International Studies of Management & Organization

ISSN: 0020-8825 (Print) 1558-0911 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/mimo20

Investigating the Influence of E-Word-of-Mouth on

E-Reputation

Sylvaine Castellano & Vincent Dutot

To cite this article: Sylvaine Castellano & Vincent Dutot (2017) Investigating the Influence of E-
Word-of-Mouth on E-Reputation, International Studies of Management & Organization, 47:1,
42-60, DOI: 10.1080/00208825.2017.1241088

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2017.1241088

Published online: 18 Nov 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=mimo20

Download by: [New York University] Date: 23 November 2016, At: 08:13
International Studies of Management & Organization, 47: 42–60, 2017
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0020-8825 print/1558-0911 online
DOI: 10.1080/00208825.2017.1241088

Investigating the Influence of E-Word-of-Mouth

on E-Reputation

Sylvaine Castellano and Vincent Dutot

Chair D-Cube, Management Department, Paris School of Business, Paris, France

Abstract: In real life, the recommendation of peers has the strongest influence on our decisions.
Word-Of-Mouth (WOM) has become a major component of communication strategies and also
influences reputation. But does WOM have an equally strong influence online? The current study
aims to fill the gap in the literature regarding the influencing factors of e-reputation by studying the
impact of e-WOM on e-reputation. Using a quantitative approach based on 251 French consumers,
the results show that e-WOM influences e-reputation. More precisely, the study reveals that tie
strength, valence, degree of influence, trust message quality, and source credibility have a positive
impact on e-reputation. Homophily and content quality do not influence e-reputation.

Keywords: e-word-of mouth; e-reputation; tie strength; source credibility

Recent studies have shown that the strongest influence on individual decisions is, by far, the
recommendation of our peers, as well as friends and family members (IFOP 2014). Social
media (i.e., recommendations from people who we do not always know), for example, only
influences us 2% of the time. However, when social media is used by our friends, the impact
of the recommendation is much more efficient. This phenomenon has been previously studied
and is coined “electronic word of mouth” (e-WOM) (Chu and Kim 2011).
More specifically, the development of social media platforms, such as social networks, vir-
tual communities, blogs, and forums (Kaplan and Haenlein 2010), and Web-based technologies,
has enabled audiences to engage in e-WOM. Users communicate by posting their text reviews
and pictures on websites, by seeking recommendations online or simply by creating and sharing
brand-related information, mostly online (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004; Lin, Lu, and Wu 2012;
Themba and Mulala 2013). By expressing opinions or sharing appreciation of a product, a
brand, or a firm, stakeholders can alter the perception of a company, referred to by scholars
as its reputation. Recent studies have identified WOM as an antecedent of reputation (Shamma
2012), but no previous work has further investigated the link between the two concepts. In
addition, the Internet is a specific setting and requires additional insight. Hence, although
factors that influence e-reputation have been identified, there is a need for further analysis of
the topic within academic research (Dutot and Castellano 2015). Hence, we need to uncover
the link between WOM and reputation in an electronic setting.

Address correspondence to Sylvaine Castellano, Paris School of Business, 59 rue Nationale, Paris 75013, France.
E-mail: s.castellano@psbedu.paris
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/mimo.
 INVESTIGATING e-WOM's INFLUENCE ON e-REPUTATION 43

This exploratory study aims to complete and extend the current literature by filling two gaps.
First, we aim to investigate the influence of e-WOM on e-reputation, and second, to better
understand the concept of e-reputation. Therefore, our research question is as follows: What
is the influence of e-WOM on e-Reputation?
The article is structured as follows. The first section defines the main concepts of the
research (WOM, e-WOM, and e-Reputation). We propose a conceptual model in the second
section. In the third section, we introduce the methodology. The fourth section presents and dis-
cusses the main results of the research. Finally, the implications and limitations of the study are
detailed.

