See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327100275

Effect of consumer self-confidence on information search and dissemination:

Mediating role of subjective knowledge (article free online)

Article in International IJC · October 2018

DOI: 10.1111/ijcs.12482

CITATIONS READS

35 1,855

3 authors:

Dr Utkarsh Sunanda Sangwan

Indian Institute of Management Kashipur Shantou University
19 PUBLICATIONS 298 CITATIONS 1 PUBLICATION 35 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Pallavi Agarwal
Prestige Institute of Management and Research
2 PUBLICATIONS 39 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Dr Utkarsh on 20 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Received: 8 February 2018 | Revised: 29 July 2018 | Accepted: 12 August 2018

DOI: 10.1111/ijcs.12482

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
bs_bs_banner

Effect of consumer self‐confidence on information search and

dissemination: Mediating role of subjective knowledge

Utkarsh1 | Sunanda Sangwan2 | Pallavi Agarwal3

1
TA Pai Management Institute,
Manipal, India
2
Shantou University Business School,
Shantou, China
3
Prestige Institute of Management and
Research, Indore, India
Correspondence
Utkarsh, TA Pai Management Institute,
Manipal, Karnataka, India‐576104.
Email: utkarsh25may@gmail.com
Sunanda Sangwan, Shantou University
Business School, No. 243, University Road,
Shantou, Guangdong Province | Post Code:
515063.
Email: sunanda.sangwan@gmail.com
Abstract
Consumers search for information about products to make a satisfactory purchase
decision and gain knowledge about new features and updates. Consumers also use
this knowledge to be vocal about their product experience because several consum-
ers seek interpersonal recommendations. This phenomenon has contributed to the
emergence of information search (IS) and information dissemination (ID) as a key re-
search area in the field of consumer behaviour. However, the role of personal factors
such as consumer self‐confidence and subjective knowledge has received little atten-
tion in the extant IS and ID literature. The major argument of this study is that infor-
mation acquisition confidence and social outcome confidence enhance subjective
knowledge and consequently increase the will of consumers to search and dissemi-
nate information in the context of smartphone buyers in India. Structural equation
modelling was employed to test the proposed hypotheses using a convenience sam-
ple of 259 consumers obtained through a cross‐sectional survey. The study shows
that subjective knowledge is crucial in strengthening the association between con-
sumer self‐confidence and consumer intention for IS and ID. Additionally, enhancing
consumer’s social outcome confidence contributes towards high subjective knowl-
edge and consequently accelerates information dissemination. Results suggest that
firms could focus on enhancing the social outcome confidence and subjective knowl-
edge of consumers to motivate them to disseminate information. The results also
show that consumers with high confidence in information acquisition ability have the
high subjective knowledge and are more likely to search for information. Overall, this
study contributes to the emerging literature regarding the role of personal factors in
IS and dissemination behaviour.

KEYWORDS
consumer self‐confidence, information dissemination, information search, smartphone,
subjective knowledge, word of mouth

1 | I NTRO D U C TI O N increasingly becoming vocal in disseminating information regarding

products. Consumer’s reliance on interpersonal recommendations
The advent of technology has accelerated the pace of information before buying products has contributed to the emergence of word of
search and sharing. Consumers search for information to gain knowl- mouth. This behaviour creates considerable challenges for market-
edge about products and market trends. Moreover, consumers are ing communication because marketers encounter the dominance of

