Electronic word of mouth information in China:...

Electronic word of mouth information in China: factors affecting

the acceptance of eWOM information and forwarding activities

By

Wong Pan Pan

09011145

China Business Studies

An Honours Degree Project Submitted to the

School of Business in Partial Fulfillment

of the Graduation Requirement for the Degree of

Bachelor of Business Administration (Honours)

Hong Kong Baptist University

Hong Kong

April 2012

Abstract

With the development of Internet, more sharing activities are occurred online. The

development of Web 2.0 also enhances the development of social media such as social

networking website. People can get and share different Many companies start to explore and

develop the Internet marketing.

The objective examines how WOM information dimensions and personal factor affect

eWOM communication process in term of information acceptance and resending intention.

Tie strength is taking as moderating role to investigate the relationship between information

dimension and WOM information acceptance.

A convenience sampling was used to collect data. The survey environment was online social

networking environment in China. Based on data collected from online questionnaire

websites, information quality, authenticity and authority are positively related the WOM

information acceptance. The acceptance of WOM information is positively affected the

resending intention of information. Social factors that are need to belong and individuation

also affect the resending intention. The moderating effect of tie strength is only positively

affected the relationship between information authenticity and WOM information acceptance.

Acknowledgement

During the time of writing my project, I owe a great many thanks to a great many people who

helped and supported me.

First and foremost, I would like to thank to my supervisor, Dr. Wu Wei-ping for the valuable

guidance and advice. His willingness to answer my questions at any time gives tremendously

support to my project. With his help in giving valuable suggestions and corrections, I am able

to go through the project smoothly.

In addition, I would like to thank to my dearest family, friends and classmates for their

understandings and supports. Their willingness to help me and their encouragement motivate

me during the research time.

Last but not least, I would like to express my appreciation to the respondents. They were

willing to spend their precious time to answer my questionnaire.

Without the helps of the particular that mentioned above, I would face many difficulties

while doing this project.

Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1

2. Objective ................................................................................................................................ 2

3. Literature Review................................................................................................................... 3

4. Research model and Hypotheses ........................................................................................... 6

4.1 Model ............................................................................................................................... 6

4.2 Hypotheses ....................................................................................................................... 7

5. Research Methodology ........................................................................................................ 11

5.1 Data collection and sampling ......................................................................................... 11

5.2 Questionnaire Design ..................................................................................................... 11

5.3 Measurement .................................................................................................................. 12

6. Data Analysis and Results .................................................................................................... 13

6.1 Primary data analysis and descriptive statistics ............................................................. 13

6.2 Reliability Analysis ........................................................................................................ 15

6.3 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) ............................................................................... 16

6.4 Means, standard deviations, and correlations ................................................................ 18

6.5 Independent Samples t-test ............................................................................................ 19

6.6 Regression Analysis ....................................................................................................... 19

7. Discussions .......................................................................................................................... 23

8. Managerial implications....................................................................................................... 26

9. Theoretical implication ........................................................................................................ 27

10. Limitations and Future Research ....................................................................................... 28

11. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 29

Reference ................................................................................................................................. 30

Appendix .................................................................................................................................. 33

1

1. Introduction

The increasing in the popularity of social media or social network websites creates an

opportunity for electronic word of mouth (eWOM) new way of communication. Youth in

China become likely to gather information and to make friend through online social networks

platform (CR-Nielsen, 2012; Yu, Asur, & Huberman, 2011). As there has been a tremendous

rise in the growth of online social networks in China such as RenRen Wang and Sina, people

can share and receive different kinds of information or review through these social

networking websites.

The WOM is significant to influence consumer decision making. Consumers are increasing

willingness to trust about product information online post than other platform information.

(Cakim, 2010) Online discussion information is much powerful than the marketer-generated

information (Bickart & Schindler, 2001; Feick & Price, 1987; Karakaya & Barnes, 2010).

Moreover, eWOM can be viral marketing that is referring news, information or entertainment

to other people. Internet provides a very effective environment for information sharing

between consumers. Unlike traditional WOM, internet can generate bigger ripple effect of

eWOM. (M. Huang, Cai, Tsang, & Zhou, 2011). Consumers are not restricted to get

information only from their friends, relative or people they know, they can get information

from a large group of people without geographical difficulty. This study is focus on the

resender perspective of WOM communication and factors affecting the ripple effect of

WOM.

Online environment is chosen because when compare to traditional WOM, eWOM is

relatively easier for marketer to control the message. Traditional WOM is normally in oral

communication content and in offline environment, but eWOM is conducted in the Internet

environment and in written from. It is possible for marketers to track and analysis and even

2

control the message (M. Huang et al., 2011). Moreover, marketers put more focus on online

advertising. The eWOM communication has a significant influence in the effectiveness of

online advertising. It is important for marketers to understanding the communication process

of eWOM.

2. Objective

Word of mouth has been receiving attention from researchers. But most of pervious

researches focus word of mouth in offline environment. With the development of the Internet

and Web 2.0, there is increasing attention on the effectiveness of WOM communication in

online environment (Christy M. K. Cheung & Thadani, 2010).

Chenung & Thadani (2010) provide a systematic review of the existing literature on eWOM

communication. They suggest the existing literature can be classified into Market-level

analysis and Individual-level analysis. The former is examine the impact of eWOM messages

on product sales and the latter is examine the WOM as a process of personal influence in

which can change the consumers’ attitude and purchasing decision. Other past studies also

examine the factors that affecting the acceptance and adoption of eWOM information and the

trigger effect of eWOM. Resending intention of eWOM also received attention by

researchers (Christy M. K. Cheung, Lee, & Rabjohn, 2008; Ho & Dempsey, 2010; M. Huang

et al., 2011).

However, the study of WOM in online environment is still limited. Therefore, more research

is encouraged to be conduct in the future. Besides, there is little research has been done to

measure the impact of interpersonal relationship on online WOM communication process.

The receiver perspective of WOM also receives little attention.

There are two objectives of this study. First, the impact of WOM information characteristics

3

and personal factors on WOM communication process which including information

acceptance and resending intention aspects. There are very little research exam whether

personal factor would moderate the relationship between WOM information characteristics

and WOM information acceptance. Therefore, the second objective is to test the effect of tie

strength moderator on the relationship between WOM information characteristics and

acceptance.

3. Literature Review

3.1 Electronic Word of Mouth (eWOM)

Electronic word of mouth (eWOM) communication is “any positive or negative statement

made by potential, actual, or former customers about a product or company, which is made

available to a multitude of people and institutions via the Internet” (Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner,

Walsh, & Gremler, 2004). Electronic word of mouth extents WOM communication from

offline environment to online environment.

eWOM communication consists different parties. Many literatures explore WOM in term of

sender and receiver (sometimes refers to opinion leadership and opinion seekers) perspective

(Sun, Youn, Wu, & Kuntaraporn, 2006). Traditional WOM is clear separated these two roles.

But recent research findings show that the traditional line between these two is blurring in

part due to the interactive and anonymous nature of the Internet. When opinion leaders need

to have more information, they may also become opinion seekers (Chu & Kim, 2011; M.

Huang et al., 2011; Sun et al., 2006). Unlike traditional WOM, eWOM allows communicators

conduct communication without face to face interaction. These encourage the diffusion of

information online.

4

3.2 Information diffusion/ Ripple effect of eWOM

Some studies suggest one of outcomes of word of mouth is spreading of WOM (Sun et al.,

2006). The spreading action is the resenders would like to resend the WOM information to

other by different purpose. The diffusion or referral behavior can influence the effectiveness

of advertising(Herr, Kardes, & Kim, 1991; Hogan et al., 2004). As mentioned before, WOM

is a way of advertising, sometimes refers to viral marketing and buzz marketing. The longer

the ripple length means the greater the effectiveness of WOM marketing and rate of

investment.

M. Huang et al. (2011) studies higher resending intention trigger a bigger ripple effect. They

suggest there are two ways to widen the ripple effect, one way is a person (can be opinion

leader) to resend information with other people (which possible are resender of information).

This can widen the width of the WOM chain. Another way is conduct by the resender from

previous action. These resenders resend the information to other people to lengthen the WOM

chain.

3.3 Electronic Word of Mouth is a communication process

Social networking websites provide platform for information sharing. The information

sharing activity, including WOM, can be treated as interpersonal communication.

Communication involves senders, receivers, message and message. It is need to understand

the message transmission process from sender to receiver (Ho & Dempsey, 2010).

3.3.1 Information acceptance

The behavior of consumer to accept online referral or eWOM is an important aspect in the

WOM communication. Since the Internet allows different people to give comments online in

form of anonymous. The receiver may get information from a stranger. Although this

5

anonymous way of communication can encourage people to contribute more in WOM

communication, it is difficult for receivers to determine the quality and credibility of the

information. Sometime people would provide false information and influence consumer to

make poor decision. Online communicators often do not have much responsibility for the

consequences of their recommendations (Bickart & Schindler, 2001) and that may possible

pass misinformation or inaccurate information to consumers (P. Chatterjee, 2001). Apart

from this, people need to accept information in order to have information transfer and create

ripple effect of eWOM.

Cheung et al (2008) employed information adoption model and finds that there is strong

and significant impact of information usefulness on consumer adoption of information within

online communities. Other factors such as source credibility, trustworthiness and expertise

also affect information acceptance (Sweeney, Soutar, & Mazzarol, 2008) (Shen, Chenung &

Lee, O'reilly and Marx (2011) suggest motivators such as enhancing consumer’s self-worth,

avoiding risk and negativity bias affecting the acceptance of online WOM.

