Journal of Relationship Marketing

ISSN: 1533-2667 (Print) 1533-2675 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjrm20

Brand Actions on Social Media: Direct Effects on

Electronic Word of Mouth (eWOM) and Moderating
Effects of Brand Loyalty and Social Media Usage
Intensity

Youngtae Choi, Andrew Thoeni & Michael W. Kroff

To cite this article: Youngtae Choi, Andrew Thoeni & Michael W. Kroff (2018): Brand Actions
on Social Media: Direct Effects on Electronic Word of Mouth (eWOM) and Moderating Effects
of Brand Loyalty and Social Media Usage Intensity, Journal of Relationship Marketing, DOI:
10.1080/15332667.2018.1440140

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15332667.2018.1440140

Published online: 02 Apr 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjrm20
JOURNAL OF RELATIONSHIP MARKETING
, VOL. , NO. , –
https://doi.org/./..

Brand Actions on Social Media: Direct Effects on Electronic

Word of Mouth (eWOM) and Moderating Effects of Brand
Loyalty and Social Media Usage Intensity
Youngtae Choia , Andrew Thoeni a
, and Michael W. Kroffb
a
Department of Marketing & Logistics, Coggin College of Business, University of North Florida,
Jacksonville, FL, USA; b School of Business, Department of Management, Marketing and Hospitality,
Southern Utah University, Cedar City, UT, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Most existing social media research has been user focused. This brand loyalty; electronic
study looks at social media from the brand’s perspective by test- word of mouth (eWOM);
ing (1) theoretical links between brand-action antecedents and Facebook; social media;
social media usage intensity
positive electronic word of mouth (eWOM); and (2) how brand loy-
alty and social media usage intensity moderate the relationships
between the antecedents and eWOM. Using structural equational
modelling from 290 Facebook users, we find empirical support for
three brand action constructs (personalization, responsiveness,
and transparency) to eWOM. We also find the moderating effects
of social media usage intensity and brand loyalty on the relation-
ship between responsiveness and eWOM. Theoretical and man-
agerial implications for these findings are discussed.

Introduction
The advancement of new technologies and constant change in the social media land-
scape (e.g., the recent shuttering of Vine and rapid rise of Instagram and Snapchat)
have enabled a brand’s social media users to more freely express, exchange, and share
thoughts and opinions about the brand’s offerings with other social media users.
Understanding and even encouraging users’ electronic word of mouth (eWOM)
on social media have thus become one of the main strategic foci of brands in the
social media realm (Trusov, Bucklin, & Pauwels, 2009). This situation has attracted
research that not only examines the nature and dimensions of eWOM in social
media, but also its various antecedents and outcomes (e.g., Alhidari, Iyer, & Paswan,
2015; Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner, Walsh, & Gremler, 2004; King, Racherla, & Bush,
2014; Rosario, Sotgiu, De Valck, & Bijmolt, 2016).
Notably, in the fast-growing space of user-to-user interactions, social media users
can exercise their power in favor of or against brands through their improved com-
munication capabilities with other users. In such an environment, where brands

CONTACT Youngtae Choi ychoi@unf.edu Department of Marketing & Logistics, Coggin College of Business,
University of North Florida,  UNF Drive, Jacksonville, FL , USA.
©  Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 Y. CHOI ET AL.

both encourage and are leery of user-to-user interactions, it has become essential
for brands to find ways to facilitate users’ positive eWOM in order to achieve their
social media objectives (King et al., 2014). Since positive eWOM impacts consumers’
purchase intentions and decisions and brands’ sales, the study of factors that can fos-
ter positive eWOM among brands’ social media users is critical for brands to remain
competitive (Rosario et al., 2016).
Many researchers therefore have put their efforts into identifying various factors
that influence positive eWOM as the dependent variable in the social media con-
text. Factors identified include the impact of personal and motivational factors (e.g.,
self-expression) (Yen & Tang, 2015), users’ social relationships with other users or
influencers (e.g., trust and homophily) (Chu & Kim, 2011), and users’ relationships
with the brand (Chu & Choi, 2011).
Considering the accumulated knowledge regarding the antecedents and out-
comes of positive eWOM in the extant research, positive eWOM has mainly been
addressed from a user-based approach. That is, research has typically explored how
users’ motivations, users’ existing social relationships with other users, or users’ rela-
tionships with brands influence positive eWOM. We note that the existing research,
although insightful, has not investigated positive eWOM from a brand’s action per-
spective. We believe that brands can facilitate more positive eWOM by actively inter-
acting with their social media users. In other words, brands need to know which
actions they can take to increase their social media users’ positive eWOM.
Against this backdrop, the current research investigates the actions (i.e.,
antecedents) brands can take in order to facilitate positive eWOM among their users
of Facebook (i.e., the most extensively used social media). Also, since brand loyalty
and social media usage can possibly influence the impact of a brand’s actions on
eWOM, we also investigate whether they can moderate these relationships. In pur-
suing the research objectives, our work contributes to the social media marketing lit-
erature in two novel ways. First, it theoretically expands the study of positive eWOM
antecedents by including the brand’s actions. This brand-action-focused approach is
different from the existing user-focused research in that the former has rarely been
investigated. This new perspective will thus expand our theoretical understanding of
how brands can facilitate positive eWOM among their social media users. Moreover,
the investigation of the moderating effects can provide a theoretical understanding
of how the new antecedents (i.e., the brand’s actions) interact with social media usage
and brand loyalty of social media users. Second, the current research is expected to
provide practical advice for brands on the actions they can take to promote positive
eWOM among their Facebook users. Therefore, this research will offer insights for
marketing researchers and social media brand practitioners on how positive eWOM
can be facilitated among brands’ Facebook users.
The current research is constructed as follows. First, we address how eWOM has
been investigated in the social media context. We then present hypotheses regard-
ing antecedents (i.e., brand actions) and positive eWOM, followed by investigation
of moderating effects of brand loyalty and social media usage intensity on the rela-
tionships between the antecedents and positive eWOM. Research methodology and
 JOURNAL OF RELATIONSHIP MARKETING 3

data results are then presented, followed by theoretical and practical implications.
Finally, research imitations and future research ideas are suggested.

