Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing

Does valence of product review matter?: The mediating role of self-effect and
third-person effect in sharing YouTube word-of-mouth (vWOM)
Nicky Chang Bi, Ruonan Zhang, Louisa Ha,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Nicky Chang Bi, Ruonan Zhang, Louisa Ha, (2018) "Does valence of product review matter?: The
mediating role of self-effect and third-person effect in sharing YouTube word-of-mouth (vWOM)",
Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-04-2018-0049
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-04-2018-0049
Downloaded by INSEAD At 20:57 22 November 2018 (PT)

Downloaded on: 22 November 2018, At: 20:57 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 65 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 17 times since 2018*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:178665 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-7122.htm

YouTube
Does valence of product word-of-mouth
review matter?
The mediating role of self-effect and
third-person effect in sharing YouTube
word-of-mouth (vWOM)
Received 7 April 2018
Nicky Chang Bi, Ruonan Zhang and Louisa Ha Revised 19 August 2018
Accepted 22 October 2018
Department of Media and Communication, Bowling Green State University,
Bowling Green, Ohio, USA
Downloaded by INSEAD At 20:57 22 November 2018 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose – As YouTubers began to create videos about their personal experience of using products, these
video testimonials have become a powerful form of electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM). This study aims to
investigate the mediating role of self-effect and third-person effect in the relationships between eWOM
seeking and passing along YouTube product review videos (video-based eWOM – vWOM) as a specific form
of eWOM.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper used a survey to interview a total of 282 respondents at a
public university in the Midwest USA with about 18,000 students.
Findings – The results show that perceived third-person effect leads to sharing more positive vWOM, while
perceived self-effect results in a high likelihood of passing along negative vWOM. The general eWOM
consumption does not have a direct effect on the sharing of vWOM. In addition, the YouTube sharing habit
contributes to sharing vWOM regardless of valence.
Practical implications – The results provide marketers’ insights on how to utilize the social media such
as YouTube to improve the visibility of promotional brand messages. Sharing of positive vWOM is due to
perceived third-person effect (presumed influence), but sharing negative vWOM is due to perceived self-effect.
It also suggests marketers take immediate remedial measures to avoid spreading of negative reviews to other
users because if viewers are persuaded to think it could happen to themselves as well, they will spread the
video.
Originality/value – The paper has theoretical implications. It contributes to the third-person effect and
presumed influence literature by exploring its role in spreading the word for products. It also fills the gap in
effects of eWOM literature by examining the mediating role of the valence of video-based eWOM in the
spread of eWOM.
Keyword Internet marketing
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
In this digital era, electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) such as consumers’ product review
videos on YouTube and review sites such as TripAdvisor can play an important role in
consumers’ purchase decisions (Litvin et al., 2008). Marketers should pay higher attention to
this type of organic user-generated content, because people rely on the third party’s opinion
or experience to form their attitudes toward products, brands, and companies. Allsop et al.
Journal of Research in Interactive
Marketing
Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, © Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-7122
commercial or not-for-profit sectors. DOI 10.1108/JRIM-04-2018-0049
 JRIM (2007) compared product information sources such as advertising, public relations, and
opinions of the company’s employees and found that traditional word-of-mouth and eWOM
are not only the most influential information sources but also perceived as having the
highest credibility. The top 10 product categories where individuals seek WOM (including
eWOM) the most are restaurants, computers, movies, vehicles, nutrition and healthy eating,
healthcare providers, financial products and services, political issues and candidates,
vacations, and cell phone service providers (Allsop, et al., 2007).

2. The significance of the study

2.1 YouTube product review videos as video-based electronic word-of-mouth
eWOM comes in many different forms such as Amazon product reviews, Yelp restaurant
reviews, and YouTube product review videos (video-based eWOM – vWOM), but most
research has been carried out on Amazon, Yelp, and other text-based eWOM sources
(Chevalier and Mayzlin, 2006; Lim and Van Der Heide, 2015). YouTube is vWOM that
provides vivid demonstrations and human faces that other online reviews do not. However,
Downloaded by INSEAD At 20:57 22 November 2018 (PT)

very few research studies focus on such as to examine the effects of vWOM on individuals’
attitudes toward products. YouTube offers a content community where people produce their
own videos or watch the video content of their choice, share, and comment on the content.
Among all online sources that dominate youths’ video preferences, YouTube (85 per cent)
held first place; 67 per cent participants said that YouTube was the source young people
could not live without (Cummings, 2016). YouTubers are people who create videos on
different topics. Many such videos are about their personal experience of using products.
Some YouTubers under the category “How to and Style” attracted millions of subscribers. A
popular makeup tutorial could attract above 1,000,000 views (YouTube, 2018). Although
there are studies about consumer-generated advertising posted on YouTube (Lawrence
et al., 2013), there is a lack of studies on YouTube videos specifically as an eWOM source.
Consumers’ response to Video WOM (vWOM) such as product reviews on YouTube was
rarely studied empirically. Product review videos (including unboxing videos) have a much
more powerful persuasive effect due to their multimedia presentation and the vividness in the
testimonials with the reviewers narrating their experience like a friend. It can show exactly
how the product works or not work. It is very similar to the in-person recommendation. It is
also available on demand so whenever one wants to learn about the product and the user
experience, he/she can just open the video to watch a demonstration. But how much
consumers interpret these videos and are influenced by such videos is not known.

2.2 Sharing of electronic word-of-mouth

Marketers are interested in creating viral brand messages, but customers’ sharing process is
still inconclusive. eWOM scholars revealed several other motivations of eWOM engagement
such as helping companies and expressing negative feelings about the product (Sundaram
et al., 1998; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004) and focused on the message cues that trigger sharing
(Lee et al., 2017). In Choi’s (2016) news dimension theory, news internalizing positively
predicts news externalizing, suggesting that news seeking increases the likelihood of news
sharing and reframing. In the context of eWOM, it may trigger the same process in which
people who depend more on eWOM tend to influence others by sharing the messages. In
addition, we may perceive sharing as a persuasion process in which consumers, who repost
product- or brand-related content, are affected by the message in the first place (Mahapatra
and Mishra, 2017). Hence, this study will help explain the decision of spreading vWOM by
differentiating the perceived effect of on self and others in positive and negative vWOM
respectively in the process.
 In addition, although previous literature has already examined the effects of positive and YouTube
negative eWOM on people’s attitudes (Lim and Van Der Heide, 2015), the effects on the word-of-mouth
intention to share are still inconclusive. Based on the research on third-person effect, people
may be more likely to influence others when the perceived effect on others is strong
(Davison, 1983). Moreover, the effects on self and others may influence people’s sharing
behavior differently in terms of eWOM valence, as people perceive different functions and
usefulness between positive and negative eWOM (Leino and Räihä, 2007; Lim and Van Der
Heide, 2015; Jin and Phua, 2014).
The current study contributes to the third-person effect and presumed influence
literature by exploring the indirect effect of spreading the word for products and analyzing
how the valence of eWOM influences people’s engagement. It also fills the gap in the eWOM
literature by examining both video-based eWOM and the antecedents of sharing as an
eWOM practice. It considers sharing as a persuasion process and explores the mediating
role of perceived YouTube eWOM (vWOM) effects on self and others on the relationship
between eWOM consumption and vWOM sharing.
Downloaded by INSEAD At 20:57 22 November 2018 (PT)

The study also possesses a practical significance in that it provides suggestions for
marketers about how to diffuse positive brand messages and manage negative eWOM from
customers. Social media algorithm usually prioritizes posts from friends and family over
content publishers such as brands (Cohen, 2018, January 16). Hence, consumers’ sharing can
greatly improve the visibility of the promotional content on social media such as Facebook
and Twitter. This study on sharing provides insights on how brands can respond to the
sharing of product reviews on social media and control negative brand-related messages.

3. Literature review
3.1 Conceptualization of electronic word-of-mouth and the impact on sharing
WOM is typically defined as “the communication between consumers about a product, service,
or a company in which the sources are considered independent of commercial influence” (Litvin
et al., 2008, p. 3). The scope of the eWOM content is commonly limited to consumers’
experience, evaluation, and opinion about a product, a service, a brand, or a company (Hennig-
Thurau et al., 2004; Litvin et al., 2008; Kietzmann and Canhoto, 2013). eWOM is created by
online users who should be “void from any commercial interest” (Rathore, 2015, p. 5).
More recently, the definition of eWOM has been expanded to:
[. . .] any information, including not only customers own statements but also shared/forwarded
posts from retailers or other published sources, which are exchanged among potential, actual, or
former customers about a product or company available to a multitude of people and institutions
via the Internet (Hu and Ha, 2015, p. 17).
The eWOM activity engagement has evolved from the traditional organic content creation
to “one-to-one seeding” – the content shared from one audience to another (Kozinets et al.,
2010, p. 72). The exchange of information emphasized a collaborative and collective one-to-
one perspective, suggesting that sharing is a part of eWOM (Alon and Brunel, 2018).
The influence of organic forwarded online content should be equal or even greater than the
traditional eWOM created by ordinary people. According to the two-step flow process, this
type of eWOM may have a greater impact on others, as people tend to share the information
with their family and friends via social media (Roger, 1995). Their interpersonal relationships
and the perceived credibility of the sharers increase the likelihood of acceptance of the shared
information (Eagly and Chaiken, 1975; Kelman and Hovland, 1953; Roger, 1995).
 JRIM 3.2 Multiple electronic word-of-mouth source use
Individuals usually rely on multiple eWOM sources to make their purchase decisions. Shade
et al. (2015) used the Media Migration Theory to explain why people used different WOM
sources while seeking product reviews. They suggested that people sought more
information on the programs they required to enrich their viewing experience, which
“heighten the affective and cognitive ties an audience member” has toward the topic (p. 332).
The motivation for seeking other sources was to have “more content-congruent exposure”
(p. 333). This means that customers tend to gain more from multiple sources rather than an
experience of engaging in only one source. Similarly, Dutta-Bergman’s (2004)
Complementarity Theory revealed that “individuals who used one particular medium to
gather information in one particular area were more likely to consume other media sources
that contain information in that specific area” (p. 48). For instance, individuals who sought
health information more on the Internet were likely to pay more attention to health
information presented in television, magazines, radio, and newspapers (Tian and Robinson,
2008). Hence, heavy eWOM users may consume multiple eWOM sources such as product
review websites and social media sites (sWOM).
Downloaded by INSEAD At 20:57 22 November 2018 (PT)

3.3 General electronic word-of-mouth seeking and video-based electronic word-of-mouth

sharing
eWOM typically is sought and solicited by consumers. They visit different eWOM sites
such as TripAdvisor, e-commerce sites such as Amazon to find the reviews on products
of their interest. Although not specifically about product reviews, research on news
sharing such as Choi’s (2016) sharing dimension theory suggests news browsing
facilitates news endorsing. Those who read more news on a social media site are more
likely to share news. Other studies also link online news viewing to sharing (Beam et al.,
2016; Weeks and Holbert, 2013), which supports the idea that more consumption
conduces sharing. Additionally, Munzel and H. Kunz (2014) revealed a positive
relationship between eWOM sharers and eWOM seeking. In addition, eWOM seekers
possess higher Internet self-efficacy that allows them to “successfully understand,
navigate, and evaluate content online” (Gangadharbatla, 2008, p. 3). Hence, heavy
eWOM seekers perceive eWOM as more credible than light eWOM seekers, as they
have a rich experience of using eWOM to make their purchase decision. Hence, we can
deduce that the eWOM users who seek more eWOM from multiple sources are more
likely to share eWOM on YouTube. We first hypothesized a direct effect of eWOM
seeking on sharing of YouTube product review videos (vWOM):

H1. The more people seek eWOM, the more likely they share vWOM.

3.4 Electronic word-of-mouth valence and sharing

Many researchers studied how various WOM factors influence consumers’ attitudes and
behaviors, such as the participant’s role, attributes of the source (volume, quality, valence),
rate of activity within the social network, characteristics of the message, and personal
relevance (Allsop, et al., 2007; Lin et al., 2012; Teng et al., 2014). Among them, the valence of
the eWOM messages plays an important role in the effects of eWOM on consumers. Past
studies on eWOM mostly focused on reviews of online review ratings and comments on
online retailers such as Amazon and consumer review sites such as Yelp (Chevalier and
Mayzlin, 2006; Lim and Van Der Heide, 2015).
When Arndt (1967) studied traditional WOM, which is the oral communication among
people known to the consumer of a product, he found that favorable WOM would “aid
 acceptance of new product” (p. 292). Unfavorable WOM can be more impactful than YouTube
favorable WOM, because it can dissuade someone from using it and damage the reputation word-of-mouth
of the brand. Herr et al. (1991) study showed that negative information had a greater impact
on brand attitudes because negative WOM is more diagnostic or informative than positive
and neutral WOM.
In the online world, the valence of WOM influencing people’s attitudes and behavior
seems much more inconclusive. In a recent study on consumers’ attitudes toward
restaurants, it was observed that online review valence (positive vs. negative) directly
influences customers’ attitudes (Lim and Van Der Heide, 2015). They found that Yelp users
who saw positive reviews perceived the reviews as having higher credibility, goodwill, and
competence than reading negative reviews. But another study indicated that positive
reviews “did not count for much,” when the reviews were not relevant to what consumers
wanted (Leino and Räihä, 2007, p. 139).
The question of whether positive or negative eWOM is more likely to be shared is still
under debate. Among the limited research on eWOM valence and sharing, Jin and Phua
Downloaded by INSEAD At 20:57 22 November 2018 (PT)

