Movie Selection in The Digital Age: An Analysis of Electronic Word-Of-Mouth

“Movie Selection In The Digital Age: An Analysis
Of Electronic Word-Of-Mouth”
By
AYESHA WAHEED
2019-M.Phil.CMS-002
Supervisor
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of MPhil in

Communication and Media Studies
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION AND MEDIA STUDIES
FATIMA JINNAH WOMEN UNIVERSITY, RAWALPINDI
2021
“Movie Selection In The Digital Age: An Analysis
Of Electronic Word-Of-Mouth”
By
Ayesha Waheed
2019-M.Phil.CMS-002
Approved By
_____________
Muhammad Yousaf
(Supervisor)
_____________
Head of Department
_____________
External Examiner
CERTIFICATE
It is certified that MPhil in Communication and Media Studies, final project “Movie Selection in
The Digital Age: An Analysis of Electronic Word-Of-Mouth” prepared by Ayesha Waheed has
been approved for submission.
____________
Muhammad Yousaf
Lecturer
Declaration
I, Ayesha Waheed (2019-M.Phil.CMS-002) student of Communication and Media Studies,

hereby declare that this research thesis is my own original work and that all sources have been
accurately reported and acknowledged. It is further declared that the work on this thesis is
entirely based on personal efforts made under the guidance of my respected supervisor.
This document has not been previously, in it’s entirely or in part, and submitted at any university
in order to acquire qualification.
______________
Ayesha Waheed
2019-M.Phil.CMS-002
Fatima Jinnah Women University
Dedication
I dedicate my thesis to my family especially my parents and husband whose prayers, best wishes
and encouragement has been a great motivation in every step of my life.
Acknowledgement
I am extremely thankful to Allah The Almighty, the most beneficent and the most merciful, who
gave me the strength and wisdom to complete my thesis. Secondly I would like to thank my
supervisor sir Muhammad Yousaf for his immense guidance and support in the completion of my
work. I would also like to thank my family especially my parents and my husband who believed
in me, supported and encouraged me continuously with their prayers and best wishes. In the end
I would like to thank my uncle Khalid Azeem who helped and guided me throughout my
research.
ABSTRACT
Purpose
The purpose of this research is to investigate electronic/ digital word-of-mouth and explore in
detail its impact and effect on movie consumers. Also, this paper examines the movie watching
practices in current digital age along with the role of electronic word-of-mouth on movie
selection among males and females. Moreover, as it is evident that with the rapid transition from
traditional word-of-mouth to Internet-based electronic or digital word-of-mouth one can
instantly communicate from anywhere in the world. Also, this digital transition has enhanced all
the professions and allowed online platforms to exchange ideas of different levels from different
parts of the universe. As such this paper will explore how the eWOM influence the movie
consumers and how they select movies by visiting digital platforms like facebook, twitter, blogs
and other related social media tools.
Design/ Methodology and Approach
In order to develop our aim and research questions, the main concepts about eWOM in general
and particularly to the social media channels related to movie reviews and ratings were
reviewed. Furthermore, this research is mainly quantitative and all the data was collected
through a comprehensively designed questionnaire which was distributed and shared through
social media platforms in order to get the answers from the readers. All the questions were likert
scale based. Answers from the participants were tabulated and values were calculated and tested
on SPSS afterwards. The Information Adoption Model (IAM) was applied and all the hypothesis
have been tested before giving final discussion and conclusion.
Findings
Using the research results, it was found that respondents have a positive attitude towards the
online generation of eWOM. The effect of eWOM on moviegoers was also analyzed and we can
conclude that a positive eWOM can influence viewers to consider a particular movie and a
negative eWOM may have no impact on viewers to watch or make them skip the particular
movie. Finally, our results also show that social media and review sites are the most used
platforms for eWOM on film.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

1.0 Background of Study .................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Impact of eWOM on Movie Selection ....................................................................................... 5
1.2 Problem Statement...................................................................................................................... 7
1.3 Research Objectives .................................................................................................................... 8
1.4 Research Questions ..................................................................................................................... 8
1.5 Research Scope ............................................................................................................................ 8
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................ 10
2.0 Background ............................................................................................................................... 10
2.1 Word of Mouth (WOM) ........................................................................................................... 12
2.2 Electronic Word of Mouth (EWOM) ...................................................................................... 13
2.3 Electronic Word-of-Mouth vs. Offline Word-of-Mouth........................................................ 14
2.3.1 eWOM vs. WOM – Similarities ......................................................................................... 14
2.3.2 eWOM vs. WOM – Differences ......................................................................................... 15
2.4 Forms of eWOM ....................................................................................................................... 17
2.5 E-WOM and Culture Differences ............................................................................................ 19
2.6 Impact of WOM on Customers................................................................................................ 19
2.7 Movie Watching Preferences of Males & Females................................................................. 20
2.8 eWOM and Consumer Purchase Intention ............................................................................ 22
2.8.1 eWOM Quality.................................................................................................................... 22
2.8.2 eWOM Quantity.................................................................................................................. 22
2.8.3 Source Credibility ............................................................................................................... 23
2.8.4 Sender’s Expertise............................................................................................................... 23
2.9 Antecedents of Giving eWOM ................................................................................................. 23
2.9.1 Satisfaction .......................................................................................................................... 24
2.9.2 Loyalty ................................................................................................................................ 25
2.9.3 Trust .................................................................................................................................... 26
2.9.4 Involvement ........................................................................................................................ 26
2.10 Social, Digital Media & Movies ............................................................................................... 27
2.10.1 Facebook ............................................................................................................................. 29
2.10.2 Twitter ................................................................................................................................. 29
2.10.3 YouTube ............................................................................................................................. 29
2.10.4 SnapChat ............................................................................................................................. 30
2.10.5 Personal Blogs .................................................................................................................... 30
2.10.6 Reviews & Rating Sites ...................................................................................................... 30
2.10.7 Instant Messaging Platforms ............................................................................................... 30
2.11 Impact of WOM on Movies and Cinemas............................................................................... 31
2.11.1 Impact of WOM on Film Evaluation .................................................................................. 32
2.11.2 Impact of eWOM on Film Evaluation ................................................................................ 32
2.12 Consumer Reviews and Moviegoers ........................................................................................ 36
CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................................. 37
3.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 37
3.1 Information Adoption Model (IAM) ....................................................................................... 37
3.1.1 Argument Quality ............................................................................................................... 38
3.1.2 Source Credibility ............................................................................................................... 40
3.1.3 Information Usefulness ....................................................................................................... 41
3.1.4 Information Adoption ......................................................................................................... 42
CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 44
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 44
4.2 Research Design ........................................................................................................................ 44
4.3 Research Strategy ..................................................................................................................... 44
4.4 Quantitative research ............................................................................................................... 45
4.5 Survey......................................................................................................................................... 45
4.6 Data Collection: Questionnaire Survey................................................................................... 45
4.7 Operationalization .................................................................................................................... 46
4.8 Unit of Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 47
4.9 Non-probability Sampling ........................................................................................................ 48
4.9.1 Convenience Sampling .............................................................................................................. 48
4.10 Technique of Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 48
CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................ 49
5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 49
5.2 General Movie Watching Practices ......................................................................................... 49
5.3 Information Adoption Model Testing (IAM) ......................................................................... 52
5.3.1 Relevance ............................................................................................................................ 52
5.3.2 Timeliness ........................................................................................................................... 54
5.3.3 Accuracy ............................................................................................................................. 56
5.3.4 Comprehensiveness ............................................................................................................. 58
5.3.5 Source Expertise ................................................................................................................. 62
5.3.6 Source Trustworthiness ....................................................................................................... 66
CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 74
6.1 Hypothesis 1. Difference in Movie Watching Practices in Males and Females ................... 74
6.2 Hypothesis 2: Positive Relationship of Source Credibility .................................................... 77
6.2.1 Usefulness of Social Media Platforms ................................................................................ 78
6.2.2 Reviews by Peers ................................................................................................................ 79
6.2.3 Source Expertise ................................................................................................................. 80
6.3 Hypothesis 3: Positive Relationship of Argument Quality .................................................... 87
6.3.1 Comprehensiveness ............................................................................................................. 87
6.3.2. Recency ............................................................................................................................... 88
6.3.3 Relevance ............................................................................................................................ 89
6.3.4 Accuracy ............................................................................................................................. 90
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION................................................................................................................. 97
List of Tables
S. No. Description Page No.
1 Table 5.1: Preference to watch movies 49
2 Table 5.2: How people watch movies 49
3 Table 5.3: How frequently people watch movies 50
4 Table 5.4: How often do people read online reviews about different movies? 50
5 Table 5.5: Where do people prefer to get movie reviews? 51
6 Table 5.6: How do people decide to watch movie 51
7 Table 5.7: I ADOPT a review if I think it has information RELEVANT to me 52
8 Table 5.8: I READ MULTIPLE REVIEWS but ADOPT only those that are relevant 53
Table 5.9: I SPEND MORE TIME READING the REVIEWS that I find relevant than
9 53
those that are irrelevant
Table 5.10: I am concerned about the TIMELINESS OF POST in online movie
10 54
reviews
11 Table 5.11: I always adopt RECENT COMMENTS in online movie reviews 54
Table 5.12: RECENT REVIEWS are of MORE VALUE to me than the ones posted
12 55
in the past
Table 5.13: I would READ ANOTHER REVIEW if I saw it is posted more recently
13 55
then the one I already read
14 Table 5.14: I would accept any REVIEW REGARDLESS OF ITS TIME 56
Table 5.15: I only accept the INFORMATION obtained from online movie reviews
15 56
when I think it is CORRECT
Table 5.16: I only accept the INFORMATION obtained from online movie reviews
16 57
when I think it is RELIABLE
Table 5.17: I would REJECT a review if I FIND A VISIBLE ERROR / MISTAKE in
17 57
it
Table 5.18: I would REJECT a review if I find that ITS’ STYLE OF ANALYSIS IS
18 58
WRONG
19 Table 5.19: Online reviews about MOVIE PLOTS are important for me 58
Table 5.20: Online reviews about ACTORS/ ACTRESSES’ PERFORMANCES are
20 59
valuable to me
Table 5.21: Online reviews about DIRECTOR’S WORK in movie are informative for
21 59
me
22 Table 5.22: Online reviews about MOVIE’S MUSIC are helpful to me 60
23 Table 5.23: Online reviews about CINEMATOGRAPHY are important to me 60
24 Table 5.24: I Only Accept Reviews if it has all things that have mentioned above 61
25 Table 5.25: I Only Accept Reviews if it has all things that have mentioned above 61
26 Table 5.26: I value MOVIE RATINGS made by professional movie critics online 62
27 Table 5.27: I value MOVIE REVIEWS made by professional movie critics online 62
28 Table 5.28: I value movies RECOMMENDED BY FRIENDS in online chats 63
29 Table 5.29: I value movies RECOMMENDED BY RELATIVES in online chats 63
30 Table 5.30: I value movies RECOMMENDED BY BLOGGERS 64
31 Table 5.31: I value movies RECOMMENDED BY COLLEAGUES in online chats 64
Table 5.32: I READ PAST REVIEWS of the reviewers to get an IDEA about their
32 65
EXPERTISE
Table 5.33: I ONLY ADOPT a review if I believe that the reviewer has AMPLE
33 65
EXPERTISE on MOVIE REVIEWING
Table 5.34: I value movies RECOMMENDED BY LAYMAN (UNKNOWN
34 66
PEOPLE) in online comments
Table 5.35: I value movie recommendations made through FACEBOOK POSTS
35 66
AND COMMENTS
Table 5.36: I value movie recommendations made through INSTAGRAM POSTS
36 67
AND COMMENTS
Table 5.37: I value movie recommendations made through TWITTER POSTS AND
37 67
COMMENTS
38 Table 5.38: I value movie recommendations made through BLOG POSTS 68
39 Table 5.39: I value movie recommendations made through CHAT FORUMS 68
40 Table 5.40: I value movie recommendations made through WHATSAPP GROUPS 69
Table 5.41: I value movie RATINGS made by online users (IMDB, ROTTEN
41 69
TOMATOES, METACRITIC ) etc
Table 5.42: I value movie REVIEWS made by online users (IMDB, ROTTEN
42 70
TOMATOES, METACRITIC) etc
43 Table 5.43: I value movies RECOMMENDED BY FRIENDS in online chats 70
44 Table 5.44: I value movies RECOMMENDED BY RELATIVES in online chats 71
45 Table 5.45: I value movies RECOMMENDED BY COLLEAGUES in online chats 71
Table 5.46: I value movies RECOMMENDED BY LAYMAN (UNKNOWN
46 72
PEOPLE) in online comments
Table 5.47: I would REJECT SOMEONE’S REVIEW if one or more of their past
47 72
reviews turned out to be WRONG
48 Table 5.48: I would REJECT a review if I think it is SPONSORED OR PAID 73
Movie Selection In The Digital Age:
An Analysis of Electronic Word-Of-Mouth
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.0 Background of Study
Word of mouth (WOM) is still considered the primary communication tool known to influence
customers' purchase intent. Social networking has become a new way in the modern world by
upgrading WOM to eWOM. On the other hand, social media acts as the fastest way to drive
visibility and content sharing across online platforms for any resource. Social media is always
open to connect with networks of relatives, friends and other organizations, allowing for quick
responses. Social media is an online platform that allows people to interactively share their
opinions, thoughts, knowledge, information and criticisms. They can interact, chat and add
bookmarks online.
Most social networking sites (SNS) support conversations, feedback, voting, comments, and the
distribution of information by stakeholders. With the dramatic transition from traditional WOM
to Internet-based eWOM, you can instantly communicate from anywhere in the world. It boosted
all professions and allowed online platforms to exchange ideas and ideas from people of different
levels from different parts of the universe. With eWOM, you can access shared content and view
it to a large number of people around the world. Even for businesses, eWOM has made it easy
for customers to view policies and procedures directly and clearly. In this study, the researchers
wanted to determine the impact of eWOM with the help of social media to leverage content share
and visibility. However, there is no general formal strategy for incorporating the idea of tracking
existing users or online platforms. Also, most users don't know that they are making full use of
the online resources available to increase eWOM through online social media platforms. This
addresses the need to further focus on the targeted use of social media platforms to promote
movies via eWOM.
Many people of all ages around the world interact through social media platforms such as
Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, ResearchGate, WatsApp, and Social Networking Sites (SNS).
According to Schamari and Schaefers (2015), SNS has allowed user-generated content to be
freely exchanged. In most cases, customers exchange positive or negative opinions about their
product or service experience before creating an eWOM, as is the case with movies. Discussing a
customer's brand experience is invaluable in building a brand image. Likewise, subjective and
1
objective discussions and evaluations become a reality in the sharing of knowledge acquired by
clients through experience (Zaglia, 2013; Chen et al., 2013; Okazaki et al., 2015). Van Doorn et
al. , (2010), Sharing this knowledge through social media prompts potential customers to
purchase products and use services.
Liu (2006) defines word-of-mouth (WOM) as a way to communicate directly with two people to
discuss a brand or service. The purpose of communication is not a business advantage, but
eWOM is digital communication and companies can do word-of-mouth (WOM) on the Internet,
eWOM. EWOM is used on various interactive social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter,
blogs and web forums (Abedniya & Mahmouei, 2010). Electronic word-of-mouth is a way to
convey "informal advice" about a product (service) through direct online communication or
some form of communication (East, 2007).
Ahrens et al. (2013) Identify electronic word-of-mouth as an effective form of communication

that can play an important role in attracting new customers. Anyone can share their product
opinions and experiences with a complete stranger who is socially and geographically dispersed.
Known as electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM), this new word-of-mouth has become an important
factor in shaping consumer buying behavior.
Trusov et al. (2009) and Nail (2005) argue that marketers place more emphasis on eWOM as
traditional communication channels become less effective. These eWOM messages are
professionally respected by the marketing team, who disguise the source as it spreads through
word of mouth. Bampo et al. , (2008) explains that companies are now adopting social media
tools as an attractive eWOM for advertising and marketing campaigns that encourage consumers
to participate in WOM activities. EWOM has a strong influence on the way people spend their
free time.
The proliferation of new communication channels in recent years provides sound base for the
eWOM. Now, large number of population around the globe is using Web 2.0 tools like review
sites, blogs, SNS, and other social media digital platforms (Gupta and Harris, 2005). Movies and
Movies is a great source of entertainment that offers unique features and stories. It is clear that
films based on popular novels and cartoons such as Harry Potter, Beauty and the Beast,
Divergent, Beautiful Spirit have attracted more viewers' attention than others (Wallace, 2012).
2
EWOM has the ability to reach many inter-society and intra-social public networks. Production
companies can easily spread their messages to people who do not use the same social networks
but share similar interests, leading to widespread advertising distribution in online communities
(Brown and Broderick, 2007). In this way, they provide visibility into their upcoming movies.
EWOM messages are available in a variety of text, image, audio, and video formats.
Different social media tools offer different ways to promote eWOM. For example, Facebook
provides "Like" and "Share" options for delivering text messages, images, voices and videos, and
Twitter provides RT functionality for sending text messages and images. YouTube provides a
medium. Instagram widget to download and share video messages and share images.
The growing interest of market researchers in eWOM shows the relation between word of mouth
and high sales (Finn et al., 2009). The breadth of eWOM allows directors and producers to
distribute future films to a wider community and reach a wider audience. However, as there is
too much information online, filmmakers should consider the strength of this information (Lin,
Lu & Wu, 2012). Social relationships, the level of trust between the sender and recipient of a
eWOM message (Bampo et al., 2008) and social interaction influence the eWOM outcome of
potential consumers. This new form of oral communication (WOM) can include positive or
negative statements from potential, real, and past customers regarding products or businesses
over the Internet (Hennig Thurau et al. , 2004). Industry research reports show that mostly the
internet users rely much more on electronic based reviews posted by unknown consumers on
websites than traditional media when making purchase decisions (Hu et al., 2008). .. In addition,
user-created content in the form of online customer reviews has been shown to have a significant
impact on consumer purchasing decisions (Duan & Gu, 2008).
According to Foster (2014), 91% of respondents said they would refer to digital platforms like
online reviews, ratings, user-generated content and blogs before purchasing a new product /
service. 6% of them are influenced by the purchasing method. It is important to mention here that
eWOM communication and traditional communication has come common similarities but it
(eWOM) differs from traditional WOM in many ways. First, unlike traditional WOM, eWOM
communication offers unprecedented scalability and overflow speed. As with traditional WOMs,
information sharing takes place synchronously between small groups of individuals (Dellarocas,
2003). Traditional WOM information is often exchanged in private conversations and dialogues.
Therefore, it is difficult to convey information to those who are absent when and where the
3
information was exchanged. On the other hand, eWOM communication involves an exchange of
multicast information in asynchronous mode (Hung and Li, 2007). Information in the form of
eWOM should not be exchanged at the same time when all communicators are present
(Karakaya and Barnes, 2010). For example, forum users can read and post comments after
creating unnecessary "topics" when creating discussion threads. Second, unlike traditional
WOM, eWOM communication is more sustainable and accessible. The presence of positive and
negative eWOMs remains one of the characteristic properties absent in traditional media, the
same is explained below.
a. Positive eWOM
Interested broadcasters can easily spread positive reviews of their films. Positive reviews can
attract huge numbers of viewers and motivate them to watch future movies. So it's a great way to
bring audiences to the theater. However, most studies have shown that the effect of negative
eWOM is greater than the effect of positive eWOM.
b. Negative eWOM
Est et al. (2007) We found that the frequency of positive eWOMs was three times higher than the
frequency of negative eWOMs. Therefore, the value of negative WOM is high due to the fact
that it is very rare and most people who read these reviews want to read mixed reviews. For
example, Mizerski (1982) points out that the negative nature of eWOM in its ability to surprise
customers can increase its influence.
Sweeney et al. (2012) pointed out that the effects of these eWOMs (positive or negative) cannot
be easily generalized to the general public. Therefore, they argue that the impact of eWOM also
depends on the larger context of the sender and recipient of the message. For example, the
personal history of the sender and recipient also plays an important role in determining the
validity of an eWOM message. Also, Sweeney etc. (2012) State that the behavior of the recipient
after receiving the message is just as important as the sender of the message for the effectiveness
of eWOM.
Subsequently, the legitimacy of the author of the choice of the service context seems obvious.
For example, Sweeney et al. (2012) The choice of service context is eWOM, where the "service
4
sector" is the dominant sector in developed countries and the intangible nature of providing
services without the possibility of pre-purchase.
1.1 Impact of eWOM on Movie Selection
According to López and Sicilia (2013), eWOMM (Electronic Word of Mouth Marketing) can be
defined as giving people a reason to talk about your movie or content and facilitating
conversation. It is an art and a science of creating active, friendly and informative
communication between online viewers and marketers. In a nutshell, eWOMM is an online
communication tool used by businesses to motivate consumers to talk about their products. The
eWOM's tradition has been to share movies and trailers and other content with friends and family
circles online. Production companies and marketers apply strategies to influence online viewers
to share content. This medium offers the possibility to extend the reach of eWOM campaigns
from small individual connections to the entire Internet world. The world is spread by consumers
through discussion forums, blogs, social networking sites, message boards, e-mails and other
groups (López & Sicilia, 2013). The two main attributes of WOM, namely quantity and value,
are considered to be the main factors influencing product sales (Yang et al., 2012).
Kozinets et al, (2010) defined WOMM as the intervention and impact of communication
between viewers through professional marketing techniques. The internet and social media tools
have taken eWOM to another level, which has led to Goldsmith and Horowitz (2006, p.6)
defining information obtained online from other viewers. Likewise, Dellarocas (2003) is unique
to eWOM compared to traditional WOMs in that it makes content more accessible across
Internet domains and allows new customers to get older reviews. I have determined that it does.
However, Christodoulides et al. (2012) Because the Internet can serve as a platform for
information exchange between consumers, he challenged the perception of eWOM as a mere
extension of traditional WOM.
Since then, most studies have focussed on the differences between traditional WOM and eWOM.
For example, Shi (2003) shows that eWOM is different from traditional WOM and can reach
more users, especially around the world. Therefore, Kavanaugh et al., 2005) distinguishes
eWOM from traditional WOM because it can interact with strangers. Therefore, its ability to go
beyond local reach raises new questions about the effectiveness of this new medium as an ideal
5
solution for small business marketing activities. In addition, WOM's narrow field of view
changes, which were limited to small groups, were modified by eWOM (Gupta and Harris,
2010). In addition, Chung and Darke (2006) propose another view that suggests that the rapid
growth of eWOM is due to the availability and generation of a large amount of user-generated
content. Since then, the public has been creating this user-generated content. These messages
spread very quickly and were sent mainly over the Internet (Godes and Mayzlin, 2004). From
this, it can be inferred that the new phenomenon of widespread use of user-generated content
could be another reason for the growing trend of eWOM behavior.
In particular, George and Buttle (2014) point out that the impact of eWOM in different cultural
contexts remains a topic that has been explored slightly in the academic literature. In addition,
the impact of feedback received from eWOM on the purchasing power of decisions has not yet
been fully investigated. For example, studies related to online news-seeking behavior have
shown the impact of different national cultural backgrounds of viewers (O'Dwyer et al., 2009). In
particular, the empirical study of Safko and Brake (2009) is based on determining the impact of
eWOM information on potential purchase decisions in cross-border situations. The requirements
for investigating these issues in the Lebanese context can therefore be important.
Customers are more likely to consider this information to be authentic and true because they
have received a WOM message from a friend (Pornpitakpan, 200 ). In this regard Kozinets et al.
(2010) We have determined that it is always important to identify who can provide reliable
information, and this is the case. Therefore, getting “influencers” to deliver commercial
messages and leverage social media is an even bigger challenge for marketers. A study by Chen
and Xie (2008) focused on assessing online consumer products, a new type of eWOM as a new
element of the marketing communication mix. Therefore, they suggest that online reviews are
very important in a customer's purchasing decision, based on previous evidence. In addition, in
an empirical study by Chen and Xie (2008), user-created online viewer reviews were generated
by third-party websites, such as online blogs where user-created reviews were created from the
consumer's perspective. It has been shown to be consistently more powerful than reviews.
opinion. Therefore, Greene (2009) argues that information received from social networking sites
about various films from other viewers is considered more reliable and valuable than information
received from marketers.
6
In particular, the eWOM literature is based on two main aspects, such as its contribution to
branding and its ability to increase sales. For example, Trusov et al. (2009) Achieving the goal of
increasing brand awareness, sales remain the primary goal and should be achieved by
encouraging consumers to duplicate a positive message about the product / brand. In this regard,
Kaikati and Kaikati (2004) have shown that eWOM campaigns can motivate viewers and
viewers to interact with film content and deliver commercial messages as a means of providing
information to customers. 'Brand promotion' messages chosen by the consumer community tend
to be more credible, as traditional advertising based on the brand itself or content from the
accepted advertising agency tends to be discredited. (Kaikati and Kaikati, 2004).
Trusov et al. (2009) Focused on research on eWOMM via social networks compared to
traditional marketing channels. They point out that eWOM's marketing strategy uses the Internet
for the sole benefit of being able to deliver faster communications at lower cost. Trusov et al.
(2009) We have identified social networking as a very useful study of the behavior of WOM on
the Internet. There, researchers can effectively capture referrals between social network users.
However, the literature on the impact of eWOM through social networks is balanced, and some
studies are highly skeptical of its ability to exaggerate the benefits of social media as the primary
means of eWOM. In this regard, Smith et al. (2007) show that the majority of social media users
have medium-sized social networks, and their willingness to share marketing messages may even
be more limited than the size of the entire network. In addition, Watts and Dodds (2007) argue
that there is an increasing tendency to overestimate and exaggerate the impact of influential
social networks.
It is pertinent to mention here that eWOM has some unique disadvantages compared to
traditional WOM. At this point, yellow. Al. (2011) pointed out that the anonymity provided in
the online environment allows recipients to carefully examine and trust WOM messages.
Therefore, yellow. NS. (2011) The survey is based on identifying characteristics of eWOM
information and may increase the tendency of customers to accept eWOM messages.
1.2 Problem Statement
As indicated by (Nakatsu, 2005), the development of media technologies in the past few years
has changed the audience experiences from passive to active. Also the multiplatform
7
entertainment has made the movie experience more interactive for example the Disney’s Second
Screen and the Odeon’s Cinime has opened up the new avenues for changing the movie or
cinema going experience.
The Cinema going practice has been explored previously however inside a historic or industrial
context: for instance, how the cinemagoers have followed customs before (Kuhn, 2002) or how
the space of a cinema was organized and also what social ramifications exist behind its
architecture (Jones, 2003). The contemporary cinema going as an experiential journey which
incorporates the digital data of cinemagoers. The contemporary film going practices or film
watching practices may seem a well-researched topic however it appears to be that there isn’t
any previous study that sets up and unfolds how it happens within digital age. And also what
kind of digital platforms and data it includes. Thus this topic is not investigated previously and
this is the advancement of this study: planning the contemporary movie going experience and
activity utilizing the quantitative techniques for research.
1.3 Research Objectives
This research study will work on the following mentioned objectives:
1. To identify whether the gender affects the movie watching practices.

2. To find out whether review adoption has impact on movie watching practices.
1.4 Research Questions
The present study will provide answers to following questions:
1. Does gender affect the movie watching practices?
H1: There is a significant difference in movie watching practices of males and females.
2. Does review adoption has impact on movie watching practices?
H2: Source Credibility is positively related to movie watching practices.

