sustainability
Article
Investigating the Effects of Video-Based E-Word-of-Mouth on
Consumers’ Purchase Intention: The Moderating Role
of Involvement
Lingyun Zhai *, Pengzhen Yin *, Chenyang Li, Jingjing Wang and Min Yang
Citation: Zhai, L.; Yin, P.; Li, C.;
Wang, J.; Yang, M. Investigating the
Effects of Video-Based
E-Word-of-Mouth on Consumers’
Purchase Intention: The Moderating
Role of Involvement. Sustainability
2022, 14, 9522. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su14159522
Academic Editor: Andrea Pérez
Received: 19 July 2022
Accepted: 2 August 2022
Published: 3 August 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9522. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159522
School of Management, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei 230009, China; f01814086@stu.ahu.edu.cn (C.L.);
2020110760@mail.hfut.edu.cn (J.W.); yangmin@hfut.edu.cn (M.Y.)
* Correspondence: zhaily@cenbest.com (L.Z.); yinpz@hfut.edu.cn (P.Y.)
Abstract: Short videos have been increasingly prevalent around the globe and have become an
important channel for users to share product and service information and for marketers to attract
potential customers. However, rarely have studies empirically examined the impact of product
review videos posted on short video platforms on consumers’ purchase intention. Grounded in
the elaboration likelihood model, this study proposes a research model to investigate how the
product review video features (i.e., video information quality, product information visualization,
video emotion polarity, and video publisher credibility) influence consumers’ purchase intention.
Moreover, the moderating role of involvement (i.e., product involvement and video involvement)
in the above-mentioned relationships have also been examined in this new research context. We
empirically validate the research model with survey data. It is interesting to find that product information
visualization and video publisher credibility are significantly and positively related to purchase intention.
Video involvement negatively moderates the relationship between video publisher credibility and
purchase intention. Furthermore, video emotion polarity negatively moderates the relationship between
product information visualization and purchase intention. Both theoretical and practical implications
are discussed.
Keywords: video-based word-of-mouth; purchase intention; product involvement; video involve-
ment; elaboration likelihood model
1. Introduction
With the development of sharing economy, short videos have become increasingly
popular among individuals of all age groups around the world. Given the prevalence of
consumer participation and interaction, the size of consumers of short video platforms
has also rapidly expanded. Short videos have thus been a breakthrough point for a new
round of economic growth [1]. Short-form mobile videos refer to video applications (e.g.,
Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and Kuaishou) that enable users to shoot, edit, upload,
and share short videos [2]. Users on these platforms can not only edit and upload their
own created videos but also can watch, comment, forward, and like the videos shared
by other users [3]. Many videos on these platforms are created by users to express their
opinions or personal experiences of using a product [4]. These product review videos,
also known as video-based e-Word-of-Mouth (vWOM), provide vivid demonstrations
and rich product information and contain deeper emotions than other kinds of online
reviews [3]. Potential customers thus would like to watch such video reviews of a product
before purchasing it, especially for technical products such as smartphones, computers,
and household appliances [3]. vWOMs have thus aroused increasing attention because of
the large potential business values.
Existing studies suggested that online review video platforms are ideal for the eWOM
of a product because those product review videos are more authentic and persuasive [3].
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9522 2 of 19

More specifically, many prior studies focused on investigating how the viewers’ post-
video behavior (e.g., like or dislike and comments) influenced their engagement with
the vWOM [5,6]. Recent studies further expanded this research area by exploring the an-
tecedents of product review video views on video platforms [7]. However, very few studies
in the literature have examined how individuals interpret the vWOM and are influenced by
such vWOM. Therefore, the effects of vWOM on potential consumers’ purchase intention
are still unclear. Furthermore, as a new global industry, short video platforms have been
paid rarely attention from academics, though plenty of eWOM videos created to share
personal experiences. Therefore, the first objective of this study is to examine the effects of
vWOM on consumers’ purchase intention in the context of short videos.
Existing studies demonstrated that consumers’ purchase decisions in the purchase
process could be influenced by their involvement degree [8]. More specifically, to what
extent consumers gather and process product information during the purchase process
depends on their involvement [9]. When consumers’ involvement is high, they would
actively search for more product information and carefully process the gathered information
in order to make a satisfactory decision [10]. Furthermore, existing studies have identified
two kinds of consumer involvement: product involvement and contextual involvement [11].
However, rarely studies have been conducted to examine the role of the two kinds of
involvement on consumers’ purchase intention in the context of vWOM. The second
objective of this study is thus to investigate the moderating role of product involvement
and contextual involvement (i.e., video involvement) on the relationships between vWOM
features and consumers’ purchase intention.
To fulfill the above two research objectives, we proposed the following two research
questions: (1) which features of vWOM exist, and how will they influence consumers’ pur-
chase intention? and (2) how do the product and video involvement impact the relationship
between vWOM features and consumers’ purchase intention? To answer these two research
questions, we drew on the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) [12] to propose a research
model. More specifically, we identified four vWOM features, including video information
quality, product information visualization, video emotional polarity, and video publisher
credibility. We then categorized them as a central route and peripheral route, respectively,
based on ELM. We thus investigated the direct effects of the four features on consumers’
purchase intention and the moderating role of product and video involvement.
This study is organized as follows. In Section 2, we introduce the literature review and
theoretical background. The research model and hypotheses development are illustrated
in Section 3, followed by the research methodology. We analyze the data and report the
results in Section 5. We discuss the implications of this study before concluding the paper.

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Background

2.1. Video-Based Electronic Word-of-Mouth and Purchase Intention
Electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) refers to “any information, including not only cus-
tomers’ own statements but also shared/forwarded posts from retailers or other published
sources, which are exchanged among potential, actual, or former customers about a product
or company available to a multitude of people and institutions via the Internet” [13]. Prior
studies suggested that there were different formats of eWOM, such as online text reviews,
picture reviews, and video reviews [14]. With the globally prevalent use of short video
platforms, consumers are engaged in eWOM communication by sharing their opinions and
experiences of products and services on these platforms [15]. Video-based eWOM (vWOM)
has thus aroused increasing attention for digital marketing. However, consumers’ interpre-
tations of these video reviews and the subsequent effects on their purchase intention have
rarely been empirically explored.
This study defines vWOM as the video-based product reviews created by users and
published on short video platforms [16]. Existing studies suggested that video reviews
are more persuasive than other kinds of eWOM because of the multimedia and vivid
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9522 3 of 19

presentation that enable video creators to share their product experiences to the audiences
in a direct and detailed way [17].
Existing studies in the eWOM literature mainly investigated three aspects of eWOM,
viz.: generation, adoption, and diffusion [14]. eWOM generation refers to creating and
posting new product reviews; eWOM adoption refers to accepting the information of such
product reviews; eWOM diffusion refers to sharing and passing along the product reviews.
This study anchors into the eWOM adoption research area, where potential consumers
may make their purchase decision after viewing the review videos. In this stream, many
studies have examined how various eWOM factors affect consumers’ eWOM adoption and
their attitudes toward the product, such as eWOM attributes (e.g., volume, valence, and
quality), individual relevance, and viewers characteristics [18,19]. Among them, the most
frequently examined review features are length, readability, review valence, and reviewer
credibility [20]. In line with prior studies, we identified four vWOM features that may
influence consumers’ attitudes and behaviors, including video information quality, product
information visualization, video emotion polarity, and video publisher credibility.
It is worth noting that existing literature has prevalent refer reviews sentiment to
describe the positive and negative emotions of the reviewers [21]. In this research area,
prior studies have widely employed sentiment-mining tools to score the overall sentiments
expressed in each text-based review [22]. In the review videos context, there are also
sentiment cues for consumers, such as video title and video content [7]. The video title can
capture viewers’ attention and motivate them to click on the video, which is essentially
emotional [23]. Furthermore, the presenter in the video may also directly demonstrate
their emotion (e.g., favorite or dislike) [16]. We thus adapted the video emotion polarity
as a peripheral route factor to describe the extent to which consumers form their attitudes
towards the products based on the emotional polarity expressed in the video cues.
Prior literature has identified readability as an important feature of online text reviews
and has also prevalently examined its effects on consumers’ purchase intention [21]. Review
readability refers to “the reading ease that improves the comprehension as well as the
retention of the textual material” [24]. The degree of readability indicates the required
amount of cognitive effort for a consumer of a certain age and education level to understand
a text-based review [24]. In line with this research area, in the short video context, we
argue that review videos conveying factual product information and high-arousal cues
should be comprehended by potential consumers [7]. We thus conceptualize product
information visualization by adapting the review readability into the review videos context.
Typically, we define it as the extent to which consumers are able to comprehend the product
information expressed in the review videos [25]. We summarized the definitions of the four
features of vWOM in Table 1.

Table 1. Definitions of vWOM features.

Construct
Video information quality
Product information
visualization
Video emotion polarity
Video publisher credibility
Definition
The extent to which the video information is perception of
precision, credibility, relevance, comprehensibility, and
timeliness [26].
The extent to which consumers are able to comprehensively
comprehend the product information expressed in the review
videos [25].
The extent to which consumers are attracted or affected by the
emotion polarity (positive emotion) toward the product in the
video [27].
The extent to which consumers perception of the video
publisher is credible [28].

Purchase intention demonstrates the possibility of a consumer willing or planning to

purchase a product or service [29]. Prior studies indicated that a high level of consumers’
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9522 4 of 19

purchase intention leads to a high possibility of actual buying [30]. In the context of
short videos, purchase intention refers to the degree to which consumers desire to make a
purchase after viewing the review videos [31].
Most of the existing studies in the eWOM literature focused on the effects of eWOM
on consumers’ purchase intention [30]. One stream of studies examined the direct effects
of eWOM on purchase intention and found that positive (negative) eWOM increases
(reduces) purchase intention [32]. Moreover, prior studies found that negative eWOM has
a more significant influence on customers’ purchase intention than positive eWOM [33].
Another stream of studies investigated the indirect relationships between eWOM and
purchase intention by identifying various mediators such as value co-creation, trust, and
flow experience [12,30,34]. The third stream of studies explored the antecedents of eWOM
that further influence purchase intention (e.g., personal value) [35]. However, previous
studies have rarely conducted research in the product review videos context.

2.2. Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)

ELM provided a solid theoretical framework to explain the underline processes of per-
suasive communications [36]. More specifically, ELM suggested two routes to persuasion.
The first route is the central route that individuals take careful and thoughtful consideration
of the truth of information presented in the online reviews, which demands high cognitive
effort and has a persistent impact on individual attitudes towards the arguments. The
other route is a peripheral route in that the individual intuitively judges the information
presented without the necessity of scrutiny of the truth, which is automatic and heuris-
tic and has a short-term influence on individuals’ attitudes. Furthermore, both central
and peripheral routes process the received information concurrently and jointly influence
individuals to be persuaded or not [37].
Based on their systematic review, Chou et al. [20] demonstrated that quality-related
features of online reviews (e.g., reviews readability) are processed by the central route, and
the non-quality related features (e.g., review sentiment) are processed by the peripheral
route. Consistently, in their systematic review, Shahab et al. [38] also suggested that
the factors influencing the central route are information-quality-related, and the factors
influencing the peripheral route include source credibility, the attractiveness of sources,
and arguments numbers.
In line with prior literature, we thus identify video information quality and product
information visualization as the factors of the central route. We identify video publisher
credibility and video emotion polarity as the factors of the peripheral route, whereas the
video publisher credibility is a factor of source credibility. It is worth noting that the video
publisher may be the creator of the videos or the person who forwards the videos from
others on the short video platform.

2.3. Consumers Involvement

Based on ELM, consumers may process the same information differently in terms
of their involvement [39]. Involvement refers to the degree to which consumers perceive
the relevance of an object based on their values, needs, and interest [40]. Therefore, in-
volvement is related to consumers’ motivation to process information. Existing studies
suggested that there are two kinds of involvement: enduring product involvement and
situational/contextual involvement [11,41]. Enduring product involvement indicates the
consumers’ personal needs or interest in the product, which is a stable process over a long
period. Situational/contextual involvement refers to a temporary and fluctuated elevation
of personal interest within a short time frame of a purchasing decision.
Prior studies have examined the moderating effects of product involvement on the
relationships between eWOM and consumers’ attitudes toward the products [42,43]. Prod-
uct involvement is associated with personal characteristics (e.g., values) and thus can be
different even for the same product. Furthermore, existing studies also demonstrated the
 consumers’ personal needs or interest in the product, which is a stable process over a long
period. Situational/contextual involvement refers to a temporary and fluctuated elevation
of personal interest within a short time frame of a purchasing decision.
Prior studies have examined the moderating effects of product involvement on the
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9522 relationships between eWOM and consumers’ attitudes toward the products [42,43]. 5 of 19
Product involvement is associated with personal characteristics (e.g., values) and thus can
be different even for the same product. Furthermore, existing studies also demonstrated
the important
important role ofrole of situational
situational involvementinvolvement (e.g.,
(e.g., online online involvement)
involvement) in the
in the relationships
relationships between eWOM and consumer attitude and
between eWOM and consumer attitude and purchase decisions [39,44]. purchase decisions [39,44].
Based on
Based on the
theexisting
existingliterature,
literature,this study
this studythus takes
thus both
takes product
both involvement
product involvement and
situational/contextual involvement into consideration and further
and situational/contextual involvement into consideration and further examines their examines their
moderating roles
moderating roles in
in the
the relationships
relationships between
between vWOM
vWOM features
features and
and consumers’
consumers’ purchase
purchase
intention. More
intention. More specifically,
specifically, the
the features
features ofof video
video (e.g.,
(e.g., auditory
auditory loudness,
loudness, hue,
hue, and
and music
music
style) may influence consumers’ interpretation of the video content information,
style) may influence consumers’ interpretation of the video content information, which which
further influences their motivation to view and be persuaded [7]. We thus thus identify
identify video
involvement as a distinct situational factor in the short video context and define it as the
which consumers perceive that the video cues are relevant
degree to which relevant to
to their
their preferences
preferences
and interests. When video involvement is high, consumers are more motivated motivated to spend
spend
more cognitive
more cognitiveeffort
efforttotoprocess
processthethe video
video information.
information. In In
thethe
nextnext section,
section, we we illustrate
illustrate the
the proposed
proposed research
research model model
and and hypotheses
hypotheses development.
development.

3.
3. Research
Research Model
Model andand Hypothesis
Hypothesis Development
Development
Based
Based on
onELMELMandand
the literature reviewreview
the literature in the preceding section, this
in the preceding study investigates
section, this study
the features of product review videos on consumers’ purchase intention and the
investigates the features of product review videos on consumers’ purchase intention andmoderating
role of both product
the moderating role and videoproduct
of both involvement in theinvolvement
and video above-mentioned
in therelationships. The
above-mentioned
proposed research model is shown in Figure 1.
relationships. The proposed research model is shown in Figure 1.

Central route Product Involvement

Video Information Quality
H5a, b H5c, d
Product Information
Visualization H1, H2

Purchase Intention

H3, H4
Video Emotional Polarity
H6a, b
H6c, d
Video Publisher Credibility
Controls: Age,
Peripheral route Video Involvement
Gender, Education

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Research model.

3.1.
3.1. Relationships
Relationships between
between Central
Central Route
Route Factors
Factors and
and Purchase
Purchase Intention
Intention
Existing
Existing studies in the context of online reviews suggested that
studies in the context of online reviews suggested that high-quality
high-quality reviews
reviews
have a greater effect on consumers’ purchase intention than low-quality
have a greater effect on consumers’ purchase intention than low-quality reviews reviews [45].
[45].
Furthermore, high-quality information makes consumers perceive of narrowed
Furthermore, high-quality information makes consumers perceive of narrowed social social psy-
chological
psychologicaldistance between
distance them and
between theminformation sources, sources,
and information which subsequently improves
which subsequently
their purchase intention [46].
improves their purchase intention [46].
The
The video
video information
information quality
quality feature
feature of
of vWOM
vWOM refers
refers to
to the
the extent
extent to
to which
which the
the
video information is the perception of precision, credibility, relevance, comprehensibility,
video information is the perception of precision, credibility, relevance, comprehensibility,
and timeliness [26]. Prior studies demonstrated that video reviews provide story-based
and timeliness [26]. Prior studies demonstrated that video reviews provide story-based
communication and are more comprehensive and timeliness in nature than other kinds
communication and are more comprehensive and timeliness in nature than other kinds of
of reviews [3]. More specifically, product review videos can provide richer and more
reviews [3]. More specifically, product review videos can provide richer and more realistic
realistic information about the products because these review videos show consumers’ own
consumption experiences [47]. Therefore, the user-generated review videos are believed
to be credible and persuasive [48]. As such, consumers would be more motivated to view
and spend cognitive resources to find and process the information presented. The more
high-quality information they obtain, the more they are willing to purchase. We thus
hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 1 (H1). Video information quality positively influences consumers’ purchase intention.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9522 6 of 19

In the review videos context, product information visualization refers to the extent
to which consumers are able to comprehensively comprehend the product information
expressed in the review videos [25]. We argue that product information visualization
leads to a higher level of perception of credibility, helpfulness, and persuasiveness and
consequently positively affects consumers’ purchase intention. Prior studies suggested that
online reviews presented in a different format (i.e., text, image, and video) have various
effects on consumers’ perception of credible, helpful, and persuasive [49]. As a rich media,
the video format could provide high-quality information, subjective knowledge, and vivid
emotional cues than the text format, which in turn significantly influences consumers’
purchase intention [50]. Moreover, recent empirical evidence has shown that video-based
eWOM had the greatest impact on consumers’ purchase intention due to meeting the
needs of consumers for more product information, followed by image-based and text-
based eWOM [51]. As such, product review videos provide intuitive and multisensory
information that enables consumers to easily comprehend and make purchase decisions.
We thus hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 2 (H2). Product information visualization positively influences consumers’ purchase

intention.

3.2. Relationships between Peripheral Route Factors and Purchase Intention

Video emotional polarity refers to the extent to which consumers are attracted or
affected by the emotional polarity (positive emotion) toward the product in the video [27].
Existing studies suggested that positive eWOM would significantly increase consumers’
purchase intention, and negative eWOM would significantly reduce it [52]. Moreover, the
proportion and quality of negative eWOM could be a central cue to high-involvement con-
sumers [53]. In the context of vWOM, Agrawal and Mittal [3] analyzed the text comments of
popular review videos on YouTube and found that the over-sentiment expressed in product
review video comments significantly influenced consumers’ purchase intention. Moreover,
a positive sentiment expressed in review video comments positively affected purchase
intention, and negative sentiment adversely influence purchase intention. We thus argue
that when consumers perception of high levels of video emotion polarity, measured as the
extent to which they attracted by the positive emotion expressed in the reviews video, the
consumers may have high levels of purchase intention. We thus hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 3 (H3). Video emotional polarity positively influences consumers’ purchase intention.

Existing studies indicated that information source credibility was more persuasive
and had a more positive influence on consumers’ attitudes [54]. Video publisher is related
to source credibility and further influence consumers’ perception of review helpfulness
and their attitude towards the products [55]. More specifically, when consumers perceived
that the review publisher’s expertise was high, they would more actively seek eWOM
from this publisher and further increase their purchase intention [56]. We thus argue
that perceived video publishers’ expertise and trustworthiness would increase potential
consumers’ purchase intention.

Hypothesis 4 (H4). Video publisher credibility positively influences consumers’ purchase intention.

3.3. Moderating Role of Product Involvement

Product involvement plays a crucial role in understanding consumers’ information
processing model [57]. Based on ELM, consumers with a high level of product involvement
would be more familiar with the product information and pay more attention to the
persuasive content. In this situation, the central route would be salient in influencing
consumers’ purchase intention. When consumers had a low level of product involvement,
they would not spend much cognitive effort on analyzing and processing the information
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9522 7 of 19

content but would focus on the peripheral cues of the information, such as attractiveness,
credibility, and reliability of the presented information [10,58]. As such, individuals with
high product involvement evoke more elaborate cognitive processing and consequently form
positive perceptions of the product [59]. When the product involvement is low, customers
make purchase decisions mainly according to non-compensatory incomplete processing of
attributes and investing less cognitive resources [8]. We thus hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 5a,b (H5a,b). Product involvement positively moderates the relationships between
video information quality (a)/product information visualization (b) and purchase intention; such
that the higher the product involvement, the stronger the relationship between video information
quality (a)/product information visualization (b) and purchase intention.

Hypothesis 5c,d (H5c,d). Product involvement negatively moderates the relationships between
video emotion polarity (c)/video publisher credibility (d) and purchase intention; such that the higher
the product involvement, the weaker the relationships between video emotion polarity (c)/video
publisher credibility (d) and purchase intention.

3.4. Moderating Role of Video Involvement

Although much attention has been paid to the moderating role of product involve-
ment [53], recent studies also suggested that consumers’ purchase decisions may also
be influenced by the context/situation involvement [44]. In the context of product re-
view videos, we argue that video involvement would moderate the relationships between
vWOM features and consumers’ purchase intention.
Potential consumers may collect information cues in the video to reduce their percep-
tion of purchase risks [11]. Consumers with high video involvement would thus pay more
cognitive resources on and more carefully process the video information [44]. As such,
they would be more able to interpret the video information cues, such as video information
quality and visualized product information, which may reduce their perception of risks
and improve their purchase intention. Furthermore, consumers with a lower level of
video involvement would have a high level of concern for the quality of the vWOM, and
their attention to vWOM is also low. As such, consumers may make purchase decisions
according to the peripheral cues, such as the credibility of sources and their perception of
video emotion polarity. Therefore, we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 6a,b (H6a,b). Video involvement positively moderates the relationships between video
information quality (a)/product information visualization (b) and purchase intention; such that
the higher the video involvement, the stronger the relationships between video information quality
(a)/product information visualization (b) and purchase intention.

Hypothesis 6c,d (H6c,d). Video involvement negatively moderates the relationship between video
emotion polarity (c)/video publisher credibility (d) and purchase intention; such that the higher the
video involvement, the weaker the relationship between video emotion polarity (c)/video publisher
credibility (d) and purchase intention.

4. Research Methodology
4.1. Measurement Development
All constructs and measures in this study were adapted from validated research in
existing literature. Video information quality was measured using a four-item scale adapted
from Gao and Bai [60], and sample times were “The information presented in the product
review videos is what I need” and “The information presented in the product review videos
is comprehensive”. The four items of product information visualization were adapted from
Gefen and Straub [61] and Dutta-Bergman [62]. One sample item was “There are pretty
much video publishers’ product usage experiences presented in the review videos”. Video
emotional polarity was measured with two items adapted from Zhu et al. [27], including
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9522 8 of 19

“I’m more likely to be attracted to review videos that are more positive about a product” and
“I pay more attention on the review videos that are more negative about a product”. Video
publisher credibility was measured using a four-item scale adapted from Ohanian [28], and
one sample item was “I think the video publisher is trustworthy”. We measured product
involvement using a four-item scale adapted from Zaichkowsky [63], and one sample item
was “I think the product is important to me”. Video involvement was measured using a
four-item scale adapted from Dutta-Bergman [62], and one sample item was “I put a lot
of effort in evaluating the arguments presented in the review videos”. Purchase intention
was measured using three items adapted from Zeithaml et al. [64], and one sample item
was “I consider buying the product introduced in the review videos while viewing them”.
Following the approach suggested by [65], we translate the English questions into Chinese
for final data collection. The seven-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to
7 = strongly agree) was used to measure the items.

4.2. Data Collection

To verify the proposed research model, we collected data using survey approach. We
employed the online services of a large survey company in China (http://www.wjx.cn,
accessed on 18 May 2022) to develop the questionnaire link. The respondents of this
study are TikTok short video application users from China who are consumers of technical
products (e.g., smartphones and laptops). TikTok has operated in 155 countries around the
globe [66]. It reported that TikTok, together with its China counterpart Douyin, had roughly
one billion monthly active users and became the top rank of global digital platforms [66].
Its commercial success thus becomes critical to the long-run corporate value. This study is
thus focused on the context of TikTok, which is also consistent with our research objectives.
We thus firstly sent the questionnaire link to several targeted TikTok users. Then, the
questionnaire link was disseminated using snowball method. Snowball sampling has been
widely used in existing literature, and its advantages are that it can accurately target the
respondents and thus will reduce the difficulty of locating the respondents and, in turn,
substantially reduce the survey cost [67]. The snowball sampling is appropriate for this
study because we target the TikTok users in particular rather than a sample that includes
users from multiple short-video platforms. To further ensure the respondents are TikTok
short video platform users, we added the screening question (“Are you a short-video
platform user (TikTok)?”) before the formal question survey and only those with prior
short-video experiences were eligible. After three weeks, we received 227 responses in total.
We dropped the data that answered carelessly, resulting in a total of 169 valid responses.
Table 2 lists the demographic characteristics of the sample.

Table 2. Demographic characteristics (N = 169).

Category N (%)
Male 110 (65.1)
Gender
Female 59 (34.9)
High school or below 12 (7.1)
Education College 12 (7.1)
University or above 145 (85.8)
Under 20 9 (5.3)
21–25 107 (63.3)
Age
36–40 2 (1.2)
41 and above 51 (30.2)

Following the suggestions of Armstrong and Overton [68], we estimated non-response

bias. For all the constructs, we compared the early 25% responses and late 25% responses.
Results showed that there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms
of construct means (p > 0.10), indicating that non-response bias was not a serious concern
in this research.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9522 9 of 19

4.3. Common Method Bias (CMB)

Two methods were used to test CMB. First, Harman’s single-factor test was employed.
The results showed that the eigenvalues of all the constructs were higher than the threshold
value of 1.0. The first construct accounted for 19.50% of the total variance, which was less
than the cut-off value of 50% [69].
Second, following the procedure suggested by Podsakoff et al. [70] and Williams
et al. [71], the common method factor approach was used to further test CMB. More
specifically, we evaluated how each variance of indicators was substantively explained by
all principal constructs and the method factor, and the loadings of indicators on the method
factor and on their substantive factors. As the results show in Table 3, the substantive factor
explained 77.7% of the variance on average, and the average method factor variance of the
indicators was 0.3%. The ratio between the average substantive factors and method factor
variance is very large. Therefore, CMB was not a serious issue in our study.

Table 3. Results of common method bias test.

Substantive
Method Factor
Construct Indicator Factor R1 2 R2 2
Loading(R2 )
Loading (R1 )
VIQ1 0.883 *** 0.780 −0.079 0.006
Video
VIQ2 0.935 *** 0.874 −0.060 0.004
Information
VIQ3 0.738 *** 0.545 0.025 0.001
Quality (VIQ)
VIQ4 0.690 *** 0.476 0.125 0.016
Video Emotional VEP1 0.927 *** 0.859 −0.008 0.000
Polarity (VEP) VEP2 0.918 *** 0.843 0.008 0.000
Video VIV1 0.821 *** 0.674 −0.022 0.000
Information VIV2 0.746 *** 0.557 0.041 0.002
Visualization VIV3 0.897 *** 0.805 −0.016 0.000
(VIV) VIV4 0.821 *** 0.674 0.000 0.000
VPC1 0.842 *** 0.709 0.041 0.002
Video Publisher VPC2 0.902 *** 0.814 0.013 0.000
Credibility (VPC) VPC3 0.877 *** 0.769 0.021 0.000
VPC4 0.988 *** 0.976 −0.072 0.005
VIN1 0.837 *** 0.701 0.017 0.000
Video
VIN2 0.917 *** 0.841 −0.065 0.004
Involvement
VIN3 0.863 *** 0.745 0.063 0.004
(VIN)
VIN4 0.892 *** 0.796 −0.017 0.000
Product PIN1 0.945 *** 0.893 −0.035 0.001
Involvement PIN2 0.946 *** 0.895 0.004 0.000
(PIN) PIN3 0.874 *** 0.764 0.032 0.001
PUI1 0.841 *** 0.707 0.116 ** 0.013
Purchase
PUI2 0.981 *** 0.962 −0.050 0.003
Intention (PUI)
PUI3 0.999 *** 0.998 −0.065 0.004
Average 0.878 0.777 0.001 0.003
Note: ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

5. Data Analysis and Results

5.1. Measurement Model
We employed confirmatory factor analysis to verify the reliability and validity of the
constructs. Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability were used to assess the reliability of
all the constructs [72]. As the results show in Table 4, Cronbach’s alpha scores ranged from
0.825 to 0.935, and the composite reliability ranged from 0.887 to 0.958, which are all higher
than the threshold value of 0.7 [72]. These results indicated the goodness of reliability.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9522 10 of 19

Table 4. Results of confirmatory factor analysis.

Average
Cronbach’s Composite
Construct Indicator Loading Variance
Alpha Reliability
Extracted
VIQ1 0.814
Video
VIQ2 0.868
Information 0.830 0.887 0.662
VIQ3 0.744
Quality (VIQ)
VIQ4 0.825
Video Emotional VEP1 0.916
0.825 0.919 0.851
Polarity (VEP) VEP2 0.929
Product PIV1 0.791
Information PIV2 0.763
0.840 0.893 0.677
Visualization PIV3 0.894
(PIV) PIV4 0.837
VPC1 0.865
Video Publisher VPC2 0.915
0.924 0.946 0.815
Credibility (VPC) VPC3 0.904
VPC4 0.925
VIN1 0.829
Video
VIN2 0.867
Involvement 0.900 0.930 0.769
VIN3 0.917
(VIN)
VIN4 0.892
Product PIN1 0.917
Involvement PIN2 0.946 0.911 0.944 0.850
(PIN) PIN3 0.902
PUI1 0.937
Purchase
PUI2 0.939 0.935 0.958 0.885
Intention (PUI)
PUI3 0.947

Both convergent and discriminant validities were tested. As shown in Table 4, all the
factor loadings were above the suggested value of 0.7, and all the values of average variance
extracted (AVE) were above the benchmark value of 0.5 [72]. These results demonstrated
the good convergent validity of the measurement model. As the results show in Table 5,
the square roots of AVEs for all constructs in the diagonal row were higher than the
inter-construct correlations [72]. In addition, we further tested discriminant validity by
calculating the Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT) ratios [73]. As shown in Table 5, all the
HTMT values were lower than the suggested score of 0.85, indicating the discriminant
validity was reaffirmed. These results demonstrated the good discriminant validity of the
measurement model.
Considering that a few correlations between constructs were greater than 0.6, we then
tested the potential multicollinearity problem. According to Mason and Perreault [74],
the variance inflation factor (VIF) was used to test collinearity: when VIFs are above 10,
multicollinearity exists. The results showed that the value of the highest VIF was 4.399.
Thus, multicollinearity was not a serious concern.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9522 11 of 19

Table 5. Means, standard deviation, correlations matrix and Heterotrait–Monotrait ratios.

Mean S.D. VIQ VEP PIV VPC VIN PIN PUI

VIQ 4.997 1.062 0.814
0.320
VEP 4.787 1.320 0.922
(0.394)
0.623 0.310
PIV 4.644 0.981 0.823
(0.757) (0.377)
0.686 0.469 0.636
VPC 5.260 1.082 0.903
(0.782) (0.539) (0.718)
0.401 0.410 0.384 0.378
VIN 4.231 1.251 0.877
(0.461) (0.484) (0.444) (0.409)
0.522 0.248 0.465 0.396 0.635
PIN 4.357 1.049 0.922
(0.605) (0.284) (0.532) (0.432) (0.708)
0.537 0.315 0.617 0.677 0.492 0.443
PUI 4.836 1.303 0.941
(0.599) (0.357) (0.692) (0.721) (0.529) (0.479)
Note: VIQ represents video information quality; PIV represents product information visualization; VEP represents
video emotion polarity; VPC represents video publisher credibility; VIN represents video involvement; PIN
represents product involvement; PUI represents purchase intention.

5.2. Structural Model

The hierarchical ordinary least squares regression analysis was employed to test
the structural model. Hierarchy regression analysis is more suitable for models with
multiple moderating effects [75]. In addition, hierarchical regression analysis may overcome
the drawbacks of PLS in that the strength of the relationships is overestimated, and the
significance of the relationships is underestimated [76]. We mean-centered the data before
analysis to minimize the potential multicollinearity issue [77].
The hierarchical regression analysis results were summarized in Tables 6 and 7. In
Table 6, we focused on examining the direct effects of the central route and peripheral
route factors on purchase intention and also tested the moderating effects of peripheral
route factors on the relationships between central route factors and purchase intention. The
control variables were included in model one, the independent variables and moderators
were included in model two, followed by the interaction terms in model three, respectively.

Table 6. Hierarchical regression analysis results of direct effects.

DV = Purchase Intention
Construct
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Gender 0.216 ** 0.291 *** 0.272 ***
Age 0.027 0.013 0.002
Education 0.144 −0.031 −0.021
VIQ (H1) 0.077 0.137
PIV (H2) 0.382 *** 0.449 ***
VEP (H3) 0.057 0.030
VPC (H4) 0.327 *** 0.212 *
VEP × VIQ 0.358 ***
VEP × PIV −0.359 ***
VPC × VIQ −0.227
VPC × PIV 0.175
R2 0.079 0.579 0.630
4R2 0.499 0.051
F (p-value) 0.079 ** 47.703 *** 5.388 ***
Note: VIQ represents video information quality; PIV represents product information visualization; VEP represents
video emotion polarity; VPC represents video publisher credibility. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9522 12 of 19

Table 7. Hierarchical regression analysis results of moderating effects.

DV = Purchase Intention
Construct
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Gender 0.216 ** 0.291 *** 0.274 *** 0.231 ***
Age 0.027 0.013 −0.019 0.009
Education 0.144 −0.031 0.026 0.050
VIQ 0.077 0.031 0.034
PIV 0.382 *** 0.302 *** 0.252 ***
VEP 0.057 −0.031 −0.022
VPC 0.327 *** 0.334 *** 0.290 ***
PIN 0.010 0.077
VIN 0.280 *** 0.351 ***
PIN × VIQ (H5a) −0.310 **
PIN × PIV (H5b) 0.038
PIN × VEP (H5c) −0.141 *
PIN × VPC (H5d) 0.159
VIN × VIQ (H6a) 0.203 *
VIN × PIV (H6b) 0.045
VIN × VEP (H6c) 0.112
VIN × VPC (H6d) −0.376 **
R2 0.079 0.579 0.633 0.725
4 R2 0.499 0.054 0.092
F (p-value) 4.742 ** 47.702 *** 11.812 *** 6.306 ***
Note: VIQ represents video information quality; PIV represents product information visualization; VEP represents
video emotion polarity; VPC represents video publisher credibility; VIN represents video involvement; PIN
represents product involvement. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

As the results show in Table 6, the identified four vWOM features accounted for 57.9%
of the total variances. Product information visualization was significantly and positively
related to consumers’ purchase intention (β = 0.382, p < 0.001), supporting H2. Video
publisher credibility was significantly and positively related to purchase intention (β = 0.327,
p < 0.001), supporting H4. However, the relationships between video information quality
(β = 0.077, p > 0.05) and video emotional polarity (β = 0.057, p > 0.05) and purchase intention
were nonsignificant, rejecting H1 and H3. Furthermore, we also tested the moderating role
of video emotional polarity and video publisher credibility on the relationships between
video information quality and product information visualization. It was interesting to
find that video emotional polarity significantly and negatively moderated the relationship
between product information visualization and consumers’ purchase intention (β = −0.359,
p < 0.001).
In Table 7, we tested the moderating effects of product involvement and video in-
volvement on the relationships between central/peripheral route factors and consumers’
purchase intention. The control variables were included in model one; the independent
variables were included in model two; the moderators were added in model three; followed
by the interaction terms in model four, respectively.
As the results show in Table 7, by adding the interaction effects of product/video
involvement into the model, 72.5% of the total variance of purchase intention was explained.
The moderating effect of video involvement on the relationship between video publisher
credibility and purchase intention was significantly negative (β = −0.376, p < 0.01), sup-
porting H6d. However, although the interaction effects between product involvement and
video information quality/video emotion polarity and between video involvement and
video information quality were significant, the direct effects between video information
quality/video emotion polarity and purchase intention were statistically non-significant,
thus rejecting H5a, H5c, and H6a. In addition, H5b, H5d, H6b, and H6c were also rejected
due to the non-significant interaction effects.
To further interpret the results, we plotted the moderating effects of video emotion
polarity and video involvement. A high and low level of a moderator (i.e., video emotion
polarity and video involvement) are indicated by the scores one standard division above
 volvement and video information quality/video emotion polarity and between video in-
volvement and video information quality were significant, the direct effects between
video information quality/video emotion polarity and purchase intention were statisti-
cally non-significant, thus rejecting H5a, H5c, and H6a. In addition, H5b, H5d, H6b, and
H6c were also rejected due to the non-significant interaction effects.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9522 To further interpret the results, we plotted the moderating effects of video emotion 13 of 19

polarity and video involvement. A high and low level of a moderator (i.e., video emotion
polarity and video involvement) are indicated by the scores one standard division above
and below
and below thethe mean
mean [77].
[77]. The moderating effect of video emotion polarity on the relation-
ship
ship between
between product
product information
information visualization
visualization and
and purchase
purchase intention
intention was
was plotted
plotted in in
Figure
Figure2. 2. The
The effect
effect of
of product
product information
information visualization
visualization on on purchase
purchase intention
intention isis stronger
stronger
with
with aa low
low level
level of
of video
video emotion
emotion polarity
polarity than
than that
that with
with aa high
high level
level of
of video
video emotion
emotion
polarity.
polarity. The moderating effect of video involvement on the relationship between video
The moderating effect of video involvement on the relationship between video
publisher
publisher credibility
credibility and
and purchase
purchase intention
intention was
was plotted
plotted inin Figure
Figure 3.3. The
The effect
effect of
of video
video
publisher
publishercredibility
credibilityonon consumers’
consumers’ purchase
purchaseintention is stronger
intention with with
is stronger a lowalevel
low of video
level of
involvement than with
video involvement thana with
high alevel
highoflevel
video
ofinvolvement.
video involvement.

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Figure 2.2.Moderating
Figure Moderatingeffect
effectofofvideo
videoemotion
emotionpolarity
polarityonon
thethe relationship
relationship between
between product
product 14infor-
of 19
informa-
mation
tion visualization
visualization andand purchase
purchase intention.
intention.

Figure3.3. Moderating
Figure Moderating effect
effectofofvideo
videoinvolvement onon
involvement thethe
relationship between
relationship video
between publisher
video cred-
publisher
ibility and purchase intention.
credibility and purchase intention.

