regression model and logistic regression. The OLS model
determined the likelihood of selecting WeChat and DianPing separately. The logistic
regression measured the likelihood of choosing WeChat vs DianPing.
β t-value F R2 Adjusted R2 ΔR2
PV 0.323*** 3.866 16.694*** 0.127 0.12 0.127***

Table VIII. PA 0.291** 3.539 16.163*** 0.238 0.24 0.111**
Moderation analysis PV× PA 0.698* 2.897 12.901*** 0.259 0.24 0.021*
of platform assistance Notes: PV, prevention focus; PA, platform assistance. F-statistics for overall models. Dependent
with prevention focus variable ¼ negative eWOM. *p o0.05; **po 0.01; ***po 0.001
3.4 Findings eWOM
Table IX shows the association between eWOM motivation and choice of media platform. generation and
The likelihood of choice between WeChat and DianPing is explained with mean and regulatory
standard deviation values, which are (3.85, 1.49) and (4.12, 1.70), respectively. The mean
values do not show significant differences between the two dependent variables. However, focus
both dependent variables are associated with different motivations, as explained in the
results. The squared transformation was used because the raw scores of dependent
variables, which determined the regression residuals, were not normalized. After the
transformation, the hypothesis of normal distribution did not reject the residuals under joint
tests of Skewness/Kurtosis and Shapiro-Wilk’s W tests (see Table IX). Therefore, as
Table IX indicates, the coefficients of the OLS regression are dependent on squared
likelihood and have no influence on the directional interpretation. All the VIF values were
lower than 2, confirming that no multicollinearity exists among the variables.
The results in the second column confirm that choosing WeChat was significantly and
positively associated with promotion focus motivations. The results in the third column confirm
that prevention focus motivations were significantly and positively associated with choosing
DianPing. Therefore, both H8a and H8b are supported. This suggests that customers who
consider self-enhancement and social benefits are inclined to share their positive consumption
experiences within their circle of friends and family members, rather than in public. Conversely,
customers who want to obtain relief from anxiety or feelings of injustice due to service failure
prefer venting their negative feelings to the public rather than friends.
When the respondents were asked to choose only one media – WeChat or DianPing – to
post eWOM, both promotion focus and prevention focus played significant roles in
predicting media platform selection. For each unit increase in promotion focus motivation,
the odd ratio of selecting WeChat over DianPing increased by a factor of 1.266. For one unit
increase in prevention focus motivation, the odd ratio of selecting WeChat over Dianping
decreased by a factor of 0.916.
As Table IX explains, the regulatory focus motivations associated with the choice of WeChat
and DianPing were mutually exclusive. Hennig-Thurau et al.’s (2004) motive-based division
can be operationalized using these outcomes. Promotion-focused customers who mostly share
eWOM on SNSs are motivated by self-enhancement and social benefits. Conversely, prevention-
focused customers who mostly share eWOM on review sites are motivated by feelings of
injustice and vent negative feelings based on bad consumption experiences.
4. Discussion and conclusion

This empirical study revealed the relative importance of various factors and their effects on
customers’ intention to spread eWOM. The outcomes significantly contribute to existing
OLS regression Logistic regression

y: squared likelihood of y: squared likelihood of Y: 1 ¼ WeChat, 0 ¼
selecting WeChat selecting DianPing DianPing
Promotion 0.415 (0.198) * 0.206 (0.134) 1.266** (0.070)

Prevention 0.378 (0.211) 0. 669 (0.152) ** 0.916** (0.029)
Adj. R2 0.246 0.231 Pseudo R2: 0.0821
Model fit F-value: 14.09** F-value: 12.89** LR χ2: 28.68**
Joint Skewness/Kurtosis χ2: 1.34; p W 0.566 χ2: 0.398; p W0.753
Shapiro-Wilk’s W-test z ¼ 0.757; p W0.340 z ¼ 0.674; p W0.212
Notes: The assumption of normality was confirmed by the squared transformation of dependent variables in Table IX.
the OLS regression models. The parentheses values are showing the standard errors. Coefficients are directly eWOM motivations
related to odd ratios. *p o0.05; **po 0.01 and media selection
APJML eWOM communication literature. The study found that self-enhancement and social
benefits are positively associated with promotion focus and negatively associated with
prevention focus. In contrast, vengeance and anxiety reduction are positively correlated
with prevention focus and negatively associated with promotion focus. These results are
consistent with the observations of previous studies, which proposed that customers with
higher levels of self-enhancement tend to share positive eWOM (Chu et al., 2019; Gvili and
Levy, 2018; Reimer and Benkenstein, 2016). Another motivation that persuades individuals
to share their consumption experiences with others in online groups is social benefits
(Gorman et al., 2012). However, customers with negative consumption experiences are
generally motivated to prevent others from experiencing the same losses ( Johnson and
Chang, 2008), and tend to vent their negative feelings and lessen their anxiety by sharing
their bad consumption experiences (Sundaram et al., 1998).
This study also contributes to the regulatory focus theory by incorporating it with positive
and negative consumption experiences in the online environment. It is worth noting that
regulatory focus elements have dissimilar effects on the two conditions. For a positive
consumption scenario, promotion-focused customers are likely to spread positive eWOM on

SNSs. Conversely, for a negative consumption scenario, prevention-focused customers are
likely to disseminate negative eWOM on review sites. These outcomes are consistent with the
findings of preceding studies (Higgins, 1989; Zhang et al., 2010; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004).
Additionally, PA was included as a moderator in the model to measure its effects in the
two situations. For a positive consumption experience, PA significantly and positively
moderates the relationship between promotion focus and positive eWOM. For a negative
consumption experience, PA also has a significant positive impact on the relationship
between prevention focus and negative eWOM. As prior studies explained, PA has a
significant impact on eWOM communication, which motivates customers to share their
consumption experiences on virtual media (Hennig‐Thurau et al., 2004; Yang, 2017).
We also investigated eWOM across genders and found that males with promotional
focus based on positive consumption experiences tend to spread more eWOM than females.
This outcome corresponds with that of previous studies, which revealed that males attempt
to control communication and strive for individual benefits such as social standing and self-
enhancement (Wang and Lee, 2006; Fan and Miao, 2012). Conversely, females communicate
to collaborate with others and are more concerned with social relationships (Tannen, 1995;
Tercia and Teichert, 2017). Females with prevention focus based on negative consumption
experiences are found to spread less eWOM than males. Prior literature documented that
individuals vent negative feelings due to perceived injustices or bad consumption
experiences. They are likely to persuade others through emotional messages (Venkatesh
and Morris, 2000; Shen et al., 2014). Males take great efforts to improve their standing
among others and aim to increase their status by participating in discussions to resolve the
conflict with an organization ( Johnson and Chang, 2008). Females, however, tend to solve
issues through private discussions (Shen et al., 2014).
4.1 Implications
This study contributes significantly to existing eWOM communication literature. It
incorporates the regulatory focus theory in setting different motivations for spreading
positive and negative eWOM. The regulatory factors – promotion and prevention
focus – were investigated within an eWOM (positive vs negative) communication setting. In
previous studies, the effects of regulatory elements were explored through behavioral
patterns (Chernev, 2004), brand augmentation (Yeo and Park, 2006) and message efficacy
environment (Keller, 2006). To the best of our knowledge, this study is one of the few that
apply the regulatory focus theory to investigate the motivational process for posting eWOM
(positive vs negative). The outcomes provide useful guidelines for businesses to employ the eWOM
best practices in marketing communication in the emerging era of electronic media. generation and
The analysis also revealed that self-enhancement and social benefits are positively regulatory
related to promotion focus and negatively associated with prevention focus for customers
who had a positive consumption experience. Conversely, for a negative consumption focus
experience, vengeance and anxiety are negatively associated with promotion focus and
positively related to prevention focus. This suggests that – unlike the consumption
experiences of promotion and prevention focus – customers display different eWOM
motivations. Promotion-focused customers with positive consumption experiences spread
positive eWOM, while prevention-focused customers with negative consumption
experiences disseminate negative eWOM.
The analysis results also showed that PA plays a significantly positive role in eWOM
communication and influences promotion- or prevention-focused customers’ intentions toward
eWOM communication on different media. The findings provide a clear and deeper
understanding of the effect of PA. They also explain the association of customers focused on
promotion or prevention with different motivations, after different consumption experiences.

Additionally, it is clear that a deeper understanding of the eWOM motivational factors would
be helpful in implementing applicable marketing strategies.
A closer investigation of eWOM behavior across genders showed that promotion-focused
males with positive consumption experiences spread more eWOM than females. On the other
hand, prevention-focused females with negative consumption experiences post less eWOM than
males. This suggests that the eWOM behavior of genders is not universal under different
motivations in the specific scenarios (positive vs negative).
Our experiment with two different media platforms showed that the choice between SNSs
(WeChat) and review sites (DianPing) is associated with different motivations: choosing the
former is more strongly related to self-enhancement and social benefits motivations that
encourage promotion-focused customers, while the latter is associated with vengeance and
anxiety reduction, which motivates prevention-focused customers. Therefore, promotion-focused
individuals tend to disseminate their consumption experiences on SNSs and prevention-focused
customers tend to post eWOM on review sites. Theoretically, this implies that motivations are
not universally similar and are differently associated with eWOM behavior.
For marketing practitioners, it is essential to develop a deeper understanding of eWOM
motivational factors that generate positive and negative eWOM. The findings highlighted
that social benefits and self-enhancement are motivational forces that enhance the
intentions of promotion-focused customers to spread positive eWOM. Conversely, revenge
and anxiety motivate prevention-focused customers to post negative eWOM. Managers
should provide accurate marketing information to motivate promotion-focused customers to
spread positive eWOM. They should also focus on the self-worth of individuals and provide
them opportunities to post positive feedback on different platforms, for instance, social
media and review sites. On the other hand, product or service failure leads to negative
eWOM, which could be minimized by promotion-oriented actions. Regulatory focus theory
provides an interesting perspective, stating that contextual factors can change an
individual’s regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997). Managers can deal with this by apologizing
for product or service failure, free replacement of defective products and providing free
coupons redeemable on the next service or purchase, all of which may influence customer
attitude and improve promotion focus.
Companies should also be aware of the gender differences in terms of eWOM motivations.
Promotion-focused males prefer to improve their social standing among others and want to
obtain social benefits through self-enhancement more than females. In case of injustice or
service failure, females prefer to resolve the matter privately (e.g. discussion with close
friends). Conversely, males tend to attempt to influence others through emotional messages.
APJML They desire revenge on the company and want to lower their frustration or anxiety by sharing
their bad consumption experiences. These results suggest that marketing managers should
provide emotional support, detailed information and interactional opportunities by creating a
virtual environment (e.g. social media groups) to involve females in positive eWOM
communication. Some customers are motivated to take revenge on the company due to
feelings of injustice or service failure. Management should endeavor to reduce dissonance and
make customers feel good about their sharing behavior. They should request that customers
with negative consumption experience post fair feedback, which can lower the customers’
desire for revenge. This may also reduce their dissemination of negative eWOM.
In terms of eWOM communication on different media platforms, the results indicate that
managers need to address their style of communication according to the media platform
used. For SNSs (WeChat), business owners should focus on sympathy and tone of
communication. This can motivate customers and make them feel good about sharing their
consumption experience on online media. For review sites (DianPing), business owners
should resolve conflict by providing specifications and objective information. For example,
when responding to customer feedback on WeChat, businesses may create their own social
media groups to enhance interaction between customers and operators. For complaints on
Dianping, business owners can implement an action plan to minimize dissonance. This can
also ensure that the same incident is not repeated.
Additionally, the results also suggest implications for website operators. To attract more
users on SNSs such as WeChat, operators should improve the social and emotional bonding
between users and operators. To attract customers on review sites such as DianPing,
operators must improve the scope and impact of the site.
4.2 Limitations and future research

This study has some limitations, which future research can address. First, this study was
restricted to the regulatory focus and consumption experiences of individuals. It is
necessary to investigate group consumption experiences to illustrate the differences in
intentions of posting eWOM in the consumption experiences of groups and individuals.
Second, situational elements such as an individual’s mood or emotions may affect their
eWOM intentions. Third, a customer’s level of involvement may have different impacts on
eWOM generation, which needs to be investigated further. Fourth, this study does not cover
all possible motivational factors of eWOM (positive vs negative) communication. Future
research on this topic can include additional eWOM motivational factors such as social
capital. Furthermore, future studies can include incentivized eWOM to determine its effects
on gender attitude and behavior. This would provide useful insights on the perspectives of
males and females on incentivized eWOM. Finally, this study used a self-reporting method
to measure the variables. This may raise issues related to the same source or common
method. However, the platform choice for the eWOM study was manipulated through
consumption experience (positive vs negative) and was not self-reported. Therefore, the
measures related to this variable are not subject to common method variance issues.
References
Ajzen, I. (2002), “Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned
behavior”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 665-683.
Akram, U., Hui, P., Khan, M.K., Yan, C. and Akram, Z. (2018), “Factors affecting online impulse buying:
evidence from Chinese social commerce environment”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 1-28.
Akram, U., Hui, P., Kaleem Khan, M., Tanveer, Y., Mehmood, K. and Ahmad, W. (2018), “How website
quality affects online impulse buying: moderating effects of sales promotion and credit card
use”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 235-256.
Alicke, M.D., Braun, J.C., Glor, J.E., Klotz, M.L., Magee, J., Sederhoim, H. and Siegel, R. (1992), eWOM
“Complaining behavior in social interaction”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 18 generation and
No. 3, pp. 286-295.
regulatory
Ananda, A.S., Hernández-García, Á., Acquila-Natale, E. and Lamberti, L. (2019), “What makes fashion
consumers ‘click’? Generation of eWoM engagement in social media”, Asia Pacific Journal of focus
Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 398-418.
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, Vol. 24
No. 4, pp. 101-121.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Bendapudi, N. and Berry, L.L. (1997), “Customers’ motivations for maintaining relationships with
service providers”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 15-37.
Beuchot, A. and Bullen, M. (2005), “Interaction and interpersonality in online discussion forums”,
Distance Education, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 67-87.
Bloomberg (2017), “Restaurant review, delivery and booking site that just got bigger”, available at:
https://table.skift.com/2017/10/19/the-30-billion-chinese-restaurant-review-delivery-and-booking-
site-that-just-got-bigger (accessed August 26, 2018).
Boo, S. and Kim, J. (2013), “Comparison of negative eWOM intention: an exploratory study”, Journal of
Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 24-48.
Bronner, F. and De Hoog, R. (2011), “Vacationers and eWOM: who posts, and why, where, and what?”,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 15-26.
Carver, C.S. (2004), “Negative affects deriving from the behavioral approach system”, Emotion, Vol. 4
No. 1, pp. 3-22.
Cast, A.D. and Burke, P.J. (2002), “A theory of self-esteem”, Social Forces, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 1041-1068.
Chen, Y.J. and Kirmani, A. (2015), “Posting strategically: the consumer as an online media planner”,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 609-621.
Chernev, A. (2004), “Goal orientation and consumer preference for the status quo”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 557-565.
Cheung, C.M. and Lee, M.K. (2012), “What drives consumers to spread electronic word of mouth in
online consumer-opinion platforms”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 218-225.
Chong Lim, B. and M.Y. Chung, C. (2014), “Word-of-mouth: the use of source expertise in the evaluation
of familiar and unfamiliar brands”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 26 No. 1,
pp. 39-53.
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, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 47-75.
Chu, S.C., Lien, C.H. and Cao, Y. (2019), “Electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) on WeChat: examining the
influence of sense of belonging, need for self-enhancement, and consumer engagement on
Chinese travellers’ eWOM”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 26-49.
Craciun, G., Shin, D. and Zhang, J.Q. (2017), “Safe driving communication: a regulatory focus
perspective”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 50-60.
Daugherty, T., Eastin, M.S. and Bright, L. (2008), “Exploring consumer motivations for creating user-
generated content”, Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 16-25.
De Matos, C.A. and Rossi, C.A.V. (2008), “Word-of-mouth communications in marketing: a meta-
analytic review of the antecedents and moderators”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 578-596.
Dinh, T.D. and Mai, K.N. (2016), “Guerrilla marketing’s effects on Gen Y’s word-of-mouth intention – a
mediation of credibility”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 4-22.
APJML Eisingerich, A.B., Chun, H.H., Liu, Y., Jia, H.M. and Bell, S.J. (2015), “Why recommend a brand face-to-
face but not on Facebook? How word-of-mouth on online social sites differs from traditional
word-of-mouth”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 120-128.
Fan, Y.W. and Miao, Y.F. (2012), “Effect of electronic word-of-mouth on consumer purchase intention:
the perspective of gender differences”, International Journal of Electronic Business Management,
Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 175-181.
Fine, M.B., Gironda, J. and Petrescu, M. (2017), “Prosumer motivations for electronic word-of-mouth
communication behaviors”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, Vol. 8 No. 2,
pp. 280-295.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error: algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 382-388.
Fu, J.R., Ju, P.H. and Hsu, C.W. (2015), “Understanding why consumers engage in electronic word-of-
mouth communication: perspectives from theory of planned behavior and justice theory”,
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 616-630.
Gefen, D. and Straub, D.W. (1997), “Gender differences in the perception and use of e-mail: an extension
to the technology acceptance model”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 389-400.
Goldsmith, R.E. and Horowitz, D. (2006), “Measuring motivations for online opinion seeking”, Journal of
Interactive Advertising, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 2-14.
Gong, X., Liu, Z., Zheng, X. and Wu, T. (2018), “Why are experienced users of WeChat likely to continue
using the app?”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 1013-1039.
Gorman, C.A., Meriac, J.P., Overstreet, B.L., Apodaca, S., McIntyre, A.L., Park, P. and Godbey, J.N.
(2012), “A meta-analysis of the regulatory focus nomological network: work-related antecedents
and consequences”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 160-172.
Guo, O. (2018), “Behind the rise of Meituan-Dianping, China’s food-delivery giant”, available at: https://
www.techinasia.com/rise-of-meituan-dianping?comments=true (accessed August 28, 2018).
Gvili, Y. and Levy, S. (2018), “Consumer engagement with eWOM on social media: the role of social
capital”, Online Information Review, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 482-505.
Haws, K.L., Dholakia, U.M. and Bearden, W.O. (2010), “An assessment of chronic regulatory focus
measures”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 967-982.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Walsh, G. and Gremler, D.D. (2004), “Electronic word-of-mouth via
consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the
internet?”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 38-52.
Higgins, E.T. (1989), “Self-discrepancy theory: what patterns of self-beliefs cause people to suffer”,
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 93-136.
Higgins, E.T. (1997), “Beyond pleasure and pain”, American Psychologist, Vol. 52 No. 12, pp. 1280-1300.
Higgins, E.T. (2002), “How self-regulation creates distinct values: the case of promotion and prevention
decision making”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 177-191.
Hsu, C.L., Yu, L.C. and Chang, K.C. (2017), “Exploring the effects of online customer reviews, regulatory
focus, and product type on purchase intention: perceived justice as a moderator”, Computers in
Human Behavior, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 335-346.
Jeong, E. and Jang, S.S. (2011), “Restaurant experiences triggering positive electronic word-of-mouth
(eWOM) motivations”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 2,
pp. 356-366.
Johnson, R. and Chang, C.H. (2008), “Development and validation of a work-based regulatory focus
scale”, paper presented at the 23rd Annual Conference of the APA Division 14 Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco, CA, April 9–12.
Keller, P.A. (2006), “Regulatory focus and efficacy of health messages”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 109-114.
Kempf, D.S. and Palan, K.M. (2006), “The effects of gender and argument strength on the processing of eWOM
word-of-mouth communication”, Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-18. generation and
Kim, D. and Benbasat, I. (2003), “Trust-related arguments in internet stores: a framework for regulatory
evaluation”, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 49-64.
focus
Kim, D., Jang, S. and Adler, H. (2015), “What drives café customers to spread eWOM? Examining self-
relevant value, quality value, and opinion leadership”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 261-282.
Kim, E.E.K. (2017), “The impact of restaurant service experience valence and purchase involvement on
consumer motivation and intention to engage in eWOM”, Journal of Quality Assurance in
Hospitality & Tourism, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 259-281.
Lee, K.T. and Koo, D.M. (2012), “Effects of attribute and valence of e-WOM on message adoption:
moderating roles of subjective knowledge and regulatory focus”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 1974-1984.
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,
Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 95-109.