H3: Argument Quality is positively related to movie watching practices.
1.5 Research Scope
The research scope has no barriers to data acquisition, with both primary and secondary data
relatively accessible. The research will take related books, articles and academic journals
8
available, for the most part, within the University of Liverpool Online Library into consideration.
Primary data collection could prove a more challenging prospect as, at the time of writing, there
is no assurance of any potential respondents being willing to participate in the study. That
however is not a major concern since the strategy in mind is to adopt a non-probability quota
sampling technique, based on specific behaviors (cinema attendees) (Hair et al., 2009).
The questionnaire is used as a primary tool and carefully designed to consider all the variables
that impact consumer behavior in context of Lebanese cinemas. That is to say those
questionnaires are carefully constructed and distributed at the location of a few different cinema
theatres in Lebanon. In a bid to account for any potential resistance, predominantly emerging
from cinema attendees being in a hurry to enter the theatre, a pair of free movie tickets may be
offered as an incentive to participate in the study.
Regardless of the final results, this study contributes towards extensive knowledge and insights
about Lebanese Cinema Industry regarding the contributions of traditional and online word of
mouth on film attendance levels, indicate which WOM platform to invest more resources in
hyping and monitoring, and perhaps even monitor foreign markets, who may operate an earlier
film release timeline, film receptions as their own source of WOM to aid in more efficient movie
purchasing.
The research work is to understand and highlight the effectiveness of eWOM in context of
movies and how eWOM can affect viewers’ perception and help them in movie selection.
9
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Background
The studies in the past revealed the impact and significant characteristics of information, which
raise the desire of customers purchase decisions, Erkan and Evans (2016). Wang, Yeh, Chen, &
Tsydypov, (2016), in their study examined how the social relationships among the users of
Social Media and senders gain trust, confidence and has impact on eWOM. A testimony, which
is positive or negative, made actual potential and existing customer towards a product or an
organization over the internet is known as eWOM (Hennig- Thurau et al., 2004). According to
Gold- smith (2006), Electronic Word-Of-Mouth (eWOM) communication is happening across
the globe over the online social media networking, virtual communities, online platforms,
discussion forums, blogs, and rating/reviews sites. Mostly the users will spread a positive eWOM
regarding a particular brand when the brand takes it as its responsibility to clarify the question
and complaints and comments of its customers through Social Media platforms like Twitter,
Linkedin and Facebook, Choi & Thoeni (2016). Ansa et. al (2017), states that the fast
development in technology paves way to the attention of customers to all sorts of high end
material goods of expense. Interacting in the social media platforms is definitely an active way of
communication to generate discussions and active digital engagement brings in an extremely
important decision with regard to generating purchase intentions, (Berger and Jonah 2014). The
social media platforms are specifically designed in a particular way that users can freely interact
in a two-way communication system (Lee et.al 2013).
In social psychology, interpersonal communication has received great attention. This study gives
an insight into how consistently eWOM affects individuals to make choices. According to Arndt
(1967), King and Summers (1970), and Herr.et.al (1991), influence of interpersonal
communication through word-of-mouth has been well documented for influencing customers.
These days’ consumers have the comfort of using a number of websites like Amazon, CNET,
Facebook, Foursquare, LinkedIn, and YouTube to seek product information from other
consumers. It is evident that ample researches and studies have been conducted related to eWOM
and the majority focused on online information study of tangible products (Ratchford et al.,
2003; Klein and Ford, 2003). For a moviegoer, evaluating the quality of movie is very difficult
before watching it. It is the same for complicated goods. An easy way to measure the
10
complicated goods is to depend on Internet Word of Mouth (I-WOM). So, the accessibility of
reliable WOM (Word-of-mouth) information for goods, including movies, performs a vital role
in minimizing risk in experience of good consumption. The researchers Ratchford, et al., (2001);
Lee, et al. (2006) argued that Electronic Word-Of-Mouth (eWOM) permits consumers to collect
and get information from a variety of groups of people i.e. acquainted and non-acquainted. AC
Nielson (2007) claimed that majority of the consumer’s trusted online feelings for their purchase
decision. Another study carried out by some researchers Li, Bernoff, Pflaum, & Glass (2007)
highlights that almost fifty percent (50%) of online adult users in social networks share and talk
about the products that they like. Lu and Hsiao (2010) explained that visibility refers to the
frequency of views of messages, which carry the information about a product or service.
Through Social Media greater product visibility occurs across messages results in higher
probability that it is present in customer’s memory.
The study conducted by Dellarocas et al. (2007), Duan et al. (2008), and Liu (2006) showed that
the effect of visibility is higher and empirical backup to substantiate the influence of visibility of
product information on social media for product purchase decision making. Crano and Prislin
(2005) argued that instead of mere exposure, a frequent disclosure to a subject or a message
would yield high positive impact. People are very much inclined towards a subject or product or
messages which having frequent visibility. Ansa et.al (2017), stated that the customer preference
will increases due to the increase in awareness on brand. There exist significant changes in the
purchases or preferences to take service based on nationality.
Through the literature review, it has been observed that though there are several studies available
on electronic word-of- mouth (eWOM) to identify the effectiveness of persuasive eWOM
messages, the influence of shared content and visibility on eWOM is a new and relevant area of
study. Very few studies have truthfully tested the potential backgrounds of influential eWOM
messages among the message recipients in the social media context. The major purpose of this
paper was to critically analyze and look at the determinants of persuasive shared content and
visibility and the acceptance of eWOM by the recipient of an intention to buy product, access
service or company information and to accept eWOM messages in their purchase decision.
11
2.1 Word of Mouth (WOM)
Different researchers have given different definitions for word-of-mouth. This section will give a
description about the definitions of word-of-mouth (WOM). According to Dellarocas (2003),
Word of mouth can be considered as one of the earliest method of conveying information, and it
has also been defined in various ways. Katz and Lazarsfeld (1966) gave one of the earliest
definitions of word of mouth. They defined word of mouth as ‘exchanging of marketing
information between different consumers in such a way that it plays key role in changing their
attitudes and shaping their behavior towards different products and services’. Many other
scholars have also contributed in defining word of mouth. Like Arndt (1967) described it as one-
to-one communication tool between a communicator and a receiver. The receiver perceives the
knowledge about a particular brand, product or service as non-commercial. Similarly, the WOM
is the communication that occurs between various consumers regarding a service, product in
which the sources are viewed as free of commercial influence (Litvin et al., 2008).These person-
to-person communication provides information that is associated to the consumption of the item,
product or services i.e. the information goes beyond the messages that are provided by the
companies and involuntarily creates the impact upon the decision-making of the individuals
(Brown et al., 2007).
According to Daugherty and Hoffman (2014), WOM has considered widely as one of the most
persuasive factor in affecting the consumer behavior. This influential factor has its importance
with the intangible goods which are to some extent difficult to evaluate before consumption such
as movie selection. Thus (Litvin et al., 2008), Jalilvand and Samiei (2012) concluded that WOM
plays a very important role of information in the consumer’s buying decision.
Lee and Youn, (2009) regard WOM as the most persuading source of information about the
services and the products. Cheung and Thadani (2012) conducted a research and found that
consumers prefer WOM more as compared to the traditional media like television, radio, print
advertisements etc. As compared to sellers, consumers are more trusted by the users (Nieto et al.,
2014). WOM can also be called “the consumer-dominated channel marketing channel” because
the senders of the information are independent of any market and this makes them credible
(Brown et al., 2007). So these researches tell us that WOM is trustworthy, reliable and more
credible as compared to traditional media.
12
2.2 Electronic Word of Mouth (EWOM)
This section will focus on the explanation about the concept of electronic word-of-mouth
(EWOM) as described by various authors. Hennig-Thurau et al., (2004), gave the definition of
electronic word of mouth (EWOM) as “any positive or negative statements made by the
potential, actual or former customers about different products or services or company that is
made available to various people and institutes through the internet”. Yang (2017) has described
electronic word-of-mouth (EWOM). According to him, the new form of the online WOM
communication in the today’s world is called EWOM. Abubakar and Ilkan (2016) mentioned
that this new form of communication took importance due to the rise of various online platforms.
These platforms made this the most influential source of information available on the web as
they can have led changes the consumer behavior.
Ahrens et al., (2013) regard EWOM as a very effective form of communication, because it can
be instrumental in winning new customers’ acquisitions. As mentioned by Jalilvand and Samiei
(2012), that electronic word-of-mouth enable consumers to get or share the information
regarding brands and products. Also it allows everyone to share their experiences and opinions
related to different services and products with the people who are geographically and socially
dispersed. Thus, EWOM can be consider an influential factor in attracting new customers and in
shaping consumer behaviors towards different products.
There are also exists some conceptions regarding EWOM. Among those some very
comprehensive conceptions were proposed by Litvin et al. (2008). They described it as an
informal communication that takes place through internet to address consumers and is associated
to the usage and the characteristics of sellers, services and goods. This informal communication
also has benefits i.e. it is available to all consumers who can use the online platforms for sharing
their opinions and reviews with other users. As said by Nieto et al. (2014) today the consumers
prefer EWOM i.e. online platforms of communication for any information about different
products and services.
Among the EWOM users there also exists that concept of active and passive consumers. This
concept is described by Wang and Fesenmaier (2004). According to their study, both active and
passive consumers from all over the world can use EWOM as a medium to get information about
services and goods. Those users who share their opinions and experiences online are the active
13
consumers and those individuals who do not share their opinions but only search for the required
information in the comments section or opinions posted by other consumers are the passive
consumers.
2.3 Electronic Word-of-Mouth vs. Offline Word-of-Mouth
The following section will show some of the differences and similarities that both EWOM and
WOM possess.
2.3.1 eWOM vs. WOM – Similarities
This section explains the characteristics that both electronic word-of-mouth (EWOM) and
traditional word-of-mouth (WOM) have in common. These similarities lead to their successive
relationship in the published scholarly research. These significant commonalities are related to
the origins, influence and the communication’s content.
One of the important common characteristics is associated to the source or the origin of WOM
and EWOM. According to Lam and Mizerski, (2005); Lin and Heng, (2015), both forms of
communication were initiated by individuals rather than commercial entities.
The second similarity concerns the idea of content valence. Research by Godes and Mayzlin,
(2004); Doherty and Hoffman, (2014); Baker, Donthu, and Kumar (2016) mentioned the value of
content and the positive, negative, and neutral nature of word of mouth (WOM) related. This
similar standard also applies to EWOM (Hoffman and Daugherty, 2013; Pfeffer, Zorbach, and
Carley, 2014; Ladhari and Michaud, 2015). Value issues are often related to the impact of word-
of-mouth and online word-of-mouth on consumers, and there are conflicting views on this.
Although many studies believe that negative word of mouth and EWOM have a greater impact
on individuals (Hennig Thurau and Walsh, 2003; Sweeney, Soutar, and Mazzarol, 2005; Lim and
Chung, 2011).
The third thing WOM and EWOM have in common is their influence. According to Garnefeld,
Helm, and Eggert (2011), traditional and online WOM have a very large impact on consumers
and companies. Compared with marketing plans initiated by companies, these types of
communication are increasingly favored and trusted by individuals (Chatterjee, 2011; Zehrer,
Crotts, and Magnini, 2011). This is supported by industry survey results that the combination of
14
word-of-mouth and online word-of-mouth is a key driver of consumer purchasing decisions

(Coffee, 2014).
Given the conceptual closeness of these two ideas, many studies support the examination of
online consumer conversations from the perspective of traditional WOM communication (Steffes
and Burgee, 2009; ToderAlon, Brunel, and Fournier, 2014). Research by Hennig Thurau et al.
(2004) and Wolny and Mueller (2013) support the similarities between the above two ideas.
These two studies conducted face-to-face word-of-mouth research to explain the different
motivations of consumers for participating in e-WOM. Berger (2014) also mentioned in his
research that word-of-mouth includes “face-to-face” conversations and “e-word of mouth” or
“online reviews and comments.” He also proposed a list of potential behavioral drivers of online
and offline word-of-mouth. Although WOM and EWOM have similarities and controversial
conceptual proximity, there are also significant differences between these concepts.
2.3.2 eWOM vs. WOM – Differences
This section will elaborate about some major differences that exist between EWOM and the
traditional word-of-mouth (WOM). These differences are related to their context, temporality,
visibility, and scope, strength of social ties, credibility and anonymity of both forms of
communication.
The first significant difference pertains to the communication context. Traditional word of mouth
includes face-to-face interactions with consumers, while EWOM is based on computerized
interactions that appear on various social media and internet platforms. They can combine a large
list of environments. These environments include journal sites (Khare, Labrecque and Asare,
2011), online communities (Yang, Mai and BenUr, 2012), discussion forums (Chih et al., 2013),
and message boards ( Huang, 2010), online blogs (Cosenza, Solomon and Kwon, 2015; Koeck
and Marshall, 2015), personal and professional SNS such as Facebook (Hsu, Chih and Liou,
2016), Twitter (Canhoto and Clark, 2013; HennigThurau, Wiertz and Feldhaus (2015) or
Linkedin (Barnes and Jacobsen, 2014) and online chat rooms (Yeap, Ignatius and Ramayan,
2014). Different consumers choose the most suitable EWOM platform. And these choices
depend on the consumer's motivation to participate in EWOM. According to Erkan and Evans
(2016), the presence of different platforms for EWOM is important and the influence of EWOM
consumers on platforms is different. WOMEN's online and face-to-face communication, i.e.,
15
traditional word of mouth, also differs in timing. Berger (2014) mentioned that offline WOM is
synchronous because its production and consumption take place simultaneously. In contrast, Chu
and Kim (2011) suggested that EWOM can have both synchronous and asynchronous properties.
Synchronous EWOM communication can take the form of chats in a chat room or it can be an
exchange through mobile messaging applications where information can be sent and received at
the same time. EWOM asynchronous communication, on the other hand, appears as various
comments on review sites or blog posts, these comments are often not used at the same time as
they are submitted and are therefore characterized by lower levels of interaction (Bronner and de
Hoog, 2011; Huang et al., 2011; Lovett, Peres and Shachar, 2013).
The third difference of both forms of communication is associated with their visibility. The
EWOM has a long lasting electronic evidence. Unlike face to face communication i.e. WOM, the
EWOM can stay for a longer period of time after being created and also the audiences can have a
long-lived impact of this (Amblee and Bui, 2008; Breazeale, 2009; Cheung and Lee, 2012).
Usually the messages generated by EWOM can be seen later for a longer time after they are
posted, which is in clear difference from the traditional WOM i.e. face to face communication.
This argument allows the measurement of EWOM in the easier way as it is visible and
observable (Cheung and Thadani, 2012; King, Racherla and Bush, 2014).
The fourth difference that exists between EWOM and WOM is their scope. According to Jeong
and Jang (2012); Groeger and Buttle (2014), the EWOM has the potential of much broader
dissemination. Due to this distinctive quality it benefits different brands by bringing a positive
feedback, and this also creates a purpose for concern for the ones who are receiving negative
responses (Pfeffer, Zorback and Carley, 2014). The messages generated by means of EWOM can
be directed to one or several individuals. This dissemination highly depends upon the channel
through which the message has been communicated (Bronner and de Hoog, 2011; Barasch and
Berger, 2014), and as compared to the traditional WOM, the EWOM has tendency to reach a
considerably larger audience. HennigThurau, Wiertz and Feldhaus, (2015) wrote that the senders
of EWOM communication may never have to personally meet the readers of their message. In
this case, EWOM can be viewed as a less personal communication (Lovett, Peres and Shachar,
2013).
16
The fifth difference is related to the concept of social ties. Traditional WOM and EWOM both
have different strengths in terms of social relationships or the degree of closeness between the
communicator and the receiver of the message (Groeger & Buttle, 2014; Baker, Donthu &
Kumar, 2016). The strength of this social relationship is related to the impact of EWOM as it can
control the impact of EWOM communication on consumers (Baker, Donthu and Kumar, 2016).
This proximity between the communicator and the receiver of the message can also influence the
persuasive power of EWOM (Teng et al., 2014) and influence consumer decisions (Steffes and
Burgee, 2009).
According to Chu and Kim (2011), this social relationship also motivates the individual to spread
the message more on his social network. In addition, unlike direct WOM, EWOM can be
anonymous to both the communicator and the recipient of the message (Gelb & Sundaram,
2002). This anonymity of EWOM can create opportunities and obstacles for the dissemination
and influence of EWOM. In particular, existing research highlights the issue of the reputation
and expertise of online reviewers (Lee & Youn, 2009). For example, according to Cheung and
Thadani (2012), with face-to-face communication most of the time, the receiver perceives the
credibility of the communicator. In contrast, Cheung and Lee (2012) argue that there can often
be limited ways to judge the reliability of online information, such as reviewer stars or the
reliability of the online platform.
2.4 Forms of eWOM
The basic elements of an informal communication process are the subject (message), the subject
(participants of the informal communication process), and the context in which information is
exchanged (the moment the message is created and received and how It has been sent). The
message in informal communication can be positive, negative, or neutral. Participants can play
various roles such as sender (sender of message), recipient, mediator, etc. (Wang, Teo & Kwok,
2015). Their participation can be active or passive. Messages can be delivered face-to-face
(verbally), in scripts, or through a variety of tools (such as phones and computers). This process
can be done in real time or delayed, such as announcements posted in discussion forums. It can
also be one-way or two-day communication. All elements of the informal communication
process can influence each other. For example, the nature of the relationships between
17
participants can control the nature of the message and how the message is delivered. Similarly,
the nature of the message determines how the message is delivered (Wang, Teo & Kwok, 2015).
Granitz and Ward (1996) first reported a new phenomenon in informal online communications
(electronic WordOfMouth, hereafter eWOM), highlighting the differences between eWOM and
traditional WordOfMouth5 media. According to them, eWOM's uniqueness lies in the fact that
the identity of a communicator is not determined by contextual factors such as appearance, social
origin, status, or occupation. As a result, the Internet offers different perspectives on the products
and services of anonymous people.
The fundamental difference between traditional informal communication and online

communication is the strength of the relationships between the interacting participants. These are
often more powerful than traditional communication processes. However, the weak relationships
typical of eWOM offer consumers some benefits (Chang, Lee & Huang, 2010). First, weak
relationships allow us to collect more diverse information from a variety of sources, including
professionals. Professionals are often inaccessible in the context of traditional media. Sources, on
the other hand, also have certain limitations that affect the quality of information on the network,
such as the reliability of the source. Consumers are unaware of the motives of the source and can
find it difficult to assess and verify the credibility and knowledge of online professionals (Chang,
Lee & Huang, 2010).
Figure 1: Forms of Electronic/Online WOM
18
2.5 E-WOM and Culture Differences
An increasing number of empirical studies demonstrate the impact of culture on eWOM

consumer behavior. For example, Koh et al. (2010) find that Westerners tend to post high ratings
and Asian users tend to give moderate ratings. Similarly, Fang et al. (2013) indicate that Asian
consumers tend not to engage in “pragmatic” voting mechanisms, but tend to give more positive
opinions than Western consumers. Obal and Kunz (2016) find that Asians are more likely to trust
the recommendations of online reviewers and to be more tolerant of the opinions of non-experts,
while Westerners are more likely to trust the recommendations of online reviewers. Westerners
are more tolerant of the opinions of non-experts. Zhou, Xia, and Zhang (2016) compared
cognitive differences between Asia and the United States based on multi-level opinion mining
techniques. Americans express a more direct and focused view, concerned with the internal
characteristics of the product, while the Chinese often use allusions to care more about the
external characteristics of the product. In addition, Zhu, Ye, and Chang (2017) found differences
in the text content of online product reviews written by US and Chinese customers. The Chinese
tend to refer to the functional, price, and quality characteristics of a product, while the Americans
tend to express sentimental attitudes. These results are consistent with the conclusions of Buzova
et al. (2018), he also found that North Americans are more emotional and expressive than
Europeans.
In view of the aforementioned discussion, it is clear that the previous studies on the cultural
behavior of eWOM have focused mainly on the consumer's assessment behavior (Fang et al.,
2013, Koh et al., 2013, Koh and Al., 2013, NS 2010; MA, 2013) content (Buzova et al., 2018,
Zhu et al., 2017) and the use of social media (Chu and Choi, 2011). However, previous studies
have not explained the impact of eWOM on the choice of consumers for the same product at
different countries. This study compares the properties of eWOM in the US and Chinese markets
(Ewom, Valencia, variance, etc.) and the effects of the eWOM on the performance of the film in
different cultures.
2.6 Impact of WOM on Customers
Customers have discussed their product and service experiences, and researchers have long been
curious about how this type of interpersonal communication influences consumer decision-
making. Johnson, Zinkhan, and Ayala (Johnson, Zinkhan, and Ayala, 1998). As a result, for
19
many people, word of mouth (WOM) is a buzzword in marketing materials. There is no denying
WOM's power as a powerful means of communication. Advertising, as Dichter (1966, p. 166)
put it, "will never replace the power and value of individual acceptance." In reality, research has
consistently demonstrated that word-of-mouth is more powerful than market-oriented
communication in influencing client behaviour (Buttle, 1998).
Because WOM recipients see persons who interact with WOM as unbiased, their
recommendations are more dependable and trustworthy (Silverman, 2011). As a result, word-of-
mouth (WOM) is regarded as one of the most effective kinds of marketing and a main means of
communication between consumers. As a result, marketers are rediscovering aggressive word-of-
mouth marketing as a valuable technique for attracting new business. Anderson is a writer who
specialises in (1998, p. 6) "Informal communication between private sectors relevant to the
valuation of goods and services" is how WOM communication is defined. WOM also refers to
the process of impacting the sender's interpersonal relationships on the message recipients,
according to Sweeney, Soutar, and Mazzarol (2008).
The majority of researchers have given clear and encouraging recommendations for gaining a
better knowledge of WOM. Many businesses are increasingly relying on organic word-of-mouth
to gain new customers, and referral programmes are increasingly being used as a customer
acquisition method that directly taps into the power of WOM communication (Wirtz et al.
Associates, 2013). Existing customers are frequently rewarded for referring their suppliers and
products to friends and acquaintances in such programs (eg Schmitt, Skiera, Van den Bulte,
2011; Wirtz et al. Events, 2013). SEO efforts, unlike natural word-of-mouth, are actively
maintained and controlled by the vendor (Schmitt, Skiera, Van den Bulte, 2011).
2.7 Movie Watching Preferences of Males & Females
Gender differences in the use of the Internet are based on online information that aims at the
behavior of men and women in relation to utility. Several studies have shown that men tend to
use the Internet utilitically, while women are more emotional compared to purchases, for
example (Alreck and Solving, 2002; Çelik & Yilmaz, 2011, Venkatesh and Al, 2012;
Arroyocunada & Gillafuente, 2014). For the case of online information, the study conducted by
Chiu et al. (2009) concludes that men tend to consider more valuable these activities that offer a
great online experience such as games or videos, while women consider more valuable, these
20
activities that allow you to have better personal relations such as -pap or instant hits. Messages.
As a result, it can be assumed that, in the acceptance of EWOM information for the purchase
decision-making process, women will tend to give greater importance to this type of information
than men.
Everyday observations recommend the existence of robust and well-known stereotypes regarding
gender variations in flick preferences, which may be summarized as follows. ladies are imagined
to like romantic and melodramatic movies, that are sneeringly referred to as “chick flicks” or
“tearjerkers” yet as comedy, however to dislike action and horror movies. In contrast, men are
supposed to like action and horror movies, but to dislike romantic and melodramatic movies.
enquiry on gender differences in actual movie preferences has confirmed, a minimum of to some
degree, these in style stereotypes (see Oliver, 2000; timberland and Lippmann, 2010, for
reviews). The assumption that ladies like romantic and melodramatic movies yet as comedy, for
instance, has received some empirical support (e.g., Joseph Oliver et al., 1998; Harris et al.,
2000). Greenwood (2010) studied the impact of genres and mood states (happy or sad) on
choosing between films of different genres. First, the participants had to write about a happy or
sad life event to induce the corresponding mood in these participants. Next, the participants were
asked to indicate the type of movie they would like to see right now using closed and open
questions. Questionnaire asked to choose between some cheerful film genres (e.g. romantic
comedy, dark comedy), some sad film genres (e.g. social drama, romantic drama). ), action-
adventure, and thrillers (e.g. thrillers). The results showed, regardless of mood, female
participants’ preferred romantic genres (i.e. romantic comedy, romantic drama), while male
participants preferred action movies adventure and thriller. Other results show that men, unlike
women, prefer shows with violent or sexual content. For example, Blanchard et al. (1986)
introduced participants to violent material from different sources or genres (i.e. spy films, war
films, Western cartoons and cartoons). When interviewed afterwards, male participants reported
preferring watching violent films over participants (see also Koukounas and McCabe, 2001).
Male preference is also found to be stronger than female preference, found in horror films that
often contain scary and violent scenes (e.g., Cantor and Reilly, 1982; Zillmann et al., 1986;
Oliver, 1993).
21
2.8 eWOM and Consumer Purchase Intention
Lin et. al. (2013) states that an individual acts with the intention to purchase a certain product
which can be defined as the consumer's purchase intention. Therefore, consumer purchase
intention (Bataineh, 2015), which is recognized as the effect of eWOM communication
according to the number of online consumer experiences, affects consumer attitude outcomes.
eWOM is defined as an influential medium that can influence consumer experience through
trusted reviews and opinions from the community, friends and family (Wu & Wang, 2010) and
purchasing decisions. It can change the way consumers think (Chang & Mento, 2010).
Therefore, marketers or agencies need to be aware of the importance of eWOM as it can reduce
advertising and marketing costs.
2.8.1 eWOM Quality
According to Lin et. al. (2013) and Bataineh (2015), both argue that eWOM offers consumers
many benefits for information gathering and knowledge enhancement, especially in the
preparation phase of the purchasing process. Thus, consumer feedback from the eWOM
community can make branding positive (Torlak, Ozkara, Titay, Cengiz & Dulger, 2014). There
are many reasons and high-quality information from consumers who have turned to a particular
product can influence consumer perception (Senecal and Nantel, 2004). In summary, consumers
cannot smell products in the same way as physical stores, so consumers looking for high quality
(reliable and useful) information are an important step in purchasing a product (Dellarocas,
2003).
2.8.2 eWOM Quantity
Linet. Al. (2013) and Bataineh (2015) show that most of the eWOM community's revenue has a
positive relationship with sales. In the long run, this can affect consumer relationships
(Hyrynsalmi et al. 2015). Indeed, consumers are ready to share their experiences, opinions and
comments on a particular brand or product through appropriate channels such as social networks,
blogs and websites (Lerrthairakul & Panjakajornsak, 2014). Hyunsalmi et al. Al. (2015) The
number of claims is referred to as the degree to which the brand image is accepted by consumers
due to the high proportion of products. This means that consumers are more satisfied with the
quantity of products and fewer shortcomings in purchasing decisions (Lu, Ye & Law, 2014). In
22
summary, the volume identified as mediating to improve product acceptance and quality through
consumer purchasing decisions can be influenced by the number of ratings and comments on
websites and social media.
2.8.3 Source Credibility
According to Bataineh (2015), the reliability of source is very important for eWOM as it can
influence the consumer's impression. This is because consumer attitudes can actually be achieved
by composing messages from trusted members and family members compared to information
obtained from other sources. Thus, the reliability of eWOM knows that consumers believe that
the information they obtain should be truthful, informative and reliable for a particular product.
Sharif, Ahmad and Ahmad (2016) argue that online groups can have informal consequences for
customers' brand buying plans because online groups can search big data sources.
2.8.4 Sender’s Expertise
The reliability of information can be one of the factors related to the sender's ability (Chang, Lee
and Huang, 2010). Individuals will seek and receive reliable information based on the experience
of reliable expertise rather than as a consequence of a consumer's willingness to purchase
(Bristor, 19990; Changet. Al. 2010; Lin et al. two thousand and thirteen). From the sender's
experience as a knowledgeable individual about a particular product that provides reliable and
trustworthy information (Wangenheim and Bayo'n, 2014), the sender's experience is the
consumption of information obtained. degree of a person's trust (Wang. et al. 2015). In summary,
shippers' suggestions and expert feedback can influence consumer perceptions and purchase
intent (Lin et al. 2013).
2.9 Antecedents of Giving eWOM
Many researchers have looked into why people advertise their own products or services, focusing
on the components that cause WOM communication. Many research look at how the quality of a
connection affects consumer recommendations. Customer happiness and loyalty, as well as
engagement and trust, have all been proved to be major drivers of WOM (De Matos and Rossi,
2008).
23
2.9.1 Satisfaction
Customer satisfaction is one of the most prominent drivers of WOM in the literature (e.g.
Anderson, 1998; Athanassopoulos, Gounaris, and Stathakopoulos, 2001; Bone, 1992;
Wangenheim and Bayón, 2007). Fulfillment is a state that develops as a result of pleasurable
consumption satisfaction (Oliver, 1997). There is a lot of evidence that satisfied consumers are
linked to positive word-of-mouth. Individual happiness with the consumer experience is typically
viewed as a significant precursor for product-related word of mouth, according to Anderson
(1998, p. 6). Many researchers have verified the good impacts of contentment on women,
supporting this hypothesis. In a quantitative meta-analysis of 162 samples, De Matos and Rossi
(2008) discovered that customer satisfaction had a direct impact on WOM performance.
To characterize the positive association between contentment and WOM, most authors employ a
confirmation/rejection paradigm (eg Bone, 1992; Jones and Reynolds, 2006; Swan and Oliver,
1989). Customers connect post-purchase reviews to pre-use expectations, according to this idea
(De Matos and Rossi, 2008; Oliver, 1980). Customers that receive exceptional service are more
likely to provide good WOMs and tell others about their excellent experiences (De Matos and
Rossi, 2008).
Customer happiness, according to previous studies (Stauss and Neuhaus, 1997), comprises both
emotional and cognitive dimensions, and emotion-based satisfaction predicts which behaviour to
follow as a recommendation (Martin et. Al., 2008; De Matos and Rossi, 2008). After the
emotional component was removed, satisfaction was found to be negatively associated with
referrals. Customer satisfaction has a positive link with referrals, according to most marketing
studies, but the functional form of this relationship has been disputed (Mazzarol, Sweeney, &
Soutar, 2007; see also Wangenheim and Bayón, 2007; Garnefeld, 2008).
According to some scholars, the two components have a positive linear relationship (Swan and
Oliver, 1989). To put it another way, the happier you are, the more WOM communication you
have. Others have suggested that the partnership should be in the shape of a U. Anderson (1998)
concluded that clients with high levels of satisfaction belong to the higher WOMEN category
than clients with low levels of satisfaction, based on a utility-based model. According to
24
Anderson (1998), the marginal benefit of contributing WOM increases with increasing good
experiences. Other study has backed up the conclusions (Fullerton and Taylor, 2002).
Satisfied consumers, on the other hand, do not always engage in active WOM communication
(Mazzarol, Sweeney & Soutar, 2007; Wirtz & Chew, 2002). Consumers who are happy with
their drinking experience have been proven to propagate negative WOM in particular settings,
according to studies (e.g. Naylor, 1999). Furthermore, multiple research have discovered that
there is little factual basis for a direct link between satisfaction and WOM (Arnett, German and
Hunt, 2003). Arnett, German, and Hunt (2003), for example, found no evidence to back up their
theory that college satisfaction is linked to college acceptance. Furthermore, a study by Reynolds
and Beatty (1999) indicated that better WOM had no effect on retailer satisfaction (Brown,
2005). As a result, the association between satisfaction and WOM shows that other factors, such
as the customer's level of attachment to the service provider, may play a role.
2.9.2 Loyalty
Loyalty is described as the desire to make repeat purchases and to engage in additional
behaviours that encourage them to stay with the supplier (Sirdeshmukh, Singh & Sabol, 2002).
WOM has been used in a number of studies as a predictor of loyalty (De Matos and Rossi, 2008).
However, some academics (e.g., Mazzarol, Sweeney, & Soutar, 2007; Söderlund, 2006;
Sweeney, Soutar, & Mazzarol, 2012) have questioned how loyalty is measured through
acquisitions and WOM's goal. Söderlund (2006), for example, advocates treating the two
components as separate entities. The conceptual separation of customer loyalty and WOM
communication, according to Eggert and Helm (2000), necessitates exploring the long-ignored
loyalty and WOM linkages (Dick and Basu, 1994). Several recent studies have verified the
favourable impact of customer loyalty on women, demonstrating that devoted consumers are
more likely to donate more.
A meta-analysis conducted by De Matos and Rossi (2008) found that loyalty has a favourable
impact on WOM. Gremler and Brown (1999) invented the phrase "spillover of loyalty" to
explain the advantages of referrals from loyal consumers to a business. Carpenter and Fairhurst
(2005) deepen the link between brand loyalty and word-of-mouth, but other businesses have
proven to be successful in a service context. The link between loyalty and WOM, according to
25
De Matos and Rossi (2008), is based on loyal consumers' motivation to spread information about
their providers (Dick and Basu, 1994). This motivational tendency is linked to the desire to
interact with service companies (Jones & Reynolds, 2006). This motivating trait is linked to a
desire to work with service businesses (Jones & Reynolds, 2006).
2.9.3 Trust
In relationships, trust has been identified as a key driver of behavioral outcomes (De Matos &
Rossi, 2008). Jones and Reynolds (2006), for example, show that consumer trust in a company is
positively connected with their future intentions. According to Morgan and Hunt (1994), trust
can be defined as "an individual's belief in a business associate's reputation and integrity." The
impact of trust on word-of-mouth marketing (WOM) has been extensively researched (Walsh
and Beatty, 2007). The structure of trust in this research refers to both the customer-supplier
connection and the interpersonal relationship between customers and staff. Trust between service
professionals and consumers have a favorable impact on WOM communication with suppliers,
according to Gremler, Gwinner, and Brown (2001), but supplier trust is a key motivator and vital
in customer referrals. In line with this research, Sichtmann (2007) discovered that customer trust
in corporate branding has a beneficial impact on WOM behavior. De Matos and Rossi (2008)
found that trust has a significant beneficial effect on WOM activities in a meta-analysis. The key
aspect of a successful connection that elicits cooperative action on the part of the consumer is
generally argued to be trust (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Consumers particularly refer to friends and
relatives, according to De Matos and Rossi (2008). Customers are more inclined to recommend a
supplier they trust (De Matos and Rossi, 2008) because trust mitigates the potential social
dangers of supplier referrals (Sichtmann, 2007).
2.9.4 Involvement
Marketing research has identified consumer engagement as an important concept, explaining