3.3.2 Information resending/ forwarding

From existing literature, there are many factors that influence consumers WOM behavior in

giving WOM referrals online. Since WOM is an outcome of social behavior, it is need to

exam and considers the personal characteristics of users in which would influence WOM

activity. Ho and Dempsey (2010) adopted FIRO (Fundamental Interpersonal Relations

Orientation) that are inclusion, affection and control to exam the motivations for people to

forwarding online content. Besides, contributing eWOM on social networking website is a

behavior of users’ desire to build or maintain the relationships with other (Chu & Kim, 2011).

Some studies have exam the personal characteristics that influence WOM activity (Chu &

Kim, 2011; Mazzarol, Sweeney, & Soutar, 2007; Sweeney et al., 2008). Chu and Kim (2011)

6

suggest tie strength, homophily, trust and normative and informative influence can determine

the eWOM activity in social media. Mazzarol et al. (2007) suggest WOM model which

include the personal factors and conditions for WOM forwarding. They suggest people give

WOM because their recognition of a receiver’s need to information. The desire for social

interaction, concern for other customers, the motivation for economic incentives, tie strength

and the potential to enhance one’s own self-worth can be factors (Hennig-Thurau et al.,

2004).

4. Research model and Hypotheses

4.1 Model

Figure 1 shows the research model of this study. This research model was built upon the

online WOM transmission process model by M. Huang et al. (2011)’s research paper (2009).

In addition, they indicate the antecedents that influence resenders’ resending intention by

employing McGuire’s model. I continue to adopt three factors that affecting acceptance

towards WOM information (Quality, Authenticity and Authority). These three factors are

suggested to be common important information characteristics that affecting people’s WOM

information acceptance by many researchers (Kim, 2007; Mazzarol et al., 2007; Rieh, 2002;

Sweeney et al., 2008) from the literature review. I also tried to add the tie strength into the

model as moderating variable and social factors that affect resending intention in this model.

Figure 1 Research Model

7

4.2 Hypotheses

Dimensions of affecting acceptance towards WOM information

Quality

Information quality is an important factor influencing users when searching for information

and accepting the information online. People tend to accept high quality information and have

favorable attitude towards a product. Gershoff et al (2003) demonstrate that quality is a

judgment criterion for web users’ online information acceptance decision. Based on these

arguments, the research model proposes that:

H1: The quality of information is positively related to acceptance towards WOM

information of resender.

Authenticity and Authority

Rieh (2002) proposed that cognitive authority could affect online users’ searching for and

reading web site information. Six facets of authority are found by Rieh. M. Huang et al.

(2011) divided these six items into authenticity and authority. Authenticity consists credible,

trustworthy and reliable of information. Authority consists scholarly, official and amateurish

that is the information is come from an authoritative source. Other literatures also show the

information authenticity (credibility and trustworthiness) is very important for information

assessment (Bansal & Voyer, 2000; Patrali Chatterjee, 2011; M. Y. Cheung, Luo, Sia, & Chen,

2009). Other studies also suggest the expertise (authority) of senders can largely influence the

receiver’s acceptance and trust of information (Bansal & Voyer, 2000; Christy M. K. Cheung

et al., 2008). Based on these arguments, the research model proposes that:

H2: The authenticity of information is positively related to acceptance towards WOM.

8

H3: The authority of information is positively related to acceptance towards WOM

Moderating role of social tie of information characteristic and WOM information acceptance

Sender and receiver’s personal relationship influenced WOM acceptance (Sweeney et al.,

2008). Prior literature reviews suggest tie strength is an important factor that affects the

communication of WOM in personal relationship aspect (Brown & Reingen, 1987; Chu &

Kim, 2011; Steffes & Burgee, 2009; Sweeney et al., 2008). The closeness of a giver and

receiver was also identified as encouraging WOM behavior (Mazzarol et al., 2007). Social tie

can be classified as weak and strong. Strong tie is consist closer relationship with other

people such as family and friends (Chu & Kim, 2011). Consumers have wide social networks

available to them in information searching. They can get information from their close friend

or family (strong tie). They also can get information from people just in the social networking

(weak tie). But people tend to seek information from their strong tie member due to trust and

mutual respect. Besides, they interact more frequently with strong tie members and they have

trust relationship between them. The degree of closeness with the sender and receiver would

increase the acceptance of the WOM message. The tie strength would strength the

information characteristics and then increases the WOM information acceptance due to trust

with the connections. Therefore, I proposed:

H4a: The tie strength will positively moderate the relationship between perceived

authenticity of information and the acceptance towards online WOM information, such that

this relationship is stronger with high tie strength than low tie strength.

H4b: The tie strength will positively moderate the relationship between perceived



H4c: The tie strength will positively moderate the relationship between perceived


9


Information acceptance and resending intention

WOM is a social interaction communication. eWOM transmission is a kind of interpersonal

communication way in online environment. People would get feedback or resend the

information to other and make themselves engage in online communication. Huang et al

(2007) suggest consumers would like to maintain relationships with others in the virtual

community. When a resender receives information, he/ she would evaluate information and

determine whether to accept it. Then he/she resend the content to other people or platform in

order to share it with other. Based on these arguments, the research model proposes that:

H5: The acceptance towards WOM information positively related to resender’s intention to

resend WOM information.

Dimensions of affecting resending intension

The need to be part of a group – Need to belong

eWOM behavior is user’s desire to build and maintain social relationship within personal

network (Chu & Kim, 2011). Phelps, Lewis, Mobilio, Perry, and Raman (2004) examined the

pass along email motivations of consumers and found the most common motivation was the

desire to connect and share with other people. L.-S. Huang, Chou, and Lan (2007) suggest

consumers transmission intention is affected by their intention of interaction with their social

members and get sense of belonging. Based on these arguments, I proposed hypotheses that is

H6: The need to belong is positively related to the resender’s resending intention.

The need to be different - Individuation

The need to be different motivates WOM communication. Clark and Goldsmith (2005)

10

suggest consumer need for uniqueness is a one of important reasons that affect mavenism.

Sundaram, Mitra, and Webster (1998) suggest self-enhancement was an important motivator

to motivate consumers to engage in WOM. The finding is also supported by Engel et al (1993)

is which people can gain attention, suggest status and assert superiority through making

recommendations. In eWOM, the person who normally given information is often recognized

as opinion leader. Chan and Mirsa (1990) propose opinion leaders need to be publicly

individuated. Opinion leaders like to feel differently from other people and stand out among

their group. Based on these arguments, I proposed,

H7: Public individualization is positively related to the resender’s resending intention.

Altruism

Following Schwartz (1977), altruism is “the intention to benefit others as an expression of

internal values, regardless of social or motivational reinforcement”. Ho and Dempsey (2010)

suggest altruism may be an important indicator of the need for affection. Altruism is a

concern for the welfare of others. Mazzarol et al. (2007) suggest altruism is a factor that

affects people’s desire to help inquirer and give WOM. Engel et al (1993) suggest concern for

others is a motivation for people giving WOM to help a friend or relative to make a good

purchase decision. WOM literature provide support for altruism often drive and affect people

in online and offline environment (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004). Based on these arguments, I

proposed,

H8: Altruism is positively related to the resender’s resending intention.

11

5. Research Methodology

5.1 Data collection and sampling

The study focuses on factors affecting eWOM communication in social networking

environment in China. Individuals from Mainland China who have experience in using social

networking websites and are influenced by the activities in these websites are the target

population.

Convenience sampling method was adopted due to time constraint and limited budget. Two

online questionnaires were created on http://www.qualitrics.com and

http://www.51diaocha.com. These questionnaires were posted and distributed through social

networking websites (such as RenRen Wang, Sina, Facebook, Q-zone) and the online

platform of 51diaocha.com. 51diaocha.com is a China-based interactive online platform that

allows people to conduct and participate in survey. In order to increase the participation rate

of 51diaocha.com, 2 credit points were given to respondents as incentive. The data collection

period was from 17 March to 5 April, 2012. Finally, 216 online questionnaires were collected.

But only 204 respondents have visited online social networking websites. Therefore the

usable sample size is 204.

5.2 Questionnaire Design

The questionnaire was designed in English and then translated into Chinese. Several

questionnaire items were modified for better understanding after receiving feedback from 10

respondents.

The questionnaire has 3 parts. The first part was asking the activities in social networking

website of respondents. It was used to screen out those who haven’t ever visit online social

networking websites. The second part was scale items of the variables. The last part is

demographic information that includes gender, age, income per month, occupation and

http://www.qualitrics.com/

http://www.51diaocha.com/

12

education level.

5.3 Measurement

The scale items for each variable were derived from previous research.

Quality Quality of eWOM information was measured by 3 items adopted from key words

from Rieh (2002) and one question from the Sussman and Siegal (2003). The questions were

rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Authenticity Authenticity was measured by 2 items adopted from Rieh(2002) and 2 items

adopted from Sussman and Siegal (2003). The questions were rated from 1 (strongly disagree)

to 5 (strongly agree).

Authority Three keywords from Rieh (2002) were adopted to set 3 questions. The questions

were rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Attitude towards information acceptance The information acceptance attitude was

measured using 2-items five-point Likert Scale adopted from Gershoff, Mukherjee, and

Mukhopadhyay (2003). The other 2 items were adopted from Wu and Shaffer (1987) and

used five-point Likert Scale.

Resending intention Resending intention of eWOM information was measured by 1 item

adopted from Verhoef et al (2002) and 2 items adopted from online purchase intention of

Schlosser and Lloyd (2006). Five-point Likert Scale was adopted (1: strongly disagree to 5:

strongly agree).

Tie Strength Tie strength was measured by 3 items adopted from Chu & Kim (2011) which

their study was about consumer engagement in eWOM social networking sites. The 3

questions were rated from 1 (strongly disagree, nerver, not at all) to 5 (strongly agree, very

13

frequently, very important) for each.

Need to belong Need to Belong scale (NTB) developed by Leary et al (2001) was adopted

to measure an individual’s need to belong. The scale consists 13 items and 4 items were

selected. Respondents were asked to range items from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly

agree).

Individuation Individuation scale from Maslach et al (1985) consists 12 questions and 4

questions were adopted. The items were rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

The Individuation scale was also used by other researchers such as Barbaranelli et al (1997),

Whitney et al (1994) and Ho and Dempsey (2010).

Altruism Self-Report Altruism Scale (SRA) from Rushton, Chrisjohn, and Fekken (1981)

was adopted and 5 questions were selected with 5 response options (never, once, more than

once, often, & very often). The scale was used by other researchers such as Brown, Palamaeta

and Moore (2003) and Achille, Soos, Fortin, Paquet and Hebert (2007).

6. Data Analysis and Results

The SPSS program was used to analyze data.

6.1 Primary data analysis and descriptive statistics

The usable sample size is 204. Among the 204 respondents, 52.9% were male and 47.1%

were female. 56.4% of respondents were aged 19-25. 65.7 % of respondents received

university and above education and most of respondents (45.6%) were student. The average

income per month of most respondents was under RMB 1000.

For activities in social networking website of respondents, 204 respondents (out of 216)

visited SNS. Most of them (over 90%) have given comments on SNS and their frequency of

giving comments on SNS is high. Besides, Over 80% of respondents have accepted

14

comments on SNS but the acceptance frequency is less than giving comments. The most

popular visited SNS is Sina Weibo.

The demographic information and activities on SNS of respondent are showed in table 1 and

2.

Table 1: Demographic information of respondents

Demographic Characteristics Total Numbers Percentage (%)

Gender

Male 108 52.9%

Female 96 47.1%

Age

18 or below 8 3.9%

19-25 115 56.4%

26-35 70 34.3%

36-45 8 3.9%

46 or above 3 1.5%

Education level

Primary school 1 0.5%

Secondary school 11 5.4%

Diploma/High diploma 58 28.4%

University or above 134 65.7%

Occupation

Student 93 45.6%

Clerical worker 49 24.0%

Managerial level 22 10.8%

Professional 11 5.4%

Others 29 14.2%

Average income per month

Below RMB 1000 67 32.8%

RMB 1000-1999 24 11.8%

RMB 2000-2999 39 19.1%

RMB 3000-3999 26 12.7%

RMB 4000 or above 48 23.5%

15

Table 2: Activities of respondent on SNS

Measure Total number Percentage (%)

Visited SNS

Yes 204 94%

No 12 6%

Gave comment on SNS

Yes 186 91.2%

No 18 8.8%

Frequency of giving comment on SNS

1-3 times 51 25.0%

4-6 times 31 15.2%

7-9 times 16 7.8%

10 times or more 90 44.1%

Accepted comment on SNS

Yes 173 84.8%

No 31 15.2%

Frequency of accepting comment on SNS

1-3 times 57 27.9%

4-6 times 37 18.1%

7-9 times 13 6.4%

10 times or more 67 32.8%

Most frequent visited SNS

Sina 103 50.5%

Tencent Weibo 22 10.8%

Qzone 54 26.5%

RenRen Wang 14 6.9%

Kaixin Wang 6 2.9%

Others 5 2.5%

6.2 Reliability Analysis

Cronbach’s alpha was used to evaluate the validity and internal reliability of each variable.

After the reverse coded item was recoded, the reliability of each variable was calculated. The

16

Cronbach’s alpha values of all variable except altruism are above 0.7 acceptable reliability

level recommended by many researchers (Mayer and Davis ,1999) Their Cronbach’s alpha

values ranged from 0.868 to 0.733. But the the Cronbach’s alpha values of altruism is low

and only have 0.558 for 5 items scale. It should not be accepted. Then “alpha if item deleted”

and “corrected item-total correlation” were conducted and the Cronbach’s alpha values rose

from 0.588 to 0.632 after deleting the 2 original items (Altruism01 and Altruism02). The

Cronbach’s alpha value of altruism is still acceptable since it is more than 0.6.

6.3 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In order to ensure the scales in this study are valid, Exploratory Factor Analysis was used to

test validity before testing the hypotheses. It is also used to determine items best fit the

various dimensions of the constructor. 32 items of scale from the reliability test above were

entered for the analysis. After the analysis, there are 9 components. One factor under Quality

was deleted as it is not the factor loading for Quality. As the final result, 31 items with factor

loadings greater than 0.5 are extracted among all 32 statements in the questionnaire. Table 3

shows the result of Factor Analysis.

17

Table 3: Result of Factor Analysis

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Authent01 0.87

Authent02 0.77

Authent03 0.68

Authent04 0.67

Individ01 0.88

Individ02 0.87

Individ03 0.73

Individ04 0.65

Accep01 0.79

Accep02 0.75

Accep03 0.58

Accep04 0.57

Need01 0.84

Need02 0.82

Need03 0.65

Need04 0.51

Author01 0.82

Author02 0.77

Author03 0.72

Resend01 0.79

Resend02 0.76

Resend03 0.53

Tiestri01 0.83

Tiestri02 0.73

Tiestri03 0.70

Quality01 0.69

Quality03 0.62

Quality04 0.52

Altruism03 0.80

Altruism04 0.74

Altruism05 0.63

18

After the factor analysis, Cronbach’s alpha was tested again to check the final reliability of

scale items. Reliability was tested on 31 selected items from Factor Analysis. The Cronbach’s

alpha values of all variable except altruism are above 0.7 acceptable reliability level. Their

Cronbach’s alpha values ranged from 0.868 to 0.707. The Cronbach’s alpha value of altruism

is still acceptable since it is more than 0.6. The Cronbach’s alpha value of altruism is 0.632

and it is still acceptable since it is more than 0.6. Table 4 showed the detail of all variables’

reliability value.

Table 4: Reliability Analysis

Variables Items Cronbach’s Alphas

Quality 3 0.707

Authenticity 4 0.868

Authority 3 0.802

Tie strength 3 0.780

Attitude towards information acceptance 4 0.795

Resending intention 3 0.854

Need to belong 4 0.806

Individuation 4 0.823

Altruism 3 0.632

6.4 Means, standard deviations, and correlations

Table 5 reports the means, standard deviations, and correlations of constructs. The means

ranged from 3.08 to 3.63 with low standard deviations. Quality (r=0.48, p <0.01), authenticity

(r=0.59, p <0.01) and authority (r=0.5, p <0.01) were positively related to WOM information

acceptance. Tie strength was positively related to quality (r=0.42, p <0.01), authenticity

(r=0.37, p <0.01), authority (r=0.34, p <0.01) and WOM information acceptance (r=0.31, p

<0.01). WOM information acceptance was positively related to resending intention (r=0.51, p

<0.01). Moreover, need to belong (r=0.52, p <0.01), individuation (r=0.28, p <0.01) and

altruism (r=0.29, p <0.01) were positively related to resending intention.

19

Table 5: Mean, standard deviations, and correlations of the constructs

Variables Mean

Std.

Deviation Quality Authent Author Accep Resend Tiestri Need Individ Altruism

Quality 3.30 0.70 --

Authent 3.08 0.71 0.52**

Author 3.42 0.78 0.45**

0.45**

Accep 3.18 0.64 0.48**

0.59**

0.50**

Resend 3.58 0.80 0.51**

0.39**

0.46**

0.51**

Tiestri 3.35 0.82 0.42**

0.37**

0.34**

0.31**

0.48**

Need 3.58 0.77 0.35**

0.14* 0.34

** 0.30

** 0.52

** 0.35

**

Individ 3.43 0.76 -0.02 0.09 0.12 0.08 0.28**

0.06 0.30

Altruism 3.63 0.66 0.24**

0.18* 0.16

* 0.18

* 0.29

** 0.21

** 0.23

** 0.23

** --

Note: Significance at: *p <0.1, * *p <0.01 and * * *p <0.001

6.5 Independent Samples t-test

As the total number of 204 samples were collected form two online survey websites

(http://www.qualitrics.com and http://www.51diaocha.com), the samples are consist into two

groups. 77 samples were from qualitrics website and 127 samples were from 51diaocha

website. T-test analysis was used to test whether there is significant difference between two

groups at 95% confidence level. Most variables’ significance for Levene's test was above

0.05 or below, and then the "Equal Variances Assumed" test was used. Only individuation’s

significance for Levene's test was below 0.05 and then "Equal Variances Not Assumed" test

was used. As the significant of all tests were not significant (0.5<p value), there is not

difference in the mean score for all variables. Therefore, the data of two groups didn’t give

the difference for results. The result refers to Appendix C.5.

6.6 Regression Analysis

I used hierarchical regression analysis to test hypotheses of moderation and direct Effects of

http://www.qualitrics.com/

http://www.51diaocha.com/

20

information characteristic on attitude towards information acceptance (Frazier, Tix, & Barron,

2004). Comparison between alternative models with or without interaction terms were

allowed to test by Hierarchical regression. The relationship between information acceptance

and direct effects of need to belong, individuation and altruism towards resending intention

were also tested by hierarchical regressions.

Direct Effects of information characteristic on attitude towards information acceptance and

Moderating Effect of tie strength on the Relationship between information dimension and

information acceptance

Table 6 summarizes the hierarchical regression results. Quality, Authenticity and Authority

were regarded as independent variables while attitude towards WOM acceptance was

regarded as a dependent variable. There are 3 steps for the regression analysis. The first step

is to entered control variables including gender, age, education and income. In the second

step, attitude towards WOM acceptance was regressed on quality, authenticity and authority.

Quality (β=0.15, p<0.05), authenticity (β=0.33, p<0.001) and authority (β=0.20, p<0.001)

were significant positively associated with information acceptance. Therefore, hypotheses 1,

2 and 3 were supported.

The interaction terms were entered in the third step to test hypothesis 4. Only the interaction

between tie strength and authenticity showed a significant positive effect on WOM

information acceptance (β=0.15, p<0.05). Therefore, hypothesis 4b was supported.

Hypotheses 4a and 4c were rejected since the interaction term of tie strength and quality and

authority did not have significant on the WOM information acceptance. (β=0.11, NS and

β=-0.05, NS)

21

Table 6: Hierarchical regression: Direct effect of information characteristics on Attitude

towards WOM acceptance, and moderating effect of tie strength on relationship between

information acceptance and information characteristics

Dependent variable: Attitude towards WOM acceptance

Step 1 Step 2 Step3

Control variables

Gender 0.11 .03 .07

Age 0.03 -.05 -.06

Education -0.17* -.10 -.12*

Income -.010 .01 .01

Independent variables

Quality 0.33* 0.32*

Authenticity 0.20*** 0.22***

Authority 0.15*** 0.14***

Tie strength 0.03 0.03

Interaction terms

Tie strength X Quality -0.01

Tie strength X Authenticity 0.15*

Tie strength X Altruism -0.05

R Square Change 0.03* 0.41 0.02***

Adjusted R Square 0.01 0.42 0.43

F 1.58 19.36*** 14.93***

Note: Significance at: *p<0.05; **p<0.01 , ***p<0.001

Relationship between WOM information acceptance and resending intention

The second step of Table 7 showed regression of direct effect of WOM information

acceptance and resending intention. Resending intention was regarded as a dependent

variable. The control variables such as gender, age, education, income were entered first and

they were not significant to explain the regression line. WOM information acceptance was

entered next to test the relationship between resending intention (dependent variables). WOM

information acceptance also has significant relationship with resending intention (β=0.65,

22

p<0.001). Therefore, hypothesis 5 is supported.

Direct Effects of Need to belong, Individuation and Altruism on Resending intention

Table 6 summarizes the regression results. At the step 3, need to belong, individuation and

altruism were regarded as independent variables and were regressed on dependent variable

(resending intention). Only need to belong and individuation were significantly and positively

related to resending intention (β=0.39, p<0.001, β=0.14, p<0.05). Therefore, hypotheses 6

and 7 were supported. Hypotheses 8 was not supported since there were not significant result

for the relationship between altruism to the resending intention (β=0.09, NS).

Table 7 Regressions: Direct Effects of Need to belong, Individuation and Altruism on

Resending intention

Independent variable Dependent variable: Attitude towards WOM

Acceptance

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Control variables

Gender 0.21 0.14 0.21

Age -0.10 -0.11 -0.15*

Education -0.20 0.09 0.05

Income 0.54 0.06 0.08*

Independent variables

WOM information Acceptance 0.65*** 0.47***

Need to belong 0.39***

Individuation 0.14*

Altruism 0.09

R Square Change 0.02** 0.26 0.19

Adjusted R Square 0.00 0.26 0.44

F 1.09 15.27*** 21.18***

Note: Significance at: *p , 0.1, **p , 0.01 and ***p , 0.001

23

Table 8: Results of hypotheses test.

Hypothesis Test Result

Direct effect of quality on acceptance (H1) Supported

Direct effect of authenticity on acceptance (H2) Supported

Direct effect of authority on acceptance (H3) Supported

Moderating effect of tie strength: H4a Not supported

H4b Supported

H4c Not supported

Direct effect of acceptance on resending intention (H5) Supported

Direct effect of need to belong on resending intention (H6) Supported

Direct effect of individuation on resending intention (H7) Supported

Direct effect of altruism on resending intention (H8) Not supported

7. Discussions

All 3 information dimensions have significant impact on the WOM information acceptance

on social networking site. Information quality, authenticity and authority explained 46 per

cent of the variance in information acceptance. The result is consistent with prior research

findings. Authenticity is the most important dimensions. People tend to believe the online

information that is credible, trustworthy and reliable. This also implies social networking

users believe the people who give comments are trustworthy and reliable. It is not surprising

because people know their connection in the social networking website’s friend list. Users

need to get permission to become friends or having connection with other people. Therefore

information is not given by anonymous on social networking website mostly. Information

quality is also a factor related to information acceptance. People tend to accept the

information that is updated and complete to them. It also consisted with the focus group

finding of Mazzarol et al. (2007) that people likely to accept information that is fit their need.

The authority of information can reduce the perceived risk in taking the advice online. These

24

3 information dimensions can increase the message persuasive and make people to accept

messages.

The acceptance towards WOM information affects strongly the resending intention. Passing

the message to others involves some risks such as the providing incorrect information that

causes other people to make wrong decision and this may potential harm personal reputation,

mutual trust and social relationship with others. Therefore, people need to accept information

first, and then they can decide to pass the message with other with lower risk.

For 3 information resending dimensions, most of them are associated with resending

intention except altruism. Need to belong is the most important and significantly factor. The

result also support previous findings people pass along message to build relationship with

others and get sense of belong of a group (Chu & Kim, 2011; Phelps et al., 2004). As

mentioned before, social networking site is an online community and allow people to interact

and build social relationship through some online activities like game, message

communications and post. Information such like article, link and picture can be passed to

people in website connection. People can gain attention and receive response from other

people through this action. Then the mutual communication would be started. Individuation is

surprising not very strongly associated with information resending intention as mentioned by

pervious research that opinion leader like to give information to gain attention and stand out.

But it is still important for information resending. People can post and share message to show

their uniqueness.

Although the literature suggests that people forwarding online information may due to

concern of others (Ho & Dempsey, 2010; Sundaram et al., 1998), the result shows there is not

significant relationship between altruism and WOM resending intention. One of reasons for

this is information sharing and forwarding activities on online social networking website are

25

not behavior of concern of others. The result may also due to the low reliability of altruism.

With regard to the moderating effects of tie strength, the results reveals that tie strength does

not have any moderating effect on the relationship between quality and authority and

information acceptance respectively. The relationship of quality, authority of WOM

information and information acceptance is not strengthened by tie strength. This may due to

the effect of different level of tie strength to WOM communication process becomes

diminished. Sweeney et al. (2008) examined the results from focus groups and suggested

even weak tie can play a key role in information communication and transmission process in

social network. This finding is also supported by Brown and Reingen (1987). People feel

comfortable to accept information given by more distant relationship. The information

characteristics such as high quality, sourced from authority, expertise are more important for

the information acceptance for social networking users than tie strength. Besides, the small

sample size also may have slightly effect on the results of moderation of tie strength.

The findings suggested tie strength only enhances the positive relationship between

information authenticity and information acceptance. The relationship with information giver

is important for testing and assessing authenticity of information and then affects the

information acceptance. People tend to depend on information given by stronger tie people as

they know that they are trustworthy and reliable than weak tie. The difference of tie strength

level would affect the relationship between authenticity and information acceptance. Figure 2

shows the interaction effect between authenticity and tie strength. The slope of the lines

represents the effect of information authenticity on information acceptance under two tie

strength levels respectively. In high tie strength, authenticity affects information acceptance

to a larger extent. For low tie strength, authenticity affects information acceptance to a

smaller extent. The relationship between authenticity and information acceptance are stronger

with high tie strength than with low tie strength.

26

Figure 2: Conceptual Explanation: Positive Moderating Effect of Tie Strength

8. Managerial implications

As the popularity of different social media, the consumers’ behavior has changed. Consumers

have more chances to access WOM information and use it as indicators for purchase decision

making. Understanding the eWOM communication online become important to the

development of company’s Internet marketing strategy. This study can provide some advices

to marketer and allow them to have better management of products information. Many

companies such as McDonald’s built fan page in social networking website in China. Fan

page provides a channel for consumers to post comments. This study suggests fan page

managers need to ensure the only high quality, authenticity and authority of information are

posted to make people accept it and forward message to other connection within social

networking site.

Moreover, understanding the social relationship variables that affect ripple effect of WOM

helps marketers to have effective Internet advertising. There are many reasons for people to

27

share information. Marketers can identify influential individuals and social reasons for WOM

communication or ripple in social network. Then marketers can incorporate these into

advertising strategy and set advertising appeal to their need and encourage them to spread

positive eWOM. This study suggests people forwarding WOM information due to need to

belong and individuation factors. Marketer can hold some campaigns to allow people to share

their opinions about products and services. The campaign’s topic can be sharing and focus on

asking people to share these comments with best friend in social networking website. This

can achieve voluntary WOM diffusion effect.

9. Theoretical implication

The study enhances the understanding of a more general WOM communication behavior.

This study provides few theoretical implications. Some findings are consistent with and

support prior researches. The quality, authenticity and authority are important antecedents of

WOM information acceptance. The study also links the social relationship to the WOM

communication in social networking sites which was received less attention by researchers.

Need to belong and individuation are antecedent of information resending intention. But there

are unexpected findings in this study. There is little relationship between individuation and

resending intention. The relationship between altruism and resending intention is also not

supported. Future research may explore other social factors such as tie strength and

homophile to enrich the literature in social relationship and WOM communication.

This study emerges tie strength as a moderating factor that strengthens the positive

relationship between WOM information dimensions and WOM information acceptance in

online context. The implication is information acceptant process can work better with the

effect of tie strength. Future research can find other social factor affect WOM information

acceptance process in receiver perspective.

28

10. Limitations and Future Research

There are some limitations of this study. Firstly, although most scales’ reliabilities were

ranged between 0.7 and 0.9, the reliability of altruism is low and only has 0.632. The

reliability of altruism is lower than the acceptable level 0.7. Higher than 0.7 Cronbach’s

coefficient is generally considered being acceptable (Grewal, Cote, & Baumgartner, 2004;

Nunnally, 1978). Therefore, future research could employ more reliable scales and refine the

measures to get higher level of reliability.

Secondly, convenience sampling was used in this study due to the time and budget constraints.

Convenience sampling method may have bias problem. The sample size is relatively small

and only has 204 respondents. The demographical characteristics distribution of the sample is

uneven. These factors may not be accurately representation the population in Mainland China.

There may not have sufficient power to detect the effect of moderation (Frazier et al., 2004).

A larger sample size can be considered in future research. More even demographical

characteristics sample can be collected.

Thirdly, the research examines a limited set of determinants of eWOM communication. 4

constructs account 48 % of the variance of information acceptance and 4 constructs account

only 46% of resending intention. These indicate that some of important predictors may not be

included in this model. eWOM information acceptance may also affected by other factors

such as perceived risk of product, complex purchase decision, time involved in research and

persuasiveness (Bhattacherjee & Sanford, 2006; Sweeney et al., 2008). Resending intention

also can be affected by personal growth and consumption of online contents other dimensions.

Other antecedents can be included in future research to enhance the explanation of the model.

29

11. Conclusion

The study is to test some factors affecting the communication process in social networking

website in China. Apart from this, a moderation model was also proposed to find the effect of

tie strength moderate the relationship of WOM information dimensions and acceptance.

The findings of this study mostly support the proposed model. WOM information quality,

authenticity and authority are positively related to WOM information acceptance. The result

is also supported by prior research findings. Personal factors that are need to belong and

individuation have impact on WOM information resending intention. Surprisingly, altruism

showed no significant to the resending intention. For the moderation role of tie strength, the

result only support there is moderating effect for tie strength to relationship of WOM

information dimensions and acceptance.

The findings provided a better understanding of WOM communication in China online.

Besides, it also provides a new insight for tie strength as a moderator to literature. For

managerial aspect, both information dimensions and personal factors should be taken into the

consideration of Internet marketing plan. Some limitations also may affect the results.

Therefore, a more comprehensive and extensive approach for future study is encouraged.

30

Reference

Bansal, H. S., & Voyer, P. A. (2000). Word-of-Mouth Processes within a Service Purchase

Decision Context. Journal of Service Research, 3(2), 166-177.

Bhattacherjee, A., & Sanford, C. (2006). Influence processes for information technology

acceptance: an elaboration likelihood model. MIS Quarterly, 30(4), 805-825.

Bickart, B., & Schindler, R. M. (2001). Internet forum as influential source of consumer

information. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 1(3), 31-40.

Brown, J. J., & Reingen, P. H. (1987). Social Tie and Word-of-Mouth Referral Behavior. Journal

of Consumer Research, 14, 350-362.

Cakim, I. M. (2010). Implementing word of mouth marketing : online strategies to identify

influencers, craft stories, and draw customers: Hoboken, N.J. : Wiley.

Chan, K. K., & Mirsa, S. (1990). Characteristics of the opinion leader: a new dimension.

Journal of Advertising 19(3), 53-60.

Chatterjee, P. (2001). Online review: do consumers use them? Advances in Consumer

Research, 28, 129-133.

Chatterjee, P. (2011). Drivers of new product recommending and referral behaviour on social

network sites. International Journal of Advertising: The Quarterly Review of

Marketing Communications, 30(1), 77-101.

Cheung, C. M. K., Lee, M. K. O., & Rabjohn, N. (2008). The impact of electronic

wordof-mouth. Internet Research, 18(3), 229.

Cheung, C. M. K., & Thadani, D. R. (2010). The effectiveness of Electronic Wor of Mouth

Communication: A literature Analysis. Paper presented at the 23 rd Bled eConfreence,

Bled, Slovenia.

Cheung, M. Y., Luo, C., Sia, C. L., & Chen, H. (2009). Credibility of Electronic Word-of-Mouth:

Informational and Normative Determinants of On-line Consumer Recommendations.

International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 13(4), 9-38.

Chu, S.-C., & Kim, Y. (2011). Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic

word-of-mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites. International Journal of

Advertising: The Quarterly Review of Marketing Communications, 30(1), 47-75.

Clark, R. A., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2005). Market Mavens: Psychological Influences. Psychology

& Marketing, 22(4), 289-312.

CR-Nielsen. (2012). 中国社交媒体之现状及其使用行为特征. Retrieved from

Feick, L. F., & Price, L. L. (1987). The market maven: a diffuser of marketplace

information. Journal of Marketing, 51(1), 83-97.

Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing Moderator and Mediator Effects in

Counseling Psychology Research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(1), 115-134.

doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.192

31

Gershoff, A. D., Mukherjee, A., & Mukhopadhyay, A. (2003). Consumer Acceptance of Online

Agent Advice: Extremity and Positivity Effects. Journal of Consumer Psychology,

13(1&2), 161-170.

Grewal, R., Cote, J. A., & Baumgartner, H. (2004). Multicollinerarity and measurement error

in structural equation models: implications for theory testing. Marketing Science,

23(4), 519-529.

Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & 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), 38-38.

Herr, P. M., Kardes, F. R., & Kim, J. (1991). Effects of wrod of mouth and product-attribute

information on persuaion: an accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of

Consumer Research, 17(3), 454-462.

Ho, J. Y. C., & Dempsey, M. (2010). Viral marketing: Motivations to forward online content.

Journal of Business Research, 63(9-10), 1000-1006.

Hogan, J. E., N., L. K., & Libai, B. (2004). Quantifying the Ripple: Word-of-Mouth and

Advertising Effectiveness. Jouranal of Advertising Research, September(271-280).

Huang, L.-S., Chou, Y.-J., & Lan, I.-T. (2007). Effects of Perceived Risk, Message Types, and

Reading Motives on the Acceptance and Transmission of Electronic Word-of-Mouth

Communication. Contemporary Management Research, 3(4), 299-312.

Huang, M., Cai, F., Tsang, A. S. L., & Zhou, N. (2011). Making your online voice loud: The

critical role of WOM information. European Journal of Marketing, 48(7-8),

1277-1297.

Karakaya, F., & Barnes, N. G. (2010). Impact of online reviews of customer care experience

on brand or company selection. Journal of Consumer Markteing, 27(5), 447-457.

Kim, Y. M. (2007). How Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations Interact in Selectivity: Investigating

the Moderating Effects of Situational Information Processing Goals in Issue Publics'

Web Behavior. Communication Research, 34(2), 185-211.

Leary, M. R., Kelly, K. M., Cottrell, C. A., & Schreindorfer, L. S. (2007). Individual differences in

the need to belong:Mapping the nomological network. Unpublished manuscript.

Duke Uninversity.

Maslach, C., Stapp, J., & Santee, R. T. (1985). Individuation: Conceptual analysis and

assessment. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 49, 729-738.

Mazzarol, T., Sweeney, J., & Soutar, G. N. (2007). Conceptualizing word-of-mouth activity,

triggers and conditions: an exploratory study. European Journal of Marketing,

41(11/12), 1475-1494.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, New York.

O'reilly, K., & Marx, S. (2011). How young, technical consumers assess online WOM

credibility. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 14(4), 330-359.

32

Phelps, J. E., Lewis, R., Mobilio, L., Perry, D., & Raman, N. (2004). Viral marketing

or electronic word-of-mouth advertising: examining consumer responses and

motivations to pass along email. Journal of Advertising Research, 44(4), 333-348.

Rieh, S. Y. (2002). Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web.

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2),

145-161.

Rushton, J. P., Chrisjohn, R. D., & Fekken, G. C. (1981). The altruistic personality and the

self-report altruism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 2(4), 293-302. doi:

10.1016/0191-8869(81)90084-2

Schlosser, A. E., & Lloyd, S. M. (2006). Converting Web Site Visitors into Buyers: How Web

Site Investment Increases Consumer Trusting Beliefs and Online Purchase Intentions.

Journal of Marketing, 70(2), 1-148.

Steffes, E. M., & Burgee, L. E. (2009). Social ties and online word of mouth. Internet Research,

19(1), 42-59. doi: 10.1108/10662240910927812

Sun, T., Youn, S., Wu, G., & Kuntaraporn, M. (2006). Online Word-of-Mouth (or Mouse): An

Exploration of Its Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated

Communication, 11(4).

Sundaram, D. S., Mitra, K., & Webster, C. (1998). Word-of-mouth communications: a

motivational analysis. Advertising and consumer research (25), 527-531.

Sussman, S. W., & Siegal, W. S. (2003). Informational influence in organizations: an integrated

approach to knowledge adoption. Infromational Systems Research, 14, 47-65.

Sweeney, J. C., Soutar, G. N., & Mazzarol, T. (2008). Factors influencing word of mouth

effectiveness: receiver perspectives. European Journal of Marketing, 42(3/4), 344-364.

doi: 10.1108/03090560810852977

Wu, C., & Shaffer, D. (1987). Susceptibility to persuasive appeals as a function of source

credibility and prior experuence with the attitude object. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 52, 677-688.

Yu, L., Asur, S., & Huberman, B. A. (2011). What Trends in Chinese Social Media. Paper

presented at the The 5th SNA-KDD Workshop' 11, San Diego CA USA.

33

Appendix

34

Appendix A – Model of Online WOM transmission process

Figure 2 Online WOM transmission process

Appendix B –Measurements of Research Model

Variables Item No. Item in Questionnaire Sources

Quality Quality01 The information in this website is

complete.

Sussman and Siegal

(2003)

Quality02 The information in this website is useful. Rieh (2002)

Quality03 The information in this website is

accurate.

Rieh (2002)

Quality04 The information in this website is

current.

Rieh (2002)

Authenticity

Authent01 People who give the information in this

website are reliable.

Sussman and Siegal

(2003)

Authent02 People who give the information in this

website are trustworthy.

Sussman and Siegal

(2003)

Authent03 I believe in the information given by

others in the website.

Rieh (2002)

Authent04 I have confidence that the information

given by other in this website is true.

Rieh (2002)

Authority

Author01 I trust official information. Rieh (2002)

Author02 I trust the information sourced from

academic.

Rieh (2002)

Author03 I trust the information given by

professional.

Rieh (2002)

Acceptance

of online

WOM

information

Accep01 I closely followed the suggestions of the

comments in this website.

Wu and Shaffer

(1987)

Accpe02 I agree with the opinion suggested in this

website.

Wu and Shaffer,

(1987)

35

Accep03 I am likely to accept the comments in this

website.

Gershoff et al.

(2003)

Accep04 I am influenced by the comment in this

website when making decision.

Gershoff et al.

(2003)

Resending

intention

Resend01 I want to tell my friends after reading the

information in the website.

Verhoef et al (2002)

Resend02 It is possible for me to forwarding the

information to other through online.

Schlosser and

Lloyd (2006)

Resend03 It is likely that I would forward online

information through online.

Schlosser and

Lloyd (2006)

Tie strength Tiestri01 How often do you communicate with the

contacts on your “friends” list on this

website?

Chu and Kim

(2011)

Tiestri02 Overall, how important do you feel about

the contacts on your “friends” list on this

website?

Chu and Kim

(2011)

Tiestri03 Overall, how close do you feel to the

contacts on your “friends” on this

website?

Chu and Kim

(2011)

Inclusion-

need to

belong

Need01 I want other people to accept me Leary, Kelly,

Cottrell, and

Schreindorfer

(2007)

Need02 My feelings are easily hurt when I feel

that others do not accept me.

Leary et al (2007)

Need03 I have a strong need to belong. Leary et al (2007)

Need04 I try hard not to do things that will make

other people avoid or reject me.

Leary et al (2007)

Inclusion-

individuation

Indivi01 I am willing to raise my hand to ask a

question in a meeting or lecture.

Maslach, Stapp, and

Santee (1985)

Indivi02 I am willing to accept a nomination to be

a leader of a group.

Maslach et al

(1985)

Indivi03 I am willing to present a personal

opinion, on a controversial issue, to a

group of strangers.

Maslach et al

(1985)

Indivi03 I am willing to speak up about my ideas

even though I am uncertain of whether I

are correct.

Maslach et al

(1985)

36

Affection-

altruism

Altruism01 I have given money to a stranger who

needed it (or asked me for it).

Rushton et al.

(1981)

Altruism02 I have donated goods or clothes to a

charity.

Rushton et al.

(1981)

Altruism03 I have offered my seat on a bus or train to

a stranger who seems has the need.

Rushton et al.

(1981)

Altruism04 I have shared what I have with other

people

Rushton et al.

(1981)

Altruism05 I have given directions to a stranger. Rushton et al.

(1981)

37

Appendix C-SPSS output

1. Frequencies

Statistics

Sex Age education Occupation Income

N Valid 204 204 204 204 204

Missing 0 0 0 0 0

Frequency Table

Sex

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid male 108 52.9 52.9 52.9

Female 96 47.1 47.1 100.0

Total 204 100.0 100.0

Age


Cumulative

Percent

Valid 18 or below 8 3.9 3.9 3.9

19-25 115 56.4 56.4 60.3

26-35 70 34.3 34.3 94.6

36-45 8 3.9 3.9 98.5

46 or above 3 1.5 1.5 100.0

Total 204 100.0 100.0

education


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Primary 1 .5 .5 .5

secondary school 11 5.4 5.4 5.9

Diploma/High diploma 58 28.4 28.4 34.3

University or above 134 65.7 65.7 100.0

38

education


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Primary 1 .5 .5 .5

secondary school 11 5.4 5.4 5.9

Diploma/High diploma 58 28.4 28.4 34.3

University or above 134 65.7 65.7 100.0

Total 204 100.0 100.0

Occupation


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Student 93 45.6 45.6 45.6

Clerical worker 49 24.0 24.0 69.6

Managerial level 22 10.8 10.8 80.4

Professional 11 5.4 5.4 85.8

Others 29 14.2 14.2 100.0

Total 204 100.0 100.0

Income


Cumulative

Percent

Valid Below RMB 1000 67 32.8 32.8 32.8

RMB 1000-1999 24 11.8 11.8 44.6

RMB 2000-2999 39 19.1 19.1 63.7

RMB 3000-3999 26 12.7 12.7 76.5

RMB 4000 above 48 23.5 23.5 100.0

Total 204 100.0 100.0

39

2. Factor Analysis

Rotated Component Matrixa

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

info:trust .874

info:reliable .770

believe .679

confindence .671

personal opinion .875

speak up .871

nomination .727

raise hand .653

accep to .786

agree with .745

closely followed .576

influence me .569

info:useful .515

feeling .843

need to belong .821

do thing .645

acceptance .507

research .816

official .768

professional .721

possible .793

likely .762

want to .529

important .827

how often .734

closeness .701

info:complete .685

info:current .617

info:accurate .522

seat .802

give direction .740

share .628

40

3. Reliability Analysis (After reliability analysis and factor analysis)

1) Qaulity

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.707 3

2) Authenticity


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.868 4

3) Authority


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.802 3

4) Attitude towards

information acceptance


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.795 4

5) Tie strength


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.780 3

6) Reseding intention


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.854 3

7) Need to belong


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.806 4

8) ndividuation


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.823 4

9) Altruism (before deletion of reverse coded items)


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.558 5

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if

Item Deleted

Scale Variance if

Item Deleted

Corrected

Item-Total

Correlation

Cronbach's

Alpha if Item

Deleted

money 13.91 6.071 .161 .606

clothes or goods 13.35 5.775 .272 .532

seat 12.52 5.404 .502 .404

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

a. Rotation converged in 8 iterations.

41

share 13.05 5.569 .367 .473

give direction 12.64 5.986 .356 .485

Altruism (after deletion of reverse coded items)


Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.632 3

4. Correlation

Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

Quality 3.2974 .69702 204

Authent 3.0821 .70819 204

Author 3.4150 .77937 204

Accep 3.1814 .63861 204

Resend 3.5801 .80067 204

Tiestri 3.3497 .81549 204

Need 3.5809 .76778 204

Individ 3.4326 .76205 204

Altruism 3.6307 .66405 204

Correlations

Quality Authent Author Accep Resend Tiestri Need Individ Altruism

Quality Pearson Correlation 1 .515** .454

** .478

** .512

** .418

** .351

** -.023 .244

**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .743 .000

N 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204

Authent Pearson Correlation .515** 1 .449

** .585

** .392

** .371

** .142

* .091 .178

*

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .042 .194 .011

N 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204

Author Pearson Correlation .454** .449

** 1 .499

** .462

** .339

** .344

** .117 .162

*

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .095 .020

N 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204

Accep Pearson Correlation .478** .585

** .499

** 1 .505

** .314

** .295

** .084 .175

*

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .232 .012

N 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204

42

Resend Pearson Correlation .512** .392

** .462

** .505

** 1 .482

** .515

** .284

** .285

**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204

Tiestri Pearson Correlation .418** .371

** .339

** .314

** .482

** 1 .348

** .061 .213

**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .384 .002

N 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204

Need Pearson Correlation .351** .142

* .344

** .295

** .515

** .348

** 1 .295

** .234

**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .042 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001

N 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204

Individ Pearson Correlation -.023 .091 .117 .084 .284** .061 .295

** 1 .230

**

Sig. (2-tailed) .743 .194 .095 .232 .000 .384 .000 .001

N 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204

Altruism Pearson Correlation .244** .178

* .162

* .175

* .285

** .213

** .234

** .230

** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .011 .020 .012 .000 .002 .001 .001

N 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

5. Independent Samples t Test

Group Statistics

Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Quality qualitrics 77 3.2922 .77841 .08871

taiocha 127 3.3189 .55695 .04942

Authent qualitrics 77 3.0942 .80402 .09163

taiocha 127 3.0748 .64651 .05737

Author qualitrics 77 3.3463 .82086 .09355

taiocha 127 3.4567 .75336 .06685

Accep qualitrics 77 3.1916 .70582 .08044

taiocha 127 3.1752 .59705 .05298

Resend qualitrics 77 3.5887 .85309 .09722

taiocha 127 3.5748 .77058 .06838

Tiestri qualitrics 77 3.4069 .74265 .08463

taiocha 127 3.3150 .85764 .07610

43

Need qualitrics 77 3.4870 .83103 .09471

taiocha 127 3.6378 .72423 .06427

Individ qualitrics 77 3.3994 .86247 .09829

taiocha 127 3.4528 .69703 .06185

Altruism qualitrics 77 3.6407 .68349 .07789

taiocha 127 3.6247 .65464 .05809

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for

Equality of

Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df

Sig.

