SpringerLink
Log in

The influence of eWOM information structures on consumers’ purchase intentions

  • Published:
Electronic Commerce Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Generation Z consumers are characterized by social networking and instant decision-making. The influence of different forms of electronic word of mouth (eWOM) on the consumption decisions of generation Z consumers is quite different. Based on information adoption model (IAM) and information transmission theory, the paper established the influence mechanism model of eWOM information structures on generation Z consumers’ purchase intentions. A total of 815 valid questionnaires were collected for empirical test through a 2*2*2 between-subject situational experiment. The empirical results reveal that eWOM information structures influence generation Z consumers’ purchase intentions through user perception. Among them, the eWOM information of diversified form, composite type, and hybrid type structure has a higher effect on perception credibility and usefulness than the eWOM information of single form, one-way type, and single type structure. Consumers’ professional ability plays a partial role in moderating the influence of eWOM information structure on user perception.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hsieh, J. K., Hsieh, Y. C., & Tang, Y. C. (2012). Exploring the disseminating behaviors of eWOM marketing: Persuasion in online video. Electronic Commerce Research, 12(2), 201–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wilcox, K., & Stephen, A. T. (2013). Are close friends the enemy? Online social networks, self-esteem, and self-control. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(1), 90–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Xavier, U. H. R., & Sahney, S. (2016). Understanding twitter as an e-WOM. Journal of Systems & Information Technology, 18(1), 89–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. **a, H., Yang, Y., Pan, X., Zhang, Z., & An, W. (2020). Sentiment analysis for online reviews using conditional random fields and support vector machines. Electronic Commerce Research, 20(2), 343–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Tsao, W. C., & Hsieh, M. T. (2015). eWOM persuasiveness: Do eWOM platforms and product type matter? Electronic Commerce Research, 15(4), 509–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dietz, J. (2003). Defining markets, defining moments: America’s 7 generational cohorts, their shared experiences, and why businesses should care. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20(2), 172–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Williams, K. C., & Page, R. A. (2011). Marketing to the generations. Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, 3(1), 37–53

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hoxha, V., & Zeqiraj, E. (2019). The impact of generation Z in the intention to purchase real estate in Kosovo. Property Management, 38(1), 1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chaturvedi, P., Kulshreshtha, K., & Tripathi, V. (2020). Investigating the determinants of behavioral intentions of generation Z for recycled clothing: An evidence from a develo** economy. Young Consumers, 21(4), 403–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Tabassum, S., Khwaja, M. G., & Zaman, U. (2020). Can narrative advertisement and eWOM influence generation Z purchase intentions? Information (Switzerland), 2020(11), 545–561

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kamenidou, I. C., Mamalis, S. A., Pavlidis, S., & Bara, E. Z. G. (2019). Segmenting the generation Z cohort university students based on sustainable food consumption behavior: A preliminary study. Sustainability, 11(3), 1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Zkan, A. M. (2017). Generation Z - The global market’s new consumers- and their consumption habits: Generation Z consumption scale. European Journal of Multidiplinary Studies, 5(1), 150–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gao, L., Li, W. L., & Ke, Y. L. (2017). The impact of e-WOM on consumers’ purchasing intention in social commerce: The mediating effect of affective response and the moderating effect of curiosity. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, 31(4), 15–25

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fu, J. R., Ju, P. H., & Hsu, C. W. (2015). Understanding why consumers engage in electronic word-of-mouth communication: Perspectives from theory of planned behavior and justice theory. Electronic Commerce Research & Applications, 14(1–6), 616–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bulut, Z. A., & Karabulut, A. N. (2018). Examining the role of two aspects of e-WOM in online repurchase intention: An integrated trust-loyalty perspective. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 17, 407–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Zhu, L. Y., Yuan, D. H., & Zhang, J. Y. (2017). The impact of online user reviews quality and commentators rank on consumer purchasing intention—The moderating role of product involvement. Management Review, 29(2), 87–96.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Edelstein, A. S., & Tefft, D. P. (1974). Media credibility and respondent credulity with respect to Watergate. Communication Research, 1(4), 426–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Li, Z. W., Zhang, Y. H., & Luan, D. Q. (2017). What factors influence consumers’ online purchasing decisions?—Customer perceived value drivers. Management Review, 29(8), 136–146.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sun, C. H., & Liu, Y. Z. (2009). The effect of eWOM on consumers perception of information usefulness. Journal of Intelligence, 28(10), 51–54

    Google Scholar 

  20. Fei, X., & Zhou, P. Q. (2010). The effects of product involvement and prior experience on Chinese consumers’ responses to online word of mouth. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 23(1), 45–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bettman, J. R., & Kakkar, P. (1977). Effects of information presentation format on consumer information acquisition strategies. Journal of Consumer Research, 3(4), 233–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lin, S., Lu, X. Y., & Song, H. L. (2017). Is a picture worth a thousand words? The effect of pictorial reviews and verbal reviews on consumer purchase intention. Journal of Business Economics, 2017(8), 59–68

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ahluwalia, R., Burnkrant, R. E., & Unnava, H. R. (2000). Consumer response to negative publicity: The moderating role of commitment. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2), 203–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wang, X. H., & Chen, X. (2018). Fit of graph and text in user-generated contents and its effect on the perceived usefulness for consumers. Journal of Management Science, 31(1), 101–115

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cheung, C. M. K., Lee, M. K. O., & Rabjohn, N. (2008). The impact of electronic word-of-mouth - the adoption of online opinions in online customer communities. Internet Research, 18(3), 229–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sussman, S. W., & Siegal, W. S. (2003). Informational influence in organizations: An integrated approach to knowledge adoption. Information Systems Research, 14(1), 47–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lee, K. T., & Koo, D. M. (2012). Effects of attribute and valence of e-WOM on message adoption: Moderating roles of subjective knowledge and regulatory focus. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1974–1984

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ha, S., & Stoel, L. (2009). Consumer e-shop** acceptance: Antecedents in a technology acceptance model. Journal of Business Research, 62(5), 565–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hajli, N. (2018). Ethical environment in the online communities by information credibility: A social media perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(4), 799–810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Li, Q. G., Zhao, X. H., & Yu, M. Y. (2017). Effect of online review information structure and regulatory focus on review perceived usefulness. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 25(4), 87–96

    Google Scholar 

  31. Lurie, N. H., & Mason, C. H. (2007). Visual representation: Implications for decision making. Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 160–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Yoo, J., & Kim, M. (2014). The effects of online product presentation on consumer responses: A mental imagery perspective. Journal of Business Research, 67(11), 2464–2472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Huang, Y., Li, C., Wu, J., & Lin, Z. J. (2018). Online customer reviews and consumer evaluation: The role of review font. Information & Management, 55(4), 430–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Bar, M. (2004). Visual objects in context. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5(8), 617–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Goolkasian, P. (2012). Research in visual pattern recognition: The enduring legacy of studies from the 1960s. American Journal of Psychology, 125(2), 155–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lin, T. M. Y., Lu, K., & Wu, J. (2012). The effects of visual information in eWOM communication. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 6(1), 7–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Solomon, M. R. (1984). Utilitarian, aesthetic, and familiarity responses to verbal versus visual advertisements. Association for Consumer Research (U S), 11(4), 426–431

    Google Scholar 

  38. Wood, S. (2013). Generation Z as consumers: Trends and innovation. Raleigh: NC State University, Institute for Emerging Issues.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Liu, W., & Xu, P. T. (2016). A study on influencing factors of the helpfulness of online reviews in O2O of restaurant industry—Based on Tobit model. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 24(5), 168–176.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Gao, G. (2010). Are consumers more likely to contribute online reviews for hit or niche products? Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(2), 127–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Crowley, A. E., & Hoyer, W. D. (1994). An integrative framework for understanding two-sided persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 1994(4), 561–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Mudambi, S. M., & Schuff, D. (2010). What makes a helpful online review? A study of customer reviews on amazon.com. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 185–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Dai, Q., & Liang, L. (2011). An empirical study on one-sided versus two-sided advertising’s repetition effects. Chinese Journal of Management, 8(4), 544–551.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Sung, Y. S., Park, J. Y., & Park, E. A. (2002). The influence of online word of mouth information on viewing intention toward motion picture. Advertising Research, 2002(57), 31–52

    Google Scholar 

  45. Meng, H. (2014). Research on factors influencing the credibility of online comments—Based on economic hotel reviews. Economic Tribune, 2014(1), 129–131.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Hao, Y. Y., Ye, Q., & Li, Y. J. (2010). Research on online impact factors of customer reviews usefulness based on movie reviews data. Journal of Management Sciences in China, 2010(8), 78–88