5.3.Qualitative
5.3. QualitativeResults
Results
Tofurther
To furtherinterpret
interpretthe theabove
aboveresults,
results,we
weconducted
conducteda afollow-up
follow-upinterview.
interview.More
More
specifically,
specifically,we
weaim
aimtotofurther
furtherunderstand
understandthe thefollowing
followingtwotwoissues
issuesininthis
thisinterview:
interview:What
What
are
arethe
thereasons
reasonsfor
forthe
theinsignificant
insignificanteffects
effectsofofvideo
videoinformation
informationquality
qualityand andvideo
videoemotion
emotion
polarity
polarityononconsumers’
consumers’purchase
purchaseintention
intention(i.e.,
(i.e.,H1
H1and
andH3)?
H3)?andandWhat
Whatare arethe
thereasons
reasonsofof
the
theinsignificant
insignificantmoderating
moderatingeffects
effectsofofproduct
productinvolvement
involvement(i.e.,
(i.e.,H5a–d)?
H5a–d)?
To answer the above two research questions, we conducted a semi-structured
To answer the above two research questions, we conducted a semi-structured interview
inter-
with
view with 17 respondents randomly selected from the previous survey study sample.The
17 respondents randomly selected from the previous survey study sample. The
sampled
sampledinterview
interviewquestions
questions include
include “When
“When you you want
want to
to by
by aatechnical
technical product
product (e.g.,
(e.g.,
smartphone,
smartphone,laptop),
laptop),will
willyou
youwatch
watchthe therelated
relatedproduct
productreview
reviewvideos
videoson onthe
theshort
shortvideo
video
platforms? How do you feel about the video information quality? How and to what extent
the review videos related to your needs, values, and interest of the products?”
First, more than half of the respondents said that the product review videos they
viewed were recommended by the short videos platform rather than searched by them-
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9522 14 of 19

platforms? How do you feel about the video information quality? How and to what extent
the review videos related to your needs, values, and interest of the products?”
First, more than half of the respondents said that the product review videos they
viewed were recommended by the short videos platform rather than searched by them-
selves, and thus they perceived that the information quality of the review videos is uneven.
One of the respondents said that “I usually watch the review videos recommended by the
platform, but I would trust more on the product information that I searched by myself”.
These results suggested that potential consumers are more reliant on their own searched
information rather than the recommended information by the short videos platform, which
may result in the non-significant effects of video information quality and video emotion
polarity on purchase intention.
Second, twelve of the respondents claimed that when the product is important to
them, or they are very interested in it (that is, the degree of product involvement is high),
the product review videos on the short video platforms were not the main references of
their purchase decision. One of the respondents pointed out that “when I am interested in the
product, I would like to firstly search the information online and also carefully read the online
text-based reviews in a particular online store (e.g., the brand official online store). After that,
I usually do not need to view the reviews videos”. In addition, fourteen of the respondents
suggested that when they were highly involved with the products, they usually had a better
understanding of the products in terms of basic functions and characteristics of the product.
These results indicated that consumers with high product involvement may have already
obtained familiarity with the product and thus tend to search text-based information, which
requires high cognitive effort for further purchase decision-making, rather than rely on the
shared experiences from others, consequently leading to the insignificant moderating effects
of product involvement in the review videos context.

6. Discussion, Implications, and Future Research

6.1. Key Findings
This study has the following key findings. First, both product information visualization
(central route factor) and video publisher credibility (peripheral route factor) positively and
significantly influence consumers’ purchase intention. These results are consistent with exist-
ing literature that eWOM source credibility and the trustworthiness of product information
positively affected consumers’ intention to buy [78]. However, it is interesting to find that the
direct impacts of video information quality (central route factor) and video emotional polarity
(peripheral route factor) on purchase intention are non-significant. Prior studies suggested
that the positive sentiment expressed in product reviews video comments significantly and
favorably influenced consumers’ purchase intention, and the negative sentiment expressed in
product review video comments significantly and adversely affected consumers’ purchase
intention [3]. This study thus complemented this research area by examining the effects of
perceived video emotional polarity and providing nuanced evidence.
Second, we found that video involvement negatively moderates the relationship be-
tween product information visualization and purchase intention. This result is consistent
with the findings in prior studies that suggested providing a pleasant shopping environ-
ment with rich media (e.g., review videos) increased consumers’ perceived amount of
information. Consumers who perceive more information may perceive a high level of
external environmental stimulation and, subsequently, distract their attention capability
for the decision tasks [79]. Moreover, the results showed that video emotional polarity
negatively moderated the relationship between product information visualization and
purchase intention. That is, the consumers who are rational rather than emotional would
focus more on comprehensively comprehending the product information in the video,
which facilitates their purchase intention [51].
Third, it is also interesting to find the non-significant effects of video information
quality and video emotion polarity and the non-significant moderating effects of product
involvement. We further examined these effects by conducting follow-up interviews with
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9522 15 of 19

the survey respondents. The possible explanations are: consumers may perceive that the
reviews videos they view were recommended by the platform and thus may attribute
them as discredited commercial advertisements. Moreover, consumers with high product
involvement tend to search text-based information by themselves to make a purchase
decision, leading to the insignificant moderating effects of product involvement. These
results also demonstrated that the product review videos might play different roles in
different stages of consumers’ purchase decisions, which are worthy of future exploration.

6.2. Theoretical Implications

This study contributes to the existing literature in the following aspects. First, our
study identified four features of product review videos and examined their impacts on
consumers’ purchase intention. This research is thus responding to the research calls in the
existing literature that more research on user-generated product review videos and how
they influence consumers’ purchase behavior [47,49].
Second, this study identified two kinds of involvement in the review videos con-
text, viz.: video involvement and product involvement, and further investigated their
moderating effects. We found that when adding video involvement into the model, the
moderating effects of product involvement are non-significant. This study thus contributes
to existing eWOM literature by demonstrating the distinct role of contextual involvement
(i.e., video involvement) and was also provided fresh and nuanced empirical evidence for
understanding the boundary effects of review videos [17,51].
Third, this study also contributes to the ELM model by examining the moderating ef-
fects of the peripheral route factor (i.e., video emotion polarity) on the relationship between
the central route factor (i.e., product information visualization) and consumers’ purchase
intention. Prior studies demonstrated that central and peripheral routes jointly influenced
consumer purchase decisions [37]. Rarely have studies investigated the interaction effects of
these two routes on consumers’ purchase intention, and this study thus provided empirical
evidence of the interaction effects in the review videos context.

6.3. Practical Implications

The findings of this study have several implications for practitioners. First, this study
found that the total variances of purchase intention explained by product review video fea-
tures are large. Therefore, we suggest that rather than only focusing on attracting potential
consumers, practitioners should also find effective ways to improve the transformation
rate from attracted potential consumers to actual customers [3].
Second, our results also suggested the crucial effects of product information visualiza-
tion and video publisher credibility on consumers’ purchase intention. We thus suggested
that marketers visualize the product information by matching consumers’ preferences.
Furthermore, we also suggested that short video platforms strengthen the censorship
mechanism for video publishers.
Third, we found that video involvement played a more important role in influencing
consumers’ purchase intention than product involvement in the product review videos
context. We thus suggested marketers and video creators should effectively link their video
content with consumers’ experiences and the needs of products to improve the market
value of these product review videos [7].

6.4. Limitations and Future Research

Despite the findings of this study deeper our understanding of video-based word-
of-mouth, there are several limitations that should be addressed in future studies. First,
this study validated the proposed research model with cross-section data points. However,
consumers’ purchase intention on the short video platforms is an ongoing phenomenon,
given the dynamic and vivid nature of review videos. Future studies could develop a
longitudinal research design to further test the research model and capture the dynamic
relationship between vWOM and purchase intention. Second, this study collected data
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9522 16 of 19

through snowball sampling that may lack randomness. Future studies could collect more
data from multiple sources to validate the research model. Third, other remaining un-
explained features of vWOM (e.g., video optimization practices feature) and consumers’
characteristics may impact the proposed relationships. Future research thus could explore
additional moderating effects [17].