46 | © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ijcs Int J Consum Stud. 2019;43:46–57.
UTKARSH et al.
bs_bs_banner
consumer‐controlled information sources (Berger, 2014; Haenlein &
Libai, 2017). However, the aforementioned phenomenon provides an
opportunity for marketers. Effective marketing programmes can be
created if the marketers can understand the personal factors of con-
sumers influencing information search (IS) and information dissemi-
nation (ID) (Mowen, Park, & Zablah, 2007; Wein & Olsen, 2017). An
improved understanding of personal factors is a primary facilitator
in customizing marketing messages, developing consumer engage-
ment programmes, and segmenting markets. Moreover, consumers
can be motivated to talk about products by understanding the social
and self‐motives of disseminating information (Alexandrov, Lilly, &
Babakus, 2013; Baker, Donthu, & Kumar, 2016). This study partic-
ularly investigated the effect of consumer self‐confidence on two
crucial determinants of consumer behaviour, IS and ID. Furthermore,
we examined the mediating role of subjective knowledge.
This research is in the domain of IS and ID behaviours, where
IS represents the intention of the consumer to conduct prepur-
chase information search regarding a particular product (Dholakia,
2001; Kiel & Layton, 1981; Seock & Bailey, 2008). Researchers gave
a considerable amount of attention to the IS domain (Maity, Dass,
& Malhotra, 2014); however, less attention was given to personal
factors (Dornyei & Gyulavari, 2016; Utkarsh, 2017). Mowen et al.
(2007) suggested that personal factors are crucial in the preference
of consumers to send and receive information in the market place.
In a qualitative study, Dornyei and Gyulavari (2016) emphasized that
personal factors play a crucial role in determining the behaviour in
the context of label information search. They included product‐re-
lated knowledge, self‐efficacy, trust in labels as few key variables
in label information search framework. Similarly, an ID domain con-
stituting consumer tendencies, such as word of mouth and market
mavenism, to engage in a marketplace conversation is topical in
the marketing and consumer psychology literature (Berger, 2014;
Flynn & Goldsmith, 2017; Gauri, Harmon‐Kizer, & Talukdar, 2016;
Goldsmith, Flynn, & Clark, 2012; Wein & Olsen, 2014). However,
personal factors such as consumer self‐confidence and subjective
knowledge have received limited attention in research (Wein &
Olsen, 2017; Yuan, Lin, & Zhuo, 2016).
The paper attempted to fill the following void in the current lit-
erature. First, Bearden, Hardesty, and Rose (2001) suggested that
high consumer self‐confidence should be positively related to mar-
ket mavenism; that is, a propensity of consumers to seek and share
information in the marketplace. Loibl, Cho, Diekmann, and Batte
(2009) observed that confidence in acquiring information is nega-
tively related to the IS effort; however, contradictory evidence in-
dicated a positive relationship between consumer self‐confidence
and IS (Utkarsh, 2017). In the ID domain, Clark, Goldsmith, and
Goldsmith (2008) observed that information acquisition and social
outcome confidence, two important dimensions of consumer self‐
confidence are strongly related to market mavenism and suggested
the existence of mediating variables that can explain this strong rela-
tion. Information acquisition confidence is the consumer confidence
in acquiring information from the marketplace (Bearden et al., 2001).
Social outcome confidence is the consumer confidence in making
| 47
socially acceptable decisions and the ability to deal with the social
outcome of the purchase decision. Clark et al. (2008) conclusion was
the basis for selecting these two crucial dimensions of consumer
self‐confidence for our research and further examined in a different
nomological network, enabling the extension of previous results.
A second gap that should be addressed is the conclusion from the
study of Park, Mothersbaugh, and Feick (1994), which indicated that
examining the effect of individual differences adds more insights to
the formation of subjective knowledge. Subjective knowledge is de-
fined as the individual’s perception of their knowledge level regarding
a specific product. Several researchers have focussed on subjective
knowledge (Donoghue, Van Oordt, & Strydom, 2016; Hadar, Sood,
& Fox, 2013); however, few have explored its antecedents (Park et
al., 1994) and ID as a consequence of subjective knowledge (Vigar‐
Ellis, Pitt, & Caruana, 2015). Thus, the role of the self‐confidence
of consumers, knowledge perceptions, and their relative influence
on the will of consumers to engage in IS and ID is worth examining
and forms the nomological network of this research. The major ar-
gument of this study is that information acquisition confidence and
social outcome confidence enhance subjective knowledge and con-
sequently increase the will of consumers to search and disseminate
information.
Furthermore, the effect of personal factors on IS and ID inten-
tions in the Indian context has not been studied. India is considered
to be a collectivist country (Hofstede, 1980), where people empha-
size on social connectedness and family values (Banerjee, 2008),
which may influence the will of consumers to disseminate informa-
tion (Lam, Lee, & Mizerski, 2009). Moreover, social confidence can
be a crucial contributor to self‐confidence in collectivist cultures.
The relation between consumer self‐confidence and market ma-
venism in collectivist cultures is stronger than that in individualistic
cultures (Chelminski & Coulter, 2007a). In addition to filling these
gaps, the results of this study are crucial for marketers to devise ef-
fective communication programmes for enabling consumers to share
information that may provide improved results in collectivist coun-
tries, as compared with those in individualistic countries (Lam et al.,
2009).
This study advances the literature by studying the relation be-
tween consumer self‐confidence and subjective knowledge. We
complement Bearden et al. (2001), and extend work of Clark et
al. (2008) by investigating a mediating variable that influences the
relation between consumer self‐confidence and the propensity of
consumers to engage in the marketplace conversations. Moreover,
this research supplements to the emerging literature by establish-
ing that subjective knowledge is crucial in strengthening the rela-
tionship between social outcome confidence and ID (Alexandrov
et al., 2013; Gauri et al., 2016; Goldsmith et al., 2012; Jurgensen
& Guesalaga, 2018). Results show that consumers with high infor-
mation acquisition confidence have a high subjective knowledge
and more likely to search for information. We also found that so-
cial outcome confidence is an important facilitator of information
dissemination and subjective knowledge fully mediates this rela-
tionship. Succinctly, we highlight the mechanism through which
48 | bs_bs_banner
consumer self‐confidence and subjective knowledge facilitate
consumer’s intention to search and disseminate information. The
results provide considerable implications for practitioners to ac-
celerate information sharing by understanding personal factors of
consumers.
The remaining article is organized as follows: first, the theoret-
ical background is provided along with the conceptual framework;
furthermore, the methodology of the study is described; the results
are then elaborated; and finally, the discussion and future research
directions are presented.
2 | TH EO R E TI C A L FO U N DATI O N S
2.1 | Consumer self‐confidence
Self‐confidence is a personality level variable that reflects the be-
lief of individuals in dealing with different situations (Bell, 1967;
Jurgensen & Guesalaga, 2018; Keng & Liao, 2013; Locander &
Hermann, 1979). Bearden et al. (2001) proposed a multidimensional
consumer self‐confidence construct and defined it as the ability of
an individual to be certain about their decisions and behaviours re-
garding the marketplace. Consumer self‐confidence is a construct
with six dimensions, namely information acquisition, social out-
come, personal outcome, and consideration set formation, which
represents the consumer confidence regarding effective purchase
decision making, persuasion knowledge and marketplace interfaces,
which represent the ability of consumers to protect themselves
from being misled and treated unfairly. Consumer self‐confidence is
related to the IS effort, word‐of‐mouth production, market maven-
ism, information source preference, consumer innovativeness, and
decision making ( Utkarsh & Medhavi, 2015; Chelminski & Coutler,
2007b; Clark et al., 2008; Jurgensen & Guesalaga, 2018; Loibl et
al., 2009; Paridon, 2006; Utkarsh, 2017). Recently, Jurgensen and
Guesalaga (2018) found that self‐confidence of young girls is a major
contributor to innovativeness in choosing apparels.
Among six dimensions of consumer self‐confidence, two dimen-
sions, namely information acquisition confidence and social outcome
confidence, are expected to be strongly related to the IS and ID be-
haviours, respectively (Clark et al., 2008). The relationship of these
two dimensions with subjective knowledge and their effect on IS
and ID behaviour was examined in this study.
2.2 | Subjective knowledge
Consumer knowledge is a primary variable influencing the consumer
behaviour (Brucks, 1985; Hadar et al., 2013; Oh & Abraham, 2016;
Park et al., 1994). Knowledge includes three components, objective
knowledge, subjective knowledge, and past experiences (Alba &
Hutchinson, 1987; Brucks, 1985; Flynn & Goldsmith, 1999; Park &
Lessig, 1981; Xiao, Ahn, Serido, & Shim, 2014). Subjective knowledge
is the belief of consumers regarding their knowledge of the product,
UTKARSH et al.