WOM

WOM has been studied for many years. Katz and Lazarsfeld (1955) can be considered to be the
first to define it as “the act of exchanging marketing information among consumers.” Arndt
(1967) complemented this version of the definition by highlighting that WOM is an oral form
of interpersonal noncommercial communication among acquaintances. More recently, Wu and
Wang (2011) proposed that WOM should be understood as oral person-to-person communi-
cation between a receiver and a sender that involves a product, service, or brand.
Most authors agree that WOM can influence the general behavior of individuals (Chu and
Kim 2011). As suggested by Goyette et al. (2010), WOM plays an essential role in changing
attitudes and behavior towards products and services (Katz and Lazarsfeld 1955). For Lee
and Youn (2009), WOM represents interpersonal communication about products and services
between individuals and can be considered to be one of the most influential sources of market-
place information for consumers (Arndt 1967; Alreck and Settle 1995). Therefore, WOM is not
only a marketing issue, but it also encompasses all audiences in any form of communication.
WOM is everywhere, and it represents a great challenge for organizations. Its influence is even
more complex, as individuals tend to trust their peers more than they trust advertisers and
marketers (Blackshaw 2006; Sen and Lerman 2007). WOM is widely recognized as a noncom-
mercial source of information that has a more persuasive effect on decisions known as social
influence (Chu and Kim 2011) than traditional tools, such as personal selling, sale promotions,
public relations, and conventional advertising (Katz and Lazarsfeld 1955; Engel, Blackwell, and
Kegerreis 1969; Cheung, Lee Mathew, and Rabjohn 2008; Themba and Mulala 2013). In
addition, the introduction of Internet technologies in recent years has transformed the traditional
WOM into a new and more dynamic form, namely, e-WOM. The power of WOM has been
reinforced by many researchers (Dellarocas 2003; Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004; Themba and
Mulala 2013).

E-WOM

Hennig-Thurau et al. (2004) define e-WOM as “any positive or negative statement made by
potential, actual, or former customers about a product or company, which is made available
to a multitude of people and institutions via the Internet” (39). We can extend this definition
to all individuals and actors that evolve online. Unlike traditional WOM, e-WOM
44 CASTELLANO AND DUTOT

communication possesses an unprecedented speed of diffusion and is more persistent and

accessible (Cheung and Thadani 2010). Furthermore, for Chu and Kim (2011), e-WOM is
not restricted only to close acquaintances (friends or family), but can take place between
complete strangers who are geographically dispersed through the Internet.
Similar to the traditional form, e-WOM has several unique characteristics. It can occur
between people who have little or no prior relationship with one another, and it can be anony-
mous (Dellarocas 2003; Goldsmith and Horowitz 2006; Chu and Kim 2011). This anonymity
can allow individuals to share their opinions without revealing their identities or position within
a firm (Chatterjee 2001; Goldsmith and Horowitz 2006). As a result, there is a greater likelihood
that individuals will find other individuals with similar expertise on e-WOM platforms (Duhan
et al. 1997). In addition, organizations can potentially lose control of the messages and
information being spread.
Prior studies have examined the impact of e-WOM on sales (Chevalier and Mayzlin 2006;
Goldsmith and Horowitz 2006) or decision-making processes (De Bruyn and Lilien 2008).
Other studies focused on the factors influencing e-WOM. For instance, Yeh and Choi (2011)
studied the antecedents of e-WOM among brand community members and the links between
brand loyalty and e-WOM. According to the authors, a number of studies already suggested that
consumers with strong loyalty to a brand tend to have a positive perception about it and to
spread positive information (Dick and Basu 1994; Gounaris and Stathakopoulos 2004). These
results can be considered a first step in the study of the links between e-WOM and reputation
(Chung and Darke 2006; Allsop, Bassett, and Hoskins 2007), which needs to be explored
further. While the literature has identified and investigated the antecedents and components
of e-WOM, few studies have analyzed its consequences and potential effects. Therefore, we
further investigate the link between E-WOM and e-reputation.

UNCOVERING THE LINK BETWEEN E-WOM AND E-REPUTATION

As we recognized the importance of social media for e-WOM (Flynn, Goldsmith, and Eastman
1996), we herein focus on e-reputation and e-WOM as their antecedents.

E-Reputation

Examining reputation is becoming increasingly important, mainly due to factors such as WOM
and online communication (Shamma 2012). To date, few studies have analyzed the influence of
the Internet on reputation or its role in positioning reputation and e-reputation (Castellano and
Dutot 2013). For instance, according to Fillias and Villeneuve (2010), e-reputation has not been
considered as a revelation, but more as a continuing process of technology adoption and usage
by companies or individuals.
Along the same lines, some authors consider e-reputation as the extension of reputation
on-line (Chun and Davies 2001). Therefore, we can extend previous works (Hatch and Schultz
1997; Davies and Miles 1998) and consider e-reputation to be the perception that stakeholders
hold towards the activities of an organization when evolving online. For Frochot and Molinaro
(2008), e-reputation is the reflection of the image that Internet users have of a company or an
 INVESTIGATING e-WOM's INFLUENCE ON e-REPUTATION 45

individual, based on information available online and on what others say about the company
or the individual. However, recent studies have shown that e-reputation is more than just
reputation online (Dutot and Castellano 2015). Therefore, a further theoretical basis is needed
(Castellano and Dutot 2013).
Professionals have paved the way by measuring e-reputation using tools such as Social
Mention, Mention, or Synthesio. Although these studies present interesting insights into
e-reputation, they mainly focus on content analysis, and their measurement grid may lack scien-
tific rigor. The academic arena has started to investigate this field of research recently. For
instance, Chun et al. (2004) proposed an e-reputation mix composed of three blocks: e-character
(personality of the company), e-identity (website’s structure and ergonomics), and e-experience
(online definition of the user experience). This definition offers some interesting concepts
but fails to capture social media’s current influence on action. Addressing this gap, Dutot
and Castellano (2015) developed the first academic measurement grid for e-reputation.
E-reputation can be based on a variety of sources. While some stakeholders may rely on a
direct experience they have with an organization, others use indirect sources to form their
perceptions about reputation; one main source is WOM (Shamma 2012). Therefore, we propose
the following hypothesis:
H1: e-WOM positively influences e-reputation.

Components of E-WOM and Links with E-Reputation

The first component suggested by the e-WOM literature is tie strength (Chu and Kim 2011). For
Mittal et al. (2008, 196), tie strength refers to “the potency of the bond between members of a
network.” In a social environment such as that surrounding online interaction, these ties can be
strong or weak (Granovetter 1973). Strong ties represent family and friends, and weak ties include
colleagues of friends or friends (Pigg and Crank 2004). Chu and Kim (2011) studied the influence
of tie strength for social network sites. They highlighted that strong ties “exert a more significant
impact at the individual and small group level” (53). Thus, we formulate the following hypothesis:
H1a: Tie strength has a positive influence on e-reputation.

A second component noted by the e-WOM literature is homophily. This is the degree to
which individuals who interact with one another are congruent or similar in certain attributes
(Rogers and Bhowmik 1970; Chu and Kim 2011). Previous studies showed a natural similarity
between members of a social network that result in the more frequent exchange of communi-
cation (Rogers 1995; Gilly et al. 1998). For Wang et al. (2008), there is a positive link between
homophily and credibility perception on both websites and online discussion groups. This
positive link has paved the way for the work of Chu and Kim (2011) on social network sites.
Homophily has mainly been studied as a reason to join an online group (Thelwall 2009); thus,
we suggest the following hypothesis:
H1b: Homophily has a positive influence on e-reputation.

A third component suggested by the e-WOM literature is trust, viewed as a “willingness to

rely on an exchange partner in whom one has confidence” (Moorman et al. 1993, 82). While
46 CASTELLANO AND DUTOT

studies have focused more on benevolence, integrity, ability, competence, or empathy (Gefen
2002; Gefen, Karahanna, and Straub 2003; Flavian, Guinaliu, and Torres 2006), for Liu
et al. (2004) trust is relevant in a high tech environment and is a cornerstone in the development
of social media (Dutot 2014). As organizations have placed a greater emphasis on building
long-term relationships with customers, trust has played a central role in building such relation-
ships (Doney and Cannon 1997; Garbarino and Johnson 1999; Kim, Ferrin, and Rao 2008) even
though it has been recognized as difficult to manage (Bejou, Ennew, and Palmer 1998).
In a digital environment, people tend to trust social media more than brand-generated content
carried on traditional channels. Chu and Kim (2011) hypothesize that such confidence may
generate engagement. We propose the following hypothesis:
H1c: Trust has a positive influence on e-reputation.

A fourth element that emerges in the e-WOM literature is source credibility. Wu and Wang
(2010) investigated its effect on brand attitude. Their findings showed that a direct and positive
relationship existed between message source credibility and brand trust, brand affection, and
brand attitude. A high perceived credibility for the e-WOM message source increased perceived
quality, decreased perceived risk, and improved brand attitude. Other studies have defined
source credibility as the willingness to rely on an exchange partner in whom one has confidence
(Chatterjee 2001; Brown, Broderick, and Lee 2007; Lee and Youn 2009). Lin, