INFLUENTIAL FACTORS OF RECOMMENDATION BEHAVIOUR IN SOCIAL NETWORK SITES - AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS

Ebermann, Jana, Institute for Media and Communications Management, University of St. Gallen, Blumenbergplatz 9, 9000 St. Gallen, Switzerland, jana.ebermann@unisg.ch Stanoevska-Slabeva, Katarina, AJM, University of Neuchtel, Emile-Argand 11, 2009 Neuchtel, Switzerland, katarina.stanoevska@unine.ch; Institute for Media and Communications Management, University of St. Gallen, Blumenbergplatz 9, 9000 St. Gallen, Switzerland, katarina.stanoevska@unisg.ch Wozniak, Thomas, Institute for Media and Communications Management, University of St. Gallen, Blumenbergplatz 9, 9000 St. Gallen, Switzerland, thomas.wozniak@unisg.ch

Abstract
This paper analyzes influential factors of recommendation behaviour in social network sites (SNSs). Extant research on both SNSs and electronic word of mouth (eWOM) has given insufficient attention to SNSs as a potential eWOM channel. Considering the specificities of SNSs, this paper distinguishes implicit and explicit recommendation behaviour. Drawing upon research on eWOM, SNSs, and knowledge exchange, influential factors of implicit and explicit recommendation behaviour are identified. A theoretical model explaining why SNS users (do not) engage in implicit and explicit recommendation behaviour is developed. Structural equation modeling (SEM) is used for hypothesis testing. Data was collected via an online survey from 832 SNS users. The empirical results show a positive impact of reciprocity on both implicit and explicit recommendation behaviour, a negative impact of fear of producing spam on implicit recommendation behaviour, and a positive impact of both implicit recommendation behaviour and the perceived value of the recommended product on explicit recommendation behaviour. Keywords: Social network sites, Social media, Web 2.0, Electronic word of mouth (eWOM), Recommendation behaviour

Introduction and Motivation

Recommendations, that is word-of-mouth (WOM) communication among existing or potential customers of a company, is considered as one of the most powerful and influential marketing communication. The value of WOM information lies in its influence on decision making and attitude formation (Brown et al., 2007). Research on traditional, i.e. offline, WOM is well established. WOM is defined as informal communications directed at other consumers about the ownership, usage, or characteristics of particular goods and services and/or their sellers (Westbrook, 1987, p. 261). The effectiveness of WOM has been shown to be contingent on the involvement of the information seeker and the credibility of the information source (East et al., 2003). While the traditional form of WOM is limited in scope and space, online media have created new communication environments where WOM can take different forms. Two major forms of WOM can be identified: recommendation systems that try to automate recommendation behaviour and electronic WOM (eWOM). In general, a recommendation system supports users to find information, products, or services (such as books, movies, music, digital products, Web sites, and TV programs, to name a few) by aggregating and analyzing suggestions from other users, reviews from various authorities, and user attributes (Kim et al., 2010, p. 212). Amazon.com is a prime example for commercial usage of automated recommendation systems (Bodapati, 2008; Kim et al., 2010). While such recommendations systems involve a firm or other organization as provider and customers as receivers of a recommendation, WOM takes place between consumers. WOM communications taking place in an online environment can be referred to as eWOM (HennigThurau et al., 2004; Sohn, 2009; Steffes & Burgee, 2009). Research on eWOM is increasing. However, the major focus of eWOM research is on online communities and consumer opinion websites. Various aspects of eWOM communications have already been studied. This includes motivational aspects for the consumption of eWOM (Hennig-Thurau & Walsh, 2003), motivational aspects for the provision of eWOM (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004), and the impact of social network constructs like tie strength and homophily on eWOM processes (Steffes & Burgee, 2009). Existing findings suggest that eWOM differs from traditional WOM. The anonymity of the provider of eWOM, i.e. the information source, in online environments as consumer opinion sites is a common denominator of yet studied eWOM channels and marks a key difference to traditional WOM. Since traditional WOM takes place in a face-to-face manner, at least some knowledge of the information source naturally exists. The lack of knowledge of the information source in eWOM has been considered in diverse manners. For example, Steffes & Burgee (2009) conceptualize anonymous providers of eWOM information as weak or non-existent tie information sources, whereas Brown et al. (2007) assume an interpersonal-like relationship between the receiver of eWOM and the website containing the WOM information instead of an interpersonal relationship between the receiver and the anonymous provider of eWOM, i.e. a pair of individuals. Better knowledge of the information source eases the assessment of the sources credibility. Source credibility, in turn, is the direct determinant of WOM information value, as proposed by Brown et al. (2007). With the rise of the Web 2.0 phenomenon, a new type of online communication platform has emerged: social network sites (SNSs) such as Facebook and MySpace integrate information about personal relationships with an effective online communication environment. SNSs have attracted a very large number of users. For example, Facebook counts more than 500 million active users. Boyd & Ellison (2008, p. 211) define SNSs as web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. These features make SNSs unique and differentiate them from other forms of online communication (Boyd & Ellison, 2008). Although SNSs enable their users to meet strangers, they are mostly used to maintain pre-existing social relationships, i.e. there is some offline connection in