7. Conclusions
This study investigated how the key features of vWOM influence consumers’ purchase
intentions and the moderating role of video and product involvement on the relationships
between vWOM features and purchase intention. The results indicated that product
information visualization and video publisher credibility exert significant positive effects
on purchase intention. Moreover, video involvement negatively moderates the relationship
between video publisher credibility and purchase intention, and video publisher credibility
negatively moderates the relationship between product information visualization and
purchase intention. These interesting findings provided nuanced empirical evidence and
enriched our understanding of video-based word-of-mouth.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, P.Y., C.L. and L.Z.; methodology, P.Y. and L.Z.; formal analysis,
C.L. and J.W.; investigation, C.L. and J.W.; writing—original draft preparation, P.Y. and L.Z.; writing—
review and editing, M.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant
number 71701061, 72171074, and 71971074; Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities,
grant number JZ2019HGTB0097.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Frade, J.L.H.; de Oliveira, J.H.C.; Giraldi, J.d.M.E. Advertising in streaming video: An integrative literature review and research
agenda. Telecommun. Policy 2021, 45, 102186. [CrossRef]
2. Ren, J.; Yang, J.; Zhu, M.; Majeed, S. Relationship between consumer participation behaviors and consumer stickiness on mobile
short video social platform under the development of ICT: Based on value co-creation theory perspective. Inf. Technol. Dev. 2021,
27, 697–717. [CrossRef]
3. Agrawal, S.R.; Mittal, D. Optimizing customer engagement content strategy in retail and E-tail: Available on online product
review videos. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 67, 102966. [CrossRef]
4. Smith, A.N.; Fischer, E.; Yongjian, C. How Does Brand-related User-generated Content Differ across YouTube, Facebook, and
Twitter? J. Interact. Mark. 2012, 26, 102–113. [CrossRef]
5. Tellis, G.J.; MacInnis, D.J.; Tirunillai, S.; Zhang, Y. What drives virality (sharing) of online digital content? The critical role of
information, emotion, and brand prominence. J. Mark. 2019, 83, 1–20.
6. Vedula, N.; Sun, W.; Lee, H.; Gupta, H.; Ogihara, M.; Johnson, J.; Ren, G.; Parthasarathy, S. Multimodal content analysis for
effective advertisements on YouTube. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, New Orleans, LA,
USA, 18–21 November 2017.
7. Tafesse, W. YouTube marketing: How marketers’ video optimization practices influence video views. Internet Res. 2020, 30,
1689–1707.
8. Lee, W.-I.; Cheng, S.-Y.; Shih, Y.-T. Effects among product attributes, involvement, word-of-mouth, and purchase intention in
online shopping. Asia Pac. Manag. Rev. 2017, 22, 223–229. [CrossRef]
9. Krishnamurthy, A.; Kumar, S.R. Electronic word-of-mouth and the brand image: Exploring the moderating role of involvement
through a consumer expectations lens. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 43, 149–156. [CrossRef]
10. Ballon, P.; Van Hoed, M.; Schuurman, D. The effectiveness of involving users in digital innovation: Measuring the impact of
living labs. Telemat. Inform. 2018, 35, 1202–1214. [CrossRef]
11. Ramadan, Z.; Farah, M.; Kassab, D. Amazon’s approach to consumers’ usage of the Dash button and its effect on purchase
decision involvement in the U. S. market. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 47, 133–149. [CrossRef]
12. Chan, Y.Y.Y.; Ngai, E.W.T. Conceptualising electronic word of mouth activity: An input-process-output perspective. Mark. Intell.
Plan. 2011, 29, 488–516. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9522 17 of 19

13. Hu, X.; Ha, L. Which form of word-of-mouth is more important to online shoppers? a comparative study of WOM use between
general population and college students. J. Commun. Media Res. 2015, 7, 15–35.
14. Moisescu, O.; Dan, I.; Gică, O. An examination of personality traits as predictors of electronic word-of-mouth diffusion in social
networking sites. J. Consum. Behav. 2021, 21, 450–467. [CrossRef]
15. Tobon, S.; García-Madariaga, J. The Influence of Opinion Leaders’ eWOM on Online Consumer Decisions: A Study on Social
Influence. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16, 43. [CrossRef]
16. Bi, N.C.; Zhang, R.; Ha, L. Does valence of product review matter? The mediating role of self-effect and third-person effect in
sharing YouTube word-of-mouth (vWOM). J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2019, 13, 79–95. [CrossRef]
17. Brand, B.M.; Reith, R. Cultural differences in the perception of credible online reviews—The influence of presentation format.
Decis. Support Syst. 2022, 154, 113710. [CrossRef]
18. Lin, T.M.; Lu, K.; Wu, J. The effects of visual information in eWOM communication. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2012, 6, 7–26. [CrossRef]
19. Teng, S.; Khong, K.W.; Goh, W.W.; Chong, A.Y.L. Examining the antecedents of persuasive eWOM messages in social media.
Online Inf. Rev. 2014, 38, 746–768. [CrossRef]
20. Chou, Y.-C.; Chuang, H.H.-C.; Liang, T.-P. Elaboration likelihood model, endogenous quality indicators, and online review
helpfulness. Decis. Support Syst. 2021, 153, 113683. [CrossRef]
21. Hu, N.; Koh, N.S.; Reddy, S.K. Ratings lead you to the product, reviews help you clinch it? The mediating role of online review
sentiments on product sales. Decis. Support Syst. 2014, 57, 42–53.
22. Xia, H.; Yang, Y.; Pan, X.; Zhang, Z.; An, W. Sentiment analysis for online reviews using conditional random fields and support
vector machines. Electron. Commer. Res. 2020, 20, 343–360. [CrossRef]
23. Lopezosa, C.; Orduna-Malea, E.; Perez-Montoro, M. Making video news visible: Identifying the optimization strategies of the
cybermedia on YouTube using webmetrics. Journal. Pract. 2019, 14, 1–18. [CrossRef]
24. Hu, N.; Bose, I.; Koh, N.S.; Liu, L. Manipulation of online reviews: An analysis of ratings, readability, and sentiments. Decis.
Support Syst. 2012, 52, 674–684. [CrossRef]
25. Tandon, A.; Aakash, A.; Aggarwal, A.G.; Kapur, P.K. Analyzing the impact of review recency on helpfulness through econometric
modeling. Int. J. Syst. Assur. Eng. Manag. 2021, 12, 104–111. [CrossRef]
26. Cheung, C.M.; Thadani, D.R. The impact of electronic word-of-mouth communication: A literature analysis and integrative
model. Decis. Support Syst. 2012, 54, 461–470. [CrossRef]
27. Zhu, L.; Li, H.; He, W.; Hong, C. What influences online reviews’ perceived information quality? Electron. Libr. 2020, 38, 273–296.
[CrossRef]
28. Ohanian, R. Construction and Validation of a Scale to Measure Celebrity Endorsers’ Perceived Expertise, Trustworthiness, and
Attractiveness. J. Advert. 1990, 19, 39–52. [CrossRef]
29. Baber, A.; Thurasamy, R.; Malik, M.I.; Sadiq, B.; Islam, S.; Sajjad, M. Online word-of-mouth antecedents, attitude and intention-to-
purchase electronic products in Pakistan. Telemat. Inform. 2016, 33, 388–400. [CrossRef]
30. See-To, E.W.; Ho, K.K. Value co-creation and purchase intention in social network sites: The role of electronic Word-of-Mouth and
trust—A theoretical analysis. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 31, 182–189. [CrossRef]
31. Chen, Y.-H.; Hsu, I.-C.; Lin, C.-C. Website attributes that increase consumer purchase intention: A conjoint analysis. J. Bus. Res.
2010, 63, 1007–1014. [CrossRef]
32. Xia, L.; Bechwati, N.N. Word of mouse: The role of cognitive personalization in online consumer reviews. J. Interact. Advert. 2008,
9, 3–13. [CrossRef]
33. Erkan, I.; Evans, C. The influence of eWOM in social media on consumers’ purchase intentions: An extended approach to
information adoption. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 61, 47–55. [CrossRef]
34. Martins, J.; Costa, C.; Oliveira, T.; Gonçalves, R.; Branco, F. How smartphone advertising influences consumers’ purchase
intention. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 94, 378–387. [CrossRef]
35. Park, J.; Hyun, H.; Thavisay, T. A study of antecedents and outcomes of social media WOM towards luxury brand purchase
intention. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 58, 102272. [CrossRef]
36. Petty, R.E.; Cacioppo, J.T. The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral
routes to persuasion. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1984, 46, 69–81. [CrossRef]
37. Aghakhani, N.; Oh, O.; Gregg, D.G.; Karimi, J. Online Review Consistency Matters: An Elaboration Likelihood Model Perspective.
Inf. Syst. Front. 2020, 23, 1287–1301. [CrossRef]
38. Shahab, M.H.; Ghazali, E.; Mohtar, M. The role of elaboration likelihood model in consumer behaviour research and its extension
to new technologies: A review and future research agenda. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2021, 45, 664–689. [CrossRef]
39. Park, D.-H.; Lee, J.; Han, I. The Effect of On-Line Consumer Reviews on Consumer Purchasing Intention: The Moderating Role of
Involvement. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2007, 11, 125–148. [CrossRef]
40. Griffith, D.A.; Krampf, R.F.; Palmer, J.W. The role of interface in electronic commerce: Consumer involvement with print versus
online catalogs. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2001, 5, 135–154. [CrossRef]
41. Celsi, R.L.; Olson, J.C. The role of involvement in attention and comprehension processes. J. Consum. Res. 1988, 15, 210–224.
[CrossRef]
42. Bian, X.; Moutinho, L. The role of brand image, product involvement, and knowledge in explaining consumer purchase behaviour
of counterfeits: Direct and indirect effects. Eur. J. Mark. 2011, 45, 191–216. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9522 18 of 19