in contrast; objective knowledge is what consumer actually knows
(Carlson, Vincent, Hardesty, & Bearden, 2008; Park et al., 1994).
When consumers have knowledge regarding a product cate-
gory, they can efficiently search for information (Moorman, Diehl,
Brinberg, & Kidwell, 2004; Punj & Staelin, 1983), and exhibit confi-
dence in their ability to purchase (Brucks, 1985; Park & Lessig, 1981).
Consumer knowledge regarding a product enables them to think of
more questions and realize the benefit of the search. Moreover,
consumers with better knowledge use their existing knowledge and
perform an efficient search, reducing the prepurchase search effort
(Awasthy, Banerjee, & Banerjee, 2012; Maity et al., 2014).
Objective knowledge is not consistently correlated with subjec-
tive knowledge (Carlson et al., 2008; Hadar et al., 2013). Hadar et al.
(2013) indicated the existence of “… a well‐documented disassocia-
tion between objective knowledge and subjective knowledge…”, and
previous research (Raju, Lonial, & Mangold, 1995) emphasized on the
role of subjective knowledge in the prepurchase search behaviour,
which supports our choice of subjective knowledge as a central
knowledge construct in the conceptual model of the present study.
Rodrigues, Pereira, Silva, Mendes, and Carneiro (2017) also empha-
sized that subjective knowledge is a strong predictor of behaviour in
context of sodium intake.
Furthermore, subjective knowledge and its relationship with in-
formation sharing has not been given much attention (Yuan et al.,
2016). Vigar‐Ellis et al. (2015) validated that the opinion leader be-
haviour in the context of wine consumers is positively influenced by
subjective knowledge. In the present study, the role of subjective
knowledge in IS and ID was examined. The hypothesized relation
between the dependent and independent variables are depicted in
Figure 1.
2.2.1 | Information acquisition confidence,
subjective knowledge, and information search
Consumers with high self‐confidence are likely to assess them-
selves as having high product knowledge (Bearden et al., 2001).
Information acquisition confidence implies that consumers are
aware of the different information parameters and sources while
searching for product information (Bishop & Barber, 2012; Mourali,
Laroche, & Pons, 2005). This confidence can be the result of the
ongoing search regarding the product that probably increases
their knowledge. Therefore, we hypothesize that consumers with
high self‐confidence in information acquisition will display higher
subjective knowledge. Moreover, recent research suggests that in-
formation acquisition confidence is positively related to the search
effort (Utkarsh, 2017) validating previous findings (Newman &
Staelin, 1971; Wells & Prensky, 1996). However, Loibl et al. (2009)
and Kiell and Layton (1981) reported that information acquisition
confidence is negatively related to the search effort. In this study,
the effect of information acquisition confidence on the IS inten-
tion is hypothesized to be positive. High self‐confidence contrib-
utes to innovative choices (Jurgensen & Guesalaga, 2018), and
therefore consumers with high confidence are expected to search
UTKARSH et al.
bs_bs_banner
Informaon
acquision
confidence
H1 +
Subjecve
knowledge
H3+
Social outcome
confidence
H4+
FIGURE 1 Conceptual model of the study
for more information. Moreover, product information related to
technology‐oriented products such as a smartphone is frequently
updated. When consumers know that new information exists,
they try to gain information regarding products. Indian markets
have been flooded with several brands of smartphones in the
last decade. Consumers also prefer to replace their smartphones
frequently for updated technology and features. In such an en-
vironment, consumers seek information about the new product
launches, and this behaviour is expected to be influenced by their
personality. Thus, we propose the following hypotheses:
H1 Information acquisition confidence is positively
­related to subjective knowledge
H2 Information acquisition confidence is positively
­related to the IS intention
2.2.2 | Social outcome confidence, subjective
knowledge, and information dissemination
Consumers with high social outcome confidence are likely to ex-
change dialogue regarding the purchased products (Berger, 2014;
Clark et al., 2008; Paridon, 2006; Wien & Olsen, 2014). The will of
consumers to share information is facilitated by their self‐confidence
(Chelminski & Coutler, 2007a). Social outcome confidence is a better
predictor of the consumer tendency to share information and en-
gage in the marketplace conversation than that of the other dimen-
sions of consumer self‐confidence, such as personal confidence and
persuasion knowledge (Clark et al., 2008).
Consumers share information because their ultimate aim is to
satisfy their needs of self‐enhancement and self‐affirmation, for
which they get involved in social interactions (Alexandrov et al.,
2013). Paridon (2006) observed that during shopping, the positive
| 49
H2+
Informaon
search intenon
H6
Informaon
H5 disseminaon
intenon
experience of consumers generates social outcome confidence that
positively influences the information sharing tendency of consum-
ers. The recent evidence of Wien and Olsen (2017) indicated that
social outcome confidence is an important predictor of the informa-
tion sharing propensity of consumers.
Similarly, Chelminski and Coulter (2007a) reported a positive re-
lationship between consumer self‐confidence and market mavens in
the United States and South Korea. Moreover, self‐confident con-
sumers are likely to complain (Keng, Richmond, & Han, 1995). The
heightened confidence is also likely to lead to positive self‐assessed
knowledge and the will to share that knowledge. Because consumers
also share information to enhance their self‐image and gain social ac-
ceptance (Berger, 2014), it is expected that consumers may dissem-
inate information due to their social outcome confidence. Products
such as smartphones are related to the image of the consumer.
Consumers may gain knowledge about the latest smartphones and
share with their reference group to reinforce their social outcome
confidence. Thus, we posit that social outcome confidence positively
affects subjective knowledge and the ID intention for smartphone
buyers.
H3 Social outcome confidence is positively related to
the subjective knowledge of consumers
H4 Social outcome confidence is positively related to
the ID intention
2.2.3 | Subjective knowledge, information
search, and information dissemination
Subjective knowledge influences the IS behaviour (Brucks, 1985);
moreover, it is considered to be a better predictor of the search
behaviour than objective knowledge (Moorman et al., 2004; Oh
50 | bs_bs_banner
& Abraham, 2016; Raju et al., 1995). Subjective knowledge can be
considered to be the result of highly objective knowledge and the
previous experience (Raju et al, 1995), thereby mediating the ef-
fect on decision outcome. Consumers with high subjective knowl-
edge prefer impersonal sources of information, (Barber, Dodd, &
Kolyesnikova, 2009; Dodd, Laverie, Wilcox, & Duhan, 2005) indi-
cating their need to update knowledge. Overall, research indicates
an equivocal relationship between knowledge and the extent of the
search effort (Maity et al., 2014).
Consumers with high subjective knowledge tend to share in-
formation, which also reinforces their positive knowledge percep-
tions (Oh & Abraham, 2016; Packard & Wooten, 2013). Similarly,
Donoghue et al. (2016) found that in case of dissatisfaction, consum-
ers with high subjective knowledge are likely to take public action,
which means they will complain to retailers, manufacturer, or third
parties. Subjective knowledge is a key variable that influences the
propensity of consumers to share information in online communities
(Yuan et al., 2016). Furthermore, expert consumers are considered
opinion leaders (Grewal, Mehta, & Kardes, 2000; Kiani, Laroche, &
Paulin, 2016; Vigar‐Ellis et al., 2015).
Innovative consumers tend to be more knowledgeable, and their
enhanced self‐efficacy motivates them to share knowledge (Yuan et
al., 2016). Park and Lessing (1981) claimed that subjective knowledge
represents the confidence level of consumers, which was further
supported by Bearden et al. (2001), who argued that self‐confidence
is an antecedent to subjective knowledge perceptions. First, we pro-
pose that consumer confidence in acquiring information will lead to
positive knowledge perceptions, and to maintain this belief and re-
main updated, consumers will search for more information. Second,
consumers, who gain appreciation about their decisions from their
reference groups, will consider themselves more knowledgeable.
Therefore, these consumers will be more inclined towards sharing
their knowledge. Considering subjective knowledge as a motiva-
tional construct, we propose two mediation hypotheses as follows:
H5 Subjective knowledge mediates the relationship be-
tween social outcome confidence and the ID intention
H6 Subjective knowledge mediates the relationship
between information acquisition confidence and the IS
intention
3 | M E TH O D
The study was conducted in the context of the decision of buying a
smartphone. The smartphone is a popular and rapidly growing prod-
uct category in India with year‐on‐year growth of 14.8%, and India
was expected to have the second largest smartphone user base of
334 million units by the end of 2017, as estimated by International
Data Corporation (Wharton, 2017). The Indian smartphone market
consists of approximately 40 local and foreign brands, implying that
UTKARSH et al.
the product involves significant effort in IS, and adequate informa-
tion is necessary to generate a positive purchase intention (Chang,
Tsai, Hung, & Lin, 2015). Consumers associate smartphones with
self‐image and social image, motivating them to consider buying a
smartphone to be a socially important decision (Goldsmith et al.,
2012). Lee (2014) found that reference groups influence the pur-
chase of the smartphones. Moreover, it is a product where consum-
ers frequently discuss the offered features and benefits. The average
price of a smartphone in the Indian market is approximately INR
7000 (Approx. US$ 100; Knowledge Wharton, 2017). To control the
severe variation in the pricing of smartphones and other situational
influences, such as giving gifts or purchasing on behalf of a family or
friend, all respondents were offered a situation related to the pur-
chase of smartphone. Respondents were asked to consider a situa-
tion where they have to buy a smartphone for themselves and have
sufficient time to search and evaluate alternatives. Furthermore,
they were told that they have a budget of INR 10,000–15,000. This
approach ensured the control of the situational factors and price
factors while measuring the variables of the study.
The data were collected through a cross‐sectional survey con-
ducted in Lucknow and Indore, cities located in the northern India.
Both cities represent emerging metropolitan areas and are educa-
tional and business hubs, attracting population from nearby cities
and towns for education and employment. An identically structured
questionnaire in the English language with pretested measures was
used to collect data in both the cities. The survey method was com-
monly used in the related research (Alexandrov et al., 2013; Dodd
et al., 2005; Goldsmith et al., 2012). Convenience sampling method
was employed to solicit responses. Smartphone users are only 17%
of the total Indian population (Live Mint, 2016). Moreover, in ab-
sence of a list of smartphone owners, it was difficult to get access
to target respondents using random sampling method. Therefore,
convenience sampling was deemed to be appropriate for this study.
However, attempts were made to include respondents with varied
demographics to reduce any bias. Therefore, face‐to‐face paper‐
based survey was conducted in different regions of both cities such
as retail malls, university campuses, and corporate offices where it
was easy to find smartphone owners. This method was used by pre-
vious researchers (Alexandrov et al., 2013; Donoghue et al., 2016).
The researchers collected the data during different times of days
to enhance the probability of including different consumers and to
overcome the limitations of convenience sampling to some extent.
The questionnaire included a declaration that the responses ob-
tained from this study will only be used for academic purpose and
participants can stop responding if they don’t want to disclose any
personal information. The participation in the survey was voluntary,
and no monetary incentive or gifts were offered to the respondents.
In total, 270 responses were obtained from both cities, and finally,
259 were considered suitable for the final analysis, after removing
incomplete questionnaires.
The sample consisted of 67% and 33% for males and females,
respectively. The respondents were from a varied educational back-
ground, where 9% of respondents exhibited a higher secondary
UTKARSH et al.
bs_bs_banner
education, 26% were graduates, 25% were pursuing graduation, and
35% had a postgraduate degree, and the remaining respondents had
doctoral or vocational degrees. In terms of income, the respondents
were well distributed in different income groups. Approximately,
40% of the respondents had an income less than INR 600,000; 22%
of respondents were in an income group of INR 600,000–900,000;
and 36% had an income more than INR 900,000 (1 USD = 63.5 INR,
Bloomberg.com January 2018). Furthermore, the sample population
was well distributed in different age groups, where 11% of the re-
spondents were of an age less than 21 years, 41% were in the age
group of 21–30 years, 22% were in the age group of 31–40 years,
and 25% in the age group of more than 41 years. The average age of
respondents was 29 years, and the mean income of respondents was
INR 650,000. All the respondents were smartphone owners. The
sample reflects the population of the study as smartphone owner-
ship is high among, men, higher income groups, and millennials (Live
Mint, 2016). However, the sample was collected from only two cities
in India and focussed towards the younger age group (Average age
29 years). The more representative sample could have been acquired
if the survey was conducted in multiple cities however considering
the vast geography of India, time and cost were major constraints.
All demographic indicators were subject to the initial analysis, and
age, gender, education, and income were included as control vari-
ables in the final analysis.
4 | M E A S U R E S A N D A N A LYS I S
Scales used in the previous literature, which are already tested by
researchers in the similar context, were used to prepare the ques-
tionnaire. Information acquisition confidence and social outcome
confidence were measured using the scale proposed by Bearden et
al. (2001) and used by Clark et al. (2008). The scale for measuring
subjective knowledge was adapted from Flynn and Goldsmith (1999).
The scale for IS intention and ID intention was adapted from Richins,
Bloch, and McQuarrie (1992), which was also used by Dholakia
(2001). In this study, we measured ID, which represents the inten-
tion of consumers to share information regarding a specific product
with his reference group (Dholakia, 2001; Kiel & Layton, 1981). We
measured the intentions rather than the actual search and dissemi-
nation behaviours. Moreover, other researchers have used a similar
approach (see Dholakia, 2001). The respondents specified their level
of agreement and disagreement on a 7‐point Likert scale, where 1
indicates “strongly disagree” and 7 indicates “strongly agree.”
A preliminary test was conducted with 10 consumers, who of-
fered their comments to ensure the lucidity of questions and con-
firmed that the structure of the questionnaire was unambiguous.
Few sentences were restructured to enhance the readability of the
questionnaire. After a few minor modifications, the questionnaire
was pretested on a convenience sample of 40 target respondents.
Chronbach’s alpha coefficients for the scales ranged between 0.76
and 0.90 (Table 1). Structural equation modelling using maximum
likelihood estimation was employed to test the measurement and
| 51
structural models. A series of dependence relationship can be an-
alysed in a single model using structural equation modelling. A
variable can be analysed as both independent and dependent in a
structural model. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using
a two‐step structural model approach (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988;
Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2012). The reliability and
the validity of constructs were assessed using composite reliability,
average variance extracted, and discriminant validity. Further, the
measurement model was first tested for an adequate fit. Finally,
the structural model was tested for the adequate fit, and parameter
estimates were used to test the proposed hypotheses. Further, the
mediation hypotheses were tested using the Preacher and Hayes
(2008) method by computing bias‐corrected bootstrap confidence
intervals. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version
20 and Analysis of Moment Structures version 16 software packages
were used to analyse the data.
5 | FI N D I N G S
The confirmatory factor analysis indicated a satisfactory fit for the
measurement model with a chi‐square value of 204.661 (p < 0.001)
at 89 degrees of freedom. The significance is not a crucial param-
eter because it is prone to a large sample size (Anderson & Gerbing,
1988). The other fit measures were assessed, which indicated a sat-
isfactory fit; GFI = 0.912, RMSEA = 0.071, CFI = 0.949, TLI = 0.931,
and IFI = 0.950, indicating that the model adequately fit the data
(Figure 2).
Construct validity, was assessed by ensuring convergent and
discriminant validity. All standardized loadings were significant as
required for convergent validity (Table 1). All loadings were more
than 0.50, and most items fulfilled the 0.70‐factor loading require-
ment (Hair et al., 2012). Furthermore, we assessed the average vari-
ance extracted, which exceeded the recommended criterion of 0.50
(Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).
The composite reliability of each construct was more than 0.70
(Hair et al., 2012) (Table 1). Furthermore, the discriminant validity of
constructs was assessed by verifying that each latent construct ex-
tracted more variance from its indicators than it shared with all other
constructs (Table 2). The variance‐extracted value was greater than
the correlation estimates ensuring discriminant validity.
After assessing the fit of the measurement model, the fit of the
structural model was tested using the maximum likelihood estimate
and the observed covariance matrix. The chi‐square value is signif-
icant (Chi square 286.4, p = 0.000, df = 150), because it is prone to
the sample size (Kline, 2005). We assessed other fit indices. The fit
indices are GFI = 0.905, NFI = 0.886, IFI = 0.942, TLI = 0.926, CFI =
0.941, and RMSEA = 0.059. The values indicate the adequate fit of
the structural model. The parameter estimates for hypothesis test-
ing are mentioned in Table 3. As predicted information acquisition
confidence was positively related to subjective knowledge, (path es-
timate = 0.617; p value = 0.000) supporting the first hypothesis. This
relation implied that consumers who are confident in their ability to
52 | bs_bs_banner
UTKARSH et al.