Lin, H., Fan, W. and Chau, P.Y. (2014), “Determinants of users’ continuance of social networking sites: a
self-regulation perspective”, Information & Management, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 595-603.
Lockwood, P., Jordan, C.H. and Kunda, Z. (2002), “Motivation by positive or negative role models:
regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 4, pp. 854-864.
McWilliam, G. (2000), “Building stronger brands through online communities”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 43-54.
Meyers-Levy, J. and Maheswaran, D. (1991), “Exploring differences in males’ and females’ processing
strategies”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 63-70.
Munar, A.M. and Jacobsen, J.K.S. (2014), “Motivations for sharing tourism experiences through social
media”, Tourism Management, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 46-54.
Park, C. and Lee, T.M. (2009), “Information direction, website reputation and eWOM effect: a
moderating role of product type”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 61-67.
Pentina, I., Bailey, A.A. and Zhang, L. (2018), “Exploring effects of source similarity, message valence,
and receiver regulatory focus on yelp review persuasiveness and purchase intentions”, Journal
of Marketing Communications, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 125-145.
Putrevu, S. (2001), “Exploring the origins and information processing differences between men and
women: Implications for advertisers”, Academy of Marketing Science Review, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 1-14.
Reimer, T. and Benkenstein, M. (2016), “Altruistic eWOM marketing: more than an alternative to
monetary incentives”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 323-333.
Royo-Vela, M. and Casamassima, P. (2011), “The influence of belonging to virtual brand communities
on consumers’ affective commitment, satisfaction and word-of-mouth advertising: the ZARA
case”, Online Information Review, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 517-542.
Schindler, R.M. and Bickart, B. (2005), “Published word of mouth: referable, consumer-generated
information on the internet”, Online Consumer Psychology: Understanding and Influencing
Consumer Behavior in the Virtual World, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 35-61.
Shen, W., Maceli, K., Zhao, Y., Baack, D.W. and Bacon, D.R. (2014), “The impact of gender and national
culture on electronic word of mouth communications”, Advances In Marketing Proceedings of
The Annual Meeting of the Association of Collegiate Marketing Education, Dallas, TX,
pp. 145-161.
Shi, S., Chen, Y. and Chow, W.S. (2016), “Key values driving continued interaction on brand pages in
social media: an examination across genders”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 62 No. 10,
pp. 578-589.
APJML Shin, D., Song, J.H. and Biswas, A. (2014), “Electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) generation in new media
platforms: the role of regulatory focus and collective dissonance”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 25
No. 2, pp. 153-165.
Sohaib, M., Hui, P. and Akram, U. (2018), “Impact of eWOM and risk-taking in gender on purchase
intentions: evidence from Chinese social media”, International Journal of Information Systems
and Change Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 101-122.
Sohaib, M., Hui, P., Akram, U., Akram, Z. and Bilal, M. (2018), “How non-economic motivations affect
electronic word-of-mouth: evidence from Chinese social media”, International Journal of
Information Systems and Change Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 311-332.
Sohaib, M., Hui, P., Akram, U., Majeed, A., Akram, Z. and Bilal, M. (2019), “Understanding the justice
fairness effects on eWOM communication in social media environment”, International Journal of
Enterprise Information Systems, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 69-84.
Sun, T., Youn, S., Wu, G. and Kuntaraporn, M. (2006), “Online word-of-mouth (or mouse): an exploration
of its antecedents and consequences”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 11
No. 4, pp. 1104-1127.
Sundaram, D.S., Mitra, K. and Webster, C. (1998), “Word-of-mouth communications: a motivational

analysis”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 527-531.
Tan, V., Quoquab, F., Ahmad, F.S. and Mohammad, J. (2017), “Mediating effects of students’ social bonds
between self-esteem and customer citizenship behaviour in the context of international university
branch campuses”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 305-329.
Tannen, D. (1990), You Just Don’t Understand: Men and Women in Conversation, Morrow, New York, NY.
Tannen, D. (1995), “The power of talk: who gets heard and why”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73
No. 5, pp. 138-148.
Tercia, C.Y. and Teichert, T. (2016), “Cultural context in word-of-mouth activity: how consumers
respond to monetary incentives in WOM”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics,
Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 827-840.
Tercia, C.Y. and Teichert, T. (2017), “How consumers respond to incentivized word of mouth: an
examination across gender”, Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 46-56.
Tsao, W.C. and Hsieh, M.T. (2015), “eWOM persuasiveness: do eWOM platforms and product type
matter?”, Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 509-541.
Venkatesh, V. and Morris, M.G. (2000), “Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social
influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24
No. 1, pp. 115-139.
Wakefield, L.T. and Wakefield, R.L. (2018), “Anxiety and ephemeral social media use in negative
eWOM creation”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 44-59.
Wang, J. and Lee, A.Y. (2006), “The role of regulatory focus in preference construction”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 28-38.
Ward, J.C. and Ostrom, A.L. (2006), “Complaining to the masses: the role of protest framing in
customer-created complaint web sites”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 220-230.
Wilson, A., Murphy, H. and Fierro, J.C. (2012), “Hospitality and travel: the nature and implications of
user-generated content”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 220-228.
Yang, F.X. (2017), “Effects of restaurant satisfaction and knowledge sharing motivation on eWOM
intentions: the moderating role of technology acceptance factors”, Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 93-127.
Yang, X. (2019), “Consumers’ decisions in social commerce: the role of guanxi elements”, Asia Pacific
Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 1-15.
Yap, K.B., Soetarto, B. and Sweeney, J.C. (2013), “The relationship between electronic word-of-mouth
motivations and message characteristics: the sender’s perspective”, Australasian Marketing
Journal, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 66-74.
Yen, C.L.A. and Tang, C.H.H. (2015), “Hotel attribute performance, eWOM motivations, and media eWOM
choice”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 79-88. generation and
Yen, C.L.A. and Tang, C.H.H. (2019), “The effects of hotel attribute performance on electronic word-of- regulatory
mouth (eWOM) behaviors”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 76 No. 1,
pp. 9-18. focus
Yeo, J. and Park, J. (2006), “Effects of parent‐extension similarity and self regulatory focus on
evaluations of brand extensions”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 272-282.
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, Vol. 63 No. 12, pp. 1336-1341.
Appendix. Scenarios
Positive scenario
You recently visited ABC restaurant. When you entered the restaurant, the staff warmly welcomed you
and gave you the choice of a table adjacent to the window or a quiet table at one side of the restaurant.
The hostess was very nice and knowledgeable, recommending some daily specials. The food was
served on time, was cooked well and was delicious. You decided to visit this restaurant again in the
near future.
Negative scenario
You recently visited ABC restaurant. When you arrived at the restaurant, it was crowded. The hostess
asked you to wait about 40 min before your table was ready. The hostess then took you directly to a
table near the kitchen. The noise made it exceedingly difficult to have a conversation. Your hostess was
rude and not very knowledgeable about the food on the menu. The food was served after 30 min and
did not taste good at all. You have decided not to visit this restaurant again.
Corresponding author
Umair Akram can be contacted at: akram.umair88@pku.edu.cn
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Asia Pacific Paper 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asia Pacific Paper 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics

Electronic word-of-mouth generation and regulatory focus

Downloaded on: 21 June 2019, At: 02:48 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Department of Business Studies, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics,

2. Theoretical background and hypotheses

2.1 eWOM motivations

eWOM Online media

2.2 Regulatory focus and eWOM

2.3 Platform assistance as moderator

2.4 eWOM behavior across genders

2.5 eWOM motivations and media choice

Positive eWOM (n ¼ 441) Negative eWOM (n ¼ 378)

H7a: promotion 0.438 ** 0.265 ** Males: more + −32.04** Supported

β t-value F R2 Adjusted R2 ΔR2

PM 0.367*** 4.286 17.131*** 0.138 0.13 0.138***

The experimental study used a two between-subject design (positive consumption

β t-value F R2 Adjusted R2 ΔR2

PV 0.323*** 3.866 16.694*** 0.127 0.12 0.127***

4. Discussion and conclusion

OLS regression Logistic regression

Promotion 0.415 (0.198) * 0.206 (0.134) 1.266** (0.070)

consumption scenario, promotion-focused customers are likely to spread positive eWOM on

promotion or prevention with different motivations, after different consumption experiences.

4.2 Limitations and future research

Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 95-109.

Sundaram, D.S., Mitra, K. and Webster, C. (1998), “Word-of-mouth communications: a motivational

You might also like

H7a: promotion 0.438 0.265 Males: more + −32.04** Supported

PM 0.367* 4.286 17.131* 0.138 0.13 0.138***

PV 0.323* 3.866 16.694* 0.127 0.12 0.127***