post-purchase communication as WOM. The positive effects of WOM's involvement in
transmission have been repeatedly analyzed in many experimental studies (Sundaram, Mitra &
Webster, 1998; Wangenheim & Bayón, 2007; Wangenheim, Bayón & Herrmann, 2006). .
Implication is the importance that an individual perceives about an object. Based on the purpose
of the reference, the author distinguishes the next aspect of implication: product implication and
26
contextual implication (Richins and Root Shaffer, 1988). Market participation or market
fascination (Wangenheim and Bayón, 2007).
A customer's interest in a product is measured by product engagement. Consumers who are

highly engaged have a good comprehension of the product and a compelling motivation to buy it
(Richins & Bloch, 1986). As a result, when individuals acquire or utilise a product, they
experience heightened emotions like as arousal, prompting them to tell others about it afterwards
(Dichter, 1966; Sundaram, Mitra, et al. Webster, 1998; Wangenheim , Bayon, & Herrmann,
2006). Others realise that they are informed and seek assistance because of the client's
experience and the interests involved (Wangenheim and Bayón, 2007).
According to Richins and Bloch (1986), relevant clients process more information. In other
words, they are more likely than unrelated persons to find and share product knowledge (see
Wangenheim and Bayón, 2007). Dichter (1966, p. 1 8) "The use of the product alone causes
tensions that cannot be resolved," says the product's involvement, "but must be expressed orally,
with recommendations, and with enthusiasm." Empirical studies (e.g. Richins and Bloch, 1986;
Richins and RootShaffer, Wangenheim and Bayón, 2007; Wangenheim, Bayón, and Herrmann,
2006) strongly suggest that product participation leads to higher WOM communication.
Sundaram, Mitra, and Webster (1998) discovered that one-third of respondents responded to
WOM because they were interested in the goods and excited about their purchase.
2.10 Social, Digital Media & Movies
Production studios can now sell their films in new ways thanks to the Internet and electronic
technology. It's all about digital media. Production studios expand their contact with viewers by
making advertising more appealing via digitizing. Print media, such as posters and billboards,
must stand out and attract passers-attention by's while also conveying a lot of information about
the film in a single still image. Because videos require you to pause and concentrate on what
you're seeing, your ad is more likely to be noticed. Trailers were the first kind of digital media
used to promote movies. They weren't just a collection of film stills spliced together at the end of
a feature film when they were first developed (Fear, 2013). Today, the trailer is utilized to
display extended frames of images, video, and sound for future films. These forecasts represent
27
and promote the tone and genre of the ensemble, as well as the tale and the lead actor
(Finsterwalder, Kuppelwieser & Villiers, 2012). The movie's preview trailers, which may be
seen on TV or online, help to express the film's substance and draw in audiences.
What are social networks and how do you use them? “A social network is a (social network and
micro-blogging website) for creating an online community where users may share information,
ideas, personal messages, and other content,” according to MerriamWebster (in video format). It
is a type of electronic communication that has the form of " (" Social network "nd). Websites
and mobile apps that connect individuals are referred to as social media. Demographics that
matter. The average age of social media users is 1829 years old, accounting for 83 percent of all
Internet users (Brenner & Duggan, 2013).
eWOMs occur in a variety of ways and can be found on the Internet (Hennig Thurau et al., 2004;
Yeap et al., 2004; Yeap et al., 2014) An online platform that serves as a feedback mechanism
that allows consumers to share eWOM information for any product or service (Dellarocas,
2003). Like-minded individuals gather on the same platform to share information about their
product and service experiences without being motivated by monetary rewards (King, Racherla
& Bush, 2014). The question here is these platforms where consumers share their experiences,
and more importantly, how are they different?
Production companies and advertising firms have recently begun to use social media to promote
their upcoming films. These studios and agencies have the ability to increase their market by
reaching out to new social media users in addition to targeting existing audiences. According to
a study by Chong Oh, "more the studio's motivation to communicate with its subscribers via
social media, the higher the WOM will be. As a result, there's a better probability of a better
weekend box office performance" (quoted in Science 2.0).
By communicating with their followers and marketing their products on social media, production
studios can focus on their particular interests. By raising brand recognition, you can improve
your studio and participate in movie campaigns. Compared to traditional printing or digital
marketing, the overall cost is lower. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Snapchat, and other associated
rating websites and blogs were the four social networks that the production studio employed to
advertise the film. Personal blogs, review sites, social networks, and instant messaging services
28
are the most popular eWOM communication channels, according to Yeap et al. (2014) and
Cheung and Thadani (2012).
2.10.1 Facebook
Facebook is the most popular and well-known social network on the internet and mobile devices,
having been launched 16 years ago. Users can upload and share information, connect with
others, and receive notifications from different profiles on Facebook. Currently, 86 percent of
Internet users aged 1829 utilise Facebook (Brenner & Duggan, 2013). Studios may use this
social network to construct fascinating movie pages. Subscribers who have been "highly rated"
can choose to be notified about campaign changes and new content. This features anything from
news about forthcoming movies to images and prizes. News, notes, images, music videos,
trailers, and other media relevant to the film make up the majority of the publications in
circulation (Filmmakers' Communication Guide, n.d.). Anyone who has liked the page can share,
and comment on the posts that have been created. Facebook enhances the interaction between the
studio and the audience in this way. This facilitates conversation between two persons as well as
among audience members. Because it is currently the largest social media network, this is where
the majority of online research is conducted.
2.10.2 Twitter
Twitter is a social media platform that allows users to share their favorite thoughts, words, and
photos in a limited number of characters. About a quarter of Internet users aged 18 to 29 have a
Twitter account (Brenner and Duggan, 2013). Tweets can be liked and retweeted as well. Many
studios update their profiles, tweet articles, and individuals can manage their Twitter accounts by
performing any of the three acts described. This enables you to communicate between the two
profiles.
2.10.3 YouTube
YouTube is a video-sharing website and mobile app that lets users watch and download videos.
These videos were made and disseminated with the intention of being shared with others. The
studio initially used YouTube as an option for consumers to watch the trailer. Viral campaigns,
on the other hand, are more difficult to research because you can publish many videos on one
29
channel. During the delivery of the same product, multiple trailers are prepared to show different
scenes from the movie. You can also share clips to see who your target demographic is.
Production companies can share videos with viewers on YouTube without having to wait for
them to watch them.
2.10.4 SnapChat
Snapchat is mobile software that allows users to share 10-second movies or photographs to other
users (also known as snaps, messages, or chats). The snap is erased from the recipient's inbox
and can no longer be accessed once the recipient sees it. Users can also add stories to "Recent
Updates," which are visible to the public for two hours each day. To create additional money, the
corporation has recently teamed with other social media networks in marketing campaigns.
According to the corporation, it "wants to create a fun and educational experience, similar to
prior commercials" (Snapchat, 2014). Notifications will be available under Recent Updates until
the user sees them or until 2 hours have passed. Instead of targeting users, adverts will be open to
everyone, broadening the potential audience for movie buffs and Snapchat only users.
2.10.5 Personal Blogs
Platforms such as personal blogs link to regularly updated online magazines or journals. In many
cases, blogs are managed by an author. The article itself is closely related to the personality of
the blog author. In addition, these messages are transmitted over the Internet and shared in
various places around the world, including on social networks. (Yeap. et al., 2014).
2.10.6 Reviews & Rating Sites
These websites are specially created to develop reviews and ratings using different content
among products, services, people, etc., including movies. Reviews are based on ratings and
reviews, as well as expert reviews. The most popular sites in the movie industry are imdb.com
and rotten tomatoes.com. (Yeap. et al., 2014).
2.10.7 Instant Messaging Platforms
Instant messaging platforms or sites allow attendees to communicate freely and instantly. This
way, you can express your opinion more interactively. In addition, communication can be done
30
using a webcam or microphone and files can be shared instantly with each other. Example:
WhatsApp, Skype, etc. (Yeap. et al., 2014).
Yeap et al. (2014) and Cheung and Thadani (2012) investigated which platforms are the most
preferred and influential among film industry users and came to interesting conclusions. The first
observation is that review sites are the most popular and most influential eWOM channel in the
movie fan community. Then came social networks, followed by less popular personal blogs and
instant messaging sites (Yeap et al., 2014). Further results by Yeap et al. (2014) and Cheung and
Thadani (2012) suggest that the reliability and reliability of sources are more important than the
quality and competence of information.
2.11 Impact of WOM on Movies and Cinemas
Most movie reviews and word-of-mouth discuss how this influences box office and audience
expectations, although some have figured it out and others haven't. Positive reviews of films can
have a major impact on box office returns, according to Reinstein and Snyder (2000), although
this power to influence moviegoers is felt by experienced critics. According to Eliashberg and
Shugan (1997), revision has a considerable relationship with cumulative box office revenue, but
it may have little effect on early earnings. Meanwhile, Ravid (1999) discovered that the overall
number of reviews a picture receives, regardless of its value, is an effective predictor of box
office income. To put it another way, the better a movie's reviews are, the more probable it is to
make money at the box office.
Meanwhile, Faber and O'Guinn (1984) and Cooper Martin (1992) found that personal reviews
are more beneficial than cinema reviews. Similarly, Levene (1992) conducted a study of college
students, finding that word-of-mouth is one of the most important predictors of movie viewing
and that critical reviews exist. However, it has been shown that movie reviews and reviews can
have an impact on viewing after a film has been seen. If that's the case, which one has the most
clout? Few studies have attempted to assess post-critical attitudes, despite the fact that film
critics and interpersonal sources rarely rigorously investigate the forces that influence them.
Electronic word of mouth (eWOM) is a valuable source of information for moviegoers, thanks to
the rapid expansion of social media. A lot of study has been done on the influence of eWOM on
31
sales since the rise of eWOM on social media. The results of the poll back up the notion that
eWOM is a valuable source of information for consumers when making purchasing decisions
(Basuroy et al 2003; Chen et al 2008; Chevalier and Mayzlin 2006; Dellarocas et al. 2007; Duan
and associates. 2008a; Duan and associates. 2008b; Rui and associates. 2011). These research
looked at online review sites (Dellarocas et al. 2007; Duan et al. 2008a; Duan et al. 2008b; Liu
2006), Twitter (Asur and Huberman 2010; Rui et al.2011; Shin et al.2011; Zhang etali 2010),
blogs (Qin 2011), and a variety of other social media platforms. There is, however, no standard
for measuring the impact of various social media channels on sales.
2.11.1 Impact of WOM on Film Evaluation
Burzynski and Bayer regard their work as the first (and maybe only) to draw causal findings
about the impact of word of mouth on movie ratings, following in the footsteps of social
psychologists such as Asch (1958). Three sets of independently operating accomplices were
planted in a public movie by the authors in a field experiment. These Alliance couples exited the
theatre with patrons who had just completed watching the film, and potential subjects were
waiting in line to see the same film, so they expressed their opinions in an easy-to-understand
discourse. Several coworkers liked the film, saying that "it's fine to see it again" and that "the
performance is excellent, but the plot is much better" (Burzynski and Bayer, 1977, p.216).
Another pair expressed their displeasure with the movie. "I can't afford to see him again," one of
the couple's insults exclaims loudly, "oh, another hit two bucks" (p.216). The third couple, who
represented the dominant state, just stared at the movie posters without saying anything.
Following the screening, theatre workers handed a questionnaire to a total of 20 individuals on a
case-by-case basis on behalf of the theatre owners to aid in the selection of future films based on
customer input. One-way ANOVA found a statistically significant difference (F = 6.80, p < .01)
between the three groups. However, Tukey's test showed a significant difference in the
evaluation of the positive and negative WOM group (q = .62, p < .01), but not in the
experimental group or the control group.
2.11.2 Impact of eWOM on Film Evaluation
"A favorable or negative statement made by a potential, current, or past consumer of a product or
business that is available to a significant number of people or organizations on the Internet,"
32
according to the definition of eWOM (Hennig Thurau, Gwinner & Walsh, 2004, p.39).
Consumer reviews on the internet are frequently seen as effective WOM agents that can affect
consumer decision-making (Zhu & Zhang, 2010). This viewpoint is backed up by a slew of
experimental findings. Zhu and Zhang (2010), for example, show that in the video game sector,
online consumer reviews have a considerable beneficial impact on product sales. Liu (2006)
looked at movie reviews and discovered that they have a lot of predictive value for box office
and box office sales. eWOM (evaluated mass, evaluated valence, etc.) increased the sales of
various platforms and product features, according to a recent meta-analytical study (Floy et al.,
2014; Rosario et al., 2016; You et al., 2015). It does, as we've confirmed. In addition, there are
measures. As a result, it is apparent that eWOM is becoming increasingly significant in
consumer purchase decisions.
Depending on the level of risk to the user, a product or service might be classed as a research
product, an experience product, or a credit product, according to marketing principles. Within
these categories, eWOM has a somewhat direct impact on experiential products and credit. Films
are frequently seen as typical experience goods, and it is impossible to categories them before
they are consumed (Zhou & Duan, 2016). As a result, buyers can only rely on their own
assumptions based on advertising and other people's experience and reputation. We will
quantify eWOM volume (Dellarocas et al., 2007; Liu, 2006), eWOM value or average user rating
(Dellarocas et al., 2007; Liu, 2006), eWOM Variance (Sun, 2012), and extreme rating (whether
the rating is favorable, negative, or neutral) based on existing research (Chevalier and Mayzlin
2006; Moe and Trusov 2011).
EWOM have been found to have a favorable impact on box office revenue in previous research
(Duan et al., 2008; Liu, 2006; Godes and Mayzlin, 2004). According to certain researches, the
value of eWOM can influence product sales. The average review score is used to calculate the
EWOM value, which shows a product's popularity. The value of eWOM has been established in
five prior studies to have an impact on product sales (Rosario et al., 2016; You et al., 2015). For
example, online user ratings have a considerable impact on product sales in this industry,
according to Chevalier and Mayzline (2006) and Sun (2012). In the film business, Chintagunta et
al. (2010) found similar effects. According to Duan et al. (2008), the value of eWOM had no
33
significant impact on the box office revenue of the film. The value of eWOM is clearly unrelated
to the consistent outcome of product sales, as evidenced by the aforementioned empirical
findings. Furthermore, eWOM changes have been proven in various studies to have an impact on
product sales. The eWOM variance is a disagreement that can be measured by the rating score
variance (Moe & Trusov, 2011; Sun, 2012).
The effects of eWOM dispersion haven't been well studied, and the available experimental data
are mixed. Low eWOM, for example, has a more beneficial impact on product sales for more
accurate pricing, according to Sun (2012) and Moe and Trusov (2011). When a product is
unpopular, however, Zhu and Zhang (2010) discovered that high volatility has an impact on
sales. As a result, more research is required to fully understand the relationship between eWOM
variation and sales. Finally, a very high rating (5 stars) suggests a very good opinion of the
product, whilst a very low rating (1 star) shows a very negative opinion.
The understanding of the spectator's viewing experience in a social context tends to evolve along
two main lines of research (Aveyard 2016). Modern studies of public acceptance used
ethnographic and anthropological methods, but maintained a “one-size-fits-all” approach (Meers
and Biltereyst 2012; Aveyard 2016). These studies considered the socio-cultural situation of the
viewer, but the study was limited to studying the relationship between viewers and texts with a
limited capacity for interpretation. Other visual encounters may be interesting "(Aveyard 2016).
Addressing the broader social aspects of going to the cinema is a new historical area of cinema.
The new history of cinema focuses on the social factors that may have influenced distributors,
entertainment companies and theater audiences. As Meers and Biltereyst (2012) explain, “this in-
depth scientific study of film acceptance is closely related to empirical, historical and spatial
changes in film studies”. But, as Aveyard (2016) argues, if you want to understand the different
ways of viewing movies today, go beyond place and space and find new ways of understanding
what is not. is not. Linear and floating where the viewer moves between different display
options. One way to better understand modern cinema consumption, as proposed by Aveyard
(2016) and explored further in this article, is to note the basic and practical social functions of
going to the cinema. As Meers and Biltereyst (2012) pointed out in the review, modern public
34
research as a social practice is not a new development. However, these studies were not
conducted using the theoretical framework of social praxis theory.
Aveyard (2016) argues that socially oriented media theory provides a kind of umbrella for
analyzing different forms of movie viewing through different distribution platforms outside of
the cinema. The argument supported by Aveyard (2016) investigated film viewing both in
theatrical settings and outside the theatre, an earlier ethnographic study of film audiences by
Corbett (1998 & 1999) and Jones (2011 & 2013) provides evidence that he is part of a larger
society. educate. In a study by Corbett (1998 & 1999), middle-class American couples were
asked about the way they watched movies. Meanwhile, Jones' (2011, 2013) work is based on a
student essay of a young millennial, or, as Jones calls it, “the VHS generation” (Jones 2013).
These studies led to the discovery that watching movies at home and in the theatre is an
important way to spend time with your partner and family. Placing this in the theoretical context
of social practice, Aveyard (2016) emphasizes that watching films meets the specific needs of
family time and is therefore part of social practice. In fact, many of these social practices are
found among these ethnographers. For example, Jones's treatise (2011) proposes another practice
of “making connections”. Interestingly, Jones (2011) also suggests that watching a movie in all
its forms can be best understood using the term “movie” Because the term emphasizes geography
and location-based practices.
Social practice theory has been used elsewhere to study the use of other (digital) media, but has
not yet been applied to the study of modern film consumption. Aveyard (2016) calls for the use
of social praxis theory in film viewer surveys and focuses on expanding the study of non-
theatrical films. The work presented in this article follows this designation but shifts focus and
applies this approach to film studies for empirical exercises. To do this, the focus is on the
broader context of what people say and do in relation to cinema (Couldry, 2012; Heikkilä and
Ahva 2015). In addition, movie consumption is associated with many other types of media
technology that we use every day, and Couldry's Practical Theory (2011, 2012) can provide a
starting point for exploring it. (Aveyard 2016).
35
2.12 Consumer Reviews and Moviegoers
To understand the impact of WOM on moviegoers, it's important to first interact with different
types of moviegoers. As mentioned by Chakravarty et al. (2010), moviegoers differed in how
often they watched movies, distinguishing between regular fans and occasional fans. The women
in the film are known to have differences in influence depending on the type of moviegoer
(Chakravarty et al., 2010). The distinction between normal and rare movie fans is also
theoretically relevant, as the frequency of going to the cinema can considerably attenuate the
effects of WOM (Chakravarty et al., 2010).
Literally support shows that regular movie fans are less responsive to eWOM notifications than
rare viewers. This means that the effects of eWOM are stronger for those who do not access it
often. They are vulnerable due to their lack of knowledge (Chakravarty et al., 2010). Regular and
non-regular viewers may also have different ratings for the relative usefulness of news sources.
In addition, regular audiences are more impressed with expert reviews, with occasional users
known to be primarily member commentators (Chakravarty et al., 2010; Park and Kim, 2009).
After investigating the differences in movie views and their impact, we were able to further
develop this study by considering different types of viewers. According to Liu (2006), eWOM
can affect viewers in two ways. One is to raise awareness of the movie, and the other is that the
value of eWOM influences purchasing decisions. The value of eWOM can affect viewers in the
following ways: Positive eWOMs improve attitudes towards cinema, and negative eWOMs
reduce it (Liu, 2006). Mahajan, Muller, and Kerin (1984) influence final purchase decisions in
three ways: WOM considers the proposed product, rejects the proposed product, and remains
undecided about the product. I found that I could give it. Their study outlines three possible
impacts of WOM on its benefits. WOM which are completely negative about a film which
reduces the effectiveness of the advertising paid by the company and affects the time it takes for
a film to generate box office revenue (Mahajan et al., 1984) . It has been found that the
combination of positive and negative eWOM further impact the attitude towards cinema
(Mahajan et al., 1984). The purely positive WOM can advertise films, and companies are
encouraged to promote the positive WOM in advertising (Mahajan et al., 1984).
36
CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
3.0 Introduction
Theoretical framework can be described as ‘an arrangement which aids a research’. It presents
and elaborate a theory. It also explains about ‘why a particular problem falls under it’. It
provides a guidance in one’s research work and verifies that what thing analyst will measure
(Molasso, 2006).
The theoretical framework is a blueprint and the base of a study from which all the information
is constructed. It also gives a logic regarding the connection among problem statement,
significance, variables, research questions and purpose (Grant & Osanloo, 2014) Moreover,
it is a clear lens that makes an analyst able to analyze different vital aspects of a research. It is a
most essential component of the dissertation which gives straight, practical and the exciting
details and guides to answer the research questions (Molasso, 2006).
My dissertation aims to focus on the ‘Movie Watching Practices in the Digital Age’. It will
explore various factors that motivate consumers to post their opinion on online platforms and the
impact that the online comments about movies have upon people. For my research I will use the
theoretical lens of ‘Information Adoption Model’ in order to support my research questions and
arguments. It is explained below:
3.1 Information Adoption Model (IAM)
The basic flow of information is included in electronic word of mouth (EWOM) discussions.
According to Cheung et al., 2008, the impact of information varies from person to person.
Similarly, comparable content might elicit a variety of responses from different recipients.
Previous studies have focused on the information adoption process in order to better understand
how different individuals internalize the information they receive (Nonaka, 1994). Different
scholars have used Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and Technology Acceptance Model
(TAM) based models in the literature of information systems to define how individuals are
influenced by accepting information and ideas (Ajzen, 1985; Davis, 1989; Fishbein and Ajzen,
1975). Sussman and Siegal, two researchers, expanded on this knowledge and established the
37
Information Adoption Model (IAM) in 2003. This model can explain "how individuals assimilate
knowledge" and "how they change their intentions and behaviors inside computer-mediated
communication systems."
The information adoption model (IAM) is based on two models of informational influence:
(TAM) the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989) and (ELM) the Elaboration Likelihood
Model (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986). The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is widely
accepted on the one hand, but it has little explanatory value on the other. This approach,
according to (Riffai et al., 2012), focuses primarily on information systems and individual
computer usage. However, social dynamics are overlooked. The Elaboration Likelihood Model
(ELM), on the other hand, is useful for explaining how receivers are influenced by information
conveyed in a message and for describing changes in receivers' attitudes. ELM can also be used
to explain the processes that underpin the persuasive communication's efficacy (Petty and
Cacioppo, 1986).
The impact of information can occur at any level of the receiver elaboration, according to the
Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), and two distinct influence routes, the core route and the
periphery route, affect the findings (Shen et al., 2013; Sussman and Siegal, 2003). If the material
has been well grasped and carefully considered, the knowledge will have an impact on the
central pathway. As a result, a high level of elaboration will be achieved. On the other hand, if
the person pays very little attention to the presented information, the influence of information
will occur in the peripheral channel. As a result, there will be little elaboration (Cheung, Lee, and
Rabjohn, 2008; Petty and Cacioppo, 1986; Shu and Scott, 2014). Information Adoption Model
(IAM) has four components due to the merging of TAM and ELM.
3.1.1 Argument Quality
The first is the quality of the argument. It is, in fact, the main thoroughfare. The argument
quality, according to Bhattacherjee and Sanford (2006), is the persuasive power of the arguments
contained inside the informational message. The quality of the argument presented in a
communication determines the attitude toward that message by focusing on and carefully
evaluating it. The quality of information has been demonstrated to be a crucial antecedent of
38
information adoption, which refers to how people view and believe information obtained through
websites (Wathen and Burkell, 2002). Relevance, timeliness, correctness, and
comprehensiveness are also included in this fundamental path. Most experts believe that the
quality of content is the most important aspect influencing the readers of online customer
reviews, according to previous research (Yoo et al., 2015; Reichelt et al., 2014; Erkan and Evans,
2015). The researcher used four categories of information quality to examine consumers'
adoption of movie information from various online consumer review sites in this study.
Information timeliness, information relevance, information accuracy, and information
completeness are the four aspects.
i. Information Timeliness
Information timeliness (Ashill and Jobber, 1999) is one of the information quality dimensions,
and it is an important component in information quality (Bailey and Peason, 1983). ‘Information
that is up to date, current, and represents the state of the art of a product or service' is how
information timeliness is characterized (Nelson et al., 2005). Information timeliness, according
to Wixom and Todds (2005), relates to the degree to which the system is sufficient by providing
timely responses and up-to-date information. The most up-to-date material is always published in
the initial online review, and readers may easily identify it.
ii. Information Accuracy
The term "information accuracy" refers to the absence of inaccuracies in the data (Dunk, 2004).
Consumers' acceptance of information from online consumer reviews is influenced by
information correctness, which is one of the most powerful information quality aspects. When
online consumer reviews are consistent and fit their experience or a truth they already know,
consumers may have faith in the information (Peterson and William, 1987; Zeithaml, 1988;
Zhang and Watts, 2003). In other words, customers feel that information will be accurate if it is
based on real-world experiences (Filieri and McLeay, 2014).
iii. Information Relevance
The usefulness of information is a crucial aspect of the decision-making process (Dunk, 2004).
According to Ascaniis and Grezel (2013), customers need to gather relevant information in order
39
to expand their knowledge and present different options. Rather than reading all of the web
pages, online users scan the sites to find the information they need (Madu and Madu, 2002).
Their search behavior is influenced by the type of information they seek or require from
specialized reviews rather than broad reviews (Wang and Strong, 1996). As a result, customers
use information from internet evaluations to fill a specific need based on the opinions of others
(Filieri and Mcleay, 2014). The amount of time spent reading, according to Kaakinen et al.
(2003), demonstrates the amount of attention paid to information. In reality, when consumers
believe content to be irrelevant, they spend less time reading it, and when they read relevant
information, they spend more time and pay more attention.
iv. Information Comprehensiveness
The extent to which eWOM information satisfies the consumer's requirement in the discussion of
the items or services offered on the website is referred to as information completeness
(McKinney et al., 2002). According to Wixon and Todd (2005), information completeness is an
important dimension of information quality. Consumers evaluate a review based on how
thorough it is (Wang and Strong, 1996). The completeness of information relates to its breadth,
depth, and extent in order for consumers to get the most important components of it.
Furthermore, according to Sullivan (1999), the bigger the range of consumer categories and the
more thorough the information, the more likely the user will acquire and retain the information.
Consumers may consider online evaluations to be comprehensive depending on the breadth,
depth, and scope of the information they get, which could influence their decision-making (Luo
et al., 2013). To put it another way, the more detailed the information offered by the reviewer,
the more beneficial it is for consumers making decisions.
3.1.2 Source Credibility
The second is source credibility, which represents the off-the-beaten-path route. The degree to
which information recipients see a source as credible, competent, and trustworthy is referred to
as source credibility (Petty and Caciopo, 1986). This route also incorporates source expertise and
source reliability.
40
i. Source Expertise
One of the characteristics of source trustworthiness is expertise (Homer and Kahle, 1990).
Information defined as trustworthy and supplied by professionals is referred to as source
expertise (Self, 1996). The source's knowledge and abilities are referred to as source expertise.
When recipients perceive professionalism, it can be identified (Tseng and Fogg, 1999).
Consumers frequently verify reviewers' profile information in terms of the quality and quantity
of their previous reviews while communicating online (Mackiewicz, 2008). High expertise in
communicators is seen to boost credibility, and it appears to create a more convincing argument
with solid evidence.
ii. Source Trustworthiness