TA B L E 1 Results of confirmatory factor analysis

Average variance
Item wise constructs Standardized loading extracted Composite reliability Cronbach’s alpha

Social outcome confidence 0.526 0.766 0.763

1. I impress people with the 0.609
purchases I make
2. My neighbours admire 0.646
my decorating ability
3. I get compliments from 0.688
others on my purchase
decisions
Information acquisition 0.589 0.877 0.881
confidence
1. I know where to find the 0.679
information I need prior
to buying a Smartphone
2. I know where to look to 0.671
find the product
information I need about
Smartphone
3. I am confident in my 0.867
ability to research
important purchases of
Smartphone
4. I know the right 0.766
questions to ask when
shopping for
Smartphone
5. I have the skills required 0.815
to obtain needed
information before
buying a Smartphone
Subjective knowledge 0.581 0.845 0.843
1. Compared to others you 0.879
know, how knowledge-
able are you about
different types of
smartphones?
2. I do not feel very 0.561
knowledgeable about
smartphones.
3. Compared to my friends, 0.771
I am one of the experts
on smartphones.
4. I know pretty much 0.854
about smartphones.
IS intention 0.829 0.906 0.899
1. Before buying the 0.830
smartphone i would
obtain substantial
information about the
different makes and
models of smartphones

(Continues)
UTKARSH et al.
bs_bs_banner
| 53

TA B L E 1 (Continued)
Average variance
Item wise constructs Standardized loading extracted Composite reliability Cronbach’s alpha

2. I would acquire a great 0.983

deal of information
about the different
makes and models
before buying the
smartphone
ID intention 0.650 0.787 0.785
3. I would give other 0.868
people advice about
buying a particular make
and model of a
smartphone
4. I would like to influence 0.737
my friends in their choice
of particular make and
models of smartphones

search for information also consider themselves to be knowledge- was reduced but was significant when the mediator was intro-
able regarding the smartphones. Moreover, the second hypothesis, duced in the model indicating partial mediation, which supported
which indicated that information acquisition confidence positively the sixth hypothesis.
affects the IS intention, was also supported (path estimate = 0.315,
p value = 0.001).
The social outcome confidence of consumers is positively related
to subjective knowledge, (path estimate = 0.159, p value = 0.020)
supporting the third hypothesis. This relation means that consumers
who are confident that they can make socially acceptable decisions
are likely to have high subjective knowledge. An insignificant direct
relationship existed between social outcome confidence and the ID
intention (path estimate = 0.082, p value = 0.251). Subjective knowl-
edge is positively related to the IS intention, (Path estimate = 0.262,
p value = 0.005). Similarly, subjective knowledge is positively related
to dissemination intention, (path estimate = 0.661, p value = 0.000).
The results indicate that if subjective knowledge is high, consumers
will have high propensity for information search and dissemination.
To test the fifth and sixth hypotheses related to mediation, we
used the method suggested by Preacher et al. (2008). To estimate
the standard error of the subjective knowledge mediator on the re-
lation between social outcome confidence and the ID intention, we
computed bias‐corrected bootstrap confidence intervals (Table 4).
The indirect effect was significant, and 95% confidence interval did
not include zero (Lower bound = 0.004 and Upper bound = 0.335, p
< 0.05). The direct effect without the mediator became insignificant
when the mediator was introduced. This transformation indicated
that subjective knowledge fully mediated the relation between so-
cial outcome confidence and the ID intention, supporting the fifth
hypothesis.
Similarly, for testing the sixth hypothesis, the results of the
bootstrapping suggested that 95% confidence interval does not
include zero for the mediation relation among information acqui- F I G U R E 2 Confirmatory analysis output. Note. SO = social
sition confidence, subjective knowledge, and the IS intention. The outcome confidence, IS = information search intention, IAC =
indirect effect was significant (Lower bound = 0.021 and Upper information acquisition confidence, SK = subjective knowledge, ID
bound = 0.389, p < 0.05). The direct effect without the mediator = information dissemination intention
54 | bs_bs_banner
UTKARSH et al.

TA B L E 2 Discriminant validity and correlation between constructs

MSV IS SK ID IAC SO

IS 0.279 (0.911)a
SK 0.480 0.462(b) (0.762)
ID 0.477 0.528 0.691 (0.806)
IAC 0.480 0.490 0.693 0.440 (0.768)
SO 0.280 0.369 0.516 0.406 0.529 (0.726)

Note. SO = social outcome confidence, IS = information search intention, IAC = information acquisition confidence, SK = subjective knowledge,
ID = information dissemination intention, MSV = maximum shared variance.
a = Square root of average variance extracted.
b = Correlations among the constructs.