Literature review and hypotheses

Overview of eWOM research on social media

There are two research streams that provide an overview of the antecedents of
eWOM. The first research stream considers the impact of personal and motiva-
tional factors of social media users on positive eWOM. These factors include being
or meeting with other users (social benefits), need for self-expression, dissonance
reduction from a strong positive or negative consumer experience, the levels of
users’ social media involvement, novelty seeking, and risk-taking propensity (Alhi-
dari et al., 2015; Kim, Sung, & Kang, 2014; Yen & Tang, 2015). For instance, risk-
taking propensity of social media users is positively related to eWOM (Alhidari et al.,
2015). Furthermore, Facebook users are likely to be involved in eWOM in order to
ease or share the feeling from their consumption experience (Yen & Tang, 2015).
The second research stream considers how social relationships between users and
senders, such as trust, tie strength, homophily, source (i.e., sender) credibility and
expertise, and interpersonal influence, impact eWOM (Chu & Kim, 2011; Katona,
Zubcsek, & Sarvary, 2011; Rosario et al., 2016; Wang, Yeh, Chen, & Tsydypov, 2016).
For example, Rosario et al. (2016) demonstrate that the effectiveness of eWOM is
stronger when eWOM receivers can assess their own similarity to eWOM senders.
Wang et al. (2016) and Chu and Kim (2011) indicate that tie strength positively influ-
ences consumers’ intention to engage in eWOM. Chu and Kim (2011) also suggest
that trust is positively associated with eWOM.
Researchers have addressed the importance of influencers (i.e., celebrities or
social media users who have a large number of followers) in saving marketing costs
and creating more business opportunities through social media. They found that
influencers are perceived as being more credible, trustworthy, attractive, and com-
petent than ordinary users (Jin & Phua, 2014). Influencers can also affect their fol-
lowers’ positive eWOM about a brand’s product (Jin & Phua, 2014). Research also
suggests that social media users who have positive attitudes toward and relation-
ships with a brand are more likely to be involved in eWOM about that brand than
those who do not (Chu & Sung, 2015).
The eWOM research on social media summarized earlier deals with “user-
based” antecedents to eWOM. In the following, we offer antecedents and respec-
tive hypotheses related to “brand-based” actions that are potentially important to
increasing social media users’ eWOM behavior toward brands.

Antecedents of eWOM

Personalization (PR). Personalization is the extent to which users of a brand’s

social media platform perceive that the platform provides and adapts its brand
4 Y. CHOI ET AL.

offerings to meet their specific personal needs on the platform (Tam & Ho, 2006).
A brand uses personalization on its social media platform by providing infor-
mation that is relevant to the needs of its individual users and their prefer-
ences, and making recommendations that meet its users’ needs (Holland & Baker,
2001).
Existing research shows that personalized online content leaves positive percep-
tions of provided information, fosters a positive attitude toward online interfaces,
and leads to recommending it to other users (Kim & Gambino, 2016). A brand’s per-
sonalized consumer mobile website can positively affect consumers’ affirmative per-
ceptions and attitudes toward the brand as well as the site (Kang & Hustvedt, 2014).
Therefore, when the brand personalizes its online campaign toward customers, cus-
tomers are likely to increase their referral propensity (Koch & Benlian, 2015). We
thus believe that the brand’s personalization toward its social media platform users
will resonate with customers and allow them to more positively talk about the brand
to other users.
H1: The level of personalization on the brand’s social media platform will positively influ-
ence the level of positive eWOM among the platform users.

Responsiveness (RS). Responsiveness is defined here as the timeliness of a brand’s

responses to its social media platform users’ needs (Song & Zinkhan, 2008).
Research has shown that simply responding to e-mail complaints leads to positive
outcomes such as the increased likelihood of customers’ repurchase and perceived
credibility for the firm (Strauss & Hill, 2001). Responsiveness here goes beyond
a timely reaction to complaints, however, extending to reactions to all forms of
users’ needs and inquiries, including acknowledging comments and feedback and
responding to questions (e.g., Liu, 2003; Song & Zinkhan, 2008). Research has
shown, for instance, that customers who received responses to inquiries from com-
panies were more satisfied than those who did not (Bowman & Narayandas, 2001).
Strauss and Hill (2001) found that the perceived speed of responses to e-mail com-
plaints strongly impacted consumers’ satisfaction with those responses. The speed of
response to non-complaining e-mail inquiries has also been found to have a positive
impact on outcomes such as satisfaction and positive word-of-mouth communica-
tion (Moore & Moore, 2004). It is proposed here, therefore, that a brand’s respon-
siveness to users’ inquiries and needs on its social media platform will increase their
level of positive eWOM.
H2: The level of responsiveness on the brand’s social media platform will positively influ-
ence the level of positive eWOM among the platform users.

Transparency (TR). Transparency refers to “making available publicly all releasable

information—whether positive or negative in nature—in a manner which is accu-
rate, timely, balanced, and unequivocal” (Heise, 1985, p. 209). Actions related to
transparency signal to social media users that the brand is being honest and fair with
them, which improves trust in that brand (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). When brands are
transparent with their social media users, both brands and users can develop strong
 JOURNAL OF RELATIONSHIP MARKETING 5

trust with each other, and users can be more open to communicate with brands, lead-
ing to a better relationship between the two (McCorkindale, DiStaso, & Sisco, 2013).
Furthermore, perceived transparency leads to customers feeling that they share the
same values with and can trust the brand, increasing the likelihood that they will
engage in positive word of mouth (Kang & Hustvedt, 2014; Maxham & Netemyer,
2003).
H3: The level of transparency on the brand’s social media platform will positively influence
the level of positive eWOM among the platform users.