advance (Boyd & Ellison, 2008; Choi, 2006; Ellison et al., 2007; Raacke & Bonds-Raacke, 2008). For example, connections may be shared with friends, colleagues, fellow students, travel buddies, acquaintances, former school mates, etc. It can be assumed that WOM information provided by a source that is personally known is perceived as more credible than WOM information from anonymous or personally unknown sources. Stanoevska-Slabeva et al. (2009) found that (1) recommendations from a person's social network contacts are perceived as trustworthy and relevant and (2) the perceived importance of a recommendation increases with decreasing degrees of separation between the sender and receiver of the recommendation. The pre-existence of social relationships which are then articulated and made visible in SNSs mark an important differentiator between SNSs as a potential eWOM channel and yet studied eWOM channels such as consumer opinion websites. In SNSs, the individual information source of a recommendation for a product or service is personally known. This makes SNSs a favourable and trustful space for recommendation and WOM activities of users and by that a very attractive environment for marketers. Despite of this, recommendation behaviour of users in SNS has not been researched broadly yet. There is increasing research on motives to use SNSs. Boyd & Ellison (2008) outlined the characteristics of SNSs and pointed out possible motives to use SNSs. In an empirical study, Choi (2006) found that people register with SNSs for social and informational reasons. Although there is a considerable research on motives for using SNSs (Boyd & Ellison, 2008; Choi, 2006; Lampe et al., 2008), there is insufficient research on recommendation behaviour of SNS users. This paper contributes to fill this gap, guided by the following research question: Which factors influence the recommendation behaviour of SNS users? To address this research question, this paper develops and empirically tests a model explaining recommendation behaviour in SNSs. The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 develops a model explaining implicit and explicit recommendation behaviour in SNSs. Section 3 empirically tests the developed model via structural equation modeling (SEM). Section 4 concludes the paper with a summary and discussion of the results.

2
2.1

State of the Art and Model Development

Definition of terms: Implicit versus explicit recommendations

The main research focus of this paper is the analysis of factors influencing recommendation behaviour of users in SNSs. Following the definition of WOM by Westbrook (1987), we consider recommendations as informal communications [...] about the ownership, usage, or characteristics of particular goods and services and/or their sellers (Westbrook, 1987, p. 261). When occurring in SNSs, such recommendations are a specific form of eWOM. Technically, most SNSs share four common elements: user profile, contacts or friends (users with whom a connection is shared), comments (a mechanism for users to leave messages on their contacts profiles), and private messaging (similar to webmail) (Boyd & Ellison, 2008). SNS users can thus communicate with each other via providing information in ones user profile, via leaving messages in others user profiles (e.g. posting something on somebodys wall), and via private messaging. These communication means can also be utilized to engage in eWOM. The nature of the communication varies by the mean used, in particular with regard to expressivity of the recommendation provided. Some communication means allow direct user-to-user communication, while others allow indirect communication among users. As a result, in analogy with literature on recommendation systems (e.g. Jawaheer et al., 2010; Konstas et al., 2009), implicit and explicit recommendations can be distinguished. In user profiles, information can be provided via status messages (e.g. Whats on your mind? in Facebook) or in pre-defined categories such as Like and interests. The main goal of information provided in the users' profiles is to present the user and his/her preferences (Liu, 2008). Information provided in user profiles is furthermore (semi-)public (Boyd & Ellison, 2008), i.e. viewable by all

users who are entitled to do so (e.g. ones first-degree contacts). Even though the major goal of the information in users' profiles is not to recommend something, it might have a recommendation effect on users reading it because it refers to the products and services users like. For example, Boyd & Heer (2006) consider profiles as initiators of conversation and medium for ongoing conversation in multiple modalities. Profile information that is not directed at specific other users in form of direct user-to-user communication and might have a potential, unintended recommendation effect is considered as implicit recommendation. The opposite of implicit recommendations is explicit recommendations. Explicit recommendations are intentionally provided from one SNS user to another SNS user. Such recommendations may in particular be given through direct communication channels such as Webmail-like messaging within SNSs or as direct response to recommendation requests in status messages. For example, Morris et al. (2010) analyzed the questioning-and-answering behaviour via status messages in SNSs. Among others, the study analyzed 249 example questions provided by survey respondents (Morris et al., 2010). It was found that recommendation (29%) and opinion questions (22%) were the most popular question types (Morris et al., 2010). An opinion question asks for a rating of a specific item, while a recommendation question is an open-ended request for suggestions (Morris et al., 2010, p. 4).

2.2

Hypothesis and Model Development

People who are sensitive to implicit recommendations are likely to generally regard SNSs as platforms that can be used for exchanging information about ones preferences. It is thus assumed that people who engage in implicit recommendation behaviour, defined as obtaining and/or providing implicit recommendations, also use SNSs to make explicit recommendations, as they regard SNSs as an appropriate channel to do so. H1: Implicit recommendation behaviour positively influences explicit recommendation provisioning. Making and/or receiving recommendations can be viewed as a social exchange. In contrast to economic transactions, the terms and conditions in social exchanges are not known in advance (Bartol & Srivastava, 2002). However, intangible benefits such as the expectation of reciprocity in the future can motivate individuals to engage in an interaction (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2005; Gouldner, 1960). It can be distinguished between direct and general reciprocity (Wasko & Faraj, 2005). Direct reciprocity refers to dyadic relationships in which behaviour is reciprocated by the beneficiary of the initial behaviour (Bock et al., 2005). General reciprocity refers to a setting in which behaviour is reciprocated by a third person instead of the aforementioned beneficiary in a dyadic relationship (Wasko & Faraj, 2005). This distinction can be applied to the context of ones social network contacts. One may recommend something to a specific contact in expectation of direct reciprocity, or one may recommend something to a group of people (e.g. all first-degree contacts) in expectation of general reciprocity. In the context of knowledge sharing, Lin (2007) and Bock et al. (2005) provided empirical support for the positive impact of reciprocity. Lin (2007) found a significant positive effect of reciprocal benefits on the attitude toward knowledge sharing and the intention to share knowledge. Bock et al. (2005) found a significant positive effect of anticipated reciprocal relationships on the attitude toward knowledge sharing. Drawing upon these results, it is assumed that the expectation of reciprocity positively influences both implicit recommendation behaviour and explicit recommendation provisioning in SNSs. Thus, the following two hypotheses are formulated: H2: Reciprocity positively influences implicit recommendation behaviour. H3: Reciprocity positively influences explicit recommendation provisioning. A product or service being explicitly recommended needs to be of certain value to actually trigger a recommendation. If a potential recommender perceives the product exceeding a certain value threshold, the recommendation is actually made. The value of a recommended product lies either in its useful or its entertaining character. Providing a recommendation for a useful product can be motivated

by concern for others, which Engel et al. (1993; in Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004) identified as a motive for WOM communication behaviour. Concern for others is a genuine desire to help a friend or relative make a better purchase decision (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004, p. 41). Providing a recommendation for an entertaining product can be motivated by message intrigue, which is another motive for WOM communication behaviour identified by Engel et al. (1993; in Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004). Message intrigue is entertainment resulting from talking about certain ads or selling appeals (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004, p. 41). In summary, the perceived value of the recommended product resulting from the products useful or entertaining character determines whether it is explicitly recommended: H4: The perceived value of the recommended product positively influences explicit recommendation provisioning. Finally, several aspects can prevent a person to provide recommendations in SNSs. One main inhibitor can be the fear of producing content that is irrelevant to the potential receivers. This is especially relevant in times of increasing information overload with much of it being spam (Chen & Han, 2007). Implicit recommendations are especially prone to be considered spam. Implicit recommendations, defined as information on certain products or services provided in ones profile, are not directed at specific people, but can be viewed by all people given the permission to do so. Unless a user specifies that, e.g., a status message can only be viewed by certain users or groups of users, they can be viewed by, e.g., all of a users first-degree contacts. Ones first-degree contacts may be very heterogeneous (e.g. former school mates, travel buddies, work colleagues, friends, family), which makes it highly unlikely that one recommendation fits all. Thus, a large portion of the potential receivers may perceive it as irrelevant and spam. The fear of producing spam may prevent one to make implicit recommendations: H5: The fear of producing spam negatively influences implicit recommendation behaviour. The model illustrated in Figure 1 summarizes the hypotheses.

Fear of producing spam

H5: (-)
Implicit recommendation behaviour

H1: (+)

H2: (+)
H3: (+)
Perceived value of recommended product Explicit recommendation provisioning

Reciprocity

H4: (+)

Figure 1.

Proposed model of recommendation behaviour in SNSs

3
3.1

Empirical Test of Developed Model

Measurement

After determining all relevant dimensions and their relations, the items for measuring each construct need to be specified. In order to make the questions related to recommendation behaviour more concrete and less abstract for potential respondents, media products were chosen as object of recommendations. Thereby, the term media product was considered broadly, comprising any kind of media product such as books, music, video, film, and similar. The reason for choosing media products is twofold: on the one hand, media products are frequently talked about in SNSs; on the other, they are

usually part of the personal descriptions of users in their profiles (Liu, 2008). Extant literature provided indications for developing the items. Table 1 shows the relationships of items and dimensions. Except item EXR2, all items were measured using a five-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
Dimensions Items Explicit EXR1 I use social network sites to give recommendations for media recommendation products. provisioning EXR2 How often have you already given recommendations for media products on social network sites? (five-point scale: never to very often) Implicit IMR1 I use social network sites to inform myself about other recommendation peoples preferences for media products. behaviour IMR2 I use social network sites to inform other people about my preferences for media products. Reciprocity REC1 I recommend a media product in my social networks because I expect recommendations for media products from my social network contacts. REC2 I recommend a media product in my social networks because I have already received recommendations for media products from my social networks. Perceived value VAL1 I recommend a media product in my social networks because I of recommended find the media product useful. product VAL2 I recommend a media product in my social networks because I find the media product entertaining. VAL3 I recommend a media product in my social networks because the media product is useful for my social network contacts. VAL4 I recommend a media product in my social networks because the media product is entertaining for my social network contacts. Fear of SPA1 I do not recommend a media product in my social networks producing spam because I do not want to produce spam. SPA2 I do not recommend a media product in my social networks because my social networks are not the right environment to do that. References Jawaheer et al. (2010), Konstas et al. (2009), Morris et al. (2010)

Bock et al. (2005), Lin (2007)

Dichter (1966), Engel et al. (1993), HennigThurau et al. (2004)

Chen & Han (2007)

Table 1.

Measurements of dimensions

3.2

Data Collection and Sample Characteristics

Data was collected via an online survey. A request for participation in the online survey was sent to bachelor and master students of University of St. Gallen in Switzerland, University of Karlsruhe in Germany, and University of Applied Sciences Osnabrck in Germany. Students were chosen as target sample because the first users of the now very popular SNS Facebook were students (Ellison et al., 2007), extant research on SNSs as well as eWOM has used students samples (e.g. Ellison et al., 2007; Lampe et al., 2008; Raacke & Bonds-Raacke, 2008; Sohn, 2009), and extant research on SNSs has shown that around 90% of students currently use SNSs (e.g. Ellison et al., 2007; Lampe et al., 2008; Raacke & Bonds-Raacke, 2008). To further expand the sample, snowballing was used. Participants were encouraged to forward the link to the online survey to other people. The online survey received 1,522 unique visits. 934 questionnaires were fully completed. 832 respondents (89.1%) who use SNSs represent the sample for the subsequent analysis.

The demographics of the sample as well as the samples SNS usage behaviour are summarized in Table 2. Half of the respondents is between 18 and 23 years old. Males are slightly overrepresented (60.2%). SNS usage frequency and number of first-degree contacts decreases by age. 73.7% of respondents are German; 23.8% are Swiss. 82% of respondents are students; 14.5% are employed.
Age 0-13 13-17 18-23 24-28 29-34 35-45 >45 Total Gender Male Female Total n SNS usage at least once a day 0 0 70.1 49.7 38.5 27.6 14.3 100+ first-degree contacts 0 0 50.9 45.1 43.6 20.7 14.3

0 0 51.4 34.9 9.4 3.5 0 100% 60.2 39.8 100% 832

57.8 58.3

50.5 41.4

Table 2.

Sample characteristics

3.3
3.3.1

Hypothesis and Model Testing

Dimensionality

After developing the model, dimensionality has to be analysed. The model and the theoretical implications indicate unidimensionality, which can be defined as the existence of one latent trait or construct underlying a set of measures (Anderson, 1987, p. 435). To verify unidimensionality, a factor analysis was performed at the beginning of the empirical analysis (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Netemeyer et al., 2003). The factor analysis yielded five relevant factors (eigenvalue >1) that match with the theoretical concepts and do not cross-load (see Table 3). Within each dimension, the items exceed factor loadings of 0.5. Unidimensionality can be confirmed. Additionally, the KMO criterion amounts to 0.833. This implies that the correlations between the items are suitable for a factor analysis, respectively in a second step for the structural equation model.
Component 3 4

1 SPA1 SPA2 IMR1 IMR2 EXR1 EXR2 VAL1 VAL2 VAL3 VAL4 REC1 REC2

5 .864 .838

.888 .850 .862 .855 .874 .892 .840 .871 .889 .820

Table 3.

Factor analysis, Rotated Component Matrix

Table 4 shows the reliability measures for the constructs. Apart from fear of producing spam, the Cronbachs alpha values of all constructs exceed the recommended threshold of 0.7 (Netemeyer et al., 2003). Because fear of producing spam is measured with only two items, the value of 0.674 is

considered acceptable. The average variance extracted (AVE) values of all constructs exceed the recommended threshold of 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
Construct Perceived value of the recommended product Reciprocity Fear of producing spam Implicit recommendation behaviour Explicit recommendation behaviour Cronbachs alpha 0.927 0.835 0.674 0.78 0.812 Average variance extracted (AVE) 0.79 0.73 0.52 0.64 0.7