TA B L E 3 Structural model parameter estimates

Hypothesized relationships Estimates CR Sig. (p < 0.05)

Information acquisition confidence → subjective knowledge 0.617 7.587 0.000

Information acquisition confidence → IS intention 0.315 3.284 0.001
Social outcome confidence → subjective knowledge 0.159 2.326 0.020
Social outcome confidence → ID intention 0.082 1.147 0.251
Subjective knowledge → IS intention 0.262 2.817 0.005
Subjective knowledge → ID intention 0.661 7.790 0.000

TA B L E 4 Mediation results

Direct effect without Direct effect with Indirect effect Bias‐corrected bootstrap
Relationship mediator (Sig.) mediator (Sig.) (Sig.) confidence interval

Social outcome confidence → 0.439 (Sig.) 0.082(NS) 0.105(Sig.) at 0.004 lower bound to 0.335 upper
subjective knowledge → ID intention p < 0.05 (95% bound
CI)
Information acquisition confi- 0.506 (Sig.) 0.315 (Sig.) 0.162(Sig.) at 0.021 lower bound to 0.389 upper
dence → subjective knowledge → IS p < 0.05 (95% bound
intention CI)

6 | D I S CU S S I O N A N D CO N C LU S I O N enhancement of subjective knowledge will fetch two‐fold results for

This study aimed to investigate the influence of consumer self‐confi-
dence on the prepurchase search and information sharing behaviour,
and the mediating role of subjective knowledge. The responses ob-
tained from smartphone owners in India were analysed using struc-
tural equation modelling.
We found that information acquisition confidence positively in-
fluenced the IS intention, and subjective knowledge partially medi-
ated this relationship. Consumers with high information acquisition
confidence develop subjective knowledge leading to a positive IS in-
tention. Because consumers with high subjective knowledge prefer
impersonal sources of information (Barber et al., 2009; Dodd et al.,
2005), enhancing the subjective knowledge can motivate consumers
to refer marketer‐dominated information sources, which facilitate
the effective delivery of marketing communications. Moreover, the
practitioners because expert consumers are expected to share infor-
mation; another substantial conclusion from this study.
We found that the social outcome confidence of consumers
was completely mediated by subjective knowledge and conse-
quently, has a strong positive relationship with the ID intention.
Thus, we add to the existing literature (Clark et al., 2008; Paridon,
2006; Wien & Olsen, 2017) by indicating that consumers, who are
confident that their reference group will appreciate their purchase
decisions, are more likely to offer advice and influence their friends
in buying a particular product. This situation occurs because con-
sumers with high subjective knowledge consider themselves ex-
perts and feel that they possess more product knowledge than
their friends. Receiving positive comments regarding their pur-
chase decisions enhances their subjective knowledge perceptions
and consequently, motivates them to share information regarding
UTKARSH et al.
bs_bs_banner
the product. Thus, we also add to the findings of Alexandrov et
al. (2013) who construed word‐of‐mouth behaviour as a result of
social interaction process and found that consumers share word of
mouth due to social and self‐motives.
This study makes the following contributions to the existing
literature: First, our results offer a new dimension to the existing
knowledge by establishing that subjective knowledge is crucial for
strengthening the relationship between social outcome confidence
and ID. A consumer may be confident regarding the decisions that
generate positive social outcomes; however, they also need to have
knowledge about the product to influence their friends by offering
advice and information on buying products. The increase in subjec-
tive knowledge can be important in enhancing consumer propen-
sity to disseminate information (Donoghue et al., 2016; Yuan et al.,
2016). We explain how social outcome confidence is an antecedent
and generates positive subjective knowledge, thereby motivating
consumers to share information. We expect this study to motivate
researchers to consider social outcome confidence and subjective
knowledge as key variables in studies related to the market mavens,
word‐of‐mouth production, and opinion leader behaviour especially
when conceptualizing such behaviour as a social interaction process
(Alexandrov et al., 2013).
Second, we elaborate the mechanism through which informa-
tion acquisition confidence can generate the positive IS intention,
an issue that exhibited equivocal results (Loibl et al., 2009; Utkarsh,
2017). We suggest that consumers, who are confident in their infor-
mation acquisition capabilities, develop higher subjective knowledge
and consequently, have a higher intention to search for information.
However, this does not mean that consumers will also exert high ef-
fort when searching for information. The existing research indicates
that consumers with better subjective knowledge perform efficient
pre‐purchase search and thereby significantly reduce the search ef-
fort. They may evaluate products based on a few specific important
attributes and consult few relevant sources (Moorman et al., 2004).
Thus, we suggest that the relationship between consumer self‐con-
fidence and IS can be influenced by other mediating variables such
as subjective knowledge, which can explain the inconsistencies ob-
served in the previous research (Loibl et al., 2009; Utkarsh, 2017). In
addition, we add to the findings of Jürgensen and Guesalaga (2018)
by finding that self‐confidence is a key variable not only influencing
consumer innovativeness but also consumer’s knowledge assess-
ment and IS behaviour.
Third, the results should also be seen in the context of the Indian
culture. India is a collectivist country, where people particularly em-
phasize on social relations and bonding. Literature indicates that in
a collectivist culture, consumers are more prone to sharing informa-
tion with their close reference groups (Lam et al., 2009). Moreover,
given the market scenario where a variety of smartphones exist and
ownership growing at fast pace, first‐time buyers will seek informa-
tion from their peers, therefore the results of the study are more
valuable for emerging markets like India. However, the study was
conducted in only two cities of India and we did not obtain data on
cultural dimensions. India is vast geography with different culture
| 55
and values. The sample represents younger and slightly highly edu-
cated respondents as compared to the general Indian population. A
sample with more varied demographics will be helpful in validating
the results of the study.
Overall, this research extends the theoretical understanding of
consumer self‐confidence, subjective knowledge, and its influence
on IS and ID. We add to the existing literature of how consumer self‐
confidence is related to consumer IS and ID behaviours, and the role
of subjective knowledge (Clark & Goldsmith, 2005; Loibl et al., 2009;
Mowen et al., 2007; Paridon, 2006; Wien & Olsen, 2017; Yuan et
al., 2016). Furthermore, the study will help practitioners in under-
standing the differential effects of specific dimensions of consumer
self‐confidence on the propensity of consumers for searching and
disseminating information in emerging economies.
7 | I M PLI C ATI O N S O F TH E S T U DY
The results from this study are highly relevant for firms designing
marketing communication programmes and planning to accelerate
the sharing of information by consumers. First, the results regarding
IS suggest that firms should attempt to identify the consumers with
high confidence in acquiring information and provide the detailed
information through various sources. Moreover, this contributes to
the enhancement of subjective knowledge. Because the previous re-
search has indicated that consumers with high subjective knowledge
prefer marketer‐controlled information sources, providing detailed
information that facilitates decision making is crucial.
Second, consumers with high social outcome confidence exhibit
higher subjective knowledge perceptions and are motivated to share
information with peers. To accelerate information sharing, managers
should identify consumers who value social recognition and target
them through marketing communication (Alexandrov et al., 2013).
The communication should attempt to make them realize that their
peers appreciate them and consider them as experts. This will fa-
cilitate and reinforce their subjective knowledge, consequently, the
possibility of consumers sharing information may increase.
The findings are also valuable for online marketers. Firms can
target consumers with high social outcome confidence and assign
them as influencers and experts in online communities. This will fur-
ther enhance their confidence and subjective knowledge. Moreover,
the latest information can be shared with such consumers before
the formal product launches to enhance their subjective knowledge.
Thus, consumers will be highly motivated to share the information
with their peers (Yuan et al., 2016).
8 | FU T U R E R E S E A RC H A N D LI M ITATI O N S
O F TH E S T U DY
Although the research offers several insights, this study exhibits few
limitations. First, this study uses only two dimensions of consumer
self‐confidence, and therefore future research should attempt to
56 | bs_bs_banner
include more dimensions such as personal outcome confidence,
persuasion knowledge, and marketplace interface (Bearden et al.,
2001) which could influence search and dissemination behaviour.
Second, the data were collected from two cities using convenience
sampling; India exhibits a vast geography that spreads over more
than 25 states. Though we have made efforts to obtain a representa-
tive sample, yet samples from different regions of India will help in
obtaining more robust results. Third, the relationship between the
constructs has been tested using one product. Smartphone pen-
etration is increasing at a fast pace in India representing a unique
market scenario, therefore it would be worthy to test this model in
other markets which are culturally different and also in the context
of other products.
For future research, researchers should consider including other
individual factors that influence the prepurchase search and dis-
semination. This research can be extended by conducting an exper-
imental study, where the confidence level or subjective knowledge
of the respondents can be manipulated to get more robust results
related to the relationship examined in this study. Moreover, the
future research can attempt to investigate the variables in the con-
text of high technology products or luxury products. Furthermore,
future researchers can attempt to examine the effect of subjective
knowledge and consumer self‐confidence on other factors related
to the consumer behaviour such as the evaluation of products,
post‐purchase dissonance, and consumer well‐being.
ORCID
Utkarsh http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2183-8593
REFERENCES
Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer exper-
tise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 411–454.
Alexandrov, A., Lilly, B., & Babakus, E. (2013). The effects of social‐and
self‐motives on the intentions to share positive and negative word
of mouth. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41, 531–546.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation model-
ling in practice: A review and recommended two‐step approach.
Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411.
Awasthy, D., Banerjee, A., & Banerjee, B. (2012). Understanding the role
of prior product knowledge to information search: An application of
process theory to the Indian market. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing
and Logistics, 24, 257–287.
Baker, A. M., Donthu, N., & Kumar, V. (2016). Investigating how word‐of‐
mouth conversations about brands influence purchase and retrans-
mission intentions. Journal of Marketing Research, 53, 225–239.
Banerjee, S. (2008). Dimensions of Indian culture, core cultural values
and marketing implications: An analysis. Cross Cultural Management:
an International Journal, 15, 367–378.
Barber, N., Dodd, T., & Kolyesnikova, N. (2009). Gender differences in
information search: Implications for retailing. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 26, 415–426.
Bearden, W. O., Hardesty, D. M., & Rose, R. L. (2001). Consumer self‐con-