The reliability of a source is a key factor in determining how information is used (Komiak and
Benbasat, 2006). Consumers believe that the majority of information on websites is
untrustworthy (McKnight & Kacmar, 2006); in other words, online sources of information are
regarded as less trustworthy than offline sources (Flanagin and Metzger, 2007). When customers
do not trust a source of information, it creates a significant barrier to adoption (Egger, 2000).
3.1.3 Information Usefulness
The third factor is the usefulness of information, which functions as a mediator. The utility of
information relates to the extent to which the reader regards the information obtained as valuable
and believes it will assist them in making a better purchasing decision (Sussman and Siegal,
2003). The concept of information usefulness refers to a person's belief that employing
technology like virtual platforms, new media, and online opinions will help them perform better.
It is a crucial determinant of information acceptance by users (David, 1993). Furthermore,
according to Cheung et al. (2008), there is a strong link between the utility of information and
the influence of consumers' decisions to accept information within online communities. The
usefulness of knowledge is a significant component that influences people's willingness to
believe and accept information from others (Bhattacherjee and Sanford, 2006). Cheung et al.
(2008) corroborated this, finding that people are inclined to accept and adopt information from
online reviews and investigating the elements that support information adoption. They
discovered that the importance of information usefulness has a considerable impact on
41
information adoption. In other words, if customers believe the knowledge is beneficial, they are
more likely to accept it.
3.1.4 Information Adoption
The acceptance of information is the last component of IAM (Sussman et al., 2003). The term
"information adoption" refers to a process in which people actively seek out and use information
(Cheung et al., 2008). Consumers adjust their behavior in response to advice offered by online
customer reviews, which is known as information adoption (Cheung et al., 2008; Filieri and
McLeay, 2014; Sussman and Seigel, 2003). In truth, information adoption refers to how people
embrace and feel that information is relevant after analyzing its veracity (Zhang and Watts,
2003). This is why, before making a decision, most consumers look at online reviews and
comments (Qiu and Li, 2010).
Following is a pictorial representation of IAM.
According to Xu (2014), the EWOM information can be produced by nearly each user on the
Web; hence, quality and credibility of information has presently gotten to be more critical. As
the presented model draws consideration, the elements mentioned here are the key determinants.
42
The Consumers can apply them to choose whether the information is valuable or not. These
elements also have indirect impacts on consumers’ information adoption. Furthermore, people
begin acting on knowledge when they find it beneficial; Davis (1989) has emphasized the
usefulness of information as a basic sign of information adoption, as Sussman and Siegal have
stated (2003). As a result, the given model suggests that information usefulness plays a critical
role in consumer information uptake.
Information adoption model is new comparatively. Its significance makes it discernible for
researchers’ considerations. This model notifies us regarding how different people are influenced
from the information given on various computer mediated platforms. Numerous scholars have
deemed this model relevant to EWOM investigations since it focuses on information supplied via
various computer-mediated communication systems (Cheung et al., 2008, 2009; Shu and Scott,
2014). In particular, Cheung et al. (2008) used IAM in a study based on online discussion
forums, while Shu and Scott (2014) used it in a study based on social media. Because my study
is on Movie Watching Practices in the Digital Age: The Role of Electronic Word-of-Mouth in
Movie Selection, the Information Adoption Model would be a good fit. The components of this
model would be applied in this research as information credibility, information quality, and
information adoption and information usefulness
43
CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY
4.1 Introduction
This chapter is concerned about the research methodology that I have chosen for my thesis. The
aim of this chapter is to design a research method that can help to meet the objectives of this
research. The objectives are to identify various factors that motivates consumers to post their
opinion online about movies and to gauge the impact of those comments on other people, to what
extent EWOM approach interferes in the information seeking behavior in choice of movies and
information sharing regarding movies. In the following sections I will outline the methods
employed during this research to achieve my research objectives.
4.2 Research Design
MacMillan and Schumacher (2001) described research design as an arrangement for the selection
of subjects, research sites and data gathering method in order to answer research questions of the
study. They added that the objective of a good research design is to give credible outcomes.
Durrheim (2004) defines research design as framework for an activity that acts as a bridge
between the research questions and the research strategy’s execution and implementation.
Collis and Hussey (2014) mentioned in their study that if the suitable decisions are made within
the research design, the research process becomes fruitful. It is due to the fact that research
design shows the decisions regarding the priority which is being given to a variety of dimensions
of the research process (Bryman, 2012). Iacobucci and Churchill (2010) have supported this and
defined the research design as “the research design gives an overall plan and the procedure to
collect the data, the findings and the analysis of a research study, and is actually the overall idea
about how research questions will be answered within a research study. (Saunders et al., 2016).
4.3 Research Strategy
The research strategy is actually one of the very significant angle that should be thought of once
the research plan has been prepared by a researcher. Alasuutari, Branen and Bickman (2008)
have expressed within the social sciences field that the research methods have been categorized
with in two major approaches. These two methods are the qualitative method and the quantitative
method. The two methods can be mixed to give a mixed method research. Nonetheless, the
44
choice of using the research method actually relies upon the aim of a research study, it’s research
questions and the author’s justification. The present research is a quantitative study.
4.4 Quantitative research
Saunders et al, (2009) defined the Quantitative research as the research that includes any data
collection method or the analysis procedures that produce or utilize the numerical data. the most
common type of this data collection method is survey. Bryman and Bell (2007) have described
quantitative research as the research that focus on enumerating data that is to be examined
utilizing statistical procedures. This type of research is used to test theories by analyzing the
connections between variables (Creswell, 2009). It begins from a theory, hypothesis is set and
then data is collected. After data collection, the data is analyzed, and lastly the outcomes will
show that the hypotheses are rejected or accepted. The Quantitative research incorporates
designs, techniques and the measures which produce discrete numerical or quantifiable data, for
this situation, the researcher has utilized the questionnaires (Mugenda 2003). The present study
is quantitative research as the researcher is trying to identify various factors that motivates
consumers to post their opinion online about movies and to gauge the impact of those comments
on other people, to what extent EWOM approach enlightens the information seeking behavior in
choice of movies and information sharing regarding movies.
4.5 Survey
Survey can be defined as “the systematic strategy for collecting knowledge from (the specimen
of) elements to build quantitative descriptors of the characteristics of the bigger population of
which the entities are individuals"(Groves et al., 2011). Surveys are broadly connected with the
deductive methodology (Bryman, 2012). A survey is an instrument used to gather essential
information from people (Hair et al., 2003).
4.6 Data Collection: Questionnaire Survey
Zikmund et al. (2010) described questionnaire as "a pre-detailed written set of different questions
to which the respondents account their answers, normally inside rather firmly characterized
choices". Baruch and Holton (2008) noticed that a survey questionnaire empowers analysts to
look for data regarding individual attitudes, sentiments and insights. As a tool for gathering the
essential information the researcher utilized online reviews. As said by Malhotra (2007), online
45
surveys offer a few benefits dependent on speed, cost, nature of information and responses. The
survey itself will be created with Google Form, a free online tool that is made by Google.com
which offers a valuable method to create online surveys. In order to make an online form, a
Google email address is required giving you quick access in generating a form.
Furthermore, Evans and Mathur (2005) additionally set out the benefits of utilizing the online
questionnaire surveys as follows:
i. Online questionnaires can limit the period that is needed to gather and process the data;
ii. The online questionnaires are related with lower costs in light of the fact that there are
various specialized programs to develop online questionnaire. These programs
incorporate a wide range of questions (scales, multiple choice questions, open-ended
questions);
iii. The technology aids in making online questionnaire more appealing and simpler to
utilize;
iv. The flexibility exists to design questionnaire items in different versions depending the
respondents, especially language;
v. The respondents have a choice to account answers to the questions according to their
convenience i.e.at any time which is suitable to them;
vi. After the data gathering process, the analyst will have all information stored in the form
of data base.
4.7 Operationalization
Operational definition can be defined as the particular manner within which a variable is
measured in a specific research study (Operational Definition in Research, 2021)
46
S #. Variable Category Sub Category

Relevant Information
Relevance
Information matches the needs
Recent Posts
Timeliness Recent Comments
Recent Reviews
Review regardless of its time
Correct Information
Accuracy
1 Argument Quality Reliable Information
Movie Plots
Actors/Actresses Performances
Director's Work
Comprehensiveness Movie's Music
Movies' Graphics
All sort of comments
Reject when information is not comprehensive
Movie ratings by professional critics
Movie reviews by professional critics
Voting on IMDB
Recommended by bloggers
Source Expertise
Recommended by friends (online chat)
Recommended by relatives (online chat)
Recommended by colleagues (online chat)
Recommended by a layman on comments
Facebook posts and comments
Instagram posts and comments
2 Source Credibility Twitter posts and comments
Blog Posts
Chat Forums
Movie ratings by users on IMDB
Source Trustworthiness Movie reviews by users on IMDB
Movie ratings by users on Rotten Tomatoes
Movie reviews by users on Rotten Tomatoes
Recommended by friends (online chat)
Recommended by relatives (online chat)
Recommended by colleagues (online chat)
Recommended by a layman on comments
4.8 Unit of Analysis
Within a research study the unit of analysis is a very important part. According to Carney (2002)
unit is essential element that helps in identifying the population. It is the main thig to be used for
47
examination i.e. “what” and “who” is going to be examined. It is actually a significant entity that
a researcher analyzes in a study. These can be groups, individuals, geographical units (state,
census tract, town), artifacts (newspaper, photos, books), social interactions (divorces, arrests,
dyadic relations) (Trochim, Research Methods Knowledge Base, 2021).
For the present study the unit of analysis is an online questionnaire (a complete submission)
4.9 Non-probability Sampling
Non-probability sampling is described as a sampling approach in which samples are chosen

based on the researcher's subjective judgment rather than random selection. It's a more lenient
approach. The researchers' knowledge is mainly reliant on this sampling strategy. It's done
through observation. (QuestionPro, 2021)
In contrast to probability sampling, non-probability sampling is a sampling approach in which

not all individuals of the population have an equal chance of participating in the study. Every
person in the population has an equal probability of being chosen. (QuestionPro, 2021)
4.9.1 Convenience Sampling
Convenience sampling is a non-probability sampling strategy in which samples are chosen from
the population only on the basis of their accessibility to the researcher. The researchers chose
these samples solely because they are easy to recruit, and they did not consider selecting a
sample that is representative of the total population. 2021 (QuestionPro) In research, it is ideal to
test a sample that is representative of the population. However, the population in some studies is
too large to study and consider the complete population. It's one of the reasons why convenience
sampling, the most frequent non-probability sampling approach, is used by researchers because
of its speed, cost-effectiveness, and ease of sample availability (QuestionPro, 2021)
4.10 Technique of Data Analysis
The collected data will be analyzing by utilizing SPSS (statistical package for social sciences)
48
CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS
5.1 Introduction
This Chapter presents the findings of the questionnaire. It consists of different tables. Every table
has its description underneath.
5.2 General Movie Watching Practices
6) Where do you prefer to watch movies?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cum. Percent
Cinema 33 11.0 11.0 11.0
Home 192 64.0 64.0 75.0
Any gathering with
Valid
friends/ family/ colleague 75 25.0 25.0 100.0
apart from cinema
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.1: Preference to watch movies
This table shows us the preferences of people about where do they prefer to watch movies. Out
of 300 respondents, a majority 64 percent (192 respondents) replied that they prefer to watch the
movies at home. While 25 percent (75 respondents) said they prefer watching the movies with
their family or in a friends or colleagues gathering apart from Cinema. Only 11 percent (33
respondents) said they preferred watching movies in Cinema.
7) How do you watch movies?

By going to Cinema 105 35.0 35.0 35.0
Online streaming 155 51.7 51.7 86.7
Valid DVDs / CDs 4 1.3 1.3 88.0
Others 36 12.0 12.0 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.2: How people watch movies
The above table tells us about how people watch movies. Out of 300 respondents a majority of
51.7 percent (155 respondents) said that they watch movie through online streaming, 35 percent
(105 respondents) watch by going to cinema. While 27.7 percent (83 respondents) and 1.3
49
percent (4 respondents) watch movies through torrent downloads and DVDs/ CDs respectively.
According to the above table 12 percent (36 respondents) chose the other category.
8) How frequently do you watch movies?

Rarely 85 28.3 28.3 28.3
Daily 11 3.7 3.7 32.0
1 - 3 times a week 42 14.0 14.0 46.0
1 - 3 times a month 27 9.0 9.0 55.0
Valid
Usually on Weekend 55 18.3 18.3 73.3
Whenever I hear about a good
80 26.7 26.7 100.0
movie
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.3: How frequently people watch movies
The above table conveys about how frequently people watch movies. According to the findings,
out of 300 respondents 28.3 percent (85 respondents) rarely watch movies, 26.7 percent (80
respondents) watch whenever they hear about a good movie. While 18.3 percent people (55
respondents) prefer to watch movies on the weekends. Only 14 percent (42 people) and 9 percent
(27 respondents) watch movies 1 – 3 times a week and month respectively.
9) How often do you read online reviews about different movies?

Rarely 122 40.7 40.7 40.7
Sometimes 90 30.0 30.0 70.7
Regularly 11 3.7 3.7 74.3
Every time when I plan to watch a
Valid 54 18.0 18.0 92.3
movie
I read multiple reviews before
23 7.7 7.7 100.0
watching a movie
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.4: How often do people read online reviews about different movies
The above table tells us about how often individuals read online reviews about different movies.
Out of 300 respondents a majority of 40.7 percent (122 respondents) said that they rarely read
online reviews. 30.0 percent (90 respondents) read sometimes, 18 percent (54 respondents) read
reviews every time when they plan to watch a movie and 7.7 percent people (23 respondents read
50
multiple reviews before watching a movie. While only 3.7 percent (11 respondents) read the
reviews regularly.
10) Where do you prefer to get movie reviews?

Facebook (fan pages / comments) 45 15.0 15.0 15.0
Review Sites / Rating Sites 133 44.3 44.3 59.3
Film Critics 22 7.3 7.3 66.7
Valid
Blogs 13 4.3 4.3 71.0
Word of Mouth 87 29.0 29.0 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.5: Where do people prefer to get movie reviews
This table shows us the preferences of people about where do they prefer to get movie reviews.
Out of 300 respondents, a majority of 44.3 percent (133 respondents) replied that they prefer to
get movie reviews from rating sites/ review sites. While 29 percent (87 respondents) said that
they prefer to get reviews from word of mouth, 15 percent (45 respondents) choose Facebook
(fan pages/ comments), 7.3 percent (22 respondents) selected film critics. Only 4.3 percent (13
respondents) prefer to get reviews from blogs.
11) How do you decide to watch movie?

After Reading Review Sites /
50 16.7 16.7 16.7
Rating sites
After Watching Trailers 166 55.3 55.3 72.0
After reading Online Reviews by
21 7.0 7.0 79.0
film critics / bloggers
Valid
After reading Social Media Posts
56 18.7 18.7 97.7
by Friends or Relatives
Anticipate Movies before their
7 2.3 2.3 100.0
release
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.6: How do people decide to watch movie
This table gives the information about how individuals decide to watch movies. According to
this table, out of 300 respondents a majority of 55.3 percent (166 respondents) decide to watch
movies after watching trailers, 18.7 percent individuals (56 respondents) said that they decide to
51
watch a movie after reading social media posts by friends or relatives. The 16.7 percent (50
respondents) and 7 percent (21 respondents) decide after reading review sites/ rating sites and
after reading online reviews by film critics/ bloggers. Only 2.3 percent (7 respondents) anticipate
movies before their release.
5.3 Information Adoption Model Testing (IAM)
Below mentioned is the detailed testing of all the variables of Information Adoption Model
(IAM). The answers of the survey questionnaire have distributed in accordance with the IAM
Model variables, detailed analysis of all the variables that includes relevance, timeliness,
accuracy, comprehensiveness, source credibility and expertise along with trustworthiness and
information usefulness and finally the information adoption is presented below in the form of
tables with detailed explanation.
5.3.1 Relevance
i. I ADOPT a review if I think it has information RELEVANT to me.

Strongly Disagree 20 6.7 6.7 6.7
Disagree 22 7.3 7.3 14.0
Neutral 83 27.7 27.7 41.7
Valid
Agree 101 33.7 33.7 75.3
Strongly Agree 74 24.7 24.7 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.7: I ADOPT a review if I think it has information RELEVANT to me
This table shows us the preference of people on the Likert scale for the statement “I ADOPT a
review if I think it has information RELEVANT to me”. Out of 300 respondents majorities
of 33.7 percent (101 respondents) have selected “agree”, 24.7 percent (74 respondents) have
selected “strongly agree”, 7.3 percent (22 respondents) have selected “disagree” and 6.7 percent
(20 respondents) have selected “strongly disagree”, while 27.7 percent individuals (83
respondents) have opted “neutral”.
52
ii. I READ MULTIPLE REVIEWS but ADOPT only those that are relevant.
Disagree 36 12.0 12.0 22.0
Neutral 67 22.3 22.3 44.3
Valid
Agree 95 31.7 31.7 76.0
Strongly Agree 72 24.0 24.0 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.8: I READ MULTIPLE REVIEWS but ADOPT only those that are relevant
This table shows us the preference of people on the Likert scale for the statement “I READ
MULTIPLE REVIEWS but ADOPT only those that are relevant”. Out of 300 respondents
a majority of 31.7 percent (95 respondents) has selected “agree”, 24 percent (72 respondents)
have selected “strongly agree”, 12 percent (36 respondents) have selected “disagree” and 10
percent (30 respondents) have selected “strongly disagree”, while 22.3 percent individuals (67
iii. I SPEND MORE TIME READING the REVIEWS that I find relevant than those that
are irrelevant.
Disagree 47 15.7 15.7 37.0
Neutral 73 24.3 24.3 61.3
Valid
Agree 68 22.7 22.7 84.0
Strongly Agree 48 16.0 16.0 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.9: I SPEND MORE TIME READING the REVIEWS that I find relevant than those that are irrelevant
This table shows us the preference of people on the Likert scale for the statement “I SPEND
MORE TIME READING the REVIEWS that I find relevant than those that are
irrelevant”. Out of 300 respondents, 22.7 percent (68 respondents) have selected “agree”, 16
percent (48 respondents) have selected “strongly agree”, 15.7 percent (47 respondents) have
selected “disagree” and 21.3 percent (64 respondents) have selected “strongly disagree”, while
24.3 percent individuals (73 respondents) have opted “neutral”.
53
5.3.2 Timeliness
i. I am concerned about the TIMELINESS OF POST in online movie reviews.

Disagree 42 14.0 14.0 26.7
Neutral 94 31.3 31.3 58.0
Valid
Agree 74 24.7 24.7 82.7
Strongly Agree 52 17.3 17.3 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.10: I am concerned about the TIMELINESS OF POST in online movie reviews
This table shows us the preference of people on the Likert scale for the statement “I am
concerned about the TIMELINESS OF POST in online movie reviews”. Out of 300
respondents, 24.7 percent (74 respondents) have selected “agree”, 17.3 percent (52 respondents)
have selected “strongly agree”, 14 percent (42 respondents) have selected “disagree” and 12.7
ii. I always adopt RECENT COMMENTS in online movie reviews.

Valid Strongly Disagree 39 13.0 13.0 13.0
Disagree 39 13.0 13.0 26.0
Neutral 80 26.7 26.7 52.7
Agree 83 27.7 27.7 80.3
Strongly Agree 59 19.7 19.7 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.11: I always adopt RECENT COMMENTS in online movie reviews
This table shows us the preference of people on the Likert scale for the statement “I always
adopt RECENT COMMENTS in online movie reviews”. Out of 300 respondents a majority
of 27.7 percent (83 respondents) have selected “agree”, 19.7 percent (59 respondents) have
selected “strongly agree”, 13 percent (39 respondents) have selected “disagree” and 13 percent
54
iii. RECENT REVIEWS are of MORE VALUE to me than the ones posted in the past.
Disagree 45 15.0 15.0 23.7
Neutral 85 28.3 28.3 52.0
Valid
Agree 89 29.7 29.7 81.7
Strongly Agree 55 18.3 18.3 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.12: RECENT REVIEWS are of MORE VALUE to me than the ones posted in the past
This table shows us the preference of people on the Likert scale for the statement “RECENT
REVIEWS are of MORE VALUE to me than the ones posted in the past.” Out of 300
respondents a majority of 29.7 percent (89 respondents) have selected “agree”, 18.3 percent (55
respondents) have selected “strongly agree”, 15 percent (45 respondents) have selected
“disagree” and 8.7 percent (26 respondents) have selected “strongly disagree”, while 28.3
percent people (85 respondents) have opted “neutral”.
iv. I would READ ANOTHER REVIEW if I saw it is posted more recently then the one I
already read.
Disagree 41 13.7 13.7 25.3
Neutral 103 34.3 34.3 59.7
Valid
Agree 74 24.7 24.7 84.3
Strongly Agree 47 15.7 15.7 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.13: I would READ ANOTHER REVIEW if I saw it is posted more recently then the one I already read
This table shows us the preference of people on the Likert scale for the statement “I would
READ ANOTHER REVIEW if I saw it is posted more recently then the one I already
read”. Out of 300 respondents, 24.7 percent (74 respondents) have selected “agree”, 15.7
selected “disagree” and 11.7 percent (35 respondents) have selected “strongly disagree”, while
34.3 percent individuals (103 respondents) have opted “neutral”.
55
v. I would accept any REVIEW REGARDLESS OF ITS TIME.

Disagree 45 15.0 15.0 22.3
Neutral 101 33.7 33.7 56.0
Valid
Agree 73 24.3 24.3 80.3
Strongly Agree 59 19.7 19.7 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.14: I would accept any REVIEW REGARDLESS OF ITS TIME
accept any REVIEW REGARDLESS OF ITS TIME”. Out of 300 respondents, 24.3 percent
(73 respondents) have selected “agree”, 19.7 percent (59 respondents) have selected “strongly
agree”, 15 percent (45 respondents) have selected “disagree” and 7.3 percent (22 respondents)
have selected “strongly disagree”, while 33.7 percent individuals (101 respondents) have opted
“neutral”.
5.3.3 Accuracy
i. I only accept the INFORMATION obtained from online movie reviews when I think it is
CORRECT.
Disagree 28 9.3 9.3 14.3
Neutral 73 24.3 24.3 38.7
Valid
Agree 113 37.7 37.7 76.3
Strongly Agree 71 23.7 23.7 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.15: I only accept the INFORMATION obtained from online movie reviews when I think it is CORRECT
This table shows us the preference of people on the Likert scale for the statement “I only
accept the INFORMATION obtained from online movie reviews when I think it is
CORRECT.”. Out of 300 respondents a majority of 37.7 percent (113 respondents) have
selected “agree”, 23.7 percent (71 respondents) have selected “strongly agree”, 9.3 percent (28
56
respondents) have selected “disagree” and 5 percent (15 respondents) have selected “strongly
disagree”, while 24.3 percent individuals (73 respondents) have opted “neutral”.
ii. I only accept the INFORMATION obtained from online movie reviews when I think it is
RELIABLE.
Disagree 22 7.3 7.3 10.7
Valid Neutral 81 27.0 27.0 37.7
Agree 113 37.7 37.7 75.3
Strongly Agree 74 24.7 24.7 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.16: I only accept the INFORMATION obtained from online movie reviews when I think it is RELIABLE
This table shows us the preference of people on the Likert scale for the statement “I only
accept the INFORMATION obtained from online movie reviews when I think it is
RELIABLE”. Out of 300 respondents a majority of 37.7 percent (113 respondents) have
selected “agree”, 24.7 percent (74 respondents) have selected “strongly agree”, 7.3 percent (22
respondents) have selected “disagree” and 3.3 percent (10 respondents) have selected “strongly
disagree”, while 27 percent individuals (81 respondents) have opted “neutral”.
iii. I would REJECT a review if I FIND A VISIBLE ERROR / MISTAKE in it.

Disagree 31 10.3 10.3 14.7
Neutral 90 30.0 30.0 44.7
Valid
Agree 80 26.7 26.7 71.3
Strongly Agree 86 28.7 28.7 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.17: I would REJECT a review if I FIND A VISIBLE ERROR / MISTAKE in it
REJECT a review if I FIND A VISIBLE ERROR / MISTAKE in it”. Out of 300
have selected “strongly agree”, 10.3 percent (31 respondents) have selected “disagree” and 4.3
57
percent (13 respondents) have selected “strongly disagree”, while 30 percent individuals (90
iv. I would REJECT a review if I find that ITS’ STYLE OF ANALYSIS IS WRONG.
Disagree 33 11.0 11.0 16.0
Neutral 96 32.0 32.0 48.0
Valid
Agree 80 26.7 26.7 74.7
Strongly Agree 76 25.3 25.3 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.18: I would REJECT a review if I find that ITS’ STYLE OF ANALYSIS IS WRONG
REJECT a review if I find that ITS’ STYLE OF ANALYSIS IS WRONG”. Out of 300
have selected “strongly agree”, 11 percent (33 respondents) have selected “disagree” and 5
5.3.4 Comprehensiveness
i. Online reviews about MOVIE PLOTS are important for me.

Disagree 38 12.7 12.7 19.3
Neutral 99 33.0 33.0 52.3
Valid
Agree 79 26.3 26.3 78.7
Strongly Agree 64 21.3 21.3 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.19: Online reviews about MOVIE PLOTS are important for me
This table shows us the preference of people on the Likert scale for the statement “online
reviews about MOVIE PLOTS are important for me”. Out of 300 respondents, 26.3 percent
(79 respondents) have selected “agree”, 21.3 percent (64 respondents) have selected “strongly
agree”, 12.7 percent (38 respondents) have selected “disagree” and 6.7 percent (20 respondents)
58
have selected “strongly disagree”, while 33 percent individuals (99 respondents) have opted
“neutral”.
ii. Online reviews about ACTORS/ ACTRESSES’ PERFORMANCES are valuable to me.
Disagree 44 14.7 14.7 22.0
Neutral 81 27.0 27.0 49.0
Valid
Agree 86 28.7 28.7 77.7
Strongly Agree 67 22.3 22.3 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.20: Online reviews about ACTORS/ ACTRESSES’ PERFORMANCES are valuable to me
reviews about ACTORS/ ACTRESSES’ PERFORMANCES are valuable to me”. Out of
300 respondents a majority of 28.7 percent (86 respondents) have selected “agree”, 22.3 percent
(67 respondents) have selected “strongly agree”, 14.7 percent (44 respondents) have selected
“disagree” and 7.3 percent (22 respondents) have selected “strongly disagree”, while 27 percent
individuals (81 respondents) have selected “neutral”.
iii. Online reviews about DIRECTOR’S WORK in movie are informative for me.
Disagree 45 15.0 15.0 23.7
Neutral 99 33.0 33.0 56.7
Valid
Agree 82 27.3 27.3 84.0
Strongly Agree 48 16.0 16.0 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.21: Online reviews about DIRECTOR’S WORK in movie are informative for me
reviews about DIRECTOR’S WORK in movie are informative for me”. Out of 300
respondents, 27.3 percent (82 respondents) have selected “agree”, 16 percent (48 respondents)
59
iv. Online reviews about MOVIE’S MUSIC are helpful to me.

Disagree 45 15.0 15.0 24.0
Neutral 68 22.7 22.7 46.7
Valid
Agree 89 29.7 29.7 76.3
Strongly Agree 71 23.7 23.7 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.22: Online reviews about MOVIE’S MUSIC are helpful to me
reviews about MOVIE’S MUSIC are helpful to me”. Out of 300 respondents a majority of
29.7 percent (89 respondents) have selected “agree”, 23.7 percent (71 respondents) have
selected “strongly agree”, 15 percent (45 respondents) have selected “disagree” and 9 percent
v. Online reviews about CINEMATOGRAPHY are important to me.

Disagree 39 13.0 13.0 18.0
Neutral 91 30.3 30.3 48.3
Valid Agree 87 29.0 29.0 77.3
Strongly Agree 68 22.7 22.7 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.23: Online reviews about CINEMATOGRAPHY are important to me
This table shows us the preference of people on the Likert scale for the statement “Online
reviews about CINEMATOGRAPHY are important to me”. Out of 300 respondents, 29
percent (87 respondents) have selected “agree”, 22.7 percent (68 respondents) have selected
“strongly agree”, 13 percent (39 respondents) have selected “disagree” and 5 percent (15
respondents) have selected “strongly disagree”, while 30.3 percent individuals (91 respondents)
have opted “neutral”.
60
vi. I Only Accept Reviews if it has all things that have mentioned above
Disagree 42 14.0 14.0 21.3
Neutral 104 34.7 34.7 56.0
Valid
Agree 85 28.3 28.3 84.3
Strongly Agree 47 15.7 15.7 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.24: I Only Accept Reviews if it has all things that have mentioned above
This table shows us the preference of people on the Likert scale for the statement “I ONLY
ACCEPT THE REVIEW IF IT HAS ALL ABOVE MENTIONED THINGS”. Out of 300
vii. I REJECT the REVIEW when I think it is NOT COMPREHENSIVE.

Disagree 49 16.3 16.3 23.3
Neutral 102 34.0 34.0 57.3
Valid
Agree 79 26.3 26.3 83.7
Strongly Agree 49 16.3 16.3 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.25: I Only Accept Reviews if it has all things that have mentioned above
This table shows us the preference of people on the Likert scale for the statement I REJECT
the REVIEW when I think it is NOT COMPREHENSIVE”. Out of 300 respondents, 26.3
“strongly agree”, 16.3 percent (49 respondents) have selected “disagree” and 7 percent (21
respondents) have selected “strongly disagree”, while 34 percent individuals (102 respondents)
61
5.3.5 Source Expertise
i. I value MOVIE RATINGS made by professional movie critics online.

Disagree 29 9.7 9.7 14.7
Neutral 94 31.3 31.3 46.0
Valid
Agree 92 30.7 30.7 76.7
Strongly Agree 70 23.3 23.3 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.26: I value MOVIE RATINGS made by professional movie critics online
This table shows us the preference of people on the Likert scale for the statement “I value
MOVIE RATINGS made by professional movie critics online”. Out of 300 respondents,
30.7 percent (92 respondents) have selected “agree”, 23.3 percent (70 respondents) have
selected “strongly agree”, 9.7 percent (29 respondents) have selected “disagree” and 5 percent
(15 respondents) have selected “strongly disagree”. while 31.3 percent individuals (94
ii. I value MOVIE REVIEWS made by professional movie critics online.

Disagree 31 10.3 10.3 16.0
Neutral 100 33.3 33.3 49.3
Valid
Agree 84 28.0 28.0 77.3
Strongly Agree 68 22.7 22.7 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.27: I value MOVIE REVIEWS made by professional movie critics online
MOVIE REVIEWS made by professional movie critics online”. Out of 300 respondents, 28
“strongly agree”, 10.3 percent (31 respondents) have selected “disagree” and 5.7 percent (17
respondents) have selected “strongly disagree”, while 33.3 percent individuals (100
62
iii. I value movies RECOMMENDED BY FRIENDS in online chats.

Disagree 21 7.0 7.0 9.7
Neutral 74 24.7 24.7 34.3
Agree 93 31.0 31.0 65.3
Strongly Agree 104 34.7 34.7 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.28: I value movies RECOMMENDED BY FRIENDS in online chats
movies RECOMMENDED BY FRIENDS in online chats”. Out of 300 respondents, 31
“strongly agree”, 7 percent (21 respondents) have selected “disagree” and 2.7 percent (8
iv. I value movies RECOMMENDED BY RELATIVES in online chats.

Disagree 32 10.7 10.7 14.0
Neutral 79 26.3 26.3 40.3
Agree 101 33.7 33.7 74.0
Strongly Agree 78 26.0 26.0 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.29: I value movies RECOMMENDED BY RELATIVES in online chats
movies RECOMMENDED BY RELATIVES in online chats”. Out of 300 respondents a
majority of 33.7 percent (101 respondents) have selected “agree”, 26 percent (78 respondents)
63
v. I value movies RECOMMENDED BY BLOGGERS.

Disagree 49 16.3 16.3 24.3
Neutral 109 36.3 36.3 60.7
Valid
Agree 80 26.7 26.7 87.3
Strongly Agree 38 12.7 12.7 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.30: I value movies RECOMMENDED BY BLOGGERS
movies RECOMMENDED BY BLOGGERS”. Out of 300 respondents, 26.7 percent (80
respondents) have selected “agree”, 12.7 percent (38 respondents) have selected “strongly
agree”, 16.3 percent (49 respondents) have selected “disagree” and 8 percent (24 respondents)
have selected “strongly disagree”, while 36.3 percent individuals (109 respondents) have opted
“neutral”.
vi. I value movies RECOMMENDED BY COLLEAGUES in online chats.

Disagree 26 8.7 8.7 11.0
Neutral 79 26.3 26.3 37.3
Valid
Agree 100 33.3 33.3 70.7
Strongly Agree 88 29.3 29.3 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.31: I value movies RECOMMENDED BY COLLEAGUES in online chats
movies RECOMMENDED BY COLLEAGUES in online chats”. Out of 300 respondents a
majority of 33.3 percent (100 respondents) have selected “agree”, 29.3 percent (88 respondents)
64
vii. I READ PAST REVIEWS of the reviewers to get an IDEA about their EXPERTISE.
Disagree 50 16.7 16.7 26.7
Neutral 94 31.3 31.3 58.0
Valid
Agree 80 26.7 26.7 84.7
Strongly Agree 46 15.3 15.3 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.32: I READ PAST REVIEWS of the reviewers to get an IDEA about their EXPERTISE
This table shows us the preference of people on the Likert scale for the statement “I READ
PAST REVIEWS of the reviewers to get an IDEA about their EXPERTISE”. Out of 300
have selected “strongly agree”, 16.7 percent (50 respondents) have selected “disagree” and 10
viii. I ONLY ADOPT a review if I believe that the reviewer has AMPLE EXPERTISE on
MOVIE REVIEWING.
Disagree 40 13.3 13.3 19.7
Neutral 109 36.3 36.3 56.0
Valid
Agree 80 26.7 26.7 82.7
Strongly Agree 52 17.3 17.3 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.33: I ONLY ADOPT a review if I believe that the reviewer has AMPLE EXPERTISE on MOVIE
REVIEWING
This table shows us the preference of people on the Likert scale for the statement “I ONLY
ADOPT a review if I believe that the reviewer has AMPLE EXPERTISE on MOVIE
REVIEWING”. Out of 300 respondents, 26.7 percent (80 respondents) have selected “agree”,
17.3 percent (52 respondents) have selected “strongly agree”, 13.3 percent (40 respondents)
have selected “disagree” and 6.3 percent (19 respondents) have selected “strongly disagree”,
while 36.3 percent individuals (109 respondents) have opted “neutral”.
65
5.3.6 Source Trustworthiness
i. I value movies RECOMMENDED BY LAYMAN (UNKNOWN PEOPLE) in online

comments.
Disagree 59 19.7 19.7 29.7
Neutral 99 33.0 33.0 62.7
Agree 70 23.3 23.3 86.0
Strongly Agree 42 14.0 14.0 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.34: I value movies RECOMMENDED BY LAYMAN (UNKNOWN PEOPLE) in online comments
movies RECOMMENDED BY LAYMAN (UNKNOWN PEOPLE) in online comments”.
Out of 300 respondents, 23.3 percent (70 respondents) have selected “agree”, 14 percent (42
respondents) have selected “strongly agree”, 19.7 percent (59 respondents) have selected
“disagree” and 10 percent (30 respondents) have selected “strongly disagree”, while 33 percent
individuals (99 respondents) have opted “neutral”.
ii. I value movie recommendations made through FACEBOOK POSTS AND

COMMENTS.
Disagree 46 15.3 15.3 25.7
Neutral 104 34.7 34.7 60.3
Valid
Agree 76 25.3 25.3 85.7
Strongly Agree 43 14.3 14.3 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.35: I value movie recommendations made through FACEBOOK POSTS AND COMMENTS
movie recommendations made through FACEBOOK POSTS AND COMMENTS”. Out of
300 respondents, 25.3 percent (76 respondents) have selected “agree”, 14.3 percent (43
respondents) have selected “strongly agree”, 15.3 percent (46 respondents) have selected
“disagree” and 10.3 percent (31 respondents) have selected “strongly disagree”, while 34.7
percent individuals (104 respondents) have opted “neutral”.
66
iii. I value movie recommendations made through INSTAGRAM POSTS AND COMMENTS.
Disagree 40 13.3 13.3 22.3
Neutral 88 29.3 29.3 51.7
Valid
Agree 90 30.0 30.0 81.7
Strongly Agree 55 18.3 18.3 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.36: I value movie recommendations made through INSTAGRAM POSTS AND COMMENTS
movie recommendations made through INSTAGRAM POSTS AND COMMENTS”. Out
of 300 respondents a majority of 30 percent (90 respondents) have selected “agree”, 18.3
selected “disagree” and 9 percent (27 respondents) have selected “strongly disagree”, while 29.3
iv. I value movie recommendations made through TWITTER POSTS AND COMMENTS.
Disagree 45 15.0 15.0 26.7
Neutral 93 31.0 31.0 57.7
Valid
Agree 85 28.3 28.3 86.0
Strongly Agree 42 14.0 14.0 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.37: I value movie recommendations made through TWITTER POSTS AND COMMENTS
movie recommendations made through TWITTER POSTS AND COMMENTS”. Out of
300 respondents, 28.3 percent (85 respondents) have selected “agree”, 14 percent (42
“disagree” and 11.7 percent (35 respondents) have selected “strongly disagree”, while 31
67
v. I value movie recommendations made through BLOG POSTS.

Disagree 46 15.3 15.3 25.0
Neutral 108 36.0 36.0 61.0
Valid
Agree 78 26.0 26.0 87.0
Strongly Agree 39 13.0 13.0 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.38: I value movie recommendations made through BLOG POSTS
movie recommendations made through BLOG POSTS”. Out of 300 respondents, 26 percent
(78 respondents) have selected “agree”, 13 percent (39 respondents) have selected “strongly
agree”, 15.3 percent (46 respondents) have selected “disagree” and 9.7 percent (29 respondents)
have selected “strongly disagree”, while 36 percent individuals (108 respondents) have opted
“neutral”.
vi. I value movie recommendations made through CHAT FORUMS.

Disagree 48 16.0 16.0 26.0
Neutral 116 38.7 38.7 64.7
Valid
Agree 64 21.3 21.3 86.0
Strongly Agree 42 14.0 14.0 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.39: I value movie recommendations made through CHAT FORUMS
movie recommendations made through CHAT FORUMS”. Out of 300 respondents, 21.3
percent (64 respondents) have selected “agree”, 14 percent (42 respondents) have selected
“strongly agree”, 16 percent (48 respondents) have selected “disagree” and 10 percent (30
68
vii. I value movie recommendations made through WHATSAPP GROUPS.

Disagree 34 11.3 11.3 18.0
Neutral 106 35.3 35.3 53.3
Valid
Agree 83 27.7 27.7 81.0
Strongly Agree 57 19.0 19.0 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.40: I value movie recommendations made through WHATSAPP GROUPS
movie recommendations made through WHATSAPP GROUPS”. Out of 300 respondents,
27.7 percent (83 respondents) have selected “agree”, 19 percent (57 respondents) have selected
viii. I value movie RATINGS made by online users (IMDB, ROTTEN TOMATOES,
METACRITIC ) etc.
Disagree 35 11.7 11.7 20.7
Neutral 78 26.0 26.0 46.7
Valid
Agree 83 27.7 27.7 74.3
Strongly Agree 77 25.7 25.7 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.41: I value movie RATINGS made by online users (IMDB, ROTTEN TOMATOES, METACRITIC ) etc
movie RATINGS made by online users (IMDB, ROTTEN TOMATOES, METACRITIC )
etc.” Out of 300 respondents, a majority of 27.7 percent (83 respondents) have selected
“agree”, 25.7 percent (77 respondents) have selected “strongly agree”, 11.7 percent (35
respondents) have selected “disagree” and 9 percent (27 respondents) have selected “strongly
disagree”, while 26 percent individuals (78 respondents) have opted “neutral”.
69
ix. I value movie REVIEWS made by online users (IMDB, ROTTEN TOMATOES,
METACRITIC) etc.
Disagree 34 11.3 11.3 20.3
Neutral 90 30.0 30.0 50.3
Valid
Agree 78 26.0 26.0 76.3
Strongly Agree 71 23.7 23.7 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.42: I value movie REVIEWS made by online users (IMDB, ROTTEN TOMATOES, METACRITIC) etc
movie REVIEWS made by online users (IMDB, ROTTEN TOMATOES, METACRITIC)
etc.” Out of 300 respondents, 26 percent (78 respondents) have selected “agree”, 23.7 percent
(71 respondents) have selected “strongly agree”, 11.3 percent (34 respondents) have selected
“disagree” and 9 percent (27 respondents) have selected “strongly disagree”, while 30 percent
individuals (90 respondents) have opted “neutral”.
x. I value movies RECOMMENDED BY FRIENDS in online chats.

Disagree 21 7.0 7.0 9.7
Valid Neutral 66 22.0 22.0 31.7
Agree 114 38.0 38.0 69.7
Strongly Agree 91 30.3 30.3 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.43: I value movies RECOMMENDED BY FRIENDS in online chats
movies RECOMMENDED BY FRIENDS in online chats”. Out of 300 respondents, a
majority of 38 percent (114 respondents) have selected “agree”, 30.3 percent (91 respondents)
70
xi. I value movies RECOMMENDED BY RELATIVES in online chats.

Disagree 28 9.3 9.3 14.7
Valid Neutral 86 28.7 28.7 43.3
Agree 100 33.3 33.3 76.7
Strongly Agree 70 23.3 23.3 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.44: I value movies RECOMMENDED BY RELATIVES in online chats
movies RECOMMENDED BY RELATIVES in online chats.” Out of 300 respondents, a
majority of 33.3 percent (100 respondents) have selected “agree”, 23.3 percent (70 respondents)
i. I value movies RECOMMENDED BY COLLEAGUES in online chats.

Disagree 31 10.3 10.3 14.0
Valid Neutral 89 29.7 29.7 43.7
Agree 96 32.0 32.0 75.7
Strongly Agree 73 24.3 24.3 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.45: I value movies RECOMMENDED BY COLLEAGUES in online chats
movies RECOMMENDED BY COLLEAGUES in online chats”. Out of 300 respondents, a
majority of 32 percent (96 respondents) have selected “agree”, 24.3 percent (73 respondents)
71
ii. I value movies RECOMMENDED BY LAYMAN (UNKNOWN PEOPLE) in online

comments.
Disagree 51 17.0 17.0 30.3
Neutral 117 39.0 39.0 69.3
Valid
Agree 54 18.0 18.0 87.3
Strongly Agree 38 12.7 12.7 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.46: I value movies RECOMMENDED BY LAYMAN (UNKNOWN PEOPLE) in online comments
movies RECOMMENDED BY LAYMAN (UNKNOWN PEOPLE) in online comments”.
Out of 300 respondents, 18 percent (54 respondents) have selected “agree”, 12.7 percent (38
“disagree” and 13.3 percent (40 respondents) have selected “strongly disagree”. While a
majority of 39 percent individuals (117 respondents) have opted “neutral”.
iii. I would REJECT SOMEONE’S REVIEW if one or more of their past reviews turned out to
be WRONG.
Disagree 31 10.3 10.3 16.7
Neutral 98 32.7 32.7 49.3
Valid
Agree 80 26.7 26.7 76.0
Strongly Agree 72 24.0 24.0 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.47: I would REJECT SOMEONE’S REVIEW if one or more of their past reviews turned out to be
WRONG
REJECT SOMEONE’S REVIEW if one or more of their past reviews turned out to be
WRONG”. Out of 300 respondents, 26.7 percent (80 respondents) have selected “agree”, 24
selected “disagree” and 6.3 percent (19 respondents) have selected “strongly disagree”. While a
majority of 32.7 percent individuals (98 respondents) have opted “neutral”.
72
iv. I would REJECT a review if I think it is SPONSORED OR PAID.

Disagree 34 11.3 11.3 19.0
Neutral 82 27.3 27.3 46.3
Valid
Agree 59 19.7 19.7 66.0
Strongly Agree 102 34.0 34.0 100.0
Total 300 100.0 100.0
Table 5.48: I would REJECT a review if I think it is SPONSORED OR PAID
REJECT a review if I think it is SPONSORED OR PAID”. Out of 300 respondents, 19.7
percent (59 respondents) have selected “agree”, 34 percent (102 respondents) have selected
73
CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
In this part of the thesis, detailed discussion and analysis will be conducted on the basis of
collected data, its findings and the results of SPSS testing. The entire hypothesis has been tested
and their detailed finding along with analysis is mentioned below. It is pertinent to mention here
that all the data collected through detailed questionnaire has been tested as mentioned above in
the findings of this thesis. Moreover, detailed SPSS testing and analysis has also been conducted
which is also explained below.
6.1 Hypothesis 1. Difference in Movie Watching Practices in Males and Females
The first hypothesis of this research study assumes that “there is a significant difference in
movie watching practices of males and females.” In order to test this hypothesis, 6 questions
were asked from both males and females in an online questionnaire. Total respondents were 300.
The first question asked both the genders about “where do they prefer to watch movies?” For
this question 3 options were given. The first option was “cinema”. 11 percent individuals
selected this option. The second option was “home”. This was chosen by 64 percent people. The
last option for this question was given “any gathering with friends/ family/ colleagues apart from
cinema”. 25 percent respondents opted this.
The second question asked them about “how do they watch movies?” For this question 5
options were given. The first option was “By going to Cinema”. 7.3 percent people picked this
option. The second option was “Online streaming”. 51.7 percent individuals selected watch
movies by online streaming. Third option for this question was “Torrent download”. 27.7 percent
of the total respondents opted this category. On fourth was “DVDs / CDs”. 1.3 percent people
chose this option. Fifth option that was given to respondents for this question was “Others”. It
was selected by 12 percent individuals.
The third question asked the 2 genders about frequency of watching movies. The question was
“how frequently do you watch movies?” This question included 6 choices. The first was
“Rarely”. 28.3 percent individuals opted this choice. The second was “Daily". 3.7 percent
respondents selected this. The third choice was “1 – 3 times a week”. 14 percent people picked
this option. The fourth option of this question was “1 – 3 times a month”. This was chosen by 9
74
percent people. Fifth choice that was given for this question was “Usually on Weekends” and it
was opted by 18.3 percent respondents. The last option was “Whenever I hear about a good
movie”. Among the total population 26.7 percent respondents fall under this category.
The fourth question asked them about “How often do they read online reviews about different
movies?’ For this question 5 options were given. The first option was “Rarely”. 40.7 percent
people picked this option. The second option was “Sometimes”. It was selected by 30 percent
individuals. Third option for this question was “Regularly”. 3.7 percent of the total respondents
opted this category. On fourth was “Every time when I plan to watch a movie”. 18 percent
people chose this option. Fifth option that was given to respondents for this question was “I read
multiple reviews before watching a movie”. It was selected by 42 percent individuals.
The fifth question that was asked from both male and females was “Where do you prefer to get
movie reviews?” For this question 5 choices were given. The first was “Facebook (fan pages /
comments)”. 15 percent individuals opted this choice. The second was “Review sites / Rating
Sites”. 44.3 percent respondents selected this. The third choice was “Film Critics”. 7.3 percent
people picked this option. The fourth option of this question was “Blogs”. This was chosen by
4.3 percent people. The last choice that was given for this question was “Word of Mouth”.
Among the total population 29 percent respondents chose this option.
The sixth question asked them about their decision to watch movies. The question was “How do
you decide to watch movie?” This question included 5 options. The first option was “After
Reading Review Sites / Rating sites”. 16.7 percent people picked this option. The second option
was “After Watching Trailers”. 55.3 percent individuals selected watch movies by online
streaming. Third option for this question was “After reading Online Reviews by film critics /
bloggers”. 7 percent of the total respondents opted this category. On fourth was “After reading
Social Media Posts by Friends or Relatives”. 18.7 percent people chose this option. Fifth option
that was given to respondents for this question was “Anticipate Movies before their release”. It
was selected by 2.3 percent individuals.
Several studies have been conducted regarding gender usage of the web. Few of them are
discussed here. Within the research study of online information conducted by Chiu et al. (2009)
it was concluded that the activities that gives joy online are more valuable to males i.e. the usage
75
of videos and games. On the contrary such activities that enables females in building good
personal relationships are more valuable to them. i.e. instant messaging or the chat rooms. It can
be, therefore, assumed that within the acceptance of eWOM information for the purchase
decision-making process, as compared to males, females will give more importance to this type
of information.
Arroyo-Cañada & Gil-Lafuente, (2014) concluded that there is the difference in the internet
usage of males and females in terms of online information seeking. The males’ usage of internet
is actually in an utilitarian way. Females, on the other hand, are emotional towards the shopping.
The research study of Hallyburton and Evans (2014) on “Gender and Online Health
Information Seeking: A Five Survey Meta-Analysis” found that as compared to males, females
are less active in using internet.
(Jennifer Rowley, 2016) conducted research on “Gender as an influencer of online health

information seeking and evaluation behavior”. The research concluded that men are found more
concerned about the comprehensiveness and the information’s accuracy, its familiarity and also
the ease with which the information can be accessed. On the other hand, women showed greater
interest within the cognition i.e. the ease in reading and understanding the information. Also
women use tablet more as compared to men in order to seek information regarding health.
The findings of the research study conducted by (Bing Sun, 2020) on “Male and Female Users’
Differences in Online Technology Community Based on Text Mining” are: (1) the female users
tend to take part with in the topic of making friends and advertising. While the male users
provide information help. (2) At time of communication with in the technology community, both
females and males mostly express positive emotions, but the positive emotions are more
frequently expressed by female users.
For the present study, the results of the online survey showed that hypothesis 1 (H1) has not been
supported. Thus the hypothesis 1 suggests that there is no difference in movie watching practices
of males and females.
76
Table 1: T-Test Results

Sig. (2-
Gender Mean Std. Deviation t
tailed)
Female 2.11 0.570 -0.649 0.517
1
Male 2.16 0.596 -0.650 0.516
Female 1.90 1.146 -1.763 0.079
2
Male 2.15 1.262 -1.769 0.078
Female 3.75 1.806 0.709 0.479
3
Male 3.58 2.147 0.713 0.476
Female 2.22 1.334 0.102 0.918
4
Male 2.21 1.351 0.103 0.918
Female 2.87 1.486 -0.163 0.870
5
Male 2.90 1.516 -0.163 0.870
Female 2.30 1.062 -0.844 0.400
6
Male 2.40 1.020 -0.842 0.400
To test our first hypothesis, an independent t-test was applied to our data to find differences in
movie watching practices of males and females of our respondents. Six questions were asked in
the questionnaire about the movie watching practices. However, the results showed no
significant differences for those questions. Four out of six questions had identical data for both
males and females. These questions included “Frequency of movie watching”, “Frequency of
Review reading”, “Source site for Reviews” and “movie selection decision”. The two other
questions that showed nominal differences were “Location for movie watching” and “the manner
the movies were obtained for watching”.
Hence it was found that there was no difference in movie watching practices based on gender of
the movie viewers.
H1 stands not supported by our findings.
6.2 Hypothesis 2: Positive Relationship of Source Credibility
The second hypothesis of this research study assumes that “Source Credibility is positively
related to movie watching practices” In order to test this hypothesis, 2 factors which included
some statements, were seen on 5-point Likert scale type questions. The online questionnaire was
filled by both females and males. Total respondents were 300.
77
The 2 factors were “source expertise” and “source trustworthiness”. Factor analysis was applied
and 3 categories were formed. These categories are “usefulness of social media platforms”,
“reviews by peers” and “source expertise”.
6.2.1 Usefulness of Social Media Platforms
The first statement that was seen on 5-point Likert scale type questions for first category i.e.
“usefulness of social media platforms” is “I value movie recommendations made through BLOG
POSTS’’. In the response, 13 percent have strongly agreed. 26 percent have selected the agree
option. 15.3 percent individuals opted disagree option while 9.7 percent of the total respondents
have strongly disagreed with the given statement. The neutral option was chosen by a majority of
36 percent people.
The second statement was “ I value movie recommendations made through TWITTER POSTS
AND COMMENTS.’’ For this statement 14 percent have selected strongly agree option. 28.3
percent choose the agree option. 15 percent individuals opted disagree option while 11.7 percent
individuals have strongly disagreed with the given statement. The neutral option was selected by
a majority of 31 percent respondents.
The third statement was “I value movie recommendations made through CHAT FORUMS’’. As
the response to this, 14 percent have strongly agreed. 21.3 percent made choice for the agree
option. 16 percent individuals selected disagree option while 10 percent of the total respondents
have strongly disagreed with the given statement. The neutral option was opted by a majority of
38.7 percent individuals.
The fourth statement was “I value movie recommendations made through INSTAGRAM POSTS
AND COMMENTS”. Responding to this, 18.3 percent have strongly agreed. A majority of 30
percent respondents have selected the agree option. 13.3 percent individuals opted disagree
option while 9 percent of the total respondents have strongly disagreed with the given statement.
The neutral option was chosen by 29.3 percent people.
The fifth statement was “I value movie recommendations made through FACEBOOK POSTS
AND COMMENTS”. For this statement 14.3 percent have selected strongly agree option. 25.3
percent choose the agree option. 15.3 percent individuals opted disagree option while 10.3
78
percent individuals have strongly disagreed with the given statement. The neutral option was
selected by a majority of 34.7 percent respondents.
The sixth statement was “I value movie recommendations made through WHATSAPP
GROUPS”. As the response to this, 19 percent have strongly agreed. 27.7 made choice for the
agree option. 11.3 percent individuals selected disagree option while 6.7 percent of the total
respondents have strongly disagreed with the given statement. The neutral option was opted by a
majority of 35.3 percent individuals.
The seventh statement was “I value movies RECOMMENDED BY LAYMAN (UNKNOWN

PEOPLE) in online comments.” Responding to this, 12.7 percent have strongly agreed. 18
percent respondents have selected the agree option. 17 percent individuals opted disagree option
while 13.3 percent of the total respondents have strongly disagreed with the given statement. The
neutral option was chosen by a majority of 39 percent people.
The eighth statement was “ I value movie recommendations made through BLOGGERS”. In the
response, 12.7 percent have strongly agreed. 26.7 percent have selected the agree option. 16.3
percent individuals opted disagree option while 8 percent of the total respondents have strongly
disagreed with the given statement. The neutral option was chosen by a majority of 36.3 percent
respondents.
6.2.2 Reviews by Peers
For the category “reviews by peers” the first statement that was seen on 5-point Likert scale type
questions is “I value movies RECOMMENDED BY FRIENDS in online chats’’. In the response,
a majority of 34.7 percent individuals have strongly agreed. 31 percent have selected the agree
option. 7 percent people opted disagree option while only 2.7 percent of the total respondents
have strongly disagreed with the given statement. The neutral option was chosen by a 24.7
percent people.
The second statement was “I value movies RECOMMENDED BY COLLEAGUES in online

chats”. For this statement 29.3 percent have selected strongly agree option. A majority of 33.3
percent choose the agree option. 8.7 percent individuals opted disagree option while only 2.3
selected by 26.3 percent respondents.
79
The third statement was “I value movies RECOMMENDED BY RELATIVES in online chats’’.
As the response to this, 26 percent respondents have strongly agreed. A majority of 33.7 percent
people made choice for the agree option. 10.7 percent individuals selected disagree option while
3.3 percent of the total respondents have strongly disagreed with the given statement. The neutral
option was opted by 26.3 percent individuals.
6.2.3 Source Expertise
For the category “source expertise”, the first statement that was seen on 5-point Likert scale type
questions is “I value MOVIE RATINGS made by professional movie critics online”. In the
response, 23.3 percent people have strongly agreed. 30.7 percent individuals have selected the
agree option. 9.7 percent individuals opted disagree option while 5 percent of the total
respondents have strongly disagreed with the given statement. The neutral option was chosen by
a majority of 31.3 percent people.
The second statement was “I value MOVIE REVIEWS made by professional movie critics
online.’’ For this statement 22.7 percent respondents have selected strongly agree option. 28
percent choose the agree option. 10.3 percent individuals opted disagree option while 5.7
selected by a majority of 33.3 percent respondents.
The third statement was “I READ PAST REVIEWS of the reviewers to get an IDEA about their
EXPERTISE”. As the response to this, 15.3 percent people have strongly agreed. 26.7 percent
made choice for the agree option. 16.7 percent individuals selected disagree option while 10
percent of the total respondents have strongly disagreed with the given statement. The neutral
option was opted by a majority of 31.3 percent individuals.
The fourth statement was “I ONLY ADOPT a review if I believe that the reviewer has AMPLE
EXPERTISE on MOVIE REVIEWING”. Responding to this, 17.3 percent individuals have
strongly agreed. 26.7 percent respondents have selected the agree option. 13.3 percent
individuals opted disagree option while only 6.3 percent of the total respondents have strongly
people.
80
The fifth statement was “I value movie RATINGS made by online users (IMDB, ROTTEN
TOMATOES, METACRITIC) etc.”. For this statement 25.7 percent have selected strongly agree
option. A majority of 27.7 percent choose the agree option. 11.7 percent individuals opted
disagree option while only 9 percent individuals have strongly disagreed with the given
statement. The neutral option was selected by 26 percent respondents.
The sixth statement was “I value movie REVIEWS made by online users (IMDB, ROTTEN
TOMATOES, METACRITIC) etc.” As the response to this, 23.7 percent have strongly agreed.
26 percent individuals made choice for the agree option. 11.3 percent individuals selected
disagree option while only 9 percent of the total respondents have strongly disagreed with the
given statement. The neutral option was opted by a majority of 30 percent individuals.
The seventh statement was “I would REJECT SOMEONE’S REVIEW if one or more of their
past reviews turned out to be WRONG”. Responding to this, 24 percent respondents have
strongly agreed. 26.7 percent respondents have selected the agree option. 10.3 percent
individuals opted disagree option while only 6.3 percent of the total respondents have strongly
people.
The eighth statement was “ I would REJECT a review if I think it is SPONSORED OR PAID”.
In the response, a majority of 34 percent people have strongly agreed. 19.7 percent have selected
the agree option. 11.3 percent individuals opted disagree option while only 7.7 percent of the
total respondents have strongly disagreed with the given statement. The neutral option was
chosen by 27.3 percent respondents.
Several studies have been conducted regarding source credibility’s impact. Few researches are
discussed here. The research work of Paul C.S. Wu has explored “The influences of electronic
word-of-mouth message appeal and message source credibility on brand attitude”. The research
work was conducted in 2011. The data was gathered through internet based questionnaires. The
researchers found out the eWOM message which is positive and also has a higher source
credibility results in a good brand attitude as compared to the eWOM message which has low
source credibility. This impact isn't directed by the level of product involvement.
81
Choi and Ok conducted a research in 2011 on “how online restaurant reviews affect customers’
decisions”. The researchers concluded that both the source credibility and information quality of
the online reviews affect consumer’s perceived usefulness.
Another research was conducted by Fan, Miao, Fnag and Lin “Establishing the adoption of
electronic word of mouth through consumers' perceived credibility”. This survey was done in
2013. The findings shows us that the source credibility, eWOM quantity and eWOM quality has
a significant affect on consumer's perceived eWOM credibility. The consumer's perceived
eWOM credibility has a positive influence on consumer's information adoption.
Shu and Scott did research on “Influence of social media on Chinese students' choice of an
oversea study destination: An information adoption model perspective”. This research was
conducted in 2014 and concluded that both argument quality and source credibility i.e. (the
characteristics of the message) have a strong influence upon the consumers’ adoption of
information.
A research conducted by Tseng and Kuo in 2014 on “Investigating the Effects of Information
Quality and Perceived Risk on Information Adoption on Travel Websites”. This survey found
that argument quality, source credibility and visual design attractively persuade customers to
adopt information adoption via both perceived usefulness and perceived enjoyment.
Another study conducted by (Chuan Luo, 2013) on “Impact of informational factors on online
recommendation credibility: The moderating role of source credibility”. The data was collected
from a leading online consumer discussion forum within the China. From 199 responses the
researchers found that the recommendation source credibility significantly moderates two
informational factors' effects on readers' perception of recommendation credibility. The
researchers also found that the source credibility negatively moderates the effect of
recommendation credibility on recommendation adoption.
82
For the present study, the results of the online survey showed that hypothesis 2 (H2) has been
supported. Thus, the hypothesis 2 suggests that source credibility is positively related to movie
watching practices.
H2 stated that source credibility was negatively related to movie watching practices. A factor
analysis was applied to asses if there were significant factors that contributed on the movie
watching practices.
KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling .876
Adequacy.
Bartlett's Test of Approx. Chi-Square 3302.669
Sphericity Df 253
Sig. .000
To assess if factor analysis is applicable on our data, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test and
Bartlett’s test was applied. KMO measure of sampling adequacy read at 0.876 which is more
than 0.7 that is considered adequate in social sciences for the applicability of factor analysis for
the data. Hence a factor analysis was conducted on 23 factors (Questions) mentioned in the
questionnaire.
83
Total Variance Explained

Rotation Sums of
Extraction Sums of Squared
Initial Eigenvalues Squared
Loadings
Component Loadingsa
% of Cumulativ % of Cumulati
Total Total Total
Variance e% Variance ve %
1 7.970 34.652 34.652 7.970 34.652 34.652 6.046
2 2.186 9.504 44.157 2.186 9.504 44.157 5.301
3 1.763 7.667 51.823 1.763 7.667 51.823 5.303
4 1.283 5.580 57.404
5 1.223 5.318 62.722
6 .928 4.035 66.757
7 .815 3.544 70.301
8 .755 3.283 73.584
9 .663 2.883 76.467
10 .642 2.789 79.256
11 .620 2.695 81.952
12 .576 2.504 84.456
13 .466 2.025 86.481
14 .425 1.848 88.329
15 .398 1.732 90.062
16 .383 1.667 91.729
17 .341 1.483 93.212
18 .327 1.420 94.632
19 .304 1.320 95.952
20 .290 1.261 97.213
21 .259 1.124 98.337
22 .216 .939 99.276
23 .167 .724 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. When components are correlated, sums of squared loadings cannot be added to obtain a total variance.
After factor analysis, it was found that THREE factors were significant. These three factors
showed a variance of 34.652, 9.504 and 7.667 respectively while the rotation sum of squared
loadings at 6.046, 5.301 and 5.303. These findings proved that three factors out of the 23 (asked
questions) were significant.
84
Pattern Matrixa
Component
1 2 3
SC13 .848
SC12 .804
SC14 .785
SC11 .648
SC10 .630
SC15 .552 -.348
SC21 .513
SC3 .442
SC7 .398
SC4 -.783
SC18 -.779
SC20 -.737
SC6 -.730
SC5 -.707
SC19 -.704
SC2 .804
SC1 .790
SC16 .635
SC9 .630
SC17 .611
SC8 .568
SC22 .485
SC23 .446
Extraction Method: Principal
Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Oblimin with
Kaiser Normalization.a
a. Rotation converged in 10 iterations.
The Questions in the questionnaire formed these three factors that were explained in the former
table. Principal Component Analysis was applied to locate the factors that came out of the factor
analysis.
85
Factor 1 - Question 3, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 21 formed the first significant factor. These
factors were clubbed as “Social Media Platforms” as particular questions in the questionnaire
inquired about reviews on social media sites like Facebook, Instagram among others.
Factor 2 – Questions 4, 5, 6, 18, 19 and 20 were clubbed together in Principal Factor Analysis
and termed as “Peer Group” as they inquired about EWoM from family members, friends and
colleagues.
Factor 3 – The third factor to come out of the Principal Component Analysis comprised of
Questions 1, 2, 8, 9, 16, 17, 22 and 23. They were asking data about reviews from people who
are considered authority regarding movies like film critics and film review sites. The factor was
termed as Source Expertise.
Correlations
Movie Watching Social Media Source
Practices Platforms Peer Groups Expertise
Movie Watching Pearson Correlation 1 -.054 -.012 -.119*
Practices Sig. (2-tailed) .349 .834 .039
N 300 300 300 300
**
Social Media Platforms Pearson Correlation -.054 1 .539 .581**
Sig. (2-tailed) .349 .000 .000
N 300 300 300 300
**
Peer Groups Pearson Correlation -.012 .539 1 .446**
Sig. (2-tailed) .834 .000 .000
N 300 300 300 300
* ** **
Source Expertise Pearson Correlation -.119 .581 .446 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .039 .000 .000
N 300 300 300 300
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Pearson Correlation was applied to find out relationship between source credibility and movie
watching practices to test the hypothesis (H2). It was found that Pearson Correlation for Social
Media Platforms was -0.054 while the significance stood at 0.349. For Peer Groups, the Pearson
Correlation stood at -0.12 while the significance read 0.834.
86
The only factor that showed significant correlation was Source expertise. The factor showed
Pearson Correlation at -0.119 proving the significance at 0.05 level. Source Expertise also
showed significance at 0.039 which is lesser than the required 0.05 level. So out of three factors,
only one (i.e. Source expertise) showed significant relationship with movie watching practices
while the other two – Social Media Platforms and Peer Groups – reflected no relationship.
It can be stated that H2 is partially supported by our findings as only a part of it showed
relationship while two factors did not show any significant relationship with movie watching
practices.
6.3 Hypothesis 3: Positive Relationship of Argument Quality
The third hypothesis of this research study assumes that “Argument Quality is positively related
to movie watching practices” In order to test this hypothesis, 4 factors which included some
statements, were seen on 5-point Likert scale type questions. The online questionnaire was filled
by both females and males. Total respondents were 300.
The 4 factors were “relevance”, “timeliness”, “accuracy” and “comprehensiveness”. Factor

analysis was applied and 4 categories were formed. These categories are “comprehensiveness”,
“recency”, “relevance” and “accuracy”.
6.3.1 Comprehensiveness
For the category “comprehensiveness”, the first statement that was seen on 5-point Likert scale
type questions is “Online reviews about MOVIE PLOTS are important for me”. In the response,
21.3 percent people have strongly agreed. 26.3 percent individuals have selected the agree
option. 12.7 percent individuals opted disagree option while only 6.7 percent of the total
respondents have strongly disagreed with the given statement. The neutral option was chosen by
a majority of 33 percent people.
The second statement was “Online reviews about ACTORS/ ACTRESSES’ PERFORMANCES
are valuable to me’’. For this statement 22.3 percent respondents have selected strongly agree
87
disagree option while only 7.3 percent individuals have strongly disagreed with the given
statement. The neutral option was selected by 27 percent respondents.
The third statement was “Online reviews about MOVIE’S MUSIC are helpful to me”.
Responding to this, 23.7 percent individuals have strongly agreed. A majority of 29.7 percent
respondents have selected the agree option. 15 percent individuals opted disagree option while
only 9 percent of the total respondents have strongly disagreed with the given statement. The
neutral option was chosen by 22.7 percent people.
The fourth statement was “Online reviews about CINEMATOGRAPHY are important to me”.
For this statement 22.7 percent have selected strongly agree option. 29 percent choose the
agree option. 13 percent individuals opted disagree option while only 5 percent individuals have
strongly disagreed with the given statement. The neutral option was selected by a majority of
30.3 percent respondents.
The fifth statement was “I ONLY ACCEPT THE REVIEW IF IT HAS ALL ABOVE
MENTIONED THINGS.” As the response to this, 15.7 percent have strongly agreed. 28.3
percent individuals made choice for the agree option. 14 percent individuals selected disagree
option while only 7.3 percent of the total respondents have strongly disagreed with the given
statement. The neutral option was opted by a majority of 34.7 percent individuals.
The sixth statement was “I REJECT the REVIEW when I think it is NOT COMPREHENSIVE”.
Responding to this, 16.3 percent respondents have selected disagree and strongly agree option.
26.3 percent respondents have selected the agree option. Only 7 percent of the total respondents
34 percent people.
6.3.2. Recency
For the category “recency”, the first statement that was seen on 5-point Likert scale type
questions is “I SPEND MORE TIME READING the REVIEWS that I find RELEVANT than
those that are irrelevant”. In the response, 16 percent people have strongly agreed. 22.7 percent
individuals have selected the agree option. 15.7 percent individuals opted disagree option while
21.3 percent of the total respondents have strongly disagreed with the given statement. The
neutral option was chosen by a majority of 24.3 percent people.
88
The second statement was “I am concerned about the TIMELINESS OF POST in online movie
reviews’’. For this statement 17.3 percent respondents have selected strongly agree option. 24.7
percent choose the agree option. 14 percent individuals opted disagree option while 12.7 percent
individuals have strongly disagreed with the given statement. The neutral option was selected by
a majority of 31.3 percent respondents.
The third statement was “I always adopt RECENT COMMENTS in online movie reviews”. As
the response to this, 19.7 percent people have strongly agreed. A majority of 27.7 percent made
choice for the agree option. 13 percent individuals of the total respondents have selected disagree
and strongly disagree option. The neutral option was opted by 26.7 percent individuals.
The fourth statement was “RECENT REVIEWS are of MORE VALUE to me than the ones
posted in the past”. Responding to this, 18.3 percent individuals have strongly agreed. A majority
of 29.7 percent respondents have selected the agree option. 15 percent individuals opted disagree
option while only 8.7 percent of the total respondents have strongly disagreed with the given
statement. The neutral option was chosen by 28.3 percent people.
The fifth statement was “I would READ ANOTHER REVIEW if I saw it is posted more recently
then the one I already read”. For this statement 15.7 percent have selected strongly agree option.
24.7 percent choose the agree option. 13.7 percent individuals opted disagree option while only
11.7 percent individuals have strongly disagreed with the given statement. The neutral option
was selected by a majority of 34.3 percent respondents.
6.3.3 Relevance
For the category “relevance”, the first statement that was seen on 5-point Likert scale type
questions is “I ADOPT a review if I think it has information RELEVANT to me”. In the
response, 24.7 percent people have strongly agreed. A majority of 33.7 percent individuals have
selected the agree option. 7.3 percent individuals opted disagree option while 6.7 percent of the
total respondents have strongly disagreed with the given statement. The neutral option was
chosen by 27.7 percent people.
The second statement was “I READ MULTIPLE REVIEWS but ADOPT only those that are
relevant’’. For this statement 24 percent respondents have selected strongly agree option. A
majority of 31.7 percent choose the agree option. 12 percent individuals opted disagree option
89
while 10 percent individuals have strongly disagreed with the given statement. The neutral
option was selected by 22.3 percent respondents.
The third statement was “I SPEND MORE TIME READING the REVIEWS that I find
RELEVANT than those that are irrelevant”. In the response, 16 percent people have strongly
agreed. 22.7 percent individuals have selected the agree option. 15.7 percent individuals opted
disagree option while 21.3 percent of the total respondents have strongly disagreed with the
given statement. The neutral option was chosen by a majority of 24.3 percent people.
The fourth statement was “ I would accept any REVIEW REGARDLESS OF ITS TIME”.
Responding to this, 19.7 percent individuals have strongly agreed. 24.3 percent respondents have
selected the agree option. 15 percent individuals opted disagree option while only 7.3 percent of
the total respondents have strongly disagreed with the given statement. The neutral option was
chosen by a majority of 33.7 percent people.
The fifth statement was “I only accept the INFORMATION obtained from online movie reviews
when I think it is CORRECT”. For this statement 23.7 percent have selected strongly agree
disagree option while only 5 percent individuals have strongly disagreed with the given
statement. The neutral option was selected 24.3 percent respondents.
The sixth statement was “I only accept the INFORMATION obtained from online movie reviews
when I think it is RELIABLE”. As the response to this, 24.7 percent have strongly agreed. A
majority of 37.7 percent individuals made choice for the agree option. 7.3 percent individuals
selected disagree option while only 3.3 percent of the total respondents have strongly disagreed
with the given statement. The neutral option was opted by 27 percent individuals.
6.3.4 Accuracy
For the category “accuracy”, the first statement that was seen on 5-point Likert scale type
questions is “I SPEND MORE TIME READING the REVIEWS that I find RELEVANT than
those that are irrelevant”. In the response, 16 percent people have strongly agreed. 22.7 percent
individuals have selected the agree option. 15.7 percent individuals opted disagree option while
21.3 percent of the total respondents have strongly disagreed with the given statement. The
neutral option was chosen by a majority of 24.3 percent people.
90
The second statement was “I only accept the INFORMATION obtained from online movie
reviews when I think it is RELIABLE’’. As the response to this, 24.7 percent have strongly
agreed. A majority of 37.7 percent individuals made choice for the agree option. 7.3 percent
individuals selected disagree option while only 3.3 percent of the total respondents have strongly
disagreed with the given statement. The neutral option was opted by 27 percent individuals.
The third statement was “I would REJECT a review if I FIND A VISIBLE ERROR / MISTAKE
in it”. As the response to this, 28.7 percent people have strongly agreed. 26.7 percent made
choice for the agree option. 10.3 percent individuals selected disagree option while only 4.3
percent of the total respondents have strongly disagreed with the given statement. The neutral
option was opted by a majority of 30 percent individuals.
The fourth statement was “I would REJECT a review if I find that ITS’ STYLE OF ANALYSIS
IS WRONG”. Responding to this, 25.3 percent individuals have strongly agreed. 26.7 percent
respondents have selected the agree option. 11 percent individuals opted disagree option while
only 5 percent of the total respondents have strongly disagreed with the given statement. The
neutral option was chosen by a majority of 32 percent people.
The fifth statement was “I REJECT the REVIEW when I think it is NOT COMPREHENSIVE”.
Responding to this, 16.3 percent respondents have selected disagree and strongly agree option.
26.3 percent respondents have selected the agree option. Only 7 percent of the total respondents
34 percent people.
Many studies have been conducted regarding argument quality’s influence. Few researches are
discussed here. Pornpitakpan’s (2004) research work analysed “the influence of argument
strength in advertising on attitudes toward brand and purchase intention”. The researcher
concluded that higher argument strength prompts the better attitude and also the higher purchase
intention regardless of the endorser expertise
Chu and Kamal (2008) conducted research on “the effect of perceived blogger credibility and
argument quality on message elaboration and brand attitudes: an exploratory study”. Examining
the perceived blogger credibility, the researchers concluded that “when the blogger
91
trustworthiness is high the impact of argument quality on attitude change is greater and when the
blogger trustworthiness is low the impact of argument quality on attitude change is also low”.
A research conducted by Tseng and Kuo in 2014 on “Investigating the Effects of Information
Quality and Perceived Risk on Information Adoption on Travel Websites”. This survey found
that argument quality, source credibility and visual design attractively persuade customers to
adopt information adoption via both perceived usefulness and perceived enjoyment.
Shu and Scott did research on “Influence of social media on Chinese students' choice of an
oversea study destination: An information adoption model perspective”. This research was
conducted in 2014 and concluded that both argument quality and source credibility i.e. (the
characteristics of the message) have a strong influence upon the consumers’ adoption of
information. .
(Li, 2015) researched on “The effects of source credibility and argument quality on employees'
responses toward information system usage”. The research work found that the source credibility
of the persuasive messages has a positive impact upon the playfulness. And the argument quality
of the persuasive messages has a positive impact upon the perceived ease of use and perceived
usefulness.
For the present study, the results of the online survey showed that hypothesis 3 (H3) has been
supported. Thus, the hypothesis 3 suggests that argument quality is positively related to movie
watching practices.
H3 stated that source expertise was positively related to movie watching practices. A factor
analysis was applied to asses if there were significant factors that contributed on the movie
watching practices.
KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling .881
Adequacy.
Bartlett's Test of Approx. Chi-Square 1914.636
Sphericity df 171
Sig. .000
92
To assess if factor analysis is applicable on our data, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test and
Bartlett’s test was applied. KMO measure of sampling adequacy read at 0.881 which is more
than 0.7 that is considered adequate in social sciences for the applicability of factor analysis for
the data. Hence a factor analysis was conducted on 19 factors (Questions) mentioned in the
questionnaire.
Total Variance Explained

Rotation Sums
Extraction Sums of
Initial Eigenvalues of Squared
Squared Loadings
Componen Loadingsa
t % of % of
Cumulat Cumulati
Total Varian Total Varian Total
ive % ve %
ce ce
1 6.395 33.658 33.658 6.395 33.658 33.658 5.003
2 1.449 7.624 41.282 1.449 7.624 41.282 4.075
3 1.383 7.278 48.559 1.383 7.278 48.559 3.597
4 1.152 6.063 54.623 1.152 6.063 54.623 2.230
5 .987 5.197 59.820
6 .833 4.382 64.202
7 .791 4.163 68.365
8 .755 3.974 72.338
9 .677 3.563 75.902
10 .622 3.275 79.176
11 .607 3.197 82.373
12 .591 3.111 85.485
13 .500 2.634 88.118
14 .466 2.455 90.573
15 .458 2.410 92.983
16 .390 2.055 95.038
17 .334 1.755 96.793
18 .310 1.629 98.422
19 .300 1.578 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. When components are correlated, sums of squared loadings cannot be added to
obtain a total variance.
After factor analysis, it was found that four factors were significant. These three factors showed
a variance of 33.658, 41.282, 48.559 and 54.623 respectively while the rotation sum of squared
93
loadings at 5.003, 4.075, 3.597 and 2.230. These findings proved that four factors out of the 19
(asked questions) were significant.
Pattern Matrixa
Component
1 2 3 4
AQ1 .507
AQ2 .477
AQ3 .320 .416 .404
AQ4 .526
AQ5 .761
AQ6 .862
AQ7 .722
AQ8 .768
AQ9 .641
AQ10 .539 -.379
AQ11 -.653
AQ12 -.743
AQ13 .588
AQ14 .773
AQ15 .697
AQ16 .806
AQ17 .704
AQ18 .674
AQ19 .441 -.380
Extraction Method: Principal Component
Analysis.
Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser
Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 13 iterations.
The Questions in the questionnaire formed these three factors that were explained in the former
table. Principal Component Analysis was applied to locate the factors that came out of the factor
analysis.
94
Factor 1 - Question 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 formed the first significant factor. These
factors were clubbed as Comprehensiveness of the EWoM. Questions were asked with its
relevance in the questionnaire.
Factor 2 – Five Questions – from Q3 to Q7 - were clubbed together in Principal Factor Analysis
and termed as Recency as they inquired about EWoM with regard to its freshness and timeliness.
Factor 3 – The third factor to come out of the Principal Component Analysis comprised of
Questions 1, 2, 3 and 8, 9, 10. They were asking data about relevance of the reviews from people
on different platforms. The factor was termed as Relevance.
Factor 4 – Questions 3, 10, 11, 12, and 19 made up this factor through the principal factor
analysis to form our fourth factor dubbed here as accuracy of the reviews. Questions like erratic
reviews of the past from the person or an immediate flaw in the review changed its level of
acceptance were asked from the respondents.
Correlations
Movie
Watching Compreh. Recency Relevance Accuracy
Practices
Pearson Correlation 1 -.014 -.053 -.066 -.055
Movie Watching
Sig. (2-tailed) .815 .362 .254 .346
Practices
N 300 300 300 300 300
** **
Pearson Correlation -.014 1 .537 .564 .637**
Comprehensiveness Sig. (2-tailed) .815 .000 .000 .000
N 300 300 300 300 300
** **
Pearson Correlation -.053 .537 1 .626 .611**
Recency Sig. (2-tailed) .362 .000 .000 .000
N 300 300 300 300 300
** **
Pearson Correlation -.066 .564 .626 1 .743**
Relevance Sig. (2-tailed) .254 .000 .000 .000
N 300 300 300 300 300
** ** **
Pearson Correlation -.055 .637 .611 .743 1
Accuracy Sig. (2-tailed) .346 .000 .000 .000
N 300 300 300 300 300
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
95
Pearson Correlation was applied to find out relationship between argument quality and movie
watching practices to test the hypothesis (H3).
It was found that Pearson Correlation for Comprehensiveness was -0.014 while the significance
stood at 0.815. For Recency, the Pearson Correlation stood at -0.053 while the significance read
0.362. The third factor Relevance showed Pearson Correlation at -0.066 and significance at
0.254 which is lesser than the required 0.05 level. Our last factor – Accuracy – showed Pearson
Correlation at -0.055 and significance at .346.
So out of four factors for our variable Argument Quality, none showed significant relationship
with movie watching practices It can be stated that H3 is not supported by our findings as none
of its factors showed significance.
96
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION
The source of eWOM is diversifying in response to the rapid development of social electronic
commerce. Not only can traditional e-commerce websites supply a great amount of product-
related eWOM information, but social media outlets like as micro-blogs, forums, and related
other social media tools may also provide deeper product-related eWOM information. In order to
acquire self-value realization, an increasing number of people are eager to share their
experiences on social media (Berger 2014). Many researches have been conducted on the
influence of eWOM in e-commerce websites or social media on consumers' perceptions of
eWOM value, as well as the effects of various eWOM features on purchase intention.
This research shows that information adoption is positively connected to purchase intent, which
is consistent with Erkan and Evans' findings (2016). As a result, people who adopt eWOM
knowledge via social media are more likely to develop a buy intention, especially if the
information has been shared among friends (Erkan and Evans 2018). The discovery of a positive
significant link between information usefulness and adoption is likewise in line with Erkan and
Evans' findings (2016). When consumers believe that the eWOM information is useful, they are
more likely to interact with it.
The findings of this paper are in context with the research of Xue et al (2018), which show that
information quality has a favorable association with information usefulness. Because users can
access information via eWOM, the quality of the information is an issue. Consumers find
information valuable if the quality of the content meets their needs. Information usefulness is
also positively related to information creditability. As a result, consumers are persuaded by
credible information offered through eWOM. Transfer of knowledge is possible if the
information comes from a reliable source and becomes a primary element in the individual's
decision.
The survey's findings generated a sufficient number of meaningful results for certain conclusions
to be drawn. Respondents exhibited clear symptoms of being swayed by both the content and the
source of the reviews. Different respondents will react to the reviews differently. To summarize,
movie reviews have an impact on consumer mental processes, which leads to the decision of
97
whether or not to buy a ticket to see the film. The type of information presented in the review, as
well as the source, have a significant impact on this outcome. Different mixtures have different
effects on different people. This study has the potential to be used to determine how people
would react to a film depending on the reviews it receives from various sources. Moreover,
according to the findings and the results of this study, it is evident that people read online
customer reviews at least occasionally before acquiring things for the first time. Furthermore,
majority of the participants of this study explain that the eWOM is the most important factor
influencing their buying decisions. As a result, it is obvious that eWOM has a considerable
impact on consumer decision-making particularly in selecting movies and how to watch it.
However, culture is a crucial issue to consider when managing WOM communication.
The findings of this study back up the theory that people in digital age are more prone to provide
evaluations and ratings to the film or movie as such this research highlighted the importance of
rating distribution from a practical aspect as well proved that social media channels and
platforms are no doubt considered as key element in decision making.
Limitations and Recommendations
Following are the Limitations and recommendations for the future research:
i. The present research was quantitative in nature i.e. it was based on the online
questionnaire. The future research can be qualitative in nature. An in depth qualitative
research would probe deeper in the attitudes which movie goers have towards eWOM.
ii. The present research focused on the interference of the EWOM approach in the
information-seeking behavior within the choice of movies. The future research can be
conducted by focusing on the interference of the EWOM approach with in the
information-sharing regarding movie selection.
98
REFERENCES
1. Abubakar A. M., Ilkan M. (2016). Impact of online WOM on destination trust and intention to
travel: a medical tourism perspective. J. Destination Mark. Manage. 5 192–201.
2. Ahrens J, Coyle J R and Strahilevitz M N (2013),"Electronic word of mouth", European Journal
of Marketing.
3. Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
4. Alasuutari, P., Bickman, L. and Brannen, J. (2008) The SAGE handbook of social research
methods. Sage Publications.
5. Amblee, N. and Bui, T., 2008. Can Brand Reputation Improve the Odds of Being Reviewed On-
Line? International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 12(3), pp.11– 28.
6. Anderson, E. W. (1998). Customer satisfaction and word of mouth. Journal of Service Research, 1
(1), 5-17.
7. Ann Hallyburton, L. A. (2014). Gender and Online Health Information Seeking: A Five Survey
Meta-Analysis. Journal of Consumer Health on the Internet, 128-142.
8. Ansa Salim, MM Sulphey and Thilaga (2017), “A study on the relationship between Long term
Orientation, Self- efficacy and certain behavioral aspects of Women Micro entrepreneurs”,
Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems, Vol. 9 No. 12
9. Ansa Savad, Mohammed Al Jahdhami, Saeed Al Handhali (2016), “A study on Customer
preferences towards selected local Omani (FMCG) products”, International Journal of
Science and Research (IJSR),Vol 6(4)
10. Arndt J. (1967). Role of product-related conversations in the diffusion of a new product. J. Mark.
Res. 4 291–295.
11. Arnett, D. B., German, S. D. & Hunt, S. D. (2003). The identity salience model of relationship
marketing success: the case of non-profit marketing. Journal of Marketing, 67 (2), 89-105.
12. Asch, S. E. (1958). Effects of group pressure upon modification and distortion of judgments. In E.
E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (3rd ed., pp.
174-183). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
13. Ashill, N. J. and Jobber, D. (1999) ‘The impact of environmental uncertainty perceptions,
decision-maker characteristics and work environment characteristics on the perceived usefulness
of marketing information systems (MkIS): A conceptual framework’, Journal of Marketing
Management, 15(6), pp. 519-540
14. Athanassopoulos, A., Gounaris, S. & Stathakopoulos, V. (2001). Behavioral responses to
customer satisfaction: an empirical study. European Journal of Marketing, 35 (5/6), 687-707.
15. Bailey, J. E. and Pearson, S. W. (1983) ‘Development of a tool for measuring and analyzing
computer user satisfaction’, Management science, 29(5), pp. 530-545.
16. Baker, A.M., Donthu, N. and V. Kumar, 2016. Investigating How Word of Mouth Conversations
About Brands Influence Purchase and Retransmission Intentions. Journal of Marketing Research,
LIII(April), pp.225–239.
17. Barasch, A. and Berger, J., 2014. Broadcasting and Narrowcasting: How Audience Size Affects
What People Share. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(3), pp.286– 299.
18. Barnes, N.G. and Jacobsen, S.L., 2014. Missed eWOM opportunities: A cross sector analysis of
online monitoring behavior. Journal of Marketing Communications, 20(1-2), pp.147–158.
19. Baruch Y and Holton BC (2008) ‘Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational
research’, Human Relations, 81(8), pp. 1139–60.
20. Bataineh, A.Q. (2015). The impact of perceived e-wom on purchase intention: The mediating role
of corporate image. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 7(1), 126-137.
21. Berger, J., & Iyengar, R. (2013). Communication channels and word of mouth: How the medium
shapes the message. Journal of consumer research, 40(3), 567-579.
22. Berger, J., 2014. Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: A review and directions for
future research. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(4), pp.586– 607.
99
23. Bhattacherjee, A. and Sanford, C. (2006) ‘Influence processes for information technology
acceptance: An elaboration likelihood model’, MIS Quarterly, 30(4), pp.805–825.
24. Bing Sun, H. M. (2020). Male and Female Users’ Differences in Online Technology Community
Based on Text Mining. Frontiers in psychology.
25. Bone, P. F. (1992). Determinants of word-of-mouth communications during product consumption.
Advances in Consumer Research, 19 (1), 579-583.
26. Breazeale, M., 2009. Word of mouse: an assessment of electronic word-of-mouth research.
International Journal of Market Research, 51(3), pp.297–319.
27. Bristor, J.M. (1990). Enhances explanations of word-of-mouth communications: The power of
relationships. Research in Consumer Behaviour, 4, 297-318.
28. Bronner, F. and de Hoog, R., 2011. Vacationers and eWOM: Who Posts, and Why, Where, and
What? Journal of Travel Research, 50(1), pp.15–26.
29. Brown J., Broderick A. J., Lee N. (2007). Word of mouth communication within online
communities: conceptualizing the online social network. J. Interact. Mark. 21 2–20.
30. Bryman, A. (2012) Social Reasearch Mehtods. 4th edn. New York: Oxford University Press.
31. Bryman, A., and Bell, E. (2007) Business research methods. 2nd edn. New York: Oxford
University Press. Bryman, A. (2012) Social Reasearch Mehtods. 4th edn. New York: Oxford
University Press.
32. Burzynski, M. H., & Bayer, D. J. (1977). The effect of positive and negative prior information on
motion picture appreciation. The Journal of Social Psychology, 101(2), 215-218.
33. Buttle, F. A. (1998). Word of mouth: understanding and managing referral marketing. Journal of
Strategic Marketing, 6, 241-254.
34. Canhoto, A.I. and Clark, M., 2013. Customer service 140 characters at a time : The users’
perspective. Journal of Marketing Management, 29(5-6), pp.522–544.
35. Cantallops A. S., Salvi F. (2014). New consumer behavior: a review of research on eWOM and
hotels. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 36 41–51. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.08.007
36. Carney, D. (2002) Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches: Progress and Possibilities for Change.
London: Department for International Development.
37. Carpenter, J. M. & Fairhurst, A. (2005). Consumer shopping value, satisfaction, and loyalty for
retail apparel brands. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 9 (3), 256-269.
38. Carson, D. J. (1985). The evolution of marketing in small firms. European Journal of Marketing,
19(5), 7-16.
39. Chang, C.C. & Chin, Y.C. (2010). The impact of recommendation sources on online purchase
intentions: The moderating effects of gender and perceived risk. World Academy of Science,
Engineering and Technology, 66, 111-114.
40. Chang, L. Y., Lee, Y. J., & Huang, C. L. (2010). The influence of e-word-of-mouth on the
consumer's purchase decision: A case of body care products. Journal of Global Business
Management, 6(2), 1-7.
41. Chao-Min Chiu, C.-c. C.-L.-H. (2009). Determinants of customer repurchase intention in online
shopping. Online Information Review, 761-784.
42. Chatterjee, P., 2011. Drivers of New Product Recommending and Referral Behavior at Social
Network Sites. International Journal of Advertising, 30(1), pp.77–102.
43. Cheung, C.M., Lee, M.K. and Rabjohn, N. (2008) ‘The impact of electronic word- of-mouth: The
adoption of online opinions in online customer communities’, Internet Research, 18(3), pp. 229-
247.
44. Cheung, C.M.K. and Lee, M.K.O., 2012. What drives consumers to spread electronic word of
mouth in online consumer-opinion platforms. Decision Support Systems, 53(1), pp.218–225.
45. Cheung, C.M.K. and Thadani, D.R., 2012. The impact of electronic word-of-mouth
communication: A literature analysis and integrative model. Decision Support Systems, 54(1),
pp.461–470.
46. Chih, W.-H., Wang, K.-Y., Hsu, L.-C. and Huang, S.-C., 2013. Investigating electronic word-of-
mouth effects on online discussion forums: the role of perceived positive electronic word-of-
mouth review credibility. Cyberpsychology, behavior and social networking, 16(9), pp.658–68.
100
47. Chiu, C.-M., Chang, C.-C., Cheng, H.-L., & Fang, Y.-H. (2009). Determinants of customer
repurchase intention in online shopping. Online Information Review, 33(4), 761-784.
48. Choi, J. W. and Ok, C. (2011) ‘The Effect of Online Restaurant Reviews on Diners’ Visit
Intention: A Comparative Analysis of Expert vs. Peer Reviews’, Graduate Student Research
Conference in Hospitality and Tourism.
49. Choi, Y., & Thoeni, A. ( 2016 ). “Social media: Is this the new organizational stepchild?”
European Business Review, 28 ( 1 ), 21 - 38.
50. Christodoulides, G., Michaelidou, N., & Argyriou, E. (2012). Cross-national differences in e-
WOM influence. European Journal of Marketing, 46(11/12), 1689-1707.
51. Chuan Luo, X. (. (2013). Impact of informational factors on online recommendation credibility:
The moderating role of source credibility. Decision Support Systems, 92 - 102.
52. Chu, S.C. and Kim, Y., 2011. Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic Word-Of-
Mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites. International Journal of Advertising, 30(1), pp.47–75.
53. Chung, C. M., & Darke, P. R. (2006). The consumer as advocate: Self-relevance, culture, and
word-of-mouth. Marketing Letters, 17(4), 269-279.
54. Coffee, P., 2014. Ogilvy Cannes Study: Behold the Power of Word of Mouth. [online] Available
at: <http://www.adweek.com/prnewser/ogilvy-cannes-studybehold-the-power-of-word-of-
mouth/95190?red=pr> [Accessed 17 July 2016].
55. Collis, J. and Hussey, R. (2014) Business research: a practical guide for undergraduate and
postgraduate students. 4th edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
56. Cosenza, T., Solomon, M.R. and Kwon, W.-S., 2015. Credibility in the blogosphere: A study of
measurement and influence of wine blogs as an information source. Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, 14, pp.71–91.
57. Creswell, J.W. (2009) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach.
3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
58. Cynthia Grant, A. O. (2014). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical framework in
dissertation research: Developing a 'blueprint' for your "house". Administrative Issues Journal
Education Practice and Research 4(2).
59. Daugherty T., Hoffman E. (2014). eWOM and the importance of capturing consumer attention
within social media. J. Mark. Commun. 20 82–102.
60. Davis, F.D. (1989) ‘Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology’, MIS Quarterly, 13(3), pp. 319–340.
61. De Bruyn, A. & Lilien, G. L. (2008). A multi-stage model of word-of-mouth influence through
viral marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25 (3), 151-163.
62. Dellarocas C. (2003). The digitization of word of mouth: promise and challenges of online
feedback mechanisms. Manag. Sci. 49 1407–1424.
63. Dellarocas, Chrysanthos, et al. (2007) “Exploring the Value of Online Product Reviews in
Forecasting Sales: The Case of Motion Pictures.” Journal of Interactive Marketing, vol. 21, no. 4,
2007, pp. 23–45.,
64. De Matos, C. A. & Rossi, C. A. V. (2008). Word-of-mouth communications in marketing: a meta-
analytic review of the antecedents and moderators. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
36 (4), 578-596.
65. De Valck, van Bruggen and Wierenga B (2009), Virtual communities: A marketing perspective,
Decision Support Systems.
66. Dichter, E. (1966). How word-of-mouth advertising works. Harvard Business Review, 44 (6),
147-166.
67. Dick, A. S. & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22 (2), 99-113.
68. Duan, Wenjing, et al. (2008), Do Online Reviews Matter? — An Empirical Investigation
of Panel Data.” Decision Support Systems, vol. 45, no. 4, 2008, pp. 1007–1016.,
doi:10.1016/j.dss.2008.04.001
69. Dunk, A.S. (2004) ‘Product life cycle cost analysis: the impact of customer profiling, competitive
advantage, and quality of IS information’, Management Accounting Research, 15 (4), pp. 401-14.
101
70. Durrheim, K. (2004). Research design. In M. Terre Blanche, & K. Durrheim (Eds.), Research
in practice: Applied methods for the social sciences (pp. 29-53). Cape Town: University of Cape
Town.
71. East, R., Hammond, K.A. and Wright, M. (2007), “The relative incidence of positive and negative
word of mouth: a multi-category study”, International Journal of Research in Marketing.
72. East, R., Hammond, K. and Lomax, W., 2008. Measuring the impact of positive and negative
word of mouth on brand purchase probability. International Journal of Research in Marketing,
25(3), pp.215–224.
73. East, R., Lomax, W. & Narain, R. (2001). Customer tenure, recommendation and switching.
Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 14, 46-54.
74. Erkan, I. (2015) ‘Electronic Word of Mouth on Instagram: Customers’ Engagements with Brands
in Different Sectors’, International Journal of Management, Accounting and Economics, 2(12),
pp. 1435–1444.
75. Erkan, I., and C. Evans. 2016. The influence of eWOM in social media on consumers’ purchase
intentions: An extended approach to information adoption. Computers in Human Behavior 61:47–
55. 2016.03.003.
76. Erkan I, Evans C. (2018), Social media or shopping websites? The influence of eWOM on
consumers’ online purchase intentions. Journal of Marketing Communications. 2018;24(6):617–
632. doi: 10.1080/13527266.2016.1184706.
77. Eggert, A., Helm, S. & Garnefeld, I. (2007). Marketing ZFP, 29 (4), 233-245.
78. Eliashberg, J., & Shugan, S. (1997). Film critics: Influencers or predictors? Journal of Marketing,
61(2), 68-78.
79. Evans, J. and Mathur, A. (2005) ‘The value of online surveys’, Internet Research, 15(2), pp. 195-
219.
80. Faber, R., & O’Guinn, T. (1984). Effect of media advertising and other sources on movie
selection. Journalism Quarterly, 61, 371-377.
81. Filieri R, McLeay F. (2014). E-WOM and accommodation an analysis of the factors that influence
travelers’ adoption of information from online reviews. J. Travel Res. 53 44–57.
10.1177/0047287513481274
82. Flanagin, A.J. and Metzger, M.J. (2007) ‘The role of site features, user attributes, and information
verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information’, New Media
Society, 9 (2), pp. 319-42.
83. Fullerton, G. & Taylor, S. (2002). Mediating, interactive, and non-linear effects in service quality
and satisfaction with services research. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 19 (2), 124-
136.
84. Gauri, D. K., Bhatnagar, A., & Rao, R. (2008). Role of word of mouth in online store loyalty.
Communications of the ACM, 51(3), 89-91.
85. Garbarino, E. and Strahilevitz, M.A. (2004), “Gender differences in the perceived risk of buying
online and the effects of receiving a site recommendation”, Journal of Business Research
86. Garnefeld, I., Helm, S. and Eggert, A., 2011. Walk Your Talk: An Experimental Investigation of
the Relationship Between Word of Mouth and Communicators’ Loyalty. Journal of Service
Research, 14(1), pp.93–107.
87. Gelb, B.D. and Sundaram, S., 2002. Adapting to “word of mouse.” Business Horizons, 45(4),
pp.21–25.
88. Godes, D., & Mayzlin, D. (2004). Using online conversations to study word-of-mouth
communication. Marketing science, 23(4), 545-560.
89. Goldsmith, R.E. & Horowitz, D. (2006) Measuring motivations for online opinion seeking.
Journal of Interactive Advertising, 6(2).
90. Gómez-Suárez M., Martínez-Ruiz M. P., Martínez-Caraballo N. (2017). Consumer-brand
relationships under the marketing 3.0 paradigm: a literature review. Front.
Psychol. 8:25210.3389/fpsyg.2017.00252
91. Granitz N.A, Ward J.C (1996), Virtual Community: a Socio-cognitive Analysis. “Advances in
Consumer Research” 1996, Vol. 23, pp. 178-182.
102
92. Greene, M. (2009), “Justifying social marketing spending”, Forrester Report, [online]. Available
at
http://a964.g.akamaitech.net/7/964/714/d8ab5e007929d7/www.forrester.com/imagesV2/uplmisc/j
ustifyingsocialmarketing.pdf. Accessed on [07 June 2021].
93. Gremler, D. D., Gwinner, K. P. & Brown, S. W. (2001). Generating positive word-of-mouth
communication through customer-employee relationships. International Journal of Service
Industry Management, 12 (1), 44-59.
94. Groeger, L. and Buttle, F., 2014. Word-of-mouth marketing influence on offline and online
communications: Evidence from case study research. Journal of Marketing Communications,
20(1-2), pp.21–41.
95. Groves, R.M., Fowler Jr, F.J., Couper, M.P., Lepkowski, J.M., Singer, E. and Tourangeau, R.
(2011) Survey methodology. New Jersey. John Wiley & Sons.
96. Gupta P., Harris J. (2010). How e-WOM recommendations influence product consideration and
quality of choice: a motivation to process information perspective. J. Bus. Res. 63 1041–1049.
10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.01.015
97. Hair, J., Babin, B., Money, A. and Samouel, P. (2003) Essentials of business research
methods.United State of America: Leyh Publishing, LLC.
98. Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K., Walsh, G. and Gremler, D.D., 2004. Electronic word-of-mouth
via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the
Internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1), pp.38–52.
99. Hennig-Thurau, T., Wiertz, C. and Feldhaus, F., 2015. Does Twitter matter? The impact of
microblogging word of mouth on consumers’ adoption of new movies. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 43, pp.375–394.
100. Herr, Paul M., et al. (1991) “Effects of Word-of-Mouth and Product-Attribute Information
on Persuasion: An Accessibility-Diagnosticity Perspective.” Journal of Consumer Research,
vol. 17, no. 4, 1991, p. 454., doi:10.1086/208570.
101. Ho, J. Y. C. and Dempsey, M. (2010), Viral marketing: Motivations to forward online content,
Journal of Business Research.
102. Hoffman, E. and Daugherty, T., 2013. Is a Picture Always Worth a Thousand Words? Attention to
Structural Elements of eWOM for Consumer Brands within Social Media. Advances in Consumer
Research, 41, pp.326–331.
103. Homer, P. M. and Kahle, L. R. (1990) ‘Source expertise, time of source identification, and
involvement in persuasion: An elaborative processing perspective’, Journal of Advertising, 19(1),
pp. 30-39.
104. Hsu, L.-C., Chih, W.-H. and Liou, D.-K., 2016. Investigating community members’ eWOM
effects in Facebook fan page. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(5), pp.978–1004.
105. Huang, L., 2010. Social contagion effects in experiential information exchange on bulletin board
systems. Journal of Marketing Management, 26(3-4), pp.197– 212.
106. Huang, M., Cai, F., Tsang, A. S. L. and Zhou, N. (2011),"Making your online voice loud: the
critical role of WOM information", European Journal of Marketing.
107. Hussain S., Ahmed W., Jafar R. M. S., Rabnawaz A., Jianzhou Y. (2017). eWOM source
credibility, perceived risk and food product customer’s information adoption. Comput. Hum.
Behav. 66 96–102. 10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.034
108. Hyrynsalmi, S., Seppanen, M., Aarikka, S.L., Suominen, A., Jarvelainen, J. & Harkke, V. (2015).
Busting myths of electronic word-of-mouth: The relationship between customer ratings and the
sales of mobile application. Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research,
10(2), 1-18.
109. Iacobucci, D. and Churchill, G. A. (2010) Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations.
Mason, OH, USA: South-Western Cengage Learning.
110. Jalilvand M. R., Samiei N. (2012). The impact of electronic word of mouth on a tourism
destination choice: testing the theory of planned behavior (TPB). Internet Res. 22 591–612.
111. Javier A. Sánchez Torres, F.-J. A.-C.-L.-M.-I. (2018). Impact of gender on the acceptance of
electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) information in Spain. Contaduría y Administración, 1-19.
103
112. Jennifer Rowley, F. J. (2016). Gender as an influencer of online health information seeking and
evaluation behaviour . Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 36-47.
113. Jeong, E. and Jang, S., 2011. Restaurant experiences triggering positive electronic word-of-mouth
(eWOM) motivations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(2), pp.356–366.
114. Johnson, M., Zinkhan, G. M. & Ayala, G. S. (1998). The impact of outcome, competency and
affect on service referral. Journal of Services Marketing, 12 (5), 397-415.
115. Jones, J. 2003. The southern movie palace: Rise, fall and resurrection. United States: University
Press of Florida.
116. Jones, M. A. & Reynolds, K. E. (2006). The role of retailer interest on shopping behavior. Journal
of Retailing, 82 (2), 115-126.
117. Kaakinen, J. K., Hyona, J. and Keenan, J. M. (2003) ‘How prior knowledge, WMC, and relevance
of information affect eye fixations in expository text’, Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(3), pp. 447.
118. Katz E., Lazarsfeld P. F. (1966). Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of
Mass Communications. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
119. Khare, A., Labrecque, L.I. and Asare, A.K., 2011. The Assimilative and Contrastive Effects of
Word-of-Mouth Volume: An Experimental Examination of Online Consumer Ratings. Journal of
Retailing, 87(1), pp.111–126.
120. King, Charles W., and John O. Summers (1970). “Overlap of Opinion Leadership across
Consumer Product Categories.” Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 7, no. 1, 1970, pp. 43–50.,
doi:10.1177/002224377000700104
121. King, R.A., Racherla, P. and Bush, V.D., 2014. What we know and don’t know about online
word-of-mouth: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28(3),
pp.167–183.
122. Klein, Lisa R., and Gary T. Ford. (2003) “Consumer Search for Information in the Digital Age:
An Empirical Study of Prepurchase Search for Automobiles.” Journal of Interactive
Marketing, vol. 17, no. 3, 2003, pp. 29–49., doi:10.1002/dir.10058
123. Koeck, B. and Marshall, D., 2015. Word of Mouth Theory Revisited: The Influence of New
Actors on Seeding Campaigns. Advances in Consumer Research, 43, pp.374–379.
124. Komiak, S. Y. and Benbasat, I. (2006) ‘The effects of personalization and familiarity on trust and
adoption of recommendation agents’, MIS Quarterly, pp. 941-960.
125. Kozinets, R.V., de Valck, K., Wojnicki, A.C., and Wilner, S.J.S. (2010). Networked Narratives:
Understanding Word-of-Mouth Marketing in Online Communities. Journal ofMarketing, 74, 71-
89.
126. Kreis, H. and Gottschalk, S.A., 2015. Relating eWOM Motives to eWOM Channel Choice – Why
do We Post Where We Do? Schmalenbach Business Review, 67(October), pp.406–429.
127. Kuhn, A. 2002. An everyday magic: Cinema and cultural memory. New York: I.B. Tauris.
128. Ladhari, R. and Michaud, M., 2015. EWOM effects on hotel booking intentions, attitudes, trust,
and website perceptions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 46, pp.36–45.
129. Lam, D. and Mizerski, D., 2005. The Effects of Locus of Control on Word‐of‐mouth
Communication. Journal of Marketing Communications, 11(3), pp.215–228.
130. Lau G. T., Ng S. (2001). Individual and situational factors influencing negative word-of-mouth
behavior. Can. J. Adm. Sci. 18 163–178. 10.1111/j.1936-4490.2001.tb00253
131. Lee M. K., Shi N., Cheung C. M., Lim K. H., Sia C. L. (2011). Consumer’s decision to shop
online: the moderating role of positive informational social influence. Inform. Manage. 48 185–
191. 10.1016/j.im.2010.08.005
132. Lee M., Youn S. (2009). Electronic word of mouth (eWOM) How eWOM platforms influence
consumer product judgment. Int. J. Advert. 28 473–499.
133. Levene, C. (1992). Marketing art-films to college students. Working paper, The Wharton School,
University of Pennsylvania.
134. Li, C.-Y. (2015). The effects of source credibility and argument quality on employees'
responsestoward information system usage. Asia Pacific Management Review, 56-64.
104
135. Lim, B.C. and Chung, C.M.Y., 2011. The impact of word-of-mouth communication on attribute
evaluation. Journal of Business Research, 64(1), pp.18–23.
136. Lin, Z. and Heng, C.-S., 2015. The Paradoxes of Word of Mouth in Electronic Commerce. Journal
of Management Information Systems, 32(4), pp.246–284.
137. Litvin S. W., Goldsmith R. E., Pan B. (2008). Electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and
tourism management. Tour. Manage. 29 458–468.
138. López, M. and Sicilia, M. (2013). How WOM marketing contributes to new product adoption:
Testing competitive communication strategies. European Journal of Marketing, 47(7), 1089-1114.
139. Lovett, M., Peres, R. and Shachar, R., 2013. On brands and word-of-mouth. Journal of Marketing
Research, 50(4), pp.427–444.
140. Lu, Hsi-Peng, and Kuo-Lun Hsiao. (2010). “The Influence of Extro/Introversion on the
Intention to Pay for Social Networking Sites.” Information & Management, vol. 47, no. 3,
2010, pp. 150–157., doi:10.1016/j.im.2010.01.003.
141. Lu, Q., Ye, Q., & Law, R. (2014). Moderating effects of product heterogeneity between online
word-of-mouth and hotel sales. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 15(1), 1-12.
142. Luís Abrantes, J., Seabra, C., Raquel Lages, C. and Jayawardhena, C. (2013). Drivers of in-group
and out-of-group electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM). European Journal of Marketing, 47(7),
1067-1088.
143. Luo C., Luo X. R., Schatzberg L., Sia C. L. (2013). Impact of informational factors on online
recommendation credibility: the moderating role of source credibility. Decision Support
Syst. 56 92–102. 10.1016/j.dss.2013.05.005
144. Mackiewicz, J. (2008) ‘Reviewer motivations, bias, and credibility in online reviews’, In
Handbook of research on computer mediated communication. IGI Global. pp. 252.266.
145. Madu, C.N. and Madu, A.A. (2002) ‘Dimensions of e-quality’, International Journal of Quality
and Reliability Management, 19 (3), pp. 246-58.
146. Mahajan, V., Muller, E. and Kerin, R.A. (1984), “Introduction strategy for new products”
147. Malhotra, N. and Birks, D. (2007) Marketing Research: An Applied Approach. Prentice Hall.
148. Martin, D., O’Neill, M., Hubbard, S. & Palmer, A. (2008). The role of emotion in explaining
consumer satisfaction and future behavioural intention. Journal of Services Marketing, 22 (3),
224-236.
149. Mazzarol, T., Sweeney, J. C. & Soutar, G. N. (2007). Conceptualizing word-of-mouth activity,
triggers and conditions: an exploratory study. European Journal of Marketing, 41 (11/12), 1475-
1494.
150. McKinney, V., Yoon, K. and Zahedi, F. M. (2002) ‘The measurement of web-customer
satisfaction: an expectation and disconfirmation approach’, Information systems research, 13(3),
pp. 296-315.
151. McKnight, H. and Kacmar, C. (2006) ‘Factors of information credibility for an Internet advice
site’, the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 6, IEEE Proceedings, Los
Alamitos, CA, pp. 1–10.
152. McMillan, J.H & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in education: A conceptual introduction.
New York: Longman.
153. Mizerski, R.W. (1982), “An attribution explanation of the disproportionate influence of
favourable and unfavourable information”, Journal of Consumer Research.
154. Moe, W. W. and Trusov, M. (2011). The value of social dynamics in online product ratings
forums. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 444-456.
155. Molasso, W. R. (2006). Theoretical Frameworks in Qualitative Research. Journal of College and
Character 7(7).
156. Morgan, R. M. & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 58 (3), 20-38.
157. Nakatsu, R., Rauterberg, M. and Vorderer, P. 2005. A new framework for entertainment
computing: from passive to active experience. In Proc. ICEC’05. Springer.
105
158. Naylor, G. (1999). Why do they whine?: an examination into the determinants of negative and
positive word-of-mouth. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining
Behavior, 12, 162-169.
159. Nelson, R. R., Todd, P. A. and Wixom, B. H. (2005) ‘Antecedents of information and system
quality: an empirical examination within the context of data warehousing’, Journal of
management information systems, 21(4), pp.199-235.
160. Nieto J., Hernández-Maestro R. M., Muñoz-Gallego P. A. (2014). Marketing decisions, customer
reviews, and business performance: the use of the Toprural website by Spanish rural lodging
establishments. Tour. Manage. 45 115–123.
161. Nyilasy, G. (2006). Word of mouth: what we really know – and what we don’t. In J. Kirby & P.
Marsden (Eds.), Connected Marketing (pp. 161-184). Amsterdam: Butterworth-Heinemann.
162. O' Dwyer, M., Gilmore, A., & Carson, D. (2009). Innovative marketing in SMEs. European
Journal of Marketing, 43(1/2), 46-61
163. Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A Behavioural Perspective on the Consumer. Boston: Irwin
McGraw-Hill.
164. Operational Definition in Research. (2021). Retrieved from iEduNote:
https://www.iedunote.com/operational-definition.
165. Park C., Lee T. M. (2009). Information direction, website reputation and eWOM effect: a
moderating role of product type. J. Bus. Res. 62 61–67. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.11.017
166. Paul C.S. Wu, Y.-C. W. (2011). The influences of electronic word-of-mouth message appeal and
message source credibility on brand attitude. Asia Pacific Journal of , 448-472.
167. Peterson, R.A., and William R.W. (1987) ‘Perceived risk and price-reliance schema and price-
perceived-quality mediators’, in Jacoby, J. and Olson, J. (eds.) Perceived Quality. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books, pp. 247–268.
168. Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986) Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral
Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
169. Pfeffer, J., Zorbach, T. and Carley, K.M., 2014. Understanding online firestorms: Negative word-
of-mouth dynamics in social media networks. Journal of Marketing Communications, 20(1-2),
pp.117–128.
170. Pornpitakpan, C. (2004) ‘The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five
decades' evidence’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), pp. 243-281.
171. Price, L. L., Feick, L. F. & Guskey, A. (1995). Everyday market helping behavior. Journal of
Public Policy & Marketing, 14 (2), 255-266.
172. Qiu, L. and Li, D. (2010) ‘Effects of Aggregate Rating on eWOM Acceptance: An Attribution
Theory Perspective’, Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS) 2010
Proceedings, pp. 147- 155.
173. QuestionPro. (2021). Retrieved from QuestionPro: https://www.questionpro.com/blog/non-
probability-sampling/
174. Ravid, S. A. (1999). Information, blockbusters, and stars: A study of the film industry. Journal of
Business, 72(4), 463-492.
175. Reichelt, J., Sievert, J. and Jacob, F. (2014) ‘How credibility affects eWOM reading: The
influences of expertise, trustworthiness, and similarity on utilitarian and social functions’, Journal
of Marketing Communications, 20(1-2), pp. 65-81.
176. Reinstein, D. A., & Snyder, C. M. (2005). The influence of expert reviews on consumer demand
for experience goods: A case study of movie critics. Journal of Industrial Economics, 53(1).
177. Richins, M. L. & Bloch, P. H. (1991). Post-purchase product satisfaction: incorporating the effects
of involvement and time. Journal of Business Research, 23, 145-158.
178. Richins, M. L. & Root-Shaffer, T. (1988). The role of involvement and opinion leadership in
consumer word-of-mouth: an implicit model made explicit. Advances in Consumer Research, 15,
32-36.
179. Riffai, M. M. M. A., Grant, K. and Edgar, D. (2012) ‘Big TAM in Oman: Exploring the promise
of on-line banking, its adoption by customers and the challenges of banking in Oman’,
International journal of information management, 32(3), pp. 239-250.
106
180. Royo-Vela M., Casamassima P. (2011). The influence of belonging to virtual brand communities
on consumers’ affective commitment, satisfaction and word-of-mouth advertising: the ZARA
case. Online Inform. Rev. 35 517–542. 10.1108/14684521111161918
181. Safko, L. and Brake, D. K. (2009). The social media bible: Tactics, tools & strategies for business
success. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
182. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2009) Research Methods for Business Students.
Pearson, New York.
183. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2016) Research Methods for Business Students. 7th
edn. Essex: Pearson Education Ltd.
184. Schamari, J. and Schaefers, T. (2015), “Leaving the home turf: how brands can use
webcare on consumer-generated platforms to increase positive consumer engagement”,
Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 30, pp. 20-33.
185. Schmitt, P., Skiera, B. & Van den Bulte, C. (2011). Referral programs and customer value.
Journal of Marketing, 75 (1), 46-59.
186. Self, C.S. (1996) ‘Credibility’, in Salwen, M.M. and Stacks, D. (Eds) An Integrated Approach To
Communication Theory And Research. NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum
187. Senecal, S. & Nantel, J. (2004). The influence of online product recommendations on customers;
online choices. Journal of Retailing, 80(2), 159-169.
188. Sharif M.A., Ahmad W., & Ahmad A. (2016). Electronic word of mouth: Investigating the
influence of electronic message source credibility, message appeal and brand equity on consumer
purchase intention. City University Research Journal, 6(1), 151-165
189. Shen, X. L., Cheung, C. M. and Lee, M. K. (2013) ‘What leads students to adopt information from
Wikipedia? An empirical investigation into the role of trust and information usefulness’, British
Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), pp. 502-517.
190. Shin, D., Song, J. H. and Biswas, A. (2014). Electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) generation in
new media platforms: The role of regulatory focus and collective dissonance. Marketing Letters,
25(2), 153-165.
191. Shu-Chuan Chu, S. K. (2008). The Effect of Perceived Blogger Credibility and Argument Quality
on Message Elaboration and Brand Attitudes: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Interactive
Advertising, 26-37.
192. Shu, M. and Scott, N. (2014) ‘Influence of Social Media on Chinese Students’ Choice of an
Overseas Study Destination: An Information Adoption Model Perspective’, Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing, 31(2), pp. 286– 302.
193. Sichtmann, C. (2007). An analysis of antecedents and consequences of trust in a corporate brand.
European Journal of Marketing, 41 (9/10), 999-1015.
194. Silverman, G. (2011). The Secrets of Word-of-Mouth Marketing: How to Trigger Exponential
Sales Through Runaway Word of Mouth (2nd ed.). New York: AMACOM.
195. Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J. & Sabol, B. (2002). Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relational
exchanges. Journal of Marketing, 66 (1), 15-37.
196. Sirithanaphonchai, J. (2017 ). Identifying consumers’ information adoption criteria on various
online consumer review platforms: a case of Thai Hospitality Sector .
197. Sotiriadis M. D., Van Zyl C. (2013). Electronic word-of-mouth and online reviews in tourism
services: the use of twitter by tourists. Electron. Commer. Res. 13 103–124. 10.1007/s10660-013-
9108-1
198. Stauss, B. & Neuhaus, P. (1997). The qualitative satisfaction model. International Journal of
Service Industry Management, 8 (3), 236-249.
199. Steffes, E.M. and Burgee, L.E., 2009. Social ties and online word of mouth. Internet Research,
19(1), pp.42–59.
200. Sullivan, C. (1999) ‘Marketing the web in other media’, Editor and Publisher, 132 (9), pp. 30.
201. Sun, T., Youn, S., Wu, G. and Kunaraporn, M. (2006), “Online word-of-mouth (or mouse): an
exploration of its antecedents and consequences”, Journal of Computer-mediated.
202. Sussman, S.W. and Siegal, W.S. (2003) ‘Informational influence in organizations: An integrated
approach to knowledge adoption’, Information Systems Research, 14(1), pp. 47–65.
107
203. Swan, J. E. & Oliver, R. L. (1989). Post purchase communications by consumers. Journal of
Retailing, 65 (4), 516-533.
204. Sweeney, J.C., Soutar, G.N. and Mazzarol, T., 2005. The Differences Between Positive And
Negative Word-Of-Mouth – Emotion As A Differentiator? ANZMAC 2005 Conference :
Boardening the Boundaries, (2001), pp.331–337.
205. Torlak, O., Ozkara, B.Y., Titay, M.A., Cengiz, H., & Dulger, M.F. (2014). The effect of electronic
word-of-mouth on brand image and purchase intention: An application concerning cell phone
brands for youth consumers in Turkey. Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness,
8(2), 61-68.
206. Teng, S., Wei Khong, K., Wei Goh, W. and long Chong, Y., 2014. Examining the antecedents of
persuasive eWOM messages in social media. Online Information Review, 38(6), pp.746–768.
207. Toder-Alon, A., Brunel, F. and Fournier, S., 2014. Word-of-mouth rhetorics in social media talk.
Journal of Marketing Communications, 20(1-2), pp.42–64.
208. Trochim, P. W. (2021). Research Methods Knowledge Base. Retrieved from Cojoint.ly:
https://conjointly.com/kb/unit-of-analysis/
209. Trusov, M., Bucklin, R.E. and Pauwels, K. (2009), “Effects of word-of-mouth versus traditional
marketing: findings from an internet social networking site”, Journal of Marketing.
210. Tseng, S. and Fogg, B. J. (1999) ‘Credibility and computing technology’, Communications of the
ACM, 42(5), pp. 39- 44.
211. Tseng, S. Y., & Kuo, A. M. (2014). Investigating the effects of information quality and perceived
risk on information adoption on travel websites. 2014 IEEE International Conference on
Management of Innovation and Technology.
212. Vallejo J. M., Redondo Y. P., Acerete A. U. (2015). The characteristics of electronic word-of-
mouth and its influence on the intention to repurchase online. Eur. J. Bus. Manag. Econ. 24 61–
75.
213. Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K.N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P. and Verhoef, P.C.
(2010), “Customer engagement behavior: theoretical foundations and research directions”,
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 253-266.
214. Veasna S., Wu W. Y., Huang C. H. (2013). The impact of destination source credibility on
destination satisfaction: the mediating effects of destination attachment and destination
image. Tour. Manage. 36511–526. 10.1016/j.tourman.2012.09.007
215. Walsh, G. & Beatty, S. E. (2007). Customer-based corporate reputation of a service firm: scale
development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35 (1), 127-143.
216. Wang, R. Y. and Strong, D. M. (1996) ‘Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data
consumers’, Journal of management information systems, 12(4), pp. 5-33.
217. Wang Y., Fesenmaier D. R. (2004). Towards understanding members’ general participation in and
active contribution to an online travel community. Tour. Manage. 25 709–722.
10.1016/j.tourman.2003.09.011
218. Wang, J., and C. Chang. 2013. How online social ties and product-related risks influence purchase
intentions: A Facebook experiment. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 12:337–
.2013.03.003.
219. Wang, X.W., Teo, H.H., & Kwok, K.W. (2015). Simultaneity and interactivity of the effects of
communication elements on consumers’ decision making in ewom system. Journal of Electronic
Commerce Research, 16(3), 153-174.
220. Wang, Y. (2016). Information Adoption Model, a Review of the Literature. Journal of Economics,
Business and Management, Vol. 4, No. 11.
221. Wangehheim, F. & Bayo’n, T. (2004). The effect of word-of-mouth on service switching.
European Journal of Marketing, 38(9), 1173-1185.
222. Wathen, C. N. and Burkell, J. (2002) ‘Believe it or not: Factors influencing credibility on the
Web’, Journal of the American society for information science and technology, 53(2), pp. 134-
144.
223. Westbrook, R. A. (1987). Product/Consumption-based affective responses and post purchase
processes. Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (3), 258-270.
108
224. Wirtz, J., Orsingher, C., Chew, P. & Tambyah, S. K. (2013). The role of meta perception on the
effectiveness of referral reward programs. Journal of Service Research, 16 (1), 82-98.
225. Wixom, B. H., and Todd, P. A. (2005) ‘A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and
technology acceptance’, Information systems research, 16(1), 85-102.
226. Wolny, J. and Mueller, C., 2013. Analysis of fashion consumers’ motives to engage in electronic
word-of-mouth communication through social media platforms. Journal of Marketing
Management, 29(5-6), pp.562–583.
227. Wu, P.C.S. & Wang, Y.C. (2010). The influences of electronic word-of-mouth message appeal
and message source credibility on brand attitude. Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 23(4), 448-
472.
228. Xue J, Lee YC, Mu HL (2018), Influencing factors of advertising information adoption on user’s
purchase intention: Evidence from China’s social media. International Journal of Pure and
Applied Mathematics. 2018;120(6):5809–5821.
229. Yang F. X. (2017). Effects of restaurant satisfaction and knowledge sharing motivation on eWOM
intentions: the moderating role of technology acceptance factors. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 41 93–127.
10.1177/1096348013515918
230. Yang, J., Kim, W., Amblee, N., & Jeong, J. (2012). The heterogeneous effect of WOM on product
sales: why the effect of WOM valence is mixed? European Journal of marketing, 46(11/12), 1523-
1538.
231. Yang, J., Mai, E.S. and Ben-Ur, J., 2012. Did you tell me the truth ? The influence of online
community on eWOM. International Journal of Market Research, 54(3), pp.369–390.
232. Yeap, J. a L., Ignatius, J. and Ramayah, T., 2014. Determining consumers’ most preferred eWOM
platform for movie reviews: A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process approach. Computers in Human
Behavior, 31(1), pp.250–258.
233. Yi-Wen Fan, Y.-F. M.-H.-Y. (2013). Establishing the Adoption of Electronic Word-of-Mouth
through Consumers’ Perceived Credibility . International Business Research, 58-65.
234. Yoo, C. W., Kim, Y. J. and Sanders, G. L. (2015) ‘The impact of interactivity of electronic word
of mouth systems and E-Quality on decision support in the context of the e-marketplace’,
Information & Management, 52(4), pp. 496-505.
235. Zaglia, M.E. (2013), “Brand communities embedded in social networks”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 216-223.
236. Zhang, L., Ma, B., and Cartwright, D. K. (2013). The impact of online user reviews on cameras
sales. European Journal of Marketing, 47(7), 1115-1128.
237. Zhang, W. and Watts, S. (2003) ‘Knowledge adoption in online communities of practice’, the 24th
Annual International Conference on Information Systems Proceedings. Seattle, Washington, DC,
pp. 96-109.
238. Zeithaml, V. A. (1988) ‘Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model
and synthesis of evidence’, Journal of marketing, 52, pp. 2-22.
239. Zikmund, W. G., Babin, B. J., Carr, J. C. and Griffin, M. (2010) Business research methods. 8th
edn. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
109
APPENDIX
1. Questionnaire
“Movie Watching Practices in the Digital Age: The Role of Electronic Word-of-mouth in
Movie Selection”
Dear respondent, thanks for your assistance in collecting data for my M.Phil. research project which is being
conducted on the topic mentioned above. It is assured that the information provided will be used for academic
purposes. Regards
INSTRUCTION: Please select your answer to the following questions.
Section 1: Demographic Information
1) Please indicate your gender:

 Male
 Female
 Transgender
 Don’t want to specify
2) Select the age bracket you belong to.
 Teens
 20 – 30 years
 31 – 40 years
 41 – 50 years
 51 – 60 years
 60 above
3) What is your level of education?
 High School Graduate
 2-year Diploma (BA)
 Bachelor’s Degree (16 years of education)
 Master’s Degree (18 years of education)
 Doctorate Degree (PhD)
 Other (Please Specify): ____________________
4) What is your occupation / employment status?
Student
Employed
Business owner
Retired
110
Graduated but not working

Other (Please Specify): ____________________
5) What is your marital status?
Single
Married
Section 2: Movie Watching
6) Where do you prefer to watch movies?
 Cinema
 Home
 Any gathering with friends apart from cinema
7) How do you watch movies?
 By going to Cinema
 Online streaming
 Torrent download
 DVDs / CDs
 Others
8) How frequently do you watch movies?
 Rarely
 Daily
 1 – 3 times a week
 1 – 3 times a month
 Usually on Weekends
 Whenever I hear about a good movie
Section 3: Movie Selection
9) How often do you read online reviews about different movies?

 Rarely
 Sometimes
 Regularly
 Every time when I plan to watch a movie
 I read multiple reviews before watching a movie
10) Where do you prefer to get movie reviews?
Facebook (fan pages / comments)
111
Review Sites / Rating Sites

Film Critics
Blogs
Word of Mouth
11) How do you decide to watch movie?
 After Reading Review Sites / Rating sites

 After Watching Trailers
 After reading Online Reviews by film critics / bloggers
 After reading Social Media Posts by Friends or Relatives
 Anticipate Movies before their release
Section 4: Factors in Selecting Movie / Factors in Adopting Review
INSTRUCTION: This section asks questions that use rating scales. Please select the option that best
describes your level of Agreement / disagreement.
1) Relevance
Strongly Strongly
S.#. Factors in selecting movie Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
I ADOPT a review if I think it has

1)
information RELEVANT to me.
I READ MULTIPLE REVIEWS but

2)
ADOPT only those that are relevant.
I SPEND MORE TIME READING the

3) REVIEWS that I find RELEVANT than
those that are irrelevant.
2) Timeliness
Strongly Strongly
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
112
I am concerned about the TIMELINESS

1)
OF POST in online movie reviews.
I always adopt RECENT COMMENTS

2) in online movie reviews.
RECENT REVIEWS are of MORE

3) VALUE to me than the ones posted in
the past.
I would READ ANOTHER REVIEW if
4) I saw it is posted more recently then the
one I already read.
I would accept any REVIEW

5) REGARDLESS OF ITS TIME.
3) Accuracy
Strongly Strongly
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
I only accept the INFORMATION

1) obtained from online movie reviews
when I think it is CORRECT.
I only accept the INFORMATION

2) obtained from online movie reviews
when I think it is RELIABLE.
I would REJECT a review if I FIND A

3) VISIBLE ERROR / MISTAKE in it.
I would REJECT a review if I find that

4) ITS’ STYLE OF ANALYSIS IS
WRONG.
4) Comprehensiveness
Strongly Strongly
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
113
Online reviews about MOVIE PLOTS

1)
are important for me.
Online reviews about ACTORS/

2) ACTRESSES’ PERFORMANCES are
valuable to me.
Online reviews about DIRECTOR’S

3)
WORK in movie are informative for me.
Online reviews about MOVIE’S MUSIC

4)
are helpful to me.
Online reviews about

5) CINEMATOGRAPHY are important to
me.
I ONLY ACCEPT THE REVIEW IF IT

6) HAS ALL ABOVE MENTIONED
THINGS.
I REJECT the REVIEW when I think it

7)
is NOT COMPREHENSIVE.
5) Source Expertise
Strongly Strongly
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
I value MOVIE RATINGS made by

1)
professional movie critics online.
I value MOVIE REVIEWS made by

2)
professional movie critics online.
I value movies RECOMMENDED BY

3) BLOGGERS.
4) I value movies RECOMMENDED BY

FRIENDS in online chats.

5) RELATIVES in online chats.
114

6) COLLEAGUES in online chats.

7) LAYMAN (UNKNOWN PEOPLE) in
online comments.
I READ PAST REVIEWS of the

8) reviewers to get an IDEA about their
EXPERTISE.
I ONLY ADOPT a review if I believe

9) that the reviewer has AMPLE
EXPERTISE on MOVIE REVIEWING.
6) Source Trustworthiness
Strongly Strongly
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
I value movie recommendations

1) made through FACEBOOK POSTS
AND COMMENTS.

2) made through INSTAGRAM POSTS
AND COMMENTS.
3) I value movie recommendations

made through TWITTER POSTS
AND COMMENTS.

4)
made through BLOG POSTS.
5)
made through CHAT FORUMS.

6) made through WHATSAPP
GROUPS.
I value movie RATINGS made by

7) online users (IMDB, ROTTEN
TOMATOES, METACRITIC ) etc
115
I value movie REVIEWS made by

8) online users (IMDB, ROTTEN
TOMATOES, METACRITIC) etc
I value movies RECOMMENDED

9)
BY FRIENDS in online chats.

10)
BY RELATIVES in online chats.

11)
BY COLLEAGUES in online chats.
12) BY LAYMAN (UNKNOWN
PEOPLE) in online comments.
I would REJECT SOMEONE’S

13) REVIEW if one or more of their past
reviews turned out to be WRONG.
I would REJECT a review if I think it

14)
is SPONSORED OR PAID.
116
117

Movie Selection in The Digital Age: An Analysis of Electronic Word-Of-Mouth

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Movie Selection in The Digital Age: An Analysis of Electronic Word-Of-Mouth

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

“Movie Selection In The Digital Age: An Analysis

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of MPhil in

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION AND MEDIA STUDIES

FATIMA JINNAH WOMEN UNIVERSITY, RAWALPINDI

I, Ayesha Waheed (2019-M.Phil.CMS-002) student of Communication and Media Studies,

Design/ Methodology and Approach

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

1.0 Background of Study

Ahrens et al. (2013) Identify electronic word-of-mouth as an effective form of communication

1.1 Impact of eWOM on Movie Selection

1.2 Problem Statement

1.3 Research Objectives

This research study will work on the following mentioned objectives:

1. To identify whether the gender affects the movie watching practices.

1.4 Research Questions

The present study will provide answers to following questions:

1. Does gender affect the movie watching practices?

H2: Source Credibility is positively related to movie watching practices.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Word of Mouth (WOM)

2.2 Electronic Word of Mouth (EWOM)

2.3 Electronic Word-of-Mouth vs. Offline Word-of-Mouth

2.3.1 eWOM vs. WOM – Similarities

word-of-mouth and online word-of-mouth is a key driver of consumer purchasing decisions

2.3.2 eWOM vs. WOM – Differences

2.4 Forms of eWOM

The fundamental difference between traditional informal communication and online

Figure 1: Forms of Electronic/Online WOM

2.5 E-WOM and Culture Differences

An increasing number of empirical studies demonstrate the impact of culture on eWOM

2.6 Impact of WOM on Customers

2.7 Movie Watching Preferences of Males & Females

2.8 eWOM and Consumer Purchase Intention

2.8.1 eWOM Quality

2.8.2 eWOM Quantity

2.8.3 Source Credibility

2.8.4 Sender’s Expertise

2.9 Antecedents of Giving eWOM

Marketing research has identified consumer engagement as an important concept, explaining

A customer's interest in a product is measured by product engagement. Consumers who are

2.10 Social, Digital Media & Movies

2.10.5 Personal Blogs

2.10.6 Reviews & Rating Sites

2.10.7 Instant Messaging Platforms

2.11 Impact of WOM on Movies and Cinemas

2.11.1 Impact of WOM on Film Evaluation

2.11.2 Impact of eWOM on Film Evaluation

2.12 Consumer Reviews and Moviegoers

CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

3.1 Information Adoption Model (IAM)

3.1.1 Argument Quality

ii. Information Accuracy

iii. Information Relevance

iv. Information Comprehensiveness

3.1.2 Source Credibility

ii. Source Trustworthiness

3.1.3 Information Usefulness

3.1.4 Information Adoption

4.2 Research Design

4.3 Research Strategy

4.4 Quantitative research

4.6 Data Collection: Questionnaire Survey

S #. Variable Category Sub Category