Table 4. 3.3.2

Reliability measures

Analysis of Standardized Estimates

After proving the structure and relations between items and dimensions, the structural equation model was implemented in AMOS. Table 5 summarizes the results of hypothesis testing. All values respectively relationships are significant (p<0.01). Thus, all hypotheses are supported.
Hypothesis H1: Implicit recommendation behaviour Explicit recommendation provisioning H2: Reciprocity Implicit recommendation behaviour H3: Reciprocity Explicit recommendation provisioning H4: Perceived value of recommended product Explicit recommendation provisioning H5: Fear of producing spam Implicit recommendation behaviour Standardized estimate 0.382 0.348 0.313 0.135 -0.151 p *** *** *** *** .002 Result Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported

Table 5.

Summary of hypothesis testing

H1 is the strongest relationship within the model. Users that are sensitive regarding implicit recommendations (they read preferences of others and show their own preferences) are more willing to use SNSs for making explicit recommendations. The relation between 'Reciprocity' and 'Implicit recommendation behaviour' (H2) is measured with a similar effect strength. SNS users that expect or have already received recommendations are more likely to engage in implicit recommendations behaviour. Similarly, expected or experienced 'Reciprocity' has a positive effect on making explicit recommendations (H3). The effect of the perceived value of the recommended product is relatively weaker, but significant (H4). If a product exceeds a certain value threshold, it will be explicitly recommended. Finally, the strength of the effect of 'Fear of producing spam' on 'Implicit recommendation behaviour' (H5) is similar to that of 'Perceived value of the recommended product' on 'Explicit recommendation behaviour' (H4). The negative effect of the former can be explained with the structural conditions of SNSs. For example, heterogeneous first-degree contacts can prevent a SNS user to make implicit recommendations via status updates because they may not be perceived as relevant by all of the users first-degree contacts. Figure 2 shows the standardized estimates of the model as presented in AMOS. The value of squared multiple correlations coefficients indicates that all latent variables could explain 18% of the variance of the dimension 'Implicit recommendation behaviour' and 43% of the variance of the dimension 'Explicit recommendation provisioning' (Backhaus et al., 2008). The analysis of the scores of the manifest items provides additional information about the most influencing variables. Within the concept 'Explicit recommendation provisioning', the standardized coefficients are very similar. 'Reciprocity' is more influenced by the variable REC2 than by REC1. The dimension 'Fear of producing spam' shows higher influence by SPA2 than by SPA1.

Figure 2.

Standardized Estimates

One additional adaption within the model was made. There is one outlier within the analysis of the modification indices of the model. Modification indices show how much the chi square decreases if a link between two variables, dimensions, or residuals would be made. Therefore, we linked the two suggested residuals (Bollen, 1993). 3.3.3 Quality Criteria

Table 6 shows the most relevant indices with their thresholds for good model fit. To avoid misleading interpretations, several indices have to be considered (Homburg & Klarmann, 2006; Hu & Bentler, 1998).
Index Criterion 2 3*df GFI .90 AGFI .90 CFI .90 NFI .90 RMSEA .05

Table 6.

Criteria for model-fit indices (Baumgartner & Homburg, 1996; Cudeck & Browne, 1983; Hatcher, 1994; Marsh & Hocevar, 1985; Wheaton et al., 1977)

The GFI of the proposed model is 0.976. This means that 97.6% of the former total variance could be explained through the structure of the model (Backhaus et al., 2008). All values of AGFI, NFI, and CFI clearly exceed the recommended value of 0.9, suggesting a good model fit (see Table 7). The value of RMSEA has to be 0.05 or smaller. With RMSEA=0.045, there is a strong indication for a good model fit (Steiger, 1990; Steiger & Lind, 1980).
2 125.6 135 45 df NFI Delta1 .977 1.000 .000

Model Default model Saturated model Independence model

GFI .976 1.000 .372

AGFI .958 .257

CFI

RMSEA

.985 .046 1.000 .315 .000

Table 7.

Model-fit indices for proposed model

Conclusion

This paper has analyzed influential factors of recommendation behaviour in SNSs. Several influential factors have been identified, based on extant research on eWOM, SNSs, and knowledge sharing. A theoretical model incorporating the identified influential factors has been developed and tested via SEM. The results of the empirical analysis show that implicit recommendation behaviour positively influences explicit recommendation provisioning. SNS users who are sensitive to implicit recommendations seem to regard SNSs as an appropriate eWOM channel and thus also use it for making explicit recommendations. Further, the results showed that reciprocity positively influences both implicit recommendation behaviour and explicit recommendation provisioning. This indicates that provisioning and obtaining recommendations in SNSs is a social exchange. The trust in future reciprocation of a given recommendation is likely to be prevalent because the sender and the receiver of the recommendation personally know each other. Recommendations via ones user profile, e.g. via status updates, could be shown to be negatively influenced by the fear of producing spam. This can be explained by the potential heterogeneity of ones first-degree contacts who all would receive that recommendation. One is just unlikely to fit all. Finally, it was found that recommended products or services need to be perceived as valuable to trigger an explicit recommendation. The chosen sample mainly consisted of university students, which can be viewed as a limitation. Indeed, the usage of student samples in even top-tier journals has been debated for long. However, the first users of the SNS Facebook were students and SNSs usage among students is wide spread. Thus, relying on a mainly student sample is acceptable. As SNS usage becomes wider spread among older age groups, future research should explicitly consider also older samples and other occupations. The nature of SNS usage may well differ by age, or generation, and thus impact potential recommendation behaviour in SNSs. Recommendations and eWOM can occur for different categories of products or services. This paper has focused on recommendations for media product for reasons provide above. The category of products or service may well impact the related potential recommendation behaviour in SNSs. Thus, future research may address this.

References
Anderson, J. (1987). On the Assessment of Unidimensional Measurement: Internal and External Consistency, and Overall Consistency Criteria. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(4). Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423. Backhaus, K., Erichson, B., Plinke, W., & Weiber, R. (2008). Multivariate Analysemethoden: Eine anwendungsorientierte Einfhrung. Berlin: Springer. Bartol, K. M., & Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging Knowledge sharing: The Role of Organizational Reward Systems. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(1), 64-76. doi: 10.1177/107179190200900105. Baumgartner, H., & Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(2), 139-161. doi: 10.1016/0167-8116(95)00038-0. Bock, G., Zmud, R., Kim, Y., & Lee, J. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87-111. Bodapati, A. V. (2008). Recommendation Systems with Purchase Data. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(1), 77-93. Bollen, K. (1993). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Boyd, D., & Heer, J. (2006). Profiles as Conversation: Networked Identity Performance on Friendster. Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-39), Persistent Conversation Track. Kauai, HI: IEEE Computer Society. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2006.394.

Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, Nicole B. (2008). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230. doi: 10.1111/j.10836101.2007.00393.x. Brown, J., Broderick, A. J., & Lee, N. (2007). Word of mouth communication within online communities: Conceptualizing the online social network. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21(3), 2-20. doi: 10.1002/dir.20082. Cabrera, E. F., & Cabrera, A. (2005). Fostering knowledge sharing through people management practices. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(5), 720-735. Chen, T., & Han, W. (2007). Content recommendation system based on private dynamic user profile. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics (pp. 2112-2118). Hong Kong. doi: 10.1109/ICMLC.2007.4370493. Choi, J. H.-jeong. (2006). Living in Cyworld: Contextualising Cy-Ties in South Korea. In A. Bruns & J. Jacobs (Eds.), Uses of blogs (pp. 173-186). New York: Peter Lang. Cudeck, R., & Browne, M. (1983). Cross-Validation Of Covariance Structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 18(2), 147-167. Psychology Press. Dichter, E. (1966). How Word-of-Mouth Advertising Works. Harvard Business Review, 44(6), 147166. East, R., Hancock, C., Hammond, K., & Scriven, J. (2003). The relative frequency and impact of sought and unsought recommendations. ANZMAC 2003 Conference Proceedings Adelaide 1-3 December 2003 (pp. 393-399). Ellison, N B, Steinfield, C, & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook" friends:" Social capital and college students` use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143-1168. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x. Engel, J. F., Blackwell, R. D., & Miniard, P. W. (1993). Consumer Behavior (7th ed.). Fort Worth,TX: Dryden Press. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 3950. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review (Vol. 25, p. 161178). Hatcher, L. (1994). A Step-by-Step Approach to Using the SAS System for Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute. Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, Gianfranco, & Gremler, D. D. (2004). Electronic word-ofmouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the Internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1), 38-52. Hennig-Thurau, T., & Walsh, G. (2003). Electronic Word-of-Mouth: Motives for and Consequences of Reading Customer Aarticulations on the Internet. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(2), 51-74. Homburg, C., & Klarmann, M. (2006). Die Kausalanalyse in der empirischen betriebswirtschaftlichen Forschung - Problemfelder und Anwendungsempfehlungen. Die Betriebswirtschaft, 66(6), 727748. Hu, L.-tze, & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424-453. Jawaheer, G., Szomszor, M., & Kostkova, P. (2010). Comparison of Implicit and Explicit Feedback from an Online Music Recommendation Service. HetRec 10 Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Information Heterogeneity and Fusion in Recommender Systems (pp. 47-51). Barcelona. Kim, J. K., Kim, H. K., Oh, H. Y., & Ryu, Y. U. (2010). A group recommendation system for online communities. International Journal of Information Management, 30(3), 212-219. Konstas, I., Stathopoulos, V., & Jose, J. M. (2009). On social networks and collaborative recommendation. Proceedings of the 32nd international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval (p. 195202). New YYork, NY: ACM.

Lampe, Cliff, Ellison, Nicole B, & Steinfield, Charles. (2008). Changes in Use and Perception of Facebook. Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 721-730). New York, NY,: ACM. doi: 10.1145/1460563.1460675. Lin, H. (2007). Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing intentions. Journal of Information Science, 33(2), 135-149. Liu, H. (2008). Social Network Profiles as Taste Performances. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 252-275. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00395.x. Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of selfconcept: First- and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychological Bulletin, 97(3), 562-582. Morris, M. R., Teevan, J., & Panovich, K. (2010). What Do People Ask Their Social Networks , and Why ? A Survey Study of Status Message Q & A Behavior. CHI 10 Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Human factors in computing systems. Netemeyer, R., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Raacke, J., & Bonds-Raacke, J. (2008). MySpace and Facebook: Applying the uses and gratifications theory to exploring friend-networking sites. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(2), 169-174. Sohn, D. (2009). Disentangling the Effects of Social Network Density on Electronic Word-of-Mouth (eWOM) Intention. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(2), 352-367. Stanoevska-Slabeva, K., Wozniak, T., Hoffend, I., & Ebermann, J. (2009). Towards a concept for inclusion of social network information as context information. 2009 International Conference on Ultra Modern Telecommunications & Workshops (pp. 1-5). IEEE. Steffes, E. M., & Burgee, L. E. (2009). Social ties and online word of mouth. Internet Research, 19(1), 42-59. Steiger, James. (1990). Structural Model Evaluation and Modification: An Interval Estimation Approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173-180. Steiger, Jh, & Lind, J. (1980). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA. Wasko, M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 35-57. Westbrook, R. A. (1987). Product/consumption-based affective responses and postpurchase processes. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3), 258270. Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D., & Summers, G. (1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. Sociological Methodology, 8, 84-136.