fidence: Refinements in conceptualization and measurement. Journal
of Consumer Research, 28, 121–134.
Bell, G. D. (1967). Self‐confidence and persuasion in car buying. Journal of
Marketing Research, 4(1), 446–452.
UTKARSH et al.
Berger, J. (2014). Word of mouth and interpersonal communication:
A review and directions for future research. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 24, 586–607.
Bishop, M., & Barber, N. (2012). A market segmentation approach to
esteem and efficacy in information search. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 29, 13–21.
Brucks, M. (1985). The effects of product class knowledge on informa-
tion search behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 1–16.
Carlson, J. P., Vincent, L. H., Hardesty, D. M., & Bearden, W. O. (2008).
Objective and subjective knowledge relationships: A quantitative
analysis of consumer research findings. Journal of Consumer Research,
35, 864–876.
Chang, C. C., Tsai, J. M., Hung, S. W., & Lin, B. C. (2015). A hybrid deci-
sion‐making model for factors influencing the purchase intentions of
technology products: The moderating effect of lifestyle. Behaviour &
Information Technology, 34, 1200–1214.
Chelminski, P., & Coulter, R. A. (2007a). On market mavens and consumer
self‐confidence: A cross‐cultural study. Psychology and Marketing, 24,
69–91.
Chelminski, P., & Coulter, R. A. (2007b). The effects of cultural individual-
ism and self‐confidence on propensity to voice: From theory to mea-
surement to practice. Journal of International Marketing, 15, 94–118.
Clark, R. A., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2005). Market mavens: Psychological
influences. Psychology & Marketing, 22, 289–312.
Clark, R. A., Goldsmith, R. E., & Goldsmith, E. B. (2008). Market mavenism
and consumer self‐confidence. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 7,
239–248.
Dholakia, U. M. (2001). A motivational process model of product involve-
ment and consumer risk perception. European Journal of Marketing,
35, 1340–1362.
Dodd, T. H., Laverie, D. A., Wilcox, J. F., & Duhan, D. F. (2005). Differential
effects of experience, subjective knowledge, and objective knowl-
edge on sources of information used in consumer wine purchasing.
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 29, 3–19.
Donoghue, S., Van Oordt, C., & Strydom, N. (2016). Consumers’ subjec-
tive and objective consumerism knowledge and subsequent com-
plaint behaviour concerning consumer electronics: A South African
perspective. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 40, 385–399.
Dornyei, K. R., & Gyulavari, T. (2016). Why do not you read the label?
An integrated framework of consumer label information search.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 40, 92–100. https://doi.
org/10.1111/ijcs.12218
Flynn, L. R., & Goldsmith, R. E. (1999). A short, reliable measure of sub-
jective knowledge. Journal of Business Research, 46, 57–66.
Flynn, L. R., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2017). Filling some gaps in market ma-
venism research. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 16, 121–129.
Gauri, D. K., Harmon‐Kizer, T. R., & Talukdar, D. (2016). Antecedents and
outcomes of market mavenism: Insights based on survey and pur-
chase data. Journal of Business Research, 69, 1053–1060.
Goldsmith, R. E., Flynn, L. R., & Clark, R. A. (2012). Motivators of market
mavenism in the retail environment. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 19, 390–397.
Grewal, R., Mehta, R., & Kardes, F. R. (2000). The role of the social‐iden-
tity function of attitudes in consumer innovativeness and opinion
leadership. Journal of Economic Psychology, 21, 233–252.
Hadar, L., Sood, S., & Fox, C. R. (2013). Subjective knowledge in consumer
financial decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 50, 303–316.
Haenlein, M., & Libai, B. (2017). Seeding, referral, and recommendation:
Creating profitable word‐of‐mouth programs. California Management
Review, 59, 68–91.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L.
(2012). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). New Delhi, India: Pearson
Publications.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture and organizations. International Studies of
Management & Organization, 10, 15–41.
UTKARSH et al.
bs_bs_banner
Jürgensen, K., & Guesalaga, R. (2018). Young consumers’ innovativeness
in apparel choices: A model including consumer self‐confidence.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 48, 255–263. https://doi.
org/10.1111/ijcs.12414
Keng, C. J., & Liao, T. H. (2013). Self‐confidence, anxiety, and post‐pur-
chase dissonance: A panel study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
43, 1636–1647.
Keng, K. A., Richmond, D., & Han, S. (1995). Determinants of consumer
complaint behaviour: A study of Singapore consumers. Journal of
International Consumer Marketing, 8, 59–76.
Kiani, I., Laroche, M., & Paulin, M. (2016). Development of market ma-
venism traits: Antecedents and moderating effects of culture, gen-
der, and personal beliefs. Journal of Business Research, 69, 1120–1129.
Kiel, G. C., & Layton, R. A. (1981). Dimensions of consumer information
seeking behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 233–239.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lam, D., Lee, A., & Mizerski, R. (2009). The effects of cultural values in
word‐of‐mouth communication. Journal of International Marketing,
17, 55–70.
Lee, S. Y. (2014). Examining the factors that influence early adopters’
smartphone adoption: The case of college students. Telematics and
Informatics, 31, 308–318.
Live Mint. (2016). Only 17% Indians own smartphones [document].
Retrieved from https://www.livemint.com/Consumer/yT14OgtSC-
7dyywWSynWOKN/Only-17-Indians-own-smartphones-survey.
html
Locander, W. B., & Hermann, P. W. (1979). The effect of self‐confidence
and anxiety on information seeking in consumer risk reduction.
Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 268–274.
Loibl, C., Cho, S. H., Diekmann, F., & Batte, M. T. (2009). Consumer self‐
confidence in searching for information. Journal of Consumer Affairs,
43, 26–55.
Maity, M., Dass, M., & Malhotra, N. K. (2014). The antecedents and
moderators of offline IS: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Retailing, 90,
233–254.
Moorman, C., Diehl, K., Brinberg, D., & Kidwell, B. (2004). Subjective
knowledge, search locations, and consumer choice. Journal of
Consumer Research, 31, 673–680.
Mourali, M., Laroche, M., & Pons, F. (2005). Antecedents of consumer
relative preference for interpersonal information sources in pre‐pur-
chase search. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4, 307–318.
Mowen, J. C., Park, S., & Zablah, A. (2007). Toward a theory of motivation
and personality with application to word‐of‐mouth communications.
Journal of Business Research, 60, 590–596.
Newman, J., & Staelin, J. (1971). Multivariate analysis of differences in
buyer decision time. Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 192–198.
Oh, K., & Abraham, L. (2016). Effect of knowledge on decision making
in the context of organic cotton clothing. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 40, 66–74.
Packard, G. M., & Wooten, D. B. (2013). Compensatory knowledge sig-
naling in consumer word‐of‐mouth. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
23(4), 434–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2013.05.002
Paridon, T. J. (2006). Extending and clarifying causal relationships in re-
search involving personal shopping value, consumer self‐confidence,
and word of mouth communication. Marketing Management Journal,
16, 32–43.
Park, C. W., & Lessig, V. P. (1981). Familiarity and its impact on con-
sumer decision biases and heuristics. Journal of Consumer Research,
8, 223–231.
View publication stats
| 57
Park, C. W., Mothersbaugh, D. L., & Feick, L. (1994). Consumer knowl-
edge assessment. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 71–82.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strate-
gies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator
models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.
Punj, G. N., & Staelin, R. (1983). A model of consumer IS behavior for new
automobiles. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 366–380.
Raju, P., Lonial, S., & Mangold, W. (1995). Differential effects of sub-
jective knowledge, objective knowledge and usage experience on
decision making: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 4, 153–180.
Richins, M. L., Bloch, P. H., & McQuarrie, E. F. (1992). How enduring and
situational involvement combine to create involvement responses.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1, 143–153.
Rodrigues, J. F., Pereira, R. C., Silva, A. A., Mendes, A. O., & Carneiro, J.
S. (2017). Sodium content in foods: Brazilian consumers’ opinions,
subjective knowledge and purchase intent. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 41, 735–744. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12386
Seock, Y., & Bailey, L. R. (2008). The influence of college students’ shopping
orientations and gender differences on online information searches
and purchase behaviours. International Journal of Consumer Studies,
32, 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2007.00647.x
Utkarsh. (2017). Individual differences in consumer information search
for services: A multiple mediation study. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 37, 33–42.
Utkarsh, & Medhavi, S. (2015). Information search behaviour of service
consumers: Review and future directions. The Marketing Review, 15,
201–219.
Vigar‐Ellis, D., Pitt, L., & Caruana, A. (2015). Does objective and sub-
jective knowledge vary between opinion leaders and opinion seek-
ers? Implications for wine marketing. Journal of Wine Research, 26,
304–318.
Wells, W. D., & Prensky, D. (1996). Consumer Behavior. New York, NY:
Wiley.
Wharton, K. (2017). Can apple get a bigger bite of India’s smartphone mar-
ket? [document]. Retrieved from https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.
edu/article/can-apple-get-bigger-bite-indias-smartphone-market/
Wien, A. H., & Olsen, S. O. (2014). Understanding the relationship be-
tween individualism and word of mouth: A self‐enhancement expla-
nation. Psychology & Marketing, 31, 416–425.
Wien, A. H., & Olsen, S. O. (2017). Producing word of mouth—A matter
of self‐confidence? Investigating a dual effect of consumer self‐con-
fidence on WOM. Australasian Marketing Journal, 25, 38–45.
Xiao, J. J., Ahn, S. Y., Serido, J., & Shim, S. (2014). Earlier financial lit-
eracy and later financial behaviour of college students. International
Journal of Consumer Studies, 38, 593–601. https://doi.org/10.1111/
ijcs.12122
Yuan, D., Lin, Z., & Zhuo, R. (2016). What drives consumer knowledge
sharing in online travel communities?: Personal attributes or e‐ser-
vice factors? Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 68–74.
How to cite this article: Utkarsh, Sangwan S, Agarwal P.
Effect of consumer self‐confidence on information search and
dissemination: Mediating role of subjective knowledge. Int J
Consum Stud. 2019;43:46–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12482