(2-tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

Quality Equal variances assumed 2.874 .092 -.285 202 .776 -.02669 .09377

Equal variances not assumed -.263 123.334 .793 -.02669 .10155

Authent Equal variances assumed 3.331 .069 .189 202 .850 .01935 .10253

Equal variances not assumed .179 134.773 .858 .01935 .10810

Author Equal variances assumed .351 .554 -.980 202 .328 -.11037 .11258


Accep Equal variances assumed .249 .618 .177 202 .860 .01636 .09246


Resend Equal variances assumed 2.381 .124 .120 202 .904 .01394 .11592


Tiestri Equal variances assumed .275 .600 .780 202 .436 .09197 .11790


Need Equal variances assumed 1.101 .295 -1.363 202 .175 -.15078 .11066

Equal variances not assumed -1.317 143.725 .190 -.15078 .11445

Individ Equal variances assumed 6.218 .013 -.484 202 .629 -.05341 .11027


Altruism Equal variances assumed .876 .350 .167 202 .868 .01602 .09614

44


Levene's Test for

Equality of

Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df

Sig.

(2-tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

Quality Equal variances assumed 2.874 .092 -.285 202 .776 -.02669 .09377


Authent Equal variances assumed 3.331 .069 .189 202 .850 .01935 .10253


Author Equal variances assumed .351 .554 -.980 202 .328 -.11037 .11258


Accep Equal variances assumed .249 .618 .177 202 .860 .01636 .09246


Resend Equal variances assumed 2.381 .124 .120 202 .904 .01394 .11592


Tiestri Equal variances assumed .275 .600 .780 202 .436 .09197 .11790


Need Equal variances assumed 1.101 .295 -1.363 202 .175 -.15078 .11066

Equal variances not assumed -1.317 143.725 .190 -.15078 .11445

Individ Equal variances assumed 6.218 .013 -.484 202 .629 -.05341 .11027


Altruism Equal variances assumed .876 .350 .167 202 .868 .01602 .09614



t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Quality Equal variances assumed -.21158 .15820

45

Equal variances not assumed -.22769 .17431

Authent Equal variances assumed -.18281 .22152


Author Equal variances assumed -.33235 .11161


Accep Equal variances assumed -.16595 .19867


Resend Equal variances assumed -.21464 .24252


Tiestri Equal variances assumed -.14050 .32444


Need Equal variances assumed -.36898 .06741


Individ Equal variances assumed -.27084 .16403


Altruism Equal variances assumed -.17355 .20559


6. Hierarchical Regression

Variables Entered/Removedb

Model Variables

Entered

Variables

Removed Method

d

i

m

e

n

s

i

o

n

0

1 Income,

education, Sex,

Agea

. Enter

2 Authent_center,

Tiestri_center,

Author_center,

Quality_centera

. Enter

3 tie_Quality,

tie_Author,

tie_Authenta

. Enter

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: Accep

46

Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.

Collinearity Statistics

B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF

1 (Constant) 3.585 .325 11.037 .000

Sex .105 .093 .082 1.129 .260 .920 1.087

Age .027 .071 .030 .382 .703 .795 1.258

education -.166 .073 -.160 -2.272 .024 .983 1.018

Income -.010 .033 -.025 -.308 .758 .752 1.329

2 (Constant) 3.610 .255 14.170 .000

Sex .031 .073 .025 .432 .666 .883 1.133

Age -.051 .056 -.056 -.920 .358 .761 1.313

education -.103 .057 -.100 -1.806 .073 .938 1.066

Income .007 .025 .018 .282 .778 .738 1.355

Authent_center .332 .061 .368 5.473 .000 .632 1.583

Author_center .202 .053 .247 3.805 .000 .680 1.470

Quality_center .152 .062 .166 2.439 .016 .620 1.613

Tiestri_center .026 .048 .033 .529 .597 .751 1.331

3 (Constant) 3.573 .254 14.069 .000

Sex .066 .074 .052 .893 .373 .842 1.188

Age -.056 .055 -.062 -1.013 .312 .756 1.323

education -.115 .057 -.111 -2.028 .044 .930 1.076

Income .014 .025 .034 .542 .589 .721 1.387

Authent_center .322 .061 .357 5.270 .000 .613 1.632

Author_center .223 .053 .272 4.181 .000 .661 1.512

Quality_center .141 .062 .154 2.272 .024 .612 1.634

Tiestri_center .032 .048 .041 .676 .500 .744 1.344

tie_Quality .011 .070 .010 .150 .881 .580 1.724

tie_Authent .148 .068 .165 2.170 .031 .484 2.068

tie_Author -.047 .059 -.058 -.792 .429 .517 1.933

a. Dependent Variable: Accep

47

7. Hierarchical Regression (resending intention)


Model Variables

Entered

Variables

Removed Method

d

i

m

e

n

s

i

o

n

0

1 Income,

education, Sex,

Agea

. Enter

2 Accepa . Enter

3 Altruism, Individ,

Needa

. Enter


b. Dependent Variable: Resend

Model Summary

Mode

l

R

R

Square

Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of

the Estimate

Change Statistics

R Square

Change F Change df1 df2

Sig. F

Change

d

i

m

e

n

s

i

o

n

0

1 .146a .021 .002 .79996 .021 1.089 4 199 .363

2 .528b .278 .260 .68873 .257 70.470 1 198 .000

3 .682c .465 .443 .59757 .187 22.674 3 195 .000

a. Predictors: (Constant), Income, education, Sex, Age

b. Predictors: (Constant), Income, education, Sex, Age, Accep

c. Predictors: (Constant), Income, education, Sex, Age, Accep, Altruism, Individ, Need

ANOVAd

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 2.788 4 .697 1.089 .363a

Residual 127.348 199 .640

48

Total 130.137 203

2 Regression 36.216 5 7.243 15.270 .000b

Residual 93.921 198 .474

Total 130.137 203

3 Regression 60.505 8 7.563 21.180 .000c

Residual 69.632 195 .357

Total 130.137 203

a. Predictors: (Constant), Income, education, Sex, Age

b. Predictors: (Constant), Income, education, Sex, Age, Accep

c. Predictors: (Constant), Income, education, Sex, Age, Accep, Altruism, Individ, Need

d. Dependent Variable: Resend

Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.

Collinearity Statistics

B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF

1 (Constant) 3.422 .409 8.365 .000

Sex .211 .117 .132 1.804 .073 .920 1.087

Age -.097 .090 -.085 -1.077 .283 .795 1.258

education -.020 .092 -.015 -.215 .830 .983 1.018

Income .054 .041 .107 1.318 .189 .752 1.329

2 (Constant) 1.109 .447 2.479 .014

Sex .143 .101 .090 1.419 .158 .914 1.094

Age -.114 .077 -.100 -1.478 .141 .795 1.259

education .087 .080 .067 1.088 .278 .958 1.044

Income .061 .035 .119 1.713 .088 .752 1.330

Accep .645 .077 .515 8.395 .000 .969 1.032

3 (Constant) -.464 .460 -1.010 .314

Sex .210 .090 .131 2.337 .020 .873 1.146

Age -.150 .068 -.131 -2.201 .029 .771 1.297

education .054 .070 .041 .761 .448 .931 1.075

Income .077 .032 .151 2.433 .016 .708 1.413

Accep .471 .071 .376 6.681 .000 .866 1.154

Need .386 .062 .371 6.247 .000 .780 1.283

Individ .139 .061 .133 2.284 .023 .813 1.231

Altruism .090 .068 .075 1.328 .186 .866 1.155

49


Model Variables

Entered

Variables

Removed Method

d

i

m

e

n

s

i

o

n

0

1 Income,

education, Sex,

Agea

. Enter

2 Accepa . Enter

3 Altruism, Individ,

Needa

. Enter


a. Dependent Variable: Resend

50

Appendix 4- Questionnaire (English and Chinese Version)

Questionnaire on online word of mouth

I am a Year 3 student majored in China Business Studies in Hong Kong Baptist University. I

am now conducting a survey concerning your opinion towards electronic word of mouth

behavior. Please kindly spare a few minutes to answer the following questions. The

information you provide will be used for academic purpose only. Thank you.

Part 1: Usage and experience of the social networking websites

1. Have you ever visited social networking website (e.g. Sina Weibo, Tencent and Ren Ren

Wan)? (If you answer “No”, this is the end of the questionnaire)

□ Yes (Continue with Question 2) □ No (End of Questionnaire)

2. Have you ever given comment on social networking website?

□ Yes (go to question 3) □ No (go to question 4)

3. During the past six months, your frequency of giving comment or feedback on social

networking website is:

□ 1-3 times □ 4-6 times

□ 7-9 times □ 10 times or more

4. Have you ever accept comment on social networking website?

□ Yes (go to question 5) □ No (go to question 6)

5. During the past six months, your frequency of accepting comment or feedback on social

networking website is:

□ 1-3 times □ 4-6 times

□ 7-9 times □ 10 times or more

6. Which social networking website you most frequent visit? (Choose one only)

□Sina Weibo □Tencent Weibo □Qzone

□Renren Wang □Kaixin □Others

51

Part 2: Information characteristics

Based on the answer of above question (question 6), please answer the following questions.

To what extent you agree with the following statements about the comments on online social

networking website. Please rate according to the scale from totally disagree (1) to totally

agree (5). The information refers to any comment about products or services.

Quality Totally

disagree

Neutral Totally

agree

7. The information in this website is

complete.

1 2 3 4 5

8. The information in this website is useful. 1 2 3 4 5

9. The information in this website is accurate. 1 2 3 4 5

10. The information in this website is current. 1 2 3 4 5

Authenticity

11. People who give the information in this

website are reliable.

1 2 3 4 5

12. People who give the information in this

website are trustworthy.

1 2 3 4 5

13. I believe in the information given by

others in the website.

1 2 3 4 5

14.I have confidence that the information

given by other in this website is true.

1 2 3 4 5

Authority

15. I trust official information. 1 2 3 4 5

16. I trust the information sourced from

academic.

1 2 3 4 5

17. I trust the information given by

professional.

1 2 3 4 5

Acceptance of online WOM information

18. I closely followed the suggestions of the

comments in this website.

1 2 3 4 5

19. I agree with the opinion suggested in this

website.

1 2 3 4 5

20. I am likely to accept the comments in this

website.

1 2 3 4 5

52

21. I am influenced by the comment in this

website when making decision.

1 2 3 4 5

Resending intention

22. I want to tell my friends after reading the

information in the website.

1 2 3 4 5

23. It is possible for me to forwarding the

information to other through online.

1 2 3 4 5

24. It is likely that I would forward online

information through online.

1 2 3 4 5

Tie strength

Never

Seldom

Often

Frequently

Very

frequently

25. How often do you

communicate with the contacts on

your “friends” list on this

website?

1 2 3 4 5

Not at all

Neutral

Very

important

26. Overall, how important do

you feel about the contacts on

your “friends” list on this

website?

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly

Disagree

Neutral

Strongly

Agree

27. Overall, I feel very close to

the contacts on your “friends” on

this website.

1 2 3 4 5

Inclusion- need to belong

Totally

disagree

Neutral Totally

agree

28. I want other people to accept me. 1 2 3 4 5

29. My feelings are easily hurt when

I feel that others do not accept me.

1 2 3 4 5

30. I have a strong need to belong. 1 2 3 4 5

31. I try hard not to do things that

will make other people avoid or

reject me.

1 2 3 4 5

53

Inclusion- individuation

32. I am willing to raise my hand to

ask a question in a meeting or

lecture.

1 2 3 4 5

33. I am willing to accept a

nomination to be a leader of a group.

1 2 3 4 5

34. I am willing to present a personal

opinion, on a controversial issue, to

a group of strangers.

1 2 3 4 5

35. I am willing to speak up about

my ideas even though I am uncertain

of whether I are correct.

1 2 3 4 5

Affection- altruism Never Once More than

once

Often Very often

36. I have given money to a stranger

who needed it (or asked me for it).

1 2 3 4 5

37. I have donated goods or clothes to a

charity.

1 2 3 4 5

38. I have offered my seat on a bus or

train to a stranger who seems has the

need.

1 2 3 4 5

39. I have shared what I have with other

people.

1 2 3 4 5

40. I have given directions to a stranger. 1 2 3 4 5

Part III: Personal Information

41. Gender

□ Male □ Female

42. Age

□ 18 or below □ 19-25 □ 26-35

□ 36 – 45 □ 46 or above

43. Educational level

□ Primary School □ Secondary School

□ Diploma/High diploma □ University or above

54

44. Occupation

□ Student □ Clerical worker □ Managerial level

□ Professional □ Others

45. Your average income per month is

□ Below RMB1000 □ RMB1000-1999 □ RMB2000-2999

□ RMB3000-3999 □ RMB4000 or above

End of Questionnaire, Thank you!

有关网路口碑之问卷调查

您好！本人是香港浸会大学市场学系中国商贸学专业三年级的学生，现正进行一项关于网路口

碑( Electronic Word-of-mouth) 的问卷调查。希望您能抽出几分钟时间，完成这份问卷。您

所填写的资料只会用作学术研究。谢谢您的合作！

背景资料:

由于 Web 2.0的兴起造成种类繁多的资讯分享与交换服务平台相继出现，如博客，虚拟社区，

社交网站等。使得消费者可以透过这些网路平台进行沟通与资讯传播，因而出现网路口碑

(electronic word-of-mouth, eWOM)。网路口碑是经网际网路平台，以正面或负面陈述公司潜

在的、实际的或是先前顾客对于产品或是服务所做出的任何经验说明。

1. 您是否曾经访问过社交网站（如新浪微博，腾讯和人人網）？

□是（继续问题 2）□否（问卷完）

2. 您是否曾經在社交网站上給予评论？

□是（继续问题 3）□否（继续问题 4）

3. 在过去的六个月中，您在社交网站上給予评论或反馈的频率是：

□1-3次□4-6次 □7-9次□10次或以上

4. 您是否曾經接納社交网站上的评论？

□是（继续问题 5）□否（继续问题 6）

5. 在过去的六个月中，您在社交网站上接納评论或反馈的频率是：

□1-3次□4-6次 □7-9次□10次或以上

6. 您最频繁访问的社交网站是哪个？ (請只選一個)

□新浪微博 □滕讯微博 □qq空间

□人人网 □开心网 □其他______

55

基于上述问题的答案（问题 6），请根据您同意的程度上回答下列问题。

以下所指的评论是有社交网站上人们對关于产品或是服务所做出的任何经验之說。

完全不同

意

不同意中立同意完全同

意

7. 这网站里的评论是完整的。 1 2 3 4 5

8. 这网站里的评论是有用的。 1 2 3 4 5

9. 这网站里的评论是明确的。 1 2 3 4 5

10. 这网站里的评论是最新的。 1 2 3 4 5

11. 这网站里的發表评论的人是可靠的。 1 2 3 4 5

12. 这网站里的發表评论的人是值得信赖。 1 2 3 4 5

13. 我相信这网站由他人發表的评论。 1 2 3 4 5

14. 我有信心这网站里由他人评论是真实的。 1 2 3 4 5

15. 我相信官方资料。 1 2 3 4 5

16. 我相信來自学术研究的信息。 1 2 3 4 5

17. 我相信由专业人士提供的信息。 1 2 3 4 5

18. 我跟随这网站里的评论或意见。 1 2 3 4 5

19. 我同意这网站里的评论。 1 2 3 4 5

20. 我会接受这网站里的评论。 1 2 3 4 5

21. 这网站里的评论会影响我做某样事情的决

定。

1 2 3 4 5

22. 阅读这网站里的评论后，我想告诉我的朋友。 1 2 3 4 5

23. 我可能会透过网络转发这网站里的评论给其

他人。

1 2 3 4 5

24. 我容易透过网络转发这网站里的评论给其他

人。

1 2 3 4 5

从来没有很少經常频繁非常频

繁

25. 您通常多久会跟您在这网站的“朋

友” 清单里的朋友接触与沟通？

1 2 3 4 5

一點也不

重要

不重要

中立

重要

非常重

要

26. 总体来说，您觉得跟您在这网站的

“朋友” 清单里的朋友有多么重

要？

1 2 3 4 5

56

完全不同

意

不同意

中立

同意

完全同

意

27. 总体而言，我跟在這网站的“朋

友”清單裡的朋友很親近。

1 2 3 4 5

完全不同

意

不同意中立同意完全同

意

28. 我希望其他人接受我。 1 2 3 4 5

29. 当我觉得别人不接受我，我的感情

很容易受到伤害。

1 2 3 4 5

30. 我有强烈的需要感或归属感。 1 2 3 4 5

31. 我努力做事去避免其他人拒绝或

排斥我。

1 2 3 4 5

32. 我愿意在会议或讲座時举手问问

题。

1 2 3 4 5

33. 我愿意接受提名，成为领导者。 1 2 3 4 5

34. 我愿意在争议的问题上或一群陌

生人面前提出个人意见。

1 2 3 4 5

35. 我愿意谈谈我的想法，尽管我不确

定我的想法是否是正确。

1 2 3 4 5

从来没有一次不止一次往往很频繁

36. 我曾把钱給需要的陌生人（或问我

要的人）。

1 2 3 4 5

37. 我曾捐赠物品或衣服给慈善机构。 1 2 3 4 5

38. 我曾在公共汽车或火车讓位給有

需要的陌生人。

1 2 3 4 5

39. 我曾跟其他人分享我所有的東西。 1 2 3 4 5

40. 我曾給陌生人指路。 1 2 3 4 5

丙部个人资料

41. 性别：

□ 男 □ 女

42. 年龄：

□ 18岁或以下 □ 19-25岁 □ 26-35岁

□ 36-45岁 □ 46岁或以上

43. 教育程度

57

□ 小学 □ 中学 □大專或文憑□ 大学或以上

44. 职业

□ 学生 □ 公司职员 □ 管理阶层

□ 专业人士 □其他

45. 您的每月平均收入

□低于 1000元 □1000元-1999元 □2000元-2999元

□3000元-3999元 □4000元或以上

问卷完，谢谢您的参与！

Date post:	09-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Electronic word of mouth information in China:...

Documents