(2014) found that people are more likely to pass along negative eWOM to others when the
celebrity has a low number of followers, because people feel the obligation to spread the
negative eWOM to others when a source attracts less attention. On one hand, people tend
to spread the negative eWOM to others, because it is more diagnostic, and people should
pay more attention to the message. On the other hand, positive eWOM may be more likely
to be shared because it is trustworthy and provides better assistance in decision-making.
Due to the inconclusive results on whether positive and negative reviews affect
consumers’ perceptions of a product more, and as no study has used vWOM as a subject
for review valence and sharing, this study poses a general research question examines
whether there is a difference between positive and negative review videos on review
sharing:

RQ1. In general, which types of vWOM are more likely to be shared in terms of its
valence?
Although past literature found that eWOM seeking is associated with eWOM sharing, some
scholars revealed that people tended to forward a message only if they were affected by it
(Mahapatra and Mishra, 2017). eWOM is persuasive and tends to change people’s attitudes
and behavior. People will process the information by evaluating its credibility, authenticity,
professionalism, and usefulness to make the purchase decision or recommend it to others
(Chahal and Rani, 2017; Lafferty et al., 2002; Lim and Van Der Heide, 2015; Teng, et al., 2014).
During the process, eWOM seeking may have an indirect rather a direct effect on eWOM
sharing through eWOM effects.
Moreover, the Uses and Gratifications Theory provides a link between the seeking of
eWOM and the effects of eWOM (Hicks et al., 2012; Rubin, 2009). The need to obtain
product information and make the purchase decision will generate the consumption of
product reviews from multiple eWOM sources, because seeking eWOM reduces
people’s anxiety or makes them feel less ambiguous about their knowledge of a
product. Eventually, they will resolve the uncertainty about the product and make the
purchase decision through eWOM seeking, which encourages them to re-experience the
same process when facing similar situations in the future. Hence, we can infer that the
more people seek eWOM, the more likely are they to be influenced by those eWOM
messages including vWOM. Such influence can be on self and perceived effects on
others.
 JRIM 3.5 Third-person effect and self-effect on video-based electronic word-of-mouth sharing
As the studies discussed earlier, people who share an eWOM message should be affected by
the content. The process of persuasion of eWOM occurs indirectly through the perceived
effects on others (Mahapatra and Mishra, 2017). In the context of the current study, people
identify “other” as other customers. Self and other are two different populations in terms of
consumption of and perceived experience with eWOM. The gaps in eWOM effects schemas
reveal the differences between self and other customers (Shen et al., 2018).
Based on the third-person effect hypothesis, people presume that messages should exert
a stronger influence on others than on the self (Davison, 1983). However, scholars argued
that people will acknowledge the media effects if a message is regarded as socially desirable,
healthy, and good for self (Hoorens and Ruiter, 1996), which suggests that the perceived
effects differ across message types (Eisend, 2017).
Additionally, derived from third-person effect, the influence of presumed influence model
proposed an indirect effect of mass communication on an audience (Gunther and Storey,
2003). The model indicates a two-step process that people demonstrate behavioral reactions
Downloaded by INSEAD At 20:57 22 November 2018 (PT)

when they perceive the greater influence of messages on others than on self (Gunther and
Storey, 2003). It has been used to examine the influence of the indirect effects of health
campaign (Gunther and Storey, 2003), news (Park, 2005), television series and reality shows
(Cohen and Weimann, 2008; Noguti and Russell, 2014) and drug advertising (Kim and Lee,
2012).
In the context of eWOM, the indirect effects will occur based on the presumed influence
model. People may systematically perceive stronger effects of eWOM on others, then react
on the vWOM when exposure to it. The audience may want to share the product review
videos because of their perceptions of eWOM on others. As the study discussed earlier, the
presumed influence differs across message types (Eisend, 2017). People actively seek eWOM
for the product information, which is different from other media types. Perceived influence
on self and others may lead to different behavior. The study will examine the indirect effect
hypotheses by analyzing the influence of eWOM seeking on vWOM sharing.eWOM
engagement includes other-related motivations such as platform assistance, concern for
other consumers, and social benefits (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004). Perceived third-person
effect increase when people want to help and protect others. It indicates that consumers may
want to assist others’ decision-making process by sharing the vWOM, when they perceive
more third-person effect of eWOM. Hence, the more people seeking eWOM, they are more
likely to see higher third-person effect that others will be influenced by the positive reviews
and benefit from knowing a good product, and the more likely they will share the product
videos:

H2a. Third-person effect of positive vWOM mediates the relationship between general
eWOM seeking and positive vWOM sharing.
Similarly, based on the presumed influence model, if a product is negatively reviewed, the
eWOM seeker should also feel higher third-person effects thinking other may be vulnerable
to the bad product, leading them to share the negative review videos on social media:

H2b. Third-person effect of negative vWOM mediates the relationship between general
eWOM seeking and negative vWOM sharing
Different from media content that people are usually passively exposed to the content,
people actively seek eWOM to obtain product information. Perceived influence on self may
lead to specific sharing behavior. Perceived self-effect increases when their purpose is more
 self-driven, such as maintaining self-esteem (Eisend, 2017) and learning the benefits of the YouTube
product. In this setting, positive vWOM sharing is due to the perceived positive self-effect word-of-mouth
such as a good impression of the product after watching the review. Hence, we hypothesized,
positive self-effect can mediate the general eWOM seeking and sharing of the videos:

H2c. Self-effect of positive vWOM mediates the relationship between general eWOM
seeking and positive vWOM sharing.
In addition, vWOM can be driven by negative self-driven needs such as expressing negative
feelings and feeling vulnerable to buy a lemon, and we hypothesized that self-effect will
facilitate the sharing of negative vWOM by mediating the eWOM seeking and sharing of
negative vVOM:

H2d. Self-effect of negative vWOM mediates the relationship between general eWOM
seeking and negative vWOM sharing.
Downloaded by INSEAD At 20:57 22 November 2018 (PT)

3.6 Sharing habits and sharing video-based electronic word-of-mouth

Although scholars indicate people’s engagement in social media is a goal-driven process,
some studies argued that the behavior was sometimes triggered by other stimuli (Leung and
Wei, 1998; Lee and Ma, 2012; Yzer, 2013). Past experience of sharing could potentially
enhance people’s self-efficacy with regard to the behavior (LaRose, 2009). Scholars found
that computer self-efficacy positively affected individuals’ use of a specific system or feature
of the technology (Mun and Hwang, 2003), suggesting that their habitual behavior of
sharing increases their proficiency of using the figure and increases their likelihood of
sharing. In addition, people’s past sharing experience on YouTube would increase their
familiarity with the platform, which, in turn, would enhance their perceived credibility of the
medium (Lim and Van Der Heide, 2015). As the credibility of the media platform increases,
people are more likely to engage with and share content on that platform (Hsu et al., 2007;
Men and Tsai, 2013). Their sharing behavior tends to become a daily routine rather than a
planned behavior (Lee and Ma, 2012). Hence, the current research will consider individuals’
sharing habits on YouTube as a potential indicator of sharing vWOM.

4. Method
4.1 Sampling and procedure
To test our hypotheses on YouTube product review video sharing, we used a survey of USA
college students. College students were chosen because they are heavy YouTube video users
(Cummings, 2016) and have been considered by marketers as an important market with US
$560 billion spending power and strong brand preference despite their generally lower
income (Refuel Agency, 2017; On Campus Advertising, 2013). Because of their lower income,
they are also most likely use product reviews and WOM to minimize the risk of purchasing a
bad product (On Campus Research, 2012). We collected responses from a total of 282 college
students at a public university in the Midwest USA with about 18,000 students. We used an
intercept sampling of participants who visited the student union between November 1 and
12, 2015, to obtain a diverse student sample instead of online surveys, which typically
yielded low response and biased samples (Moy and Murphy, 2016). The student union was
centrally located on the campus and the area registered the highest traffic. Interviewers were
junior and senior students who were trained in an audience research class. They waited at
the entrances of the union on the ground floor over a period of two weeks across different
hours and days. They asked every third person who passed by the union and invited them
 JRIM to complete the survey. Each interviewer provided a laptop to the interviewee to enter the
response to the questionnaire privately to minimize interviewer bias. To minimize the
gender bias, the interviewers alternated the gender of the participants while inviting them.
The cooperation rate was 51.7 per cent.

4.2 Measures
4.2.1 Electronic word-of-mouth seeking. To measure the eWOM seeking, we asked
respondents to indicate their tendency to seek product information and reviews as a
preferred source by a five-point rating from “never” (1) to “always” (5) for five eWOM
sources:
(1) produce reviews in e-commerce sites such as Amazon or eBay;
(2) social media such as Facebook, Twitter or blogs;
(3) online forums;
(4) specialized product review sites such as CNET, Consumer Search or TestFreaks; and
Downloaded by INSEAD At 20:57 22 November 2018 (PT)

(5) online videos on websites such as YouTube.

The average of ratings of the eWOM sources was computed as the intensity of overall
eWOM seeking. eWOM seeking is conceptualized as the antecedent to eWOM sharing.
4.2.2 Effects of video-based electronic word-of-mouth. This study used attitude toward
products and purchase intention after watching vWOM as the first- and third-person effect
of vWOM. Participants were also asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed to the
statements of their responses to positively reviewed products by rating on a 5-point Likert
scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) and to “strongly agree” (5). A mean comparison
indicated that the self-effect and third-person effect of both positive and negative reviewed
products in videos had statistically significant differences under the current measurement,
indicating the existence of the third-person effect of vWOM, confirming the needs to
separate the analysis of the self and third effect between positive and negative vWOM.
4.2.2.1 Self-effect of positive video-based electronic word-of-mouth. The variable was
measured by two items, “I am more likely to buy the product” (behavioral intention) and “I
would have a more favorable impression of the product positively reviewed by a
YouTuber,” (attitude) after watching a product positively reviewed in a YouTube video. The
average of ratings of the two-item was computed. The correlation between the attitude and
behavioral intention effect of vWOM on self is quite high (r = 0.69, p < 0.001).
4.2.2.2 Third-person effect of positive video-based electronic word-of-mouth. Effects on
others were measured by the average of ratings of two items, “I think other people would
have a more favorable impression on the product positively reviewed by a YouTuber” and “I
think other people will buy the product positively reviewed by a YouTuber,” after watching
a product positively reviewed in the video. The correlation between the third-person effect
attitude and behavioral intention of positive vWOM is also quite high (r = 0.66, p < 0.001).
4.2.2.3 Self-effect of negative video-based electronic word-of-mouth. Self-effect was
measured by two items: “I would have a negative impression on the product negatively
reviewed by a YouTuber” and “I will not buy the product negatively reviewed by a
YouTuber,” after exposure to a product negatively reviewed in a video. The average of
ratings of the two-item was computed. The correlation between the self-effect of negative
vWOM on attitude and behavioral intention is high (r = 0.72, p < 0.001).
4.2.2.4 Third-person effect of negative video-based electronic word-of-mouth. The third-
person effect of perceived others’ attitudes toward negative reviews were measured by the
average of rating of two items: “I think other people who watched it would have a negative
 impression on the product negatively reviewed by a YouTuber” and “I think other people YouTube
who watched it would not buy the product negatively reviewed by a YouTuber,” after word-of-mouth
exposure to the video that negatively reviewed a product. The correlation between the third-
person effect of negative reviews on attitude and behavioral intention is high (r = 0.70, p <
0.001).
4.2.3 Positive video-based electronic word-of-mouth sharing. Participants were asked to
indicate the extent to which they will share a video in which the product is positively
reviewed on social media by rating on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree
(1) to strongly agree (5).
4.2.4 Negative video-based electronic word-of-mouth sharing. Participants were asked to
indicate the extent to which they will share a video in which the product is negatively
reviewed on social media by rating on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree
(1) to strongly agree (5).
4.2.5 Control variables
4.2.5.1 YouTube sharing habit. To control for the effect of YouTube video sharing habit on
Downloaded by INSEAD At 20:57 22 November 2018 (PT)

the sharing behavior of product review videos, the participants were inquired about how
frequently they shared general YouTube videos on social media. A seven-point interval
ranging from “never” (1) to “daily” (7) was used for this measurement.
4.2.5.2 Overall YouTube use. To control for the participants’ YouTube use’s effect on
their video sharing behavior, we measured both the intensity and scope of their YouTube
use behavior. A seven-point rating scale ranging from “never” (1) to “daily” (7) was used for
this measurement. We asked their frequency of engaging in six different YouTube activities,
which included:
 watching videos;
 consumer reviews;
 reading comments;
 posting comments;
 uploading videos; and
 creating videos.

Higher frequency of using each YouTube activity indicates higher YouTube use. The
average of the frequency of each activity is the overall YouTube use score.
4.2.5.3 Video-based electronic word-of-mouth consumption. We asked the respondents
to indicate how often they consumed product demonstration and reviews including
unboxing videos. A seven-point scale ranging from “never” (1) to “daily” (7) was adopted to
measure their consumption.
In addition to their YouTube consumption, we also asked the demographic
characteristics of the respondents including gender, age and personal monthly income as
control variables.

5. Results
5.1 Demographic profile of respondents
Of the total participants, 135 (52.7 per cent) were male and 121 (47.3 per cent) were female.
Above 90 per cent were aged between 18 and 25 years. We also asked them their personal
monthly income including allowance, stipend, scholarship, salary, and others. About one-
third (36.5 per cent) earned under $500; 26.5 per cent earned $500-$1,000; 18 per cent earned
$1,000-$1,500; 10.6 per cent earned $1,500-$2,000; and 8.4 per cent earned $2,000 a month. In
 JRIM the initial data analysis, the researchers examined the demographic variables and revealed
that they had insignificant effects on the dependent variables. However, the missing data of
those demographic variables reduced the sample size to N = 125, which decreased the
statistical power of rejecting the null hypotheses. Hence, in the final data analysis, the
researchers excluded the demographic variables to maintain the sample size of N = 180.
This sample only included respondents who watched product review videos on YouTube.
The descriptive statistics for each variable reported as follows, see Table I.
According to the statistics of skewness (Bulmer, 1979), none of the distributions of the
variables under the study is highly skewed. Positive vWOM sharing, negative vWOM
sharing, the third-person effect of negative vWOM and self-effect of negative vWOM are
approximately normal; self-effect of positive vWOM, the third-person effect of positive
vWOM, vWOM consumption, YouTube sharing habit and overall YouTube use only
moderately skewed. Accordingly, we use normal multivariate statistical analysis and t-tests
in the study.
Downloaded by INSEAD At 20:57 22 November 2018 (PT)

5.2 Valence on sharing video-based electronic word-of-mouth

To answer RQ1 on the effect of valence on sharing, we added a paired samples t-test and
found a significant difference in the strength of positive and negative vWOM with regard to
predicting sharing. The result suggested, in general, videos with positive reviews (M = 2.91,
SD = 1.15) are more frequently shared than videos with negative reviews (M = 2.64, SD =
1.15); t (182) = 3.82, p < 0.001.

5.3 The direct and indirect effects of general electronic word-of-mouth seeking on video-
based electronic word-of-mouth sharing and third-person effect
After demonstrating the direct effects of perceived effects and valence on sharing, we then
examined the direct effect of eWOM seeking on vWOM sharing and the mediation effect of
perceived effects. To test H1 and H2a-H2d, we used a bootstrapping technique that allowed
the simultaneous test of multiple mediators (Hayes, 2013). We analyzed the 95 per cent
confidence intervals associated with the indirect effects of vWOM on self and others, with
5,000 bootstrap samples. We adopted two regression models using PROCESS Model 4,
which was developed by Hayes (2013), to examine the mediation effects.
A regression model using PROCESS Model 4 (Hayes, 2013) was adopted to examine how
general eWOM seeking associated with sharing positive vWOM through self-effect and
third-person effect of positive vWOM by controlling YouTube use, YouTube sharing habit,
and vWOM consumption. The presence of the value 0 in the confidence interval indicates an

Descriptive Statistics (Valid N = 180)

Variables N Mean (scale range) SD Skewness

eWOM seeking 257 2.75 (1-5) 0.90 0.039

Positive vWOM sharing 183 2.91 (1-5) 1.15 0.015
Negative vWOM sharing 186 2.66 (1-5) 1.155 0.148
Self-effect of positive vWOM 183 3.72 (1-5) 0.85 0.788
Self-effect of negative vWOM 185 3.49 (1-5) 0.91 0.509
Third-person effect of positive vWOM 183 3.74 (1-5) 0.76 0.633
Third-person effect of negative vWOM 185 3.63 (1-5) 0.80 0.383
Table I. vWOM consumption 273 2.66 (1-7) 2.05 0.809
The descriptive YouTube sharing habit 273 2.79 (1-7) 2.04 0.704
statistics of variables Overall YouTube use 184 2.74 (1-7) 1.06 0.946
 insignificant relationship. As shown in Figure 1, the results did not reveal a direct effect YouTube
(Bootstrap confidence interval = [-0.0291, 0.0421]), but revealed an indirect effect of eWOM word-of-mouth
seeking on positive vWOM sharing (Bootstrap confidence interval = [0.0069, 0.0361]), mediated
by the effects of positive vWOM on others (Bootstrap confidence interval = [0.0012, 0.0275]),
but not the effects on self (Bootstrap confidence interval = [ 0.0031, 0.0244]). Hence, H1 that
the more the eWOM seeking, the more vWOM sharing was rejected in positive reviews. H2a
that third-person effect mediates eWOM seeking and positive vWOM sharing was supported;
H2c that self-effect mediates eWOM seeking and positive vWOM sharing was rejected. In
addition, YouTube sharing habit significantly affected the intention to share positive vWOM
(B = 0.23, SE = 0.04, CI = [0.1399, 0.3111]). Overall YouTube use (B = 0.02, SE = 0.01, CI =
[ 0.0130, 0.0453]) and YouTube product review video use (B = 0.09, SE = 0.07, CI =
[ 0.2236, 0.0555]) did not influence positive vWOM sharing. Overall, there is no direct effect
between eWOM seeking and vWOM sharing in positive reviews. Third-person effect is the
only significant mediator of the relationship between eWOM seeking and sharing positive
vWOM (B = 0.26, SE = 0.13, CI = [0.0095, 0.5185])
Downloaded by INSEAD At 20:57 22 November 2018 (PT)

Another regression model using PROCESS Model 4 (Hayes, 2013) was adopted to
examine how eWOM seeking may be associated with sharing negative vWOM through self-
effect and third-person effect of negative vWOM by controlling YouTube use, YouTube
sharing habit, and vWOM consumption. The results did not reveal a direct effect (Bootstrap
confidence interval = [ 0.0542, 0.0202]), but revealed an indirect effect of eWOM seeking on
negative vWOM sharing (Bootstrap confidence interval = [0.0001, 0.0263]), mediated by the
effects of negative vWOM on self (Bootstrap confidence interval = [0.0016, 0.0272]), but not
on others (Bootstrap confidence interval = [-0.0120, 0.0068]), See Figure 2. Hence, H1 that the
more eWOM seeking, the more vWOM sharing was also rejected in negative reviews. H2b,
which states third-person effect mediates eWOM seeking and negative vWOM sharing, was
rejected, while H2d, which states that self-effect mediate eWOM seeking and negative

Figure 1.
Mediation model for
positive vWOM

Figure 2.
Mediation model for
negative vWOM
 JRIM vWOM sharing, was supported. Moreover, the results revealed an effect of YouTube
sharing habit on the intention to share (B = 0.15, SE = 0.05, CI = [0.0626, 0.2443]). Overall
YouTube use (B = 0.02, SE = 0.02, CI = [-0.0134, 0.0493]) and YouTube product review video
use (B = 0.01, SE = 0.08, CI = [-0.1441, 0.1532]) did not have the effects on negative vWOM
sharing. There was no direct effect of eWOM seeking on sharing because only the effects of
negative vWOM influence on self (B = 0.32, SE = 0.11, CI = [0.0959, 0.5370]) significantly
predicted sharing. The third-person effect of negative eWOM did not significantly influence
the intention to share (B = 0.02, SE = 0.13, CI = [-0.2734, 0.2254]).

6. Discussion
This study examined how the mediating role of the effects of vWOM on self and others in
the relationships between general eWOM seeking and vWOM sharing. Based on the results,
valence does matter in vWOM and there are significant differences in sharing behavior of
positive and negative reviews. The importance of the self-effect of negative reviews and the
third-person effect of positive reviews explains the conflicting results in the past on valence
Downloaded by INSEAD At 20:57 22 November 2018 (PT)

effects on eWOM dissemination. The results contributed to the literature by considering

different situations when positive and negative vWOM are more likely to be shared. It
provides marketers with insights on how to manage negative vWOM and encourage the
audience to spread positive vWOM.
We found that, in general, eWOM seeking does not have a direct effect on sharing vWOM,
which is inconsistent with previous studies on sharing that stated that content seeking is
conducive to content sharing (Choi, 2016). However, general eWOM seeking is associated with
positive vWOM sharing through the presumed influence of positive vWOM, while it is
associated with negative vWOM sharing through the self-effect of negative vWOM. It indicates
that sharing eWOM with others occurs through a persuasive process—sharing is likely to
occur when people were affected by it (Mahapatra and Mishra, 2017). However, the sharing of
positive and negative reviews is based on different effects. Positive review sharing happens as
a result of presumed influence on others, while negative review sharing happens as a result of
the perceived effect on self. YouTube product videos are fundamentally different from other
message types such as news or advertisements (Bobkowski, 2015; Hansen and Lee, 2013; Lee
et al., 2013). eWOM is created by ordinary people and based on their real product experience,
which increases its perceived credibility (Allsop et al., 2007). People seek YouTube review
videos to gain more product information and share it to assist others to make the purchase
decision. If people think eWOM can help others in the decision-making process, they must
perceive the usefulness of the review videos and be influenced by it first. However, we also note
that sharing habit plays an important role in the likelihood to share. Practitioners need to
identify the sharers and offer them more opportunities to be exposed to positive reviews as they
are likely to share things. When negative reviews occur, remedial measures must also first
target the sharers to avoid them spreading the videos.
The results also show that presumed influence (on others) increases the likelihood of
sharing positive vWOM, not the self-effect. It reveals that the motivations of sharing positive
eWOM are other-oriented. As eWOM scholars argued, passing along eWOM is to show care,
love, and friendships (Arndt, 1967). The motivations are the concern for other consumers,
helping the company, altruistic emotions, and more (Dichter, 1966; Hennig-Thurau et al.,
2004; Sundaram et al., 1998). On the contrary, our results found that perceived self-effect
enhances the likelihood of sharing negative vWOM, suggesting that the motivations of
sharing them are self-related. Previous literature also revealed the self-centered motivations
of eWOM engagement, namely, self-affirmation, product involvement, self-enhancement, and
venting negative feelings (Dichter, 1966; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004; Sundaram, et al., 1998).
 Overall, we can infer that perceived third-person effect (presumed influence) leads to positive YouTube
vWOM engagement, while perceived self-effect result in passing along negative vWOM. word-of-mouth
The research results indicate that people who seek customer reviews on social
media, e-commerce sites, online forums, and other online product review sites are more
likely to experience the change in attitude toward products and purchase intention after
watching vWOM. It is consistent with the Uses and Gratifications Theory (Rubin,
2009). Such results are also consistent with the media migration effect in that
consumers try to resolve information ambiguity by receiving concurring experience
across different social media platforms (Shade et al., 2015). It also might be because
when people use eWOM often, they already trust those sources. vWOM is one of the
eWOM types, so the established trust on general eWOM will transfer to vWOM.
YouTube videos may be one of the several sources they use to confirm information or
opinion from various eWOM platforms.
Apart from theoretical contribution to the vWOM effects, this study has several
important practical implications. In general, we found that positive video reviews are more
likely to be shared than negative video reviews. It suggests that positive vWOM is more
Downloaded by INSEAD At 20:57 22 November 2018 (PT)

likely to be spread to others. However, marketers need to be aware of the vWOM effects on
self and others in terms of eWOM valence. Positive reviews are more likely to be spread than
negative reviews because positive reviews are perceived to be more useful and trustworthy
in assisting others to make the purchase decision (Leino and Räihä, 2007; Lim and Van Der
Heide, 2015). In addition, the YouTube sharing habit contributes to sharing positive and
negative vWOM. Sharing is a habitual behavior for some YouTube users. This is an
important finding for practitioners. They should also target heavy YouTube video sharers
and encourage them to share vWOM that are favorable to them. Marketers should promote
their products which have been positively reviewed in YouTube videos to consumers who
like to share videos to spread the message.
It is still necessary to monitor the presence of negative vWOM on YouTube and take
immediate remedial measures to avoid spreading of negative reviews to other users because
people tend to express their negative experience. If the viewers are persuaded to think it
could happen to themselves as well, they will spread the video. Bad news travels fast.
Marketers want to control the spread of negative news for brands and companies, especially
during times of crisis. A negative brand-related video can go viral effortlessly. An example
can be found in the case of United Breaks Guitar, which was a video made by Dave Caroll to
complain about United Airline’s inadequate customer services (Sonsofmaxwell, 2009, July 6).
The video played 17,996,477 times on YouTube. Hence, marketers should pay higher
attention to eWOM and vWOM, especially during crisis management and the mechanism of
eWOM effects and sharing of videos.

7. Limitations and conclusion

There are limitations to our study. The study only used students belonging to one
public university to participate in the survey, which is not a representative sampling of
YouTube users. Future research should be conducted on a more diverse population to
examine the generalizability of the findings of this study. However, this study still can
explain and predict the attitudes and behavior of the younger generation with respect to
YouTube use. Furthermore, the survey response was based on self-reports and memory
recall of the students’ frequency of use. Underestimation or overestimation is a common
problem.
Despite these limitations, this study demonstrates that passing along vWOM occurs
through a persuasive and cognitive process. It contributes to eWOM research by examining
 JRIM the likelihood of sharing positive and negative vWOM considering self-effect and effects on
other. It also fills the gap of incorporating and the presumed influence model contrasting self
and third-person effect in the context of eWOM. Future studies should explore people’s
motivations to share with first and third-person effect and whether other factors, such as
credibility of messages and the identity of the product reviewer, affect the influence of
eWOM on consumers.

References
Allsop, D.T., Bassett, B.R. and Hoskins, J.A. (2007), “Word-of-mouth research: principles and
applications”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 398-411.
Alon, A. and Brunel, F. (2018), “Peer-to-peer word-of-mouth: word-of-mouth extended to group online
exchange”, Online Information Review, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 176-190.
Arndt, J. (1967), “Role of product-related conversations in the diffusion of a new product”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 291-295.
Downloaded by INSEAD At 20:57 22 November 2018 (PT)

Beam, M.A., Hutchens, M.J. and Hmielowski, J.D. (2016), “Clicking vs sharing: the relationship between
online news behaviors and political knowledge”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 59,
pp. 215-220.
Bobkowski, P.S. (2015), “Sharing the news: effects of informational utility and opinion leadership on
online news sharing”, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 320-345.
Bulmer, M.G. (1979), “Statistical inference”, Principles of Statistics, Dover, New York, NY, pp. 165-187.
Chahal, H. and Rani, A. (2017), “How trust moderates social media engagement and brand equity”,
Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 312-335.
Chevalier, J.A. and Mayzlin, D. (2006), “The effect of word of mouth on sales: online book reviews”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 345-354.
Choi, J. (2016), “News internalizing and externalizing: the dimensions of news sharing on online social
networking sites”, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 93 No. 4, pp. 816-835.
Cohen, D. (2018), “The ad community’s reaction to facebook’s news feed algorithm change”, available
at: www.adweek.com/digital/the-ad-communitys-reaction-to-facebooks-news-feed-algorithm-
change/ (accessed 31 March 2018).
Cohen, J. and Weimann, G. (2008), “Who’s afraid of reality shows? exploring the effects of perceived
influence of reality shows and the concern over their social effects on willingness to censor”,
Communication Research, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 382-397.
Cummings, C. (2016), “Infographic: the video sites millennials can’t live without (and the ads they can
live with)”, available at: www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/infographic-video-sites-
millennials-cant-live-without-and-ads-they-can-live-170132/ (accessed 17 March 2016).
Davison, W.P. (1983), “The third-person effect in communication”, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 47
No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Dichter, E. (1966), “How word-of-mouth advertising works”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 16
No. November-December, pp. 147-166.
Dutta-Bergman, M.J. (2004), “Primary sources of health information: comparisons in the domain of
health attitudes, health cognitions, and health behaviors”, Health Communication, Vol. 16 No. 3,
pp. 273 -288.
Eagly, A.H. and Chaiken, S. (1975), “An attribution analysis of the effect of communicator
characteristics on opinion change: the case of communicator attractiveness”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 136-144.
Eisend, M. (2017), “The third-person effect in advertising: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 377-394.
 Gangadharbatla, H. (2008), “Facebook me: collective self-esteem, need to belong, and internet self- YouTube
efficacy as predictors of the iGeneration’s attitudes toward social networking sites”, Journal of
Interactive Advertising, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 5-15.
word-of-mouth
Gunther, A.C. and Storey, J.D. (2003), “The influence of presumed influence”, Journal of
Communication, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 199-215.
Hansen, S.S. and Lee, J.K. (2013), “What drives consumers to pass along marketer-generated eWOM in
social network games? social and game factors in play”, Journal of Theoretical and Applied
Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 53-68.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Walsh, G. and Gremler, D.D. (2004), “Electronic word-of-mouth via
consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the
internet?”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 38-52.
Herr, P.M., Kardes, F.R. and Kim, J. (1991), “Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute information
on persuasion: an accessibility-diagnosticity perspective”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17
No. 4, pp. 454-462.
Hicks, A., Horovitz, J., Hovarter, M., Miki, M. and Bevan, J.L. (2012), “Why people use yelp. com: an
Downloaded by INSEAD At 20:57 22 November 2018 (PT)

exploration of uses and gratifications”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 6,

pp. 2274-2279.
Hoorens, V. and Ruiter, S. (1996), “The optimal impact phenomenon: beyond the third person effect”,
European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 599-610.
Hsu, M.H., Ju, T.L., Yen, C.H. and Chang, C.M. (2007), “Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual
communities: the relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations”,
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 153-169.
Hu, X. and Ha, L. (2015), “Which form of word-of-mouth is more important to online shoppers? a
comparative study of WOM use between general population and college students”, Journal of
Communication and Media Research, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 15-35.
Jin, S.A.A. and Phua, J. (2014), “Following celebrities’ tweets about brands: the impact of twitter-based
electronic word-of-mouth on consumers’ source credibility perception, buying intention, and
social identification with celebrities”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 181-195.
Kelman, H.C. and Hovland, C.I. (1953), “Reinstatement of the communicator in delayed measurement of
opinion change”, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 327-335.
Kietzmann, J. and Canhoto, A. (2013), “Bittersweet! understanding and managing electronic word of
mouth”, Journal of Public Affairs, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 146-159.
Kim, H. and Lee, C. (2012), “Presumed influence of endorser and fear appeal in DTC prescription drug
advertising: are they overpowering consumers’ judgments?”, Journal of Medical Marketing:
Device, Diagnostic and Pharmaceutical Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 247-258.
Kozinets, R.V., De Valck, K., Wojnicki, A.C. and Wilner, S.J. (2010), “Networked narratives:
understanding word-of-mouth marketing in online communities”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74
No. 2, pp. 71-89.
Lafferty, B.A., Goldsmith, R.E. and Newell, S.J. (2002), “The dual credibility model: the influence of
corporate and endorser credibility on attitudes and purchase intentions”, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 1-11.
LaRose, R. (2009), “Social cognitive theories of media selection”, in Hartmann, T. (Ed.), Media Choice: A
Theoretical and Empirical Overview, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 10-31.
Lawrence, B., Fournier, S. and Brunel, F. (2013), “When companies don’t make the ad: a multimethod
inquiry into the differential effectiveness of consumer-generated advertising”, Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 292-307.
Lee, C.S. and Ma, L. (2012), “News sharing in social media: the effect of gratifications and prior
experience”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 331-339.
 JRIM Lee, J.L., Ham, C.D. and Kim, M. (2013), “Why people pass along online video advertising: from the
perspectives of the interpersonal communication motives scale and the theory of reasoned
action”, Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Lee, S.H., Brandt, A., Jr, Groff, Y., Lopez, A. and Neavin, T. (2017), “I’ll laugh, but I won’t share: the role
of darkness on evaluation and sharing of humorous online taboo ads”, Journal of Research in
Interactive Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 75-90.
Leino, J. and Räihä, K.J. (2007), “Case amazon: ratings and reviews as part of recommendations”, in
Proceedings of the 2007 ACM conference on Recommender Systems, ACM, New York, NY,
pp. 137-140.
Leung, L. and Wei, R. (1998), “The gratifications of pager use: sociability, information seeking,
entertainment, utility, and fashion and status”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 253-264.
Lim, Y.S. and Van Der Heide, B. (2015), “Evaluating the wisdom of strangers: the perceived credibility
of online consumer reviews on yelp”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 20
No. 1, pp. 67-82.
Lin, T.M., Lu, K.Y. and Wu, J.J. (2012), “The effects of visual information in eWOM communication”,
Downloaded by INSEAD At 20:57 22 November 2018 (PT)

Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 7-26.

Litvin, S.W., Goldsmith, R.E. and Pan, B. (2008), “Electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and tourism
management”, Tourism Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 458-468.
Mahapatra, S. and Mishra, A. (2017), “Acceptance and forwarding of electronic word of mouth”,
Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 594-610.
Men, L.R. and Tsai, W.H.S. (2013), “Beyond liking or following: understanding public engagement on
social networking sites in China”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 13-22.
Moy, P. and Murphy, J. (2016), “Problems and prospects in survey research”, Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly, Vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 16-37.
Mun, Y.Y. and Hwang, Y. (2003), “Predicting the use of web-based information systems: self-efficacy,
enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model”, International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 431-449.
Munzel, A. and H. Kunz, W. (2014), “Creators, multipliers, and lurkers: who contributes and who
benefits at online review sites”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 49-74.
Noguti, V. and Russell, C.A. (2014), “Normative influences on product placement effects: alcohol brands
in television series and the influence of presumed influence”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 43
No. 1, pp. 46-62.
On Campus Advertising (2013), “College students purchasing power”, Novemeber 15, available
at: www.oncampusadvertising.com/college-student-purchasing-power/ (accessed 18 July
2018).
On Campus Research (2012), “Student watch: behavior of student consumers”, available at: www.nacs.
org/email/html/OnCampusResearch/SPR-080-03-12_Client%20Newsletter.pdf (accessed 18 July
2018).
Park, S.Y. (2005), “The influence of presumed media influence on women’s desire to be thin”,
Communication Research, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 594-614.
Rathore, S. (2015), Capturing, Analyzing, and Managing Word-of-Mouth in the Digital Marketplace, IGI
Global, Hershey, PA.
Refuel Agency (2017). “2017 college explorer market research study”, April 11, available at: www.
refuelagency.com/insights/college-market-explorer/ (accessed 18 July 2018).
Roger, E.M. (1995), Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Rubin, A.M. (2009), “Uses and gratifications”, in Nabi, R.L. and Oliver, M.B. (Eds), The SAGE
Handbook of Media Processes and Effects, Sage, UK, pp. 147-159.
 Shade, D.D., Kornfield, S. and Oliver, M.B. (2015), “The uses and gratifications of media migration: YouTube
investigating the activities, motivations, and predictors of migration behaviors originating in
entertainment television”, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, Vol. 59 No. 2, word-of-mouth
pp. 318-341.
Shen, L., Sun, Y. and Pan, Z. (2018), “Not all perceptual gaps were created equal: explicating the third-
person perception (TPP) as a cognitive fallacy”, Mass Communication and Society, pp. 1-26.
Sonsofmaxwell (2009), “United breaks guitar”, July 6, available at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=
5YGc4zOqozo. (accessed 29 March 2018).
Sundaram, D.S., Mitra, K. and Webster, C. (1998), “Word-of-mouth communications: a motivational
analysis”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 527-531.
Teng, S., Wei Khong, K., Wei Goh, W. and Yee Loong Chong, A. (2014), “Examining the antecedents
of persuasive eWOM messages in social media”, Online Information Review, Vol. 38 No. 6,
pp. 746-768.
Tian, Y. and Robinson, J.D. (2008), “Media use and health information seeking: an empirical test of
complementarity theory”, Health Communication, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 184-190.
Weeks, B.E. and Holbert, R.L. (2013), “Predicting dissemination of news content in social media: a focus
Downloaded by INSEAD At 20:57 22 November 2018 (PT)

on reception, friending, and partisanship”, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly,

Vol. 90 No. 2, pp. 212-232.
YouTube (2018), “Michelle phan”, available at: www.youtube.com/user/MichellePhan/ (accessed 27
March 2018).
Yzer, M.C. (2013), “Reasoned action theory”, in Dillard, J.P. and Shen, L. (Eds), The SAGE Handbook of
Persuasion: Developments in Theory and Practice, Sage, UK, pp. 120-136.

Further reading
Yeh, Y.H. and Choi, S.M. (2011), “MINI-lovers, maxi-mouths: an investigation of antecedents to eWOM
intention among brand community members”, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 17
No. 3, pp. 145-162.

Corresponding author
Nicky Chang Bi can be contacted at: cbi@bgsu.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com