    Google Scholar 

  47. Ghose, A., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2011). Estimating the helpfulness and economic impact of product reviews: Mining text and reviewer characteristics. EEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 23(10), 1498–1512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. Mis Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Erkan, I., & Evans, C. (2016). The influence of eWOM in social media on consumers’ purchase intentions: An extended approach to information adoption. Computers in Human Behavior, 2016(61), 47–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Bansal, H. S., & Voyer, P. A. (2000). Word-of-mouth processes within a services purchase decision context. Journal of Service Research, 3(2), 166–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Du, X. M., Ding, J. Y., **e, Z. H., & Lei, L. F. (2016). An empirical study on the impact of online reviews on consumers’ purchasing intention. Management Review, 28(3), 173–183

    Google Scholar 

  52. Miniard, P. W., Bhatla, S., Lord, K. R., Dickson, P. R., & Unnava, H. R. (1991). Picture-based persuasion processes and the moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(1), 92–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Park, D. H., & Lee, J. (2008). E-WOM overload and its effect on consumer behavioral intention depending on consumer involvement. Electronic Commerce Research & Applications, 7(4), 386–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Racherla, P., & Friske, W. (2012). Perceived ‘usefulness’ of online consumer reviews: An exploratory investigation across three services categories. Electronic Commerce Research & Applications, 11(6), 548–559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Cheung, M. Y., Luo, C., Sia, C. L., & Chen, H. (2009). Credibility of electronic word of mouth: Informational and normative determinants of online consumer recommendations. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 13(4), 9–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M., & Henseler, J. (2009). An empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(4), 332–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 39(5), 752–766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Zhang, K. Z. K., Zhao, S. J., Cheung, C. M. K., & Lee, M. K. O. (2014). Examining the influence of online reviews on consumers’ decision-making: A heuristic-systematic model. Decision Support Systems, 2014(67), 78–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by The National Social Science Fund of China (No. 19BGL098); the Major Project of the MOE Project of Key Research Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences in Universities (No. 18JJD790014); the Zhejiang Province Philosophy and Social Science Planning Project of China (22NDQN244YB); the 2021 Special Fund of Modern Business Research Center of Zhejiang Gongshang University (No. 2021SM01YB). We thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions, which helped us to greatly improve this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management and E-Business, Zhejiang Gongshang University, No. 18, Xuezheng Str., ** Ke

  2. School of Business Administration, Zhejiang Gongshang University, No. 18, Xuezheng Str., **asha University Town, Hangzhou, 310018, China

    Linyong Luo

Authors
  1. Liang **ao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Linyong Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tong** Ke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tong** Ke.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1: Questionnaire

Appendix 1: Questionnaire

Questionnaire Items

Background information:

What is your gender ?

(A) male (B) female

How much do you spend per month?

(A) <600yuan (B) 601-800yuan (C) 801-1000yuan (D) 1001-1500yuan (E) >1500yuan

How many times do you shop online every month?

(A) ≤1 (B) 2–3 C. 4–5 D. ≥6

Score based on your level of agreement with the following discussion, 1 = extremely disagree to5 = extremely agree

Pictorial and verbal structure (scale 1–5 )

PVS 1

Each review has both pictorial and verbal information

PVS 2

Each review add pictorial information, which make them vivid

PVS 3

Description is persuasive

Polarity structure (scale 1–5 )

PS 1

Each review has both positive and negative information

PS 2

Each review provides information about recommended products for decision

PS 3

The reviewers provide negatively evaluate the product

Semantic structure (scale 1–5 )

SS 1

Each review has both product attribute and subjective emotion information

SS 2

Each review provide product-relevant information for decision

SS 3

Each review has sufficient reasons supporting the opinions ( that is, each review is Persuasive)

Perceived usefulness (scale 1–5 )

PU 1

Obtain product information

PU 2

Obtain required information

PU 3

Helpful in decision making

Perceived credibility (scale 1–5 )

PC 1

Trustworthy

PC 2

Impartial

PC 3

Reliable

Consumers’ professional ability (scale 1–5 )

CPA 1

Already under consideration

CPA 2

Will participate within a year

CPA 3

Corporate decision-makers are willing to participate

Consumers’ purchase intention (scale 1–5 )

CPI 1

Provide decision information

CPI 2

Improve the efficiency of decision

CPI 3

Make decisions based on eWOM

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

**ao, L., Luo, L. & Ke, T. The influence of eWOM information structures on consumers’ purchase intentions. Electron Commer Res (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-022-09576-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-022-09576-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation