Journal of Strategic Marketing

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsm20

What motivates consumers to communicate

eWOM: evidence from Tunisian context

Ali Haj Khalifa

To cite this article: Ali Haj Khalifa (2022): What motivates consumers to communicate
eWOM: evidence from Tunisian context, Journal of Strategic Marketing, DOI:
10.1080/0965254X.2022.2063157

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2022.2063157

Published online: 15 Apr 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 308

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjsm20
JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING
https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2022.2063157

What motivates consumers to communicate eWOM: evidence

from Tunisian context
Ali Haj Khalifa
Department of Management, Emirates College of Technology, Abu Dhabi, UAE

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Electronic word of mouth (eWOM) is increasingly important in Received 30 October 2021
consumer decision-making. Even though marketers don’t have Accepted 25 March 2022
complete control over eWOM, they still need to understand how KEYWORDS
it works. Few studies have investigated the antecedents of such eWOM; satisfaction;
behavior in different cultural contexts. This paper proposes a model expectation confirmation;
to explore the factors motivating Tunisian customers to commu­ moderators; regression
nicate eWOM. The empirical investigation was conducted using analysis
a sample of 624 hotel industry customers. The results of the regres­
sion analysis show that eWOM is significantly linked to customer
satisfaction, which is the result of expectation confirmation. This
tendency is moderated by consumers’ altruism and age. Findings
also suggests that females are more likely to communicate eWOM
than males do. The findings improve the understanding of eWOM
in a new cultural context and help Tunisian authorities setting their
marketing strategies. In addition, its findings help online review
sites attracting and retaining active contributors.

1. Introduction
Tourism is currently one of the world’s fastest growing industries and revenue sources
for both developing and developed countries (Bouzahzah & El-Menyari, 2013). Tunisian
authorities had recognized the importance of tourism for the economic growth since
the mid-1960s and had successfully entered the global tourist industry to become one
of Africa’s most visited countries. However, this sector has suffered in recent years
because of the 2011 Revolution, terrorist attacks in 2015, and the latest coronavirus
epidemic.
In addition to these challenges, the tourist industry faces several significant issues, as
for all types of services. Touristic offer, for example, are intangible in nature and so cannot
be appraised prior to its use. As a result, interpersonal influence among customers plays
a significant role in reducing the above-mentioned risks (Lewis & Chambers, 2000).
In general, marketing research has widely demonstrated that personal sources of
information are more influential than corporate sources (Goldsmith & Horowitz, 2006)
and one of the most important determinants of buying decisions (Bastos & Moore, 2021;
Khammash & Griffiths, 2011). This influence, conventionally known as word of mouth

CONTACT Ali Haj Khalifa ali.khalifa@ect.ac.ae Emirates College of Technology, Abu Dhabi, UAE
© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 A. HAJ KHALIFA

(WOM), has been extended to include several electronic tools such as websites, social
networking, blogs, forums (Filieri, 2014) to be defined as eWOM (Khammash & Griffiths,
2011).
Since few decades, research has explored this concept to understand its measures
(Agarwal & Singh, 2018), adoption (Chang & Wu, 2014), impact on brand perception (Sun
et al., 2021) and on consumer buying decisions (Ahmad et al., 2020), and post purchase
behavior (López & Sicilia, 2014). Moreover, various studies have investigated the determi­
nants of eWOM. Their findings, however, are not always consistent (Ismagilova et al.,
2020). Furthermore, the motivations behind communicating eWOM in different cultural
contexts remain not fully explored.
As per my knowledge, no research has been conducted in the context of Tunisia to
investigate the motivations of customers to engage in eWOM behavior. Such investiga­
tion will help the Tunisian authorities shaping their marketing strategies to promote the
tourism sector.
To overcome these gaps in the literature, this paper tries to respond to the following
question: What drives Tunisian customers to share eWOM about their vacations?
To identify the profile of these customers, an Expectancy Confirmation Model (ECM)
is proposed to assess the relationship between expectation confirmation, satisfaction,
and eWOM. The model will also integrate two types of moderating variables: psycho­
logical variables (altruism, and commitment) and demographic features (age and
gender).

2. Literature review
Prior research findings suggest that consumers’ propensity to spread WOM are mainly
driven by the product/service features (Moldovan et al., 2011). The adoption of WOM is
more evident for services than for physical products due to the characteristics of services
making customers not able to evaluate the service prior to its consumption. This makes
the experience and judgment of others very determinant in buying decision (Buttle,
1998). For instance, eWOM has become an influential factor in hotel bookings
(Belarmino & Koh, 2018). However, this influence is far from being similar across different
cultures (Christodoulides et al., 2012). Nuseir (2019) found that eWOM had a substantial
impact on online purchase intentions and brand image among customers in the UAE.
Chinese consumers are receptive to current eWOM remarks regardless of their valence,
whereas UK consumers anchor on negative information regardless of the sequence in
which it is acquired (Christodoulides et al., 2012). In addition, the adoption of eWOM
depends on many factors such as product ranking, information accuracy, information
value-added, information relevance, and information timeliness (Filieri & McLea, 2013;
Filieri, 2015).
Several studies have investigated reviewers’ motivations to spread eWOM (Chen &
Huang, 2013; Mathwick & Mosteller, 2017; Nam et al., 2019). However, their findings are
not always consistent (Ismagilova et al., 2020). Ho and Dempsey (2010) highlighted four
motivations: a desire to belong to a community, a desire to be individualistic, a desire to
be altruistic, and a desire to grow personally. Their empirical investigation showed that
internet users who are more individualistic and/or more altruistic participate in online
reviews more than others.
 JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING 3

Palka et al. (2009) examined the factors that influence a consumer’s decision to
participate in mobile viral marketing. They dissected the mobile viral impact and
discovered the factors that influence how mobile viral content is received, used, and
forwarded.
Strutton et al. (2011) recognized five motivations of eWOM: social standing/trendi­
ness, connectivity/reciprocity, self-brand congruity, enjoyment, and killing time.
Investigating the case of vacationers, Bronner and de-Hoog (2011) recognized five
main motivations: self-directed, helping other vacationers, social benefits, consumer
empowerment, and helping companies. Cheung and Lee (2012) suggested that sense
of belonging to the community, reputation, and enjoyment of helping others are the
main determinants.
Based on dynamic social impact theory, Hornik et al. (2015) have identified six motives
(the tendency to undermine the ‘top dogs’, malicious joy, jealousy, draw attention,
dissatisfaction, and adoption of rumor) and found that consumers disseminate negative
information faster and to more recipients compared to positive information. Three
different determinants were identified by Lee et al. (2013): information sharing desire, self-
presentation desire, and open market reward. As for Li and Suomi (2016), satisfaction,
perceived usefulness, and service quality affect e-service users’ word of mouth positively.
Similarly, Munzel and Kunz (2014) have categorized four types of motivations: positive
experience, negative experience, social bonding, and individual benefits.
Pourabedin and Migin (2015) have examined how the hotel experience motivates
customers to engage in eWOM and identified that benefits, convenience, and environ­
ment are the main antecedents. Similarly, Duarte et al. (2018) confirmed that online
convenience affects the online customer satisfaction which has a positive impact on
eWOM. Belarmino and Koh (2018) found altruism, social belonging, and Self-
enhancement to be a primary motivation for eWOM (hotel rating).
Despite its abundance, the literature is far from being unanimous about the determi­
nants of eWOM. For this reason, Ismagilova et al. (2020) utilize a meta-analysis to reconcile
conflicting findings of factors affecting consumers’ propensity to engage in eWOM com­
munications in different cultural contexts.
Hammouda and Tabbane (2013) claimed that Tunisian customers are eager to write
and read online concerns and/or positive experiences. This eWOM has been found to have
a significant impact on whether a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward the recom­
mended product is formed. However, to the best of my knowledge, no investigation has
been carried out to determine the motivations of such behavior in the Tunisian context.
To fill this gap, this paper explores the determinants of eWOM behavior for Tunisian
customers to highlight the impact of cultural differences and moderating variables.

3. Research model and hypotheses

The research model depicts the motivations of eWOM providing behavior. We agree with
Nam et al. (2019), who claim that the key motivation for communicating eWOM is
satisfaction, which is strongly linked to expectation confirmation. As a nutshell, the role
of satisfaction as a mediator between online expectation confirmation and eWOM beha­
vior will be investigated.
4 A. HAJ KHALIFA

Figure 1. The conceptual model: determinants of eWOM.

eWOM behavior is moderated by concern for others, which stems from a desire to do
an altruistic act by assisting another customer in making an informed purchase decision
(Belarmino & Koh, 2018). Furthermore, Customer commitment has been usually shown as
a mediator between customer satisfaction and eWOM (Purnasari & Yuliando, 2015).
In addition, as consumers behavior varied across ages, we assume that generation to
which they belong (X, Y, and Z) moderates the propensity to communicate eWOM (Noble
et al., 2009). Finally, because men and women often communicate differently (Maceli
et al., 2015), our research model tests the gender moderating impact on eWOM behavior.
The Figure 1 below summarizes the hypothetical relationships between the different
variables of the model.

3.1. Expectation confirmation and satisfaction

Most studies explain consumers’ post-purchase define satisfaction as a situation where
pre-purchase expectations meet the post-purchase perception (Oliver, 1999). During the
information search and product evaluation phases of their decision-making process,
consumers build an ex-ante anticipation about a product or service before acquiring it.
Consumers acquire opinions about a product or service after they have purchased, used,
or consumed. Positive expectation confirmation occurs when a product’s or service’s
performance meets or exceeds the initial expectation. If, on the other hand, the pro­
duct/service performance falls short of the consumer’s initial expectations, he or she will
be dissatisfied (or negative expectation confirmation) (Nam et al., 2019).
According to Fornell et al. (1996), Satisfaction is based on two factors: (1) the product’s
or service’s perceived or experienced quality, and (2) expectations about the quality. The
expectancy disconfirmation states that customers’ satisfaction is the result of three
factors: their perceptions of product performance, their expectations for that perfor­
mance, and explicit comparison between perceived and expected performance (Oliver,
 JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING 5

1999). Expectancy disconfirmation can be measured in one of two ways: (1) as a single
metric that asks customers whether their performance meets, surpasses, or falls short of
their expectations, or (2) as a subtractive difference between two indices: perceived
performance minus expectations (Poister & Thomas, 2011)
According to Nam et al. (2019), confirmation (disconfirmation) and satisfaction (dis­
satisfaction) are positively associated. Therefore:

Hypothesis 1: Expectation confirmation is positively associated with consumer

satisfaction.

3.2. Satisfaction and eWOM

Customer satisfaction is the result of a pleasant consumption fulfilment (Oliver, 1999).
Customer satisfaction is usually considered as antecedents of the intention to spread
eWOM (Kim & Son, 2009; Luarn et al., 2015). The positive relationship between customer
satisfaction and WOM was confirmed by Casalo et al. (2008) in the context of e-banking
services. E-service users adopt eWOM behavior when they are highly satisfied: higher user
satisfaction will lead to a more positive eWOM (Li et al., 2013).
In the context of Chinese online travel services, Li and Suomi (2016) have demon­
strated that perceived usefulness exerts the strongest influence on eWOM behavior
followed by satisfaction and trust. According to Lee et al. (2013), both satisfaction and
dissatisfaction with transactional experiences are antecedents of eWOM. However,
a moderate level of satisfaction does not always lead to the adoption of eWOM behavior.
In this research, we suppose that the adoption of eWOM behavior is highly associated
with a high level of satisfaction/dissatisfaction. Therefore:

Hypothesis 2: Satisfaction mediates the relationship between Expectation Confirmation

and eWOM.

3.3. Customer psychological features’ moderating role

3.3.1. Customer commitment
Commitment is one of the constructs that has piqued the interest of marketing research­
ers. It was defined as an enduring desire to maintain a valued relationship, and an implicit
or explicit pledge of relational continuity between exchange partners, and the belief
rooted in the actors that the importance of the relationship justifies that they make
a maximum effort to maintain it (Morgan & Hunt, 1994).
Customer commitment has been usually shown as a mediator between customer
satisfaction and eWOM. Ismagilova et al. (2020) distinguish between normative and
emotional commitment. A person’s moral obligation to fulfill motivates them to make
a normative commitment. The emotional attachment to, identification with, and engage­
ment in an entity is referred to as affective commitment. In this research we consider the
affective form of commitment defined as the user’s sense of emotional attachment and
involvement with an online service provider eWOM. An affective commitment plays
6 A. HAJ KHALIFA

a crucial moderating role between satisfaction and adoption of eWOM (Jin et al., 2010).
Hence, a high level of satisfaction is not always associated with an adoption of eWOM
behavior unless it’s associated with a high level of commitment. In the context of food
and beverage business, Purnasari and Yuliando (2015) found that customer commitment
mediates the customer satisfaction and trust. They identified a positive effect of customer
satisfaction to customer trust and commitment. Furthermore, the level of customer
satisfaction before it is turned into commitment does not promote positive eWOM.
Therefore:

Hypothesis 3: Commitment strengthens the relationship between satisfaction and eWOM.

3.3.2. Altruism
Altruism is defined as the willing to help or warn others. The equity sensitivity theory
defines individuals with high altruism as benevolent whose inputs are less than their
outputs due to their generosity. They strive to keep an imbalance where their outputs
exceed their inputs (Huseman et al., 1987). For both positive and negative scenarios,
altruism has been demonstrated to be a key motivation for eWOM (Huang & Yang,
2010).
Belarmino and Koh (2018) found that altruism and social belonging were significantly
associated with eWOM, but in a negative direction, which suggests that the more
compassion and social belonging a person has, the less likely they are to write a review
on a hotel website. In fact, people with altruism motivation are likely to write reviews in
different websites at the same time. Concern for others stems from a desire to do an
altruistic behavior by assisting another customer in making an informed buying decision.
As a result, such behavior might result in both positive and bad WOM. Consumers
motivated by a desire to help others provide eWOM communication in order to leverage
their positive or negative experiences to assist friends and strangers alike in achieving
optimum advantage (Maceli et al., 2015).
The argument for providing positive or negative eWOM in the case of online expecta­
tion confirmation is similar to that of offline expectation confirmation (Nam et al., 2019).
They found that for offline expectation confirmation, customers who are pleased with
a product or service spread positive eWOM to other customers out of altruism or to thank
the product or service provider. They anticipate that other consumers will find the eWOM
to be as valuable as they did. At this level, altruism moderates the impact of satisfaction on
spreading eWOM.

Hypothesis 4: Altruism strengthens the relationship between satisfaction and eWOM.

3.4. Customer demographic features’ moderating role

3.4.1. Age
Consumers of all ages have varied demands and desires. Members of a generation tend to
share the same outlook and priorities, aspirations, features, and values (Noble et al., 2009).
Three main cohorts were identified: generation X, Generation Y, and Generation Z.
 JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING 7

The Generation X are well educated and have a strong preference for business contact
over the Internet and e-mail (Reisenwitz & Iyer, 2009). Similarly, Generation Y is well-
versed in technology (Tyler, 2008) but more at ease with collaborative technology, such as
cell phones, Bluetooth, laptops, email, etc. (Reisenwitz & Iyer, 2009).
Strutton et al. (2011) investigate whether generational differences exist in electronic
word-of-mouth (eWOM) behaviors. Their findings suggest that difference could affect
consumers attitudes and behaviors. Studies have generally assumed actionable differ­
ences exist between Gen X and Gen Y, particularly about electronically mediated market­
ing. For instance, members of Generation Y, as the most e-connected consumers,
represent a primary target for many viral marketers (Noble et al., 2009). Generation Z is
referred to as a ‘digital native’ because they grew up with access to the internet, social
media, and mobile devices.
Some empirical findings indicate that older customers (× and Y) are more hesitant to
use technology than millennials (Gil et al., 2010; Simon & Usunier, 2007). Beatriz et al.
(2015) consider that customer age moderates the association between satisfaction and
online word-of-mouth intents. They assume that older customers have fewer cognitive
skills in the use of communication technologies and are therefore less likely to make
eWOM. Therefore:

Hypothesis 5: Generation Z shows a higher level of eWOM behavior than older

Generations.

3.4.2. Gender
Men and women often communicate differently. However, previous studies on the effect
of gender on eWOM communication have produced mixed results. For instance, Women
are more likely to give eWOM communication, according to Maceli et al. (2015), since they
trust the reviews and believe they may earn trust by contributing information. Men, on
the other hand, may be less likely to trust the reviewer and more likely to use eWOM to
confront the information provider. Therefore, we hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 6: Females are more likely to communicate eWOM

4. Method
4.1. Data collection
Data was collected using an online survey. The questionnaire was provided in three
languages: Arabic, French, and English. It was translated from English to Arabic and
French and back-translated to ensure consistency and interpretation of the questions,
as the original scales were written in English. After generating a preliminary question­
naire, we conducted a pilot test with 60 undergraduate students to confirm that the
questions were clear. Minor modifications were made after the pre-test with no serious
concerns.
8 A. HAJ KHALIFA

Table 1. Constructs and indicators.

Construct Author Indicator
Satisfaction (Sf) Nam et al. (2019) I feel very satisfied about my overall experience
compared with other hotels.
I feel very pleased about my overall experience
compared with other hotels.
I feel very contented about my overall experience
compared with other hotels.
eWOM Park et al. (2011) I always share my knowledge and information through
Internet.
I recommended this Hotel to other Internet users.
I rated this Hotel webpage.
I strongly recommend Internet users to stay in this
Hotel.
I have spoken favorably of this Hotel to other Internet
users.
Expectation Nam et al. (2019), and Venkatesh My experience with this hotel was better than I expected.
Confirmation (Exp) and Goyal (2010) The service provided by this Hotel was better than
I expected.
Overall, most of my expectations using this Hotel were
met.
Altruism (Alt) Nam et al. (2019) I like to write reviews that may be of interest to others.
I like to share useful information with others by writing
reviews.
I like to help others by writing reviews.
Commitment (Com) Morgan and Hunt (1994) I feel myself a member of this Hotel.
This hotel has a special place in my heart.
I will be happy to remain a client of this hotel.
I am proud to tell others that I am client of this Hotel.

The final questionnaire is structured around two sections. The first provides the
respondents identification to ensure the relevance of the replies. The second focuses on
the main motivations of eWOM. To evaluate the different dimensions of each variable, we
use a validated 5-point Likert scales. Participants were asked to rate how much they
agreed or disagreed with statements about the model’s constructs. As shown in Table 1,
the items used to operationalize each construct were designed using current literature
after testing and ensuring their validity and reliability during the test phase.

4.2. Sample
The sample includes 1800 randomly selected customers from the database of 6 different
Tunisian travel service providers. Respondents were questioned about their satisfaction
with the most recent hotel they visited, as well as if they used online tools to share their
experience with others. The questionnaire link was delivered by the travel service provi­
ders via email along with a stamped letter requesting them to participate in the survey.
Finally, the survey yielded 624 acceptable replies, which were used as the sample base for
this research. Among the 624 respondents, 52.6% of them were male and 47.4% were
female. The majority (33.2%) of the respondents ranges from 30 to 45 years old. All the
respondents indicated that they are familiar with using Internet and they had used online
travel services before (Table 2).
 JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING 9

Table 2. Respondents’ demographic profiles.

Demographic features Category Frequency Percentage (%)
Gender Male 328 52.6
Female 296 47.4
Age 18-30 148 23.7
30-45 207 33.2
45-60 118 18.9
>60 151 24.2
Education College Level 116 18.6
Bachelor’s Level 291 46.6
Master’s Level 176 28.2
PhD Level 41 6.6
Duration of using Internet Less than 2 years 120 19.2
More than 2 years 504 80.8
Online travel service booking experience 1–5 times 120 19.2
More than 5 times 504 80.8

5. Data analysis
The data obtained was analyzed using SPSS statistical software. The internal consistency
was assessed using the Cronbach’s alphas and the values of composite reliability (CR). The
model’s hypothesized relationships were tested using ANOVA and regression analysis as
recommended by prior studies (Irwin & McClelland, 2001).

5.1. Assessment of measurement reliability and validity

Reliability and validity of measures are shown in Table 3. The reliability of the constructs is
ensured as the Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR) values are exceeding the
threshold of 0.7 recommended by Hair et al. (2006).

Table 3. Descriptive statistics and scale reliability.

KMO Cumulative % of
(Bartlett’s Extraction Sums
Factor Test Sig. = Cronbach’s of Squared
Construct Items Extraction Loading STD .000) Alpha Loadings CR AVE
Altruism ALT1 .975 .988 1.095 .779 0.982 96.7 .989 .967
ALT 2 .969 .984 1.125
ALT 3 .958 .979 1.122
Expectation EXP1 .945 .972 .881 .699 .940 89.261 .961 .893
Confirmation EXP2 .792 .890 .853
EXP3 .941 .970 .921
Satisfaction SAT1 .861 .928 .837 .715 .939 89.99 .863 .679
SAT2 .947 .973 .728
SAT3 .893 .945 .898
eWOM eWOM1 .934 .966 1.433 .807 .940 80.805 .912 .685
eWOM2 .853 .923 1.465
eWOM3 .895 .946 1,499
eWOM4 .453 .673 .976
eWOM5 .905 .951 1.35
Commitment COM1 .869 .932 1.103 .838 .971 91.941 .978 .919
COM2 .942 .971 1.120
COM3 .961 .980 1.120
COM4 .905 .951 1.09
10 A. HAJ KHALIFA

We also looked at the convergent validity, which refers to how closely theoretically
related items on a scale are related in practice (Evrard et al., 1993). The results show that
most factor loadings of each construct are high enough exceeding the cut-off value of .7
recommended by Fornell and Larcker’s. In addition, the average extracted variance (AVE)
values vary from .678 to .967, which also meet Fornell and Larcker’s recommendation of
a cut-off value higher than .50. Hence, the convergent validity is confirmed.
The discriminant validity is tested by assessing whether the items on a scale accurately
reflect the construct in question or another similar construct. Table 4 shows that each
construct’s square root of the AVE shares more variation with its own reflective construct
than with any other constructs. As a result, discriminant validity is confirmed.

5.2. Hypotheses testing

5.2.1. Test of hypothesis 1: impact of expectation confirmation on satisfaction
To evaluate the impact of expectation confirmation on satisfaction, an OLS regression
model is used.
The model shows a very good fit as expressed in Table 5. The regression analysis shows
a strong causal linear relationship between variables (p-value <0.001) and very good
model fit (R2 = 95.5%). The hypothetical relationships are significant as shown in Table 6.
Corollary, the first hypothesis stating that expectation confirmation is the main determi­
nant of trust is confirmed.

Table 4. Discriminant validity.

ALT EXP SAT eWOM COM
ALT .967
EXP 0.425 .893
SAT 0.413 0.523 .679
eWOM 0.209 0.314 0.112 .685
COM 0.702 0.256 0.384 0.145 .919

Table 5. Expectation confirmation and satisfaction: ANOVAa.

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 3245.846 1 3245.846 13225.593 .000b
Residual 152.652 622 .245
Total 3398.498 623
a. Dependent Variable: Sat.
b. Predictors: (Constant), Exp.
c. R-Square = .955.

Table 6. Expectation confirmation and satisfaction: coefficientsa.

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) .711 .089 7.976 .000
Exp .909 .008 .977 115.003 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Sat.
 JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING 11

5.2.2. Test of hypothesis 2: mediating impact of satisfaction

To examine the relationship between satisfaction and eWOM, we have included the
variable expectation confirmation to evaluate its direct impact on eWOM as well as its
indirect impact mediated by satisfaction.

5.2.3. Test of hypothesis 3: moderating role of commitment

To evaluate the commitment moderating impact, a regression model was used. ANOVA
results in Table 9 shows unsignificant relationship between the variables (p-value = 0.24).

Table 7. Mediating impact of satisfaction: ANOVAa.

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 16534.799 3 5511.600 512.166 .000b
Residual 6672.033 620 10.761
Total 23206.832 623
a. Dependent Variable: eWOM.
b. Predictors: (Constant), Exp.Sat, Sat, Exp.
c. R-Square = .712.
Results of the ANOVA in Table 7 shows a very good Model fit (significance and R square). Results of the regression show
insignificant positive impact of expectation confirmation on eWOM (Table 8), However, satisfaction is the main
determinant of eWOM. This relationship remains significant for the interaction expectation*satisfaction, which confirms
hypothesis of our study stating that Satisfaction mediates the relationship between Expectation Confirmation and
eWOM.The direct impact of confirmation expectation on eWOM is not significant.

Table 8. Mediating impact of satisfaction: coefficientsa.

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 24.342 2.316 10.512 .000
Exp −5.483 .374 −2.255 −14.671 .026
Sat 1.201 .343 .460 3.500 .000
Exp.Sat .332 .026 2.559 12.880 .000
a. Dependent Variable: eWOM.

Table 9. Moderating impact of commitment: ANOVAa.

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 19559.156 3 6519.719 1108.165 .024b
Residual 3647.675 620 5.883
Total 23206.832 623
a. Dependent Variable: eWOM.
b. Predictors: (Constant), Com.Sat, Sat, Com.
c. R-Square = .843.

Table 10. Moderating impact of commitment: coefficientsa.

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 4.015 1.401 2.866 .004
Sat .057 .147 .022 .390 .012
Com .443 .146 .309 3.038 .697
Com.Sat .056 .013 .598 4.215 .000
a. Dependent Variable: eWOM.
12 A. HAJ KHALIFA

The results of ANOVA are confirmed by the regression analysis (Table 10) showing that
the contribution of commitment and satisfaction interaction is not significant (p-value
= .697). This disconfirms our hypothesis stating that commitment moderates the relation­
ship between satisfaction and eWOM.

5.2.4. Test of hypothesis 4: moderating impact of altruism

To evaluate the altruism moderating impact, a regression model where the interaction
between altruism and satisfaction was introduced. Results in Table 11 show a good fit of
the model (p-value <.001, and R = 0.783).
The regression results in Table 12 show that Altruism interaction has a significantly
positive impact on eWOM. However, the contribution of altruism as a determinant of
eWOM is not significant (p-value = .018). These results confirm our hypothesis stating that
altruism moderates the impact of satisfaction on eWOM.

5.2.5. Test of hypothesis 5: moderating impact of age

To see if the eWOM behavior is different across the age groups, a One-Way ANOVA is
conducted. Results in Table 13 reveal differences between groups (p-value <0.01).
The Scheffe criterion (Table 14) shows that first group (Generation Z) in different from
the two other groups (generation X and Y). Results confirm the hypothesis 5 stating that
younger customers (Generation Z) are more likely to share eWOM.

Table 11. Moderating impact of altruism: ANOVAa.

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 18167.538 3 6055.846 745.070 .000b
Residual 5039.293 620 8.128
Total 23206.832 623
a. Dependent Variable: eWOM.
b. Predictors: (Constant), Alt.Sat, Sat, Alt.
c. R Square =.783.

Table 12. Moderating impact of altruism: coefficientsa.

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 22.083 1.406 15.704 .000
Sat −1.677 .176 −.642 −9.549 .000
Alt −2.330 .149 −1.293 −15.590 .018
Alt.Sat .318 .016 2.621 19.953 .000
a. Dependent Variable: eWOM.

Table 13. Moderating impact of age: ANOVA.

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 16140.087 2 8070.043 709.166 .000
Within Groups 7066.745 621 11.380
Total 23206.832 623
 JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING 13

Table 14. Moderating impact of age: multiple comparisons.

95% Confidence Interval
(I) Age (J) Age Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
1.00 2.00 12.37084* .36313 .000 −13.2618 −11.4798
3.00 11.59135* .34524 .000 −12.4385 −10.7442
2.00 1.00 12.37084* .36313 .000 11.4798 13.2618
3.00 .77948* .31189 .045 .0142 1.5448
3.00 1.00 11.59135* .34524 .000 10.7442 12.4385
2.00 −.77948* .31189 .045 −1.5448 −.0142
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

5.2.6. Test of hypothesis 6: the moderating impact of gender

To prove the gender moderating impact on the relationship between satisfaction and
eWOM, a regression model is used where the gender was introduced after appropriate
recoding (GenderD: Female =1 and Male = 0). The model expresses a good fit (p-value
<.001) as shown in the Table 15.
The regression results in Table 16 show that ‘satisfaction’ and the interaction between

Table 15. Moderating impact of gender: ANOVAa.

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 15119.056 2 7559.528 580.440 .000b
Residual 8087.776 621 13.024
Total 23206.832 623
a. Dependent Variable: eWOM.
b. Predictors: (Constant), Sat.GenderD, Sat.
c. R-Square = .651.

Table 16. Moderating impact of gender: coefficientsa.

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) −3.893 .679 −5.737 .000
Sat 1.931 .063 .739 30.569 .000
Sat.GenderD .230 .026 .210 8.705 .000
a. Dependent Variable: eWOM.

satisfaction and gender (Male = 0” and Female = 1”) have significant impacts on eWOM.
This means that the impact of gender is evident for females compared to males. These
results confirm our hypothesis stating that age moderates the impact of satisfaction on
eWOM.

6. Discussion
This study may serve as a preliminary step in the understanding of eWOM. It helps
identifying the profile of online users who communicate their experience using electronic
tools.
14 A. HAJ KHALIFA

The findings suggest that satisfaction, which is the outcome of expectations con­
firmation, has a significant impact on eWOM, which is in line with prior literature. The
tendency to communicate eWOM is moderated by the level of customer’s altruism.
Customers who show high level of altruism are willing to share their experience online.
In addition, results reveal that female users who are more likely to share their experi­
ences than male users.
The findings also demonstrate that word-of-mouth intentions vary with age.
Customers over the age of 30 make fewer electronic word-of-mouth comments.
Contrary to Nam et al. (2019), who found that younger users have been identified as
being more inclined to write eWOM.
However, surprisingly customer commitment doesn’t have any significant impact on
the eWOM behavior. Despite this result is against the hypothesized relationship, it might
be explained by the nature of Tunisian customer behavior who are not committed to their
relationships with touristic service providers. They are always looking for the best offers
without being committed to any long-term relationship.
The study’s findings have some theoretical, methodological, and practical implications.

6.1. Theoretical implications

The literature on eWOM behavior is said to be fragmented, with inconsistent conclusions.
From a theoretical standpoint, this work contributes to the eWOM literature in the
following ways. First, it enriches the literature on eWOM in a new cultural context
(Ismagilova et al., 2020). Second, it extends the understanding of the expectancy con­
firmation theory by showing that expectation confirmation has distinct effects on satis­
faction and eWOM (Nam et al., 2019). We may conclude that eWOM is fueled mostly by
levels of satisfaction, which is a result of confirmation of prior expectations. Third, we
contribute to post-consumption assessment theories by giving empirical evidence that
the incentives for posting positive or negative eWOM depend on the consumer’s personal
attributes such as altruistic orientation (Belarmino & Koh, 2018; Jin et al., 2010; Maceli
et al., 2015; Noble et al., 2009).

6.2. Methodological implications

One of the study’s strengths is that our findings are based on post-behavior data analysis
rather than intentions. When compared to results obtained from intention (hypothetical
setting or controlled experimental environment), results produced from such data have
higher reliability and validity. In future studies, we recommend the use of real-world post-
consumption data.

6.3. Practical implications

This research has two main practical contributions. First, it seems important for Tunisian
managers to understand the impact of eWOM on their businesses. Thus, they are required
to integrate the eWOM as a tool in their communication strategy and a mean to get
insights from their customers. Tunisian authorities, in particular, must be mindful of the
 JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING 15

significant influence of eWOM on the tourism industry, which is one of the country’s most
important industries. They should also develop techniques for managing online reviews
and mitigating the negative effects of eWOM.
Second, this study provides a typology of consumers who communicate post con­
sumption eWOM: younger and female customers. The findings might help online
review sites to target, attract, and retain active users and promoting their eWOM
contributions.

7. Conclusion
The impact of electronic word-of-mouth on consumer behavior has been thoroughly
studied. However, few studies have investigated the factors that determine when eWOM
is communicated in Tunisian context. This research comes to fill this gap.
In summary, Tunisian customers write about their touristic experiences particularly
when they are highly satisfied or dissatisfied. The comparison between their prior expecta­
tion (expectation confirmation) and their post consumption perception of the product/
service determines their satisfaction. This effect is tempered by the user’s altruism and age.
In addition, findings show that females are also more inclined to communicate eWOM,
This research, like many others, has limitations. To begin, this study was carried out
with the help of a third party who oversaw the administration of the questionnaire. While
this choice has a lot of benefits, it also limits our control over the survey’s management.
Second, our research took the hotel industry as the main context of investigation. While
this industry delivers a highly experience-based product/service bundle, future research
should duplicate this study with other industries such as travel, restaurants, banking, and
others. Third, in terms of antecedents, this study may be enhanced introducing additional
antecedents and distinguishing between those leading to positive and those leading to
negative eWOM. Fourth, despite the precautions taken to improve the randomness of our
sample, which appears to be sufficiently representative of the population, it is still not
completely random.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Ali Haj Khalifa http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3166-3734

References
Agarwal, R., & Singh, R. (2018). e-WOM: Review and a new conceptualisation. The Marketing Review,
18(3–4), 309–323. https://doi.org/10.1362/146934718X15434305916862
Ahmad, A. M., Abuhashesh, M., Obeidat, Z., & AlKhatib, M. J. (2020). E-WOM and airline e-ticket
purchasing intention: Mediating effect of online passenger trust. Management Science Letters, 10
(12), 2729–2740. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2020.4.037
16 A. HAJ KHALIFA

Bastos, W., & Moore, S. G. (2021). Making word-of-mouth impactful: Why consumers react more to
WOM about experiential than material purchases. Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, 130(C),
110–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.03.022
Beatriz, M.-V, María-Eugenia, R.-M, Teresa, F.-G. (2015). Satisfaction with service recovery:
Moderating effect of age in word-of-mouth. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 32(6), 470–484.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-12-2014-1251
Belarmino, A. M., & Koh, Y. (2018). How E-WOM motivations vary by hotel review website.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(8), 2730–2751. https://doi.
org/10.1108/IJCHM-02-2017-0055
Bouzahzah, M., & Menyari, Y. (2013). International tourism and economic growth: The case of
Morocco and Tunisia. Journal of North African Studies, 18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13629387.
2013.836321
Bronner, F., de Hoog, R. (2011). Vacationers and eWOM: Who posts, and why, where, and what?
Journal of Travel Research, 50(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287509355324
Buttle, F. (1998). Word of mouth: Understanding and managing referral marketing. Journal of
Strategic Marketing, 6, 241–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/096525498346658
Casalo, L., Flavian, C., & Guinaliu, M. (2008). The role of satisfaction and website design usability in
developing customer loyalty and positive word-of-mouth in the e-banking services. The
International Journal of Bank Marketing, 26(6), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1108/
02652320810902433
Chang, H. H., & Wu, L. H. (2014). An examination of negative e-WOM adoption: Brand commitment
as a moderator. Decision Support Systems, 59(1), 206–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2013.11.
008
Chen, H., & Huang, C. (2013). An investigation into online reviewers’ behavior. European Journal of
Marketing, 47(10), 1758. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-11-2011-0625
Cheung, C., & Lee, M. (2012). What drives consumers to spread electronic word of mouth in online
consumer-opinion platforms. Decision Support Systems, 53(1), 218–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
dss.2012.01.015
Chevalier, J., & Mayzlin, D. (2006). The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book reviews. Journal
of Marketing Research, 43(3), 345–354. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.3.345
Christodoulides, G., Michaelidou, N., & Argyriou, E. (2012). Cross-National differences in e-WOM in?
uence. European Journal of Marketing, 46(11/12), 1689–1707. https://doi.org/10.1108/
03090561211260040
Duarte, P., Silva, S. C., & Ferreirs, M. F. (2018). How convenient is it? Delivering online shopping
convenience to enhance customer satisfaction and encourage e-WOM. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 44(C), 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.06.007
Evrard, Y., Roux, E., & Pras, B. (1993). Market : Etudes et recherches en marketing : Fondements,
methodes. Nathan.
Filieri, R. (2014). What makes online reviews helpful? A diagnosticity-adoption framework to explain
informational and normative influences in e-WOM. Journal of Business Research, 15(1), 44–57.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.11.006
Filieri, R. (2015). What makes online reviews helpful? A diagnosticity-adoption framework to explain
informational and normative influences in e-WOM. Journal of Business Research, 68(6), 1261–1270.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.11.006
Filieri, R., & McLea, F. (2013). Performance of environmental resources of a tourist destination:
Concept and application. Journal of Travel Research, 52(5), 614–630. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0047287513481274
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable. Journal of
Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
Fornell, C., Michael, D. J., Eugene, W. A., Jaesung, C., & Barbara, B. (1996). The American customer
satisfaction index: Description, findings, and implications. Journal of Marketing, 60(4), 7–18.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299606000403
Gil, I., Ruiz, M. E., & Calderón, H. (2010). Retail IT and customer loyalty: The moderating role of
customer age. Journal of Retail & Leisure Property, 9(1), 357–371. https://doi.org/10.1057/rlp.2010.13
 JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING 17

Goldsmith, R. E., & Horowitz, D. M. (2006). Measuring motivations for online opinion seeking. Journal
of Interactive Advertising, 6(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2006.10722114
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.).
Prentice Hall.
Hamouda, M., & Tabbane, R. (2013). Impact of electronic word of mouth evaluation on purchase
intention: The mediating role of attitude toward the product. International Journal of Online
Marketing, 3, 20–37. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijom.2013040102
Ho, J. Y. C., & Dempsey, M. (2010). Viral marketing: Motivations to forward online content. Journal of
Business Research, 63(9–10), 1000–1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.08.010
Hornik, J., Shaanan-Satchi, R., Cesareo, L., & Pastore, A. (2015). Information dissemination via
electronic word-of-mouth: Good news travels fast, bad news travels faster!. Computers in
Human Behavior, 45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.008
Huang, Y., & Yang, W. (2010). Dissemination motives and effects of internet book reviews. Electronic
Library, 28(6), 804–817. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640471011093507
Huseman, R., Hatfield, J., & Miles, E. (1987). A new perspective on equity theory: The equity sensitivity
construct. Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 222–234. https://doi.org/10.2307/258531
Irwin, J., & McClelland, G. H. (2001). Misleading heuristics and moderated multiple regressions
models. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.38.1.100.
18835
Ismagilova, E., P, R. N., Slade, E., & Dwivedi, Y. (2020). Meta-Analysis of the factors affecting eWOM
providing behaviour. European Journal of Marketing, 55(4), 1067–1102. https://doi.org/10.1108/
EJM-07-2018-0472
Jin, X., Xiang, L., Lee, M., Cheung, C., Zhou, Z., & Zhao, D.-T. (2010). Electronic word-of-mouth
contribution continuance in online opinion platforms: The role of multiple commitments. PACIS
2010 Proceedings, 149. https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2010/149
Khammash, M., & Griffiths, G. (2011). ‘Arrivederci CIAO.Com, Buongiorno Bing.Com’—Electronic
word-of-mouth (eWOM), antecedences and consequences. International Journal of Information
Management, 31(1), 82–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.10.005
Kim, S., & Son, J.-Y. (2009). Out of dedication or constraint? a dual model of post-adoption
phenomena and its empirical test in the context of online services. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 49–70.
https://doi.org/10.2307/20650278
Lee, S.-H., Noh, S.-E., & Kim, H.-W. (2013). A mixed methods approach to electronic word-of-mouth in
the open-market context. International Journal of Information Management, 33, 687–696. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.03.002
Lewis, R. C., & Chambers, R. E. (2000). Marketing leadership in hospitality. NewYork, NY: John Wiley.
Li, H., Liu, Y., & Suomi, R. (2013). Exploring the factors motivating e-service users’ WOM behaviour.
International Journal of Services Technology and Management, 19(4/5/6), 187. https://doi.org/10.
1504/IJSTM.2013.055633
Li, H., & Suomi, R. (2016). Understanding the WOM behaviour of e-service users: An empirical study
in online travel services. International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations, 16(3),
221–235. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJNVO.2016.079177
López, M., & Sicilia, M. (2014). Determinants of E-WOM influence: The role of consumers’ internet
experience. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 9(1), 28–43. https://
doi.org/10.4067/S0718-18762014000100004
Luarn, P., Yang, J., & Chiu, Y. (2015). Why people check in to social network sites. International Journal
of Electronic Commerce, 19(4), 21–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/10864415.2015.1029353
Maceli, K., Baack, D., & Wachter, M. K. (2015). The impact of gender on electronic word-of-mouth
communication. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 19(3), 281–295.
Mathwick, C., & Mosteller, J. (2017). Online reviewer engagement: A typology based on reviewer
motivations. Journal of Service Research, 20(2), 204–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1094670516682088
Moldovan, S., Goldenberg, J., & Chattopadhyay, A. (2011). The different roles of product originality
and usefulness in generating word-of-mouth. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 28.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.11.003
18 A. HAJ KHALIFA

Morgan, R., & Hunt, S. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 58(3), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800302
Munzel, A., & Kunz, W. (2014). Creators, multipliers, and lurkers: Who contributes and who benefits at
online review sites. Journal of Service Management, 25. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-04-2013-
0115
Nam, K., Baker, J., Ahmad, N., & Goo, J. (2019). Determinants of writing positive and negative
electronic word-of-mouth: Empirical evidence for two types of expectation confirmation.
Decision Support Systems, 129, 113168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2019.113168
Noble, S., Haytko, D., & Phillips, J. (2009). What drives college-age generation Y consumers? Journal
of Business Research, 62(6), 617–628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.020
Nuseir, M. (2019). The impact of electronic word of mouth (e-WOM) on the online purchase
intention of consumers in the Islamic countries – a case of (UAE). Journal of Islamic Marketing,
10(3), 759–767. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIMA-03-2018-0059
Oliver, R. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.
1177/00222429990634s105
Palka, W., Pousttchi, K., & Wiedemann, D. (2009). Mobile word-of-mouth - A grounded theory of
mobile viral marketing. Journal of Information Technology, 24. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2008.37
Park, C., Wang, Y., Yao, Y., & Kang, Y. (2011). Factors influencing eWOM effects: Using experience,
credibility, and susceptibility. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 1(1), 74–79.
https://doi.org/10.7763/IJSSH.2011.V1.13
Poister, T., & Thomas, J. (2011). The effect of expectations and expectancy confirmation/disconfir­
mation on motorists’ satisfaction with state highways. Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory, 21(4), 601–617. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur004
Pourabedin, Z., & Migin, M. (2015). Hotel experience and positive electronic word of mouth (e-
WOM). International Business Management, 9, 596–600. https://doi.org/10.3923/ibm.2015.596.600
Purnasari, H., & Yuliando, H. (2015). How relationship quality on customer commitment influences
positive e-WOM. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, 3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaspro.
2015.01.029
Pyle, M., Smith, A., & Chevtchouk, Y. (2021). In eWOM we trust: Using naïve theories to understand
consumer trust in a complex eWOM marketspace. Journal of Business Research, 122(C), 145–158.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.08.063
Reisenwitz, T. H., & Iyer, R. (2009). Differences in generation X and generation Y: Implications for the
organization and marketers. Marketing Management Journal, 19(2), 91–103.
Roy, G., Datta, B., Mukherjee, S., & Basu, R. (2020). Effect of eWOM stimuli and eWOM response on
perceived service quality and online recommendation. Tourism Recreation Research, 1–16. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2020.1809822
Simon, F., & Usunier, J. (2007). Cognitive, demographic, and situational determinants of service
customer preference for personnel-in-contact over self-service technology. International Journal
of Research in Marketing, 24(2), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2006.11.004
Strutton, D., Taylor, D., & Thompson, K. (2011). Investigating generational differences in e-WOM
behaviours: For advertising purposes, does X = Y? International Journal of Advertising, 30(4),
559–586. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJA-30-4-559-586
Sun, Y., Gonzalez-Jimenez, H., & Wang, S. (2021). Examining the relationships between e-WOM,
consumer ethnocentrism and brand equity. Journal of Business Research, 130(June), 564–573.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.040
Tyler, K. (2008). Generation gaps. HRMagazine, 53, 69–73.
Venkatesh, V., & Goyal, S. (2010). Expectation disconfirmation and technology adoption: Polynomial
modeling and response surface analysis. MIS Quarterly, 34(2), 281–303. https://doi.org/10.2307/
20721428