User empowerment (UE). We define user empowerment as the extent to which the
user of a brand’s social media platform perceives that the brand provides him/her
with avenues to connect and collaborate with it and/or other users about the brand’s
offerings (O’Cass & Ngo, 2011; Ramani & Kumar, 2008). It is a strategy a brand uses
to understand users’ voices and gives users a sense of control over the brand’s offer-
ings on its platform (Fuchs, Prandelli, & Schreier, 2010). When a brand encourages
consumers to provide their opinions for the brand’s offerings, it increases a con-
sumer’s feeling of commitment toward the brand and subsequent satisfaction with
it (Cermak, File, & Prince, 1994; Chen, Fay, & Wang, 2011). Encouraging consumers
to participate in designing and/or improving its offerings instills a feeling of value
co-creation in its users (Gensler, Völckner, Liu-Thompkins, & Wiertz, 2013; Sashi,
2012; Sawhney, Verona, & Prandelli, 2005). In sum, the extant literature suggests
that user empowerment can lead to promoting an environment where social media
users can feel that they can partially control the brand’s offerings, leading to a more
positive attitude toward the brand. This will likely result in the users more positively
connecting with the brand and sharing information about it with other users.
H4: The level of user empowerment on the brand’s social media platform will positively
influence the level of positive eWOM among the platform users.

Moderating effects of brand loyalty (BL) and social media usage intensity (UI).
Brand loyalty is an emotional or psychological attachment to a brand (Fournier,
1998). Those who show loyalty to a brand exhibit a positive and deeply commit-
ted attitude toward it, leading them to patronize it (Lobschat, Zinnbauer, Pallas, &
Joachimsthaler, 2013). As social media users become emotionally and psychologi-
cally attached to a brand, they are more likely to be engaged in delivering informa-
tion about it to other users (Yeh & Choi, 2011). Their action on social media can
be strengthened as their loyalty intensifies. We thus propose that social media users’
brand loyalty moderates the relationships between the brand’s actions (i.e., person-
alization, transparency, responsiveness, and user empowerment) and users’ positive
eWOM on social media.
H5a: Brand loyalty will positively impact the relationship between personalization (PR)
and positive eWOM among its platform users.

H5b: Brand loyalty will positively impact the relationship between responsiveness (RS) and
positive eWOM among its platform users.
6 Y. CHOI ET AL.

H5c: Brand loyalty will positively impact the relationship betweentransparency (TR) and
positive eWOM among its platform users.

H5d: Brand loyalty will positively impact the relationship between user empowerment
(UE) and eWOM among its platform users.

Social media usage intensity (UI) is defined as the extent to which users of a
brand’s social media platform are emotionally connected to the platform and the
extent to which the platform is integrated into their daily activities (Ellison, Ste-
infield, & Lampe, 2007). Researchers have found that when social media platform
users are psychologically connected to a brand, they are more likely to interact with
it. This interaction subsequently strengthens the users’ relationship with the brand,
leading to more user engagement with it on the platform (De Vries & Carlson, 2014).
Also, those who feel they are strongly connected with the brand are more likely to
engage in brand-related behaviors, such as word of mouth with others and brand
loyalty (Jahn & Kunz, 2012).
Usage intensity, therefore, strengthens the bond between a brand and its social
media platform users. Accordingly, we expect that social media usage intensity
will positively affect the impact of a brand’s actions, such as personalization, trans-
parency, responsiveness, and user empowerment on eWOM. Therefore, we propose
the following:
H6a: Usage intensity will positively impact the relationship between personalization (PR)
and positive eWOM among its platform users.

H6b: Usage intensity will positively impact the relationship between responsiveness (RS)
and positive eWOM among its platform users.

H6c: Usage intensity will positively impact the relationship between transparency (TR) and
positive eWOM among its platform users.

H6d: Usage intensity will positively impact the relationship between user empowerment
(UE) and eWOM among its platform users.

Methodology

Data collection

Pretest
Prior to full data collection, we performed a pretest of all items using respondents
from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk service (MTurk) to help ensure that the survey
functioned properly, the items were clear to the respondents, and to verify scale reli-
ability and validity. Respondents were asked about a brand they regularly followed,
and that brand name was piped into later questions to increase ecological validity
and help ensure that respondents were focused on the same brand throughout the
survey.
As a result of the pretest with 301 usable responses, we discovered respondents’
answers to nearly all (30 of 31) individual items were significantly left skewed (i.e.,
 JOURNAL OF RELATIONSHIP MARKETING 7

higher “strongly agree” frequencies) as calculated by skewness/standard error of

skewness, which led to constructs with poor discriminant reliability. After review,
this was logically explained as a result of this study purposefully targeting respon-
dents who have an expressed positive relationship with the brand they proposed
earlier in the survey. Given this, respondents were highly likely to answer in the
affirmative for any question having to do with the brand’s positive performance. In
addition, we also noted our use of a balanced, seven-point scale, which did not pro-
vide sufficient variation for respondents to express subtle differences in their pos-
itive feelings for the brand they selected. Therefore, we determined that the scale
used in the pretest was insufficient to capture the variation in the positive range of
the respondents’ expression and resulted in high cross-construct correlations.
To overcome this deficiency, we improved the scale for the final data collection to
an unbalanced, 100-point scale implemented using a “slider” response with the goal
of not eliminating skew in the data, but rather expanding the end of the scale where
the data were skewed, allowing the respondents to express their views more dis-
cretely. Unbalanced scales are recommended when empirical evidence exists show-
ing data skewness, and scales with a higher number of choices increase variation
and, therefore, the ability to extract subtle information differences in expression
(Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). Six terms along the scale (disagree, neu-
tral, agree a little, agree, strongly agree, could not agree more) were spread from 1
to 100 points.

Final data collection

We gathered our final data using MTurk respondents who were directed to an online
survey. Respondents were initially filtered for region (U.S. respondents only) and
quality, as defined by workers who had completed at least 1,000 work tasks (HITs)
with at least a 98% quality rating. We additionally screened respondents, eliminat-
ing anyone who had taken our pretest. Since Facebook is the largest of social media
platforms (Gottfried & Shearer, 2016), we sought Facebook users and screened by
presenting respondents with a series of questions designed to determine that Face-
book was their primary social medium and that they used social media at least once
per week. Of the 409 initial respondents, 103 failed the screener for primary social
medium or frequency of use. From the remaining 306, 16 were excluded for fail-
ing reliability tests we had established (e.g., racing, reverse-coding checks). Table 1
provides a demographic profile of 290 respondents in this study.

Measurement
All variables were based on multi-item scales adapted from past research to the cur-
rent research context. To measure the perception of the brand’s social media users
on whether the brand provides and adapts its offerings to the users’ specific needs—
the personalization construct (PR)—we employed three items from Silva and Alwi
(2008) and two items from Wang and Li (2012). Responsiveness (RS) was measured
by adapting five items from Song and Zinkhan (2008) to measure how timely the
brand’s social media platform responds to users. Four items for transparency (TR)
8 Y. CHOI ET AL.

Table . Respondent demographics.

Gender

Male %
Female %
Age
Age Mean .
Age SD .
Age Range  – 
Education
High School %
Some College %
AS Degree %
Bach. Degree %
Masters or Above %
Income
ࣘ $ k %
$ k–$ k %
$ k–$ k %
>$ k %

n = 

were adapted from Rawlins (2008) to measure whether the brand is accountable for
its actions, words, and decisions by making relevant information available for others
to see and evaluate. User Empowerment (UE) measures the perception of the brand’s
social media users on how much the brand tries to connect and collaborate with
them about its offerings on the social media platform. For this, we modified three
items from Ramani and Kumar (2008) and one item from O’Cass and Ngo (2011)
for the current research context. Positive social media word of mouth (eWOM) used
four items from Tsao and Hsieh (2012) and was modified to measure the extent to
which the users of the brand’s social media platform talk to other users about the
brand in a positive way.
Brand loyalty (BL) was measured through user patronage intentions and the
respondent’s expression of allegiance attitude toward the brand, using a three-item
scale adapted from well-established scales (e.g., Lobschat et al., 2013). Finally, six
items from Ellison et al. (2007) were used to measure the moderator usage intensity
(UI), which measures how much Facebook users are behaviorally and emotionally
connected to Facebook usage in their daily life (i.e., Facebook usage intensity). BL
and UI were tested as potential moderators between the antecedents (PR, RS, TR,
and UE) to positive eWOM.

Data analysis and linearity

The means, standard deviations, and correlations for the latent constructs are
detailed in Table 2. We used AMOS to test the hypothesized relationships among
the constructs. Because AMOS uses regression in the CFA and path analyses, hav-
ing high levels of multicollinearity would “over fit” the model, which should be
avoided. To test for multicollinearity, we calculated VIFs (variance inflation fac-
tors), all of which were less than three, showing multicollinearity as not being
an issue with these items (Aiken, West, & Reno, 1991). AMOS also assumes
that relationships between constructs are linear in nature and calculates them as
such. Therefore, we performed a curve estimation for all pairwise relationships
 JOURNAL OF RELATIONSHIP MARKETING 9

Table . Construct means, standard deviations, reliability, convergent and divergent validity
measures.
Construct Mean SD Alpha CR AVE eWOM PR RS TR UE

electronic Word of Mouth . . . . . 0.930

(eWOM)
Personalization (PR) . . . . . . 0.798
Responsiveness (RS) . . . . . . . 0.776
Transparency (TR) . . . . . . . . 0.785
User Empowerment (UE) . . . . . . . . . 0.850
∗ Correlation matrix, square root of AVE on diagonal. ∗∗ All Pearson correlations significant at the . level (-tailed).
N = .

in our model and found all relationships to be linear at a high significance level
(<0.001).

Common method bias

We tested for common method bias following Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Pod-
sakoff (2003). The results, using common latent factor (CLF) testing, show slight
common method bias in the PR and RS items (delta between CLF/No CLF was
greater than 0.2 and less than 0.6). To adjust for this, we retained a CLF variable
to create adjusted composite variables.

Reliability, convergent and discriminant validity

Additionally, as shown in Table 2, all Cronbach’s alphas and composite reliability
(CR) measures exceed 0.7 and AVE exceeds 0.5 while being less than the corre-
sponding CR measurement for all constructs, which are deemed acceptable (Hair
et al., 2010).
We tested factor loadings and cross-loadings of all items. Table 3 shows that all
items loaded strongly on the expected construct. To test for cross-loading, we looked
for a difference of 0.2 or more between the primary loading and any cross-loading
(Hair et al., 2010). We also compared each construct’s square-root of AVE (aver-
age variance explained, a measure of variance explained by each construct’s loaded
items) to the intercorrelations for that construct and found, in each case, the square-
root of AVE was greater than the intercorrelations (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). This
comparison expects to find the AVE of a construct being greater than the correla-
tions of that construct to other items and, as is here, we have evidence to show the
construct is discriminant.
In summary, we found strong empirical support in measures of reliability and
validity for all constructs and items in this model and adjusted for the common
method bias found present in the data.

Results

Hypothesized model
Testing for overall fit of the full hypothesized model resulted in a significant x2 of
706.2 (p = 0.000, df = 284), giving a CMIN/DF of 2.487 and all values indicating a
10 Y. CHOI ET AL.

Table . Construct items and loadings.

Item Question eWOM PR RS TR UE

eWOM I am willing to share positive information about . . . . .
[brand] with others through Facebook.
eWOM I am willing to provide positive comments about . . . . .
[brand] on Facebook for other users to see.
eWOM I am willing to discuss [brand] positively with . . . . .
other people through Facebook.

PR [brand] provides me with information through its . . . . .
Facebook posts regarding its offerings
according to my preferences.
PR [brand] provides recommendations through its . . . . .
Facebook posts that match my personal needs.
PR I feel that my personal needs have been met . . . . .
when reading [brand]’s Facebook posts.
PR [brand] provides information that is relevant to . . . . .
my needs through its Facebook posts.

RS [brand] answers my questions immediately . . . . .
through Facebook.
RS [brand] responds to my comments quickly . . . . .
through its Facebook posts.
RS [brand] is very slow in responding to my requests − . − . . . .
through Facebook.

TR [brand] wants to be accountable to its Facebook . . . . .
users for its actions.
TR [brand] provides information that is useful to its . . . . .
Facebook users for making informed decisions.
TR Through Facebook, [brand] wants to understand . . . . .
how its decisions affect its Facebook users.
TR [brand] wants its Facebook users to know what it . . . . .
is doing and why.

UE [brand] encourages me to share my opinions . . . . .
about its offerings with other Facebook users.
UE [brand] encourages me to share my opinions . . . . .
about its offerings with the company through
its Facebook posts.
UE [brand] encourages me to participate with it . . . . .
through Facebook in designing or improving
its offerings.

lack of fit between the model and data. We also looked at other measures of model
fit, with those not sensitive to sample size showing good fit, TLI = 0.914, CFI =
0.925, and those sensitive to sample size indicating lower fit, GFI = 0.830, RMSEA
= 0.072 (Kline, 1998). Reviewing the modification indices showed one pair of
error terms with high modification indices (MI) value, indicating that freeing the
covariance between these two error terms could improve the model. Additionally,
a review of the standardized residual covariance matrix showed high covariance
(>2.5) between some items (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Hair et al., 2010).
To improve the overall model fit, we iteratively co-varied the pair of error terms
with high MI value and tested other error pairs with marginal MI values, checking
model fit as we made changes per Baron and Kenny (1986) and Hair et al. (2010).
After freeing the one pair of error terms’ covariance, GFI or RMSEA were not
within desirable limits (>0.9 and <0.05, respectively). With the goal of ensuring
that items in the model reflect their true meaning (validity) and are consistent
 JOURNAL OF RELATIONSHIP MARKETING 11

Figure . Final path model and hypotheses.

(reliability), we then iteratively reviewed and removed items that showed high
standardized covariance, defined as >2.5 and >4.0 being a poor fit (Hair et al.,
2010). Using this iterative process, we also removed one to two items from each
construct, leaving us with at least three items per construct and strong evidence
of good model fit. After adjusting for common method bias, the final model fit
provided measures of CMIN/DF = 1.352 (p = 0.014, df = 91), GFI = 0.955, TLI =
0.986, CFI = 0.991, and RMSEA = 0.035 (p = 0.953) (Hair et al., 2010). The final
supported path model, along with hypotheses, can be seen in Figure 1. To allow
for moderation testing, we reduced the model, including the common latent factor,
using regression imputation and completed the remaining tests using composite,
common-method-bias-adjusted variables.

Control variables
For data gathering, we selected a standard set of demographic variables (age, edu-
cation, gender, and income) typically associated with social media usage to act as
control variables. Paths from all control variables were created to the unreduced
dependent variable (eWOM) and tested for significant relationships. None of the
control variables had a significant relationship with the dependent variable, so we
excluded them from the remaining analyses.
12 Y. CHOI ET AL.

Figure . Path results.

Primary hypothesized relationships

Results (see Figure 2) show strong support for all but one hypothesis (H4, user
empowerment, p = 0.431). H1 (personalization, PR) and H3 (transparency, TR) are
strongly supported (β = 0.599 and 0.406, respectively, p < 0.001). Responsiveness
(RS) also has an effect (β = 0.121, p = 0.011) on positive eWOM, supporting H2.

Moderation
The tests of moderating effects for behavioral loyalty (BL, hypotheses H5a to H5d)
showed support for H5b, moderating the relationship between RS and eWOM (high
BL group RS β = 0.72, p = 0.45; low BL group RS β = 0.23, p = 0.048). Similarly,
moderating effects were shown for usage intensity (UI, hypotheses H6a to H6d)
showed support for H6b, moderating the relationship between RS and eWOM (high
UI group RS β = 0.19, p = 0.005; low UI group RS β = 0.19, p = 0.016) (see Figure 3).

Discussion
The current research theoretically examined how the brand’s actions on its social
media platform can influence positive eWOM among its platform users. This
research is new and different from the existing, user-based approach. To this end, we
adapted brands’ action-related antecedents that previously held true in other social
and non-social media contexts and applied them to a contemporary Facebook con-
text, the largest social media platform.
In this study, all antecedent hypotheses were supported, with the exception of
user empowerment (discussed later in the limitations section). The support for H1,
 JOURNAL OF RELATIONSHIP MARKETING 13

Figure . Moderation results.

personalization, suggests that it is important for a brand’s social media platform to

try to meet users’ personal preferences and needs if the brand wants to have positive
eWOM among its users. Personalization is not new to marketers and has already
prevailed in many online interfaces. Previous research has explored the positive
impact of personalization on web users’ attitude toward the brand’s website (Ho &
Bodoff, 2014), consumers’ recommendations of the brand (Kim & Gambino, 2016),
and perceived quality of the brand (Wang & Li, 2012). The current research finds a
positive impact of personalization on positive WOM in the context of Facebook,
which has not been explored. The finding suggests that the personalization of a
brand’s Facebook usage can facilitate positive conversations among the brand’s Face-
book users.
14 Y. CHOI ET AL.

Responsiveness (H2) significantly impacts positive eWOM among the brand’s

social media platform users. Responsiveness has the hallmark of a transaction level
of accountability. That is, users want a quick turnaround when they have an individ-
ual question or comment. As demonstrated in online contexts (e.g., Song & Zinkhan,
2008), responsiveness is also an important reason for marketers to keep interact-
ing with users, leading them to converse positively about the brand. The current
research attests to the importance of responsiveness in the context of a brand’s Face-
book usage. When the brand responds to its Facebook users’ questions, comments,
complaints, and requests in a timely manner—even though attempts are made by
the brand to manage most complaints offline (see Choi & Thoeni, 2016)—the users
are more likely to be involved in spreading positive eWOM about the brand.
Support for H3, transparency, suggests that a brand’s social media platform users
want the brand to be open and honest in providing the information necessary for
them to make decisions. Users also expect the brand to be accountable for its actions,
decisions, and words through open communication with them. Such transparent
communication can increase positive eWOM among users. Existing research sug-
gests that social media users’ perceived transparency of a firm can cultivate strong
relationships between the users and the firm because the firm’s social media creates
a platform for open dialogue with the users and makes the firm more accountable
for its actions (DiStaso & Bortree, 2012; Men & Tsai, 2014). The current finding
expands the existing research, since perceived transparency of Facebook users can
also facilitate positive WOM among users. It may be that the brand’s transparent
actions build trust for the brand so the users can have confidence in telling other
users about it.
With the exception of responsiveness (RS), there were no moderating effects of
brand loyalty (BL) on the relationships between the antecedents (personalization
and transparency) and eWOM. This finding suggests that these two antecedents by
themselves are strong indicators of Facebook eWOM among a brand’s Facebook
users. Thus, brands may need to fully implement the strategies of personalization
and transparency in order to increase positive eWOM on Facebook. In addition, the
moderating effect of BL on the relationship between RS and eWOM indicates that
when people are more loyal to the brand and get quick responses from the brand to
their comments, questions, and complaints, they are more likely to spread positive
eWOM about the brand to other users.
Interestingly, the relationship between RS and eWOM is moderated by social
media usage intensity (UI, H6b). This suggests that, as people use social media more
and get quick responses from the brand to their comments, questions, and com-
plaints, they are more likely to spread positive WOM.

Managerial implications

The results of this research suggest that managers wanting to improve their positive
eWOM would be well-served by having a strategic plan and support for providing
a personal and transparent environment on their social media platform (Choi &
 JOURNAL OF RELATIONSHIP MARKETING 15

Thoeni, 2016). For example, brand managers could (1) suggest content that is suit-
able for individual users; and (2) provide honest and open information relevant to
individual users, which, in turn, can facilitate their positive eWOM.
The finding that responsiveness (RS), in addition to increasing positive eWOM,
also had a significant interaction with social media usage intensity (UI) and brand
loyalty (BL) should be important to managers. This finding suggests that the brand’s
social media managers should recognize the benefit of delightful and rapid response
strategies or tactics such as acknowledging users who first report a problem or cre-
ating a transparent response standard for problem resolution through the social
media platform. Furthermore, if the brand’s social media managers can identify
those who are loyal to the brand and/or who use social media intensively, they
can build a stronger relationship with them, leading them to spread more positive
eWOM to other users by providing quick responses to their questions, requests, and
complaints.

Limitations and future research

The main hypotheses in this research address the positive impact of a brand’s actions
on eWOM. Although the findings (except the hypothesis from UE to eWOM) are
significant, it may be possible that Facebook users may misinterpret or misunder-
stand the so-called transparent information or actions from the brand, leading to
negative eWOM. Therefore, it would be interesting to investigate what responses or
actions from the brand can lead social media users to engage in negative eWOM.
As noted earlier, the relationship between UE and positive eWOM was not signifi-
cant. While surprising, a review of the items used to measure UE may offer a possible
explanation for this result. Upon evaluating these items, we noted that respondents
were asked about their view regarding the brand’s “offerings,” which we intended to
mean “products and services.” However, the main thrust of other questions in the
current study was the respondent’s view of content on the social medium, not prod-
ucts or services, as these are rarely sold or offered directly via the social medium.
Thus, while adequately serving as a measure of general UE, the items do not seem
to relate to users’ positive eWOM, which deals with a brand’s social media platform’s
content. This is a seemingly important distinction, as the content on a brand’s social
media platform may or may not focus on that brand’s offerings. Indeed, the empha-
sis is generally on engaging the user in activities related to the content on the brand’s
social media platform itself, rather than to a specific product or service that the
user may purchase. Therefore, a measure of social media UE that is focused on the
brand’s specific offering rather than on the content of a brand’s social media platform
could result in the non-significant relationship with positive eWOM. We believe that
updating these items to reflect what users actually do on social media (review, com-
ment, and interact with content—not purchase goods and services) would improve
this construct.
Although we looked at four antecedents to positive eWOM among platform users,
it may be possible to investigate the impact of others, such as a brand’s incentives
16 Y. CHOI ET AL.

(e.g., financial and/or social incentives) on positive eWOM. Research suggests that
incentives also can attract users to the brand’s social media platform (Kumar & Mir-
chandani, 2012) and it may be possible that this could lead to positive eWOM.
Our research context is Facebook only. However, many people use other social
media platforms, such as Instagram, Twitter, YouTube and LinkedIn. Therefore, it
would be very interesting to investigate whether the current findings can be applied
to other social media platforms, since brands can implement the actions on their
other social medial platforms. Furthermore, it may be interesting to pursue how a
brand’s actions can work for younger generations on Instagram compared to those
on Facebook. Instagram now has the second largest number of users and many of
them are millennials and Gen Xers (eMarketer, 2015). Therefore, it would be of
interest to compare the impact of brand actions used in this research on eWOM
for users of Facebook with those same relationships for users of Instagram.

Conclusion
The main goal of the social media platform actions described in this research is to
increase positive eWOM. Therefore, a brand’s social media platform needs to foster
an environment where the platform users can talk up the brand in order to make
them loyal to the brand. Consideration, therefore, should be given to the design
and features of the brand’s social media platform to encourage, support, and create
opportunities for positive eWOM. This research suggests that this can be done by
focusing on implementing brand actions such as personalization, responsiveness,
and transparency.

ORCID
Andrew Thoeni http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0981-8485

References
Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting inter-
actions. Newbury Park: Sage.
Alhidari, A., Iyer, P., & Paswan, A. (2015). Personal level antecedents of eWOM and pur-
chase intention, on social networking sites. Journal of Customer Behaviour, 14(2), 107–125.
doi:10.1362/147539215X14373846805707
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator/mediator variable distinction in social psy-
chological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Bowman, D., & Narayandas, D. (2001). Managing customer-initiated contacts with manufactur-
ers: The impact on share of category requirements and word-of-mouth behavior. Journal of
Marketing Research, 38(3), 281–297. doi:10.1509/jmkr.38.3.281.18863
Cermak, D. S., File, K. M., & Prince, R. A. (1994). Customer participation in service specification
and delivery. Journal of Applied Business Research, 10(2), 90.
Chen, Y., Fay, S., & Wang, Q. (2011). The role of marketing in social media: How online consumer
reviews evolve. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 25(2), 85. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2011.01.003
 JOURNAL OF RELATIONSHIP MARKETING 17

Choi, Y., & Thoeni, A. (2016). Social media: Is this the new organizational stepchild? European
Business Review, 28(1), 21–38. doi:10.1108/EBR-05-2015-0048
Chu, S. C., & Choi, S. M. (2011). Electronic word-of-mouth in social networking sites: A cross-
cultural study of the United States and China. Journal of Global Marketing, 24(3), 263–281.
doi:10.1080/08911762.2011.592461
Chu, S. C., & Kim, Y. (2011). Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-of-
mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites. International Journal of Advertising, 30(1), 47.
doi:10.2501/IJA-30-1-047-075
Chu, S. C., & Sung, Y. (2015). Using a consumer socialization framework to understand electronic
word-of-mouth (eWOM) group membership among brand followers on Twitter. Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications, 14(4), 251–260. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2015.04.002
De Vries, N. J., & Carlson, J. (2014). Examining the drivers and brand performance implications
of customer engagement with brands in the social media environment. Journal of Brand Man-
agement, 21(6), 495–515. doi:10.1057/bm.2014.18
DiStaso, M. W., & Bortree, D. S. (2012). Multi-method analysis of transparency in social media
practices: Survey, interviews and content analysis. Public Relations Review, 38(3), 511–514.
doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.01.003
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends” social cap-
ital 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
eMarketer. (2015). Instagram will top 100 million US users by 2018. Retrieved from
emarketer.com/Article/Instagram-Will-Top-100-Million-US-Users-by-2018/1012148.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unob-
servable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
doi:10.2307/3151312
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer
research, Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343–373.
Fuchs, C., Prandelli, E., & Schreier, M. (2010). The psychological effects of empow-
erment strategies on consumers’ product demand. Journal of Marketing, 52(1), 65.
doi:10.1509/jmkg.74.1.65
Gensler, S., Völckner, F., Liu-Thompkins, Y., & Wiertz, C. (2013). Managing brands
in the social media environment. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 27, 242–256.
doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2013.09.004
Gottfried, J., & Shearer, E. (2016). News use across social media platforms 2016. Retrieved from
http://journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016/
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Heise, J. A. (1985). Toward closing the confidence gap: An alternative approach to com-
munication between public and government. Public Administration Quarterly, 9(2), 196–
217.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004). Electronic word-of-mouth
via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the
Internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1), 38–52. doi:10.1002/dir.10073
Ho, S. Y., & Bodoff, D. (2014). The effects of web personalization on user attitude and behavior: An
integration of the elaboration likelihood model and consumer search theory. MIS Quarterly,
38(2), 497–A410. doi:10.25300/MISQ/2014/38.2.08
Holland, J., & Baker, S. M. (2001). Customer participation in creating site brand loyalty. Journal
of Interactive Marketing, 15, 34–45. doi:10.1002/dir.1021
Jahn, B., & Kunz, W. (2012). How to transform consumers into fans of your brand. Journal of
Service Management, 23(3), 344–361. doi:10.1108/09564231211248444
18 Y. CHOI ET AL.

Jin, S.-A. A., & Phua, J. (2014). Following celebrities’ tweets about brands: The impact of
Twitter-based electronic word-of-mouth on consumers’ source credibility perception, buy-
ing intention, and social identification with celebrities. Journal of Advertising, 43(2), 181.
doi:10.1080/00913367.2013.827606
Kang, J., & Hustvedt, G. (2014). Building trust between consumers and corporations: The role
of consumer perceptions of transparency and social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics,
125(2), 253–265.
Katona, Z., Zubcsek, P. P., & Sarvary, M. (2011). Network effects and personal influences:
The diffusion of an online social network. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 425–443.
doi:10.1509/jmkr.48.3.425
Kim, E., Sung, Y., & Kang, H. (2014). Brand followers retweeting behavior on Twitter: How brand
relationships influence brand electronic word-of-mouth. Computers in Human Behavior, 37,
18–25. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.020
Kim, J., & Gambino, A. (2016). Do we trust the crowd or information system? Effects
of personalization and bandwagon cues on users’ attitudes and behavioral intentions
toward a restaurant recommendation website. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 369–379.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.038
King, R. A., Racherla, P., & Bush, V. D. (2014). What we know and don’t know about online word-
of-mouth: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28(3), 167.
doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2014.02.001
Kline, R. B. (1998). Structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford.
Koch, O. F., & Benlian, A. (2015). Promotional tactics for online viral marketing campaigns: How
scarcity and personalization affect seed stage referrals. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 32,
37–52. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2015.09.005
Kumar, V., & Mirchandani, R. (2012). Increasing the ROI of social media marketing. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 54(1), 55–61.
Liu, Y. (2003). Developing a scale to measure the interactivity of websites. Journal of Advertising
Research, 43(2), 207–216. doi:10.2501/JAR-43-2-207-216
Lobschat, L., Zinnbauer, M. A., Pallas, F., & Joachimsthaler, E. (2013). Why social currency
becomes a key driver of a firm’s brand equity: Insights from the automotive industry. Long
Range Planning, 46(1–2), 125. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2012.11.004
Maxham, J. G., & Netemyer, R. G. (2003). Firms reap what they sow: The effects of shared values
and perceived organizational justice on customers’ evaluations of complaint handling. Journal
of Marketing, 67(1), 46–62. doi:10.1509/jmkg.67.1.46.18591
McCorkindale, T., DiStaso, M. W., & Sisco, H. F. (2013). How millennials are engaging and build-
ing relationships with organizations on Facebook. The Journal of Social Media in Society, 2(1),
66–87.
Men, L. R., & Tsai, W.-H. S. (2014). Perceptual, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes of organi-
zation: Public engagement on corporate social networking sites. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 26(5), 417–435. doi:10.1080/1062726X.2014.951047
Moore, R., & Moore, M. (2004). Customer inquiries and complaints: The impact of
firm response time to email communications. Marketing Management Journal, 14
(2), 1–12.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20. doi:10.2307/1252308
O’Cass, A., & Ngo, L. V. (2011). Examining the firm’s value creation process: A managerial per-
spective of the firm’s value offering strategy and performance. British Journal of Management,
22(4), 646–671. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00694.x
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases
in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
 JOURNAL OF RELATIONSHIP MARKETING 19

Ramani, G., & Kumar, V. (2008). Interaction orientation and firm performance. Journal of Mar-
keting, 72(1), 27–45. doi:10.1509/jmkg.72.1.27
Rawlins, B. R. (2008). Measuring the relationship between organizational transparency and
employee trust. Public Relations Journal, 2(2), 1–21.
Rosario, A. B., Sotgiu, F., De Valck, K., & Bijmolt, T. H. A. (2016). The effect of electronic word
of mouth on sales: A meta-analytic review of platform, product, and metric factors. Journal
of Marketing Research, 53(3), 297–318. doi:10.1509/jmr.14.0380
Sashi, C. M. (2012). Customer engagement, buyer-seller relationships, and social media. Man-
agement Decision, 50(1–2), 253–272. doi:10.1108/00251741211203551
Sawhney, M., Verona, G., & Prandelli, E. (2005). Collaborating to create: The Internet as a plat-
form for customer engagement in product innovation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19(4),
4–17. doi:10.1002/dir.20046
Silva, R. V. D., & Alwi, S. F. S. (2008). Online brand attributes and online corporate brand images.
European Journal of Marketing, 42(9–10), 1039–1058. doi:10.1108/03090560810891136
Song, J. H., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2008). Determinants of perceived web site interactivity. Journal of
Marketing, 72(2), 99. doi:10.1509/jmkg.72.2.99
Strauss, J., & Hill, D. J. (2001). Consumer complaints by e-mail: An exploratory investigation of
corporate responses and customer reactions. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15(1), 63–73.
doi:10.1002/1520-6653(200124)15:1%3c63::AID-DIR1004%3e3.0.CO;2-C
Tam, K. Y., & Ho, S. Y. (2006). Understanding the impact of web personalization on
user information processing and decision outcomes. MIS Quarterly, 30(4), 865–890.
doi:10.2307/25148757
Trusov, M., Bucklin, R. E., & Pauwels, K. (2009). Effects of word-of-mouth versus traditional
marketing: Findings from an Internet social networking site. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 90.
doi:10.1509/jmkg.73.5.90
Tsao, W. C., & Hsieh, M. T. (2012). Exploring how relationship quality influences positive eWOM:
The importance of customer commitment. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,
23(7–8), 821–835. doi:10.1080/14783363.2012.661137
Wang, T., Yeh, R. K. J., Chen, C., & Tsydypov, Z. (2016). What drives electronic word-of-mouth
on social networking sites? Perspectives of social capital and self-determination. Telematics
and Informatics, 33(4), 1034–1047. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2016.03.005
Wang, W. T., & Li, H. M. (2012). Factors influencing mobile services adoption: A brand-equity
perspective. Internet Research, 22(2), 142–179. doi:10.1108/10662241211214548
Y, Y-H, & Choi, S. M. (2011). MINI-lovers, maxi-mouths: An investigation of antecedents to
eWOM intention among brand community members. Journal of Marketing Communications,
11(3), 145–162.
Yen, C. L. A., & Tang, C. H. H. (2015). Hotel attribute performance, eWOM motiva-
tions, and media choice. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 46, 79–88.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.01.003