43. Teng, S.; Khong, K.W.; Chong, A.; Lin, B. Examining the Impacts of Electronic Word-of-Mouth Message on Consumers’ Attitude.
J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 2017, 57, 238–251. [CrossRef]
44. Liao, S.-H.; Hu, D.-C.; Chung, Y.-C.; Huang, A.-P. Risk and opportunity for online purchase intention—A moderated mediation
model investigation. Telemat. Inform. 2021, 62, 101621. [CrossRef]
45. Chen, C.-C.; Chang, Y.-C. What drives purchase intention on Airbnb? Perspectives of consumer reviews, information quality, and
media richness. Telemat. Inform. 2018, 35, 1512–1523.
46. Zhao, Y.; Wang, L.; Tang, H.; Zhang, Y. Electronic word-of-mouth and consumer purchase intentions in social e-commerce.
Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2020, 41, 100980. [CrossRef]
47. Diwanji, V.S.; Cortese, J. Contrasting user generated videos versus brand generated videos in ecommerce. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.
2020, 54, 102024. [CrossRef]
48. Aljukhadar, M.; Senecal, S. Communicating online information via streaming video: The role of user goal. Online Inf. Rev. 2017,
41, 378–397. [CrossRef]
49. Xu, P.; Chen, L.; Santhanam, R. Will video be the next generation of e-commerce product reviews? Presentation format and the
role of product type. Decis. Support Syst. 2015, 73, 85–96. [CrossRef]
50. Han, T.-I.; Stoel, L. Using rich media to motivate fair-trade purchase. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2017, 11, 361–379. [CrossRef]
51. Li, C.; Liu, Y.; Du, R. The Effects of Review Presentation Formats on Consumers’ Purchase Intention. J. Glob. Inf. Manag. 2021, 29,
1–20. [CrossRef]
52. Wang, Y.; Yu, C. Social interaction-based consumer decision-making model in social commerce: The role of word of mouth and
observational learning. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2017, 37, 179–189. [CrossRef]
53. Lee, J.; Park, D.-H.; Han, I. The effect of negative online consumer reviews on product attitude: An information processing view.
Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2008, 7, 341–352. [CrossRef]
54. Eagly, A.H.; Chaiken, S. Psychology of Attitudes; Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers: San Diego, CA, USA, 1993.
55. Zhu, L.; Yin, G.; He, W. Is this opinion leader’s review useful? Peripheral cues for online review helpfulness. J. Electron. Commer. Res.
2014, 15, 267–280.
56. Bansal, H.S.; Voyer, P.A. Word-of-Mouth Processes Within a Services Purchase Decision Context. J. Serv. Res. 2000, 3, 166–177.
[CrossRef]
57. Strubel, J.; Petrie, T.A. The clothes make the man: The relation of sociocultural factors and sexual orientation to appearance and
product involvement. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 33, 1–7. [CrossRef]
58. Petty, R.E.; Cacioppo, J.T. Issue involvement as a moderator of the effects on attitude of advertising content and context. Adv.
Consum. Res. 1981, 8, 20–24.
59. Lee, S.; Kim, K.J.; Sundar, S.S. Customization in location-based advertising: Effects of tailoring source, locational congruity, and
product involvement on ad attitudes. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 51, 336–343. [CrossRef]
60. Gao, L.; Bai, X. An empirical study on continuance intention of mobile social networking services. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2014,
26, 168–189. [CrossRef]
61. Gefen, D.; Straub, D. Managing User Trust in B2C e-Services. E-Serv. J. 2003, 2, 7–24. [CrossRef]
62. Dutta-Bergman, M.J. The Impact of Completeness and Web Use Motivation on the Credibility of e-Health Information. J. Commun.
2004, 54, 253–270. [CrossRef]
63. Zaichkowsky, J.L. The Personal Involvement Inventory: Reduction, Revision, and Application to Advertising. J. Advert. 1994, 23,
59–70. [CrossRef]
64. Zeithaml, V.A.; Berry, L.L.; Parasuraman, A. The Behavioral Consequences of Service Quality. J. Mark. 1996, 60, 31–46. [CrossRef]
65. Van de Vijver, F.J.R.; Leung, K. Methods and data analysis of comparative research. In Handbook of Cross-Culturalpsychology: Theory
and Method; Berry, J.W., Poortinga, Y.H., Pandey, J., Eds.; Allyn & Bacon: Boston, MA, USA, 1997.
66. Kenny, B.; Rayport, J. TikTok: Super App or Supernova? 2021. Available online: https://hbr.org/podcast/2021/11/tiktok-super-
app-or-supernova (accessed on 31 July 2022).
67. Beauchemin, C.; González-Ferrer, A. Sampling international migrants with origin-based snowballing method: New evidence on
biases and limitations. Demogr. Res. 2011, 25, 103–134. [CrossRef]
68. Armstrong, J.; Overton, T. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J. Mark. Res. 1977, 14, 396–402. [CrossRef]
69. Podsakoff, P.M.; Organ, D.W. Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects. J. Manag. 1986, 12, 531–544.
[CrossRef]
70. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.-Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of
the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
71. Williams, L.J.; Hartman, N.; Cavazotte, F. Method variance and marker variables: A review and comprehensive CFA marker
technique. Organ. Res. Methods 2010, 13, 477–514. [CrossRef]
72. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res.
1981, 18, 39–50. [CrossRef]
73. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation
modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2014, 43, 115–135. [CrossRef]
74. Mason, C.H.; Perreault, W.D., Jr. Collinearity, power, and interpretation of multiple regression analysis. J. Mark. Res. 1991, 28,
268–280. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 9522 19 of 19

75. Sun, Y.; Fang, Y.; Lim, K.H. Understanding sustained participation in transactional virtual communities. Decis. Support Syst. 2012,
53, 12–22. [CrossRef]
76. Goodhue, D.; Lewis, W.; Thompson, R. Statistical power in analyzing interaction effects: Questioning the advantage of PLS with
product indicators. Inf. Syst. Res. 2007, 18, 211–227. [CrossRef]
77. Aiken, L.S.; West, S.G. Multiple Regress: Testing and Interpreting Interactions; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1991.
78. Ismagilova, E.; Slade, E.L.; Rana, N.P.; Dwivedi, Y.K. The Effect of Electronic Word of Mouth Communications on Intention to
Buy: A Meta-Analysis. Inf. Syst. Front. 2020, 22, 1203–1226. [CrossRef]
79. Kim, H.; Lennon, S.J. E-atmosphere, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral responses. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 2010, 14, 412–428.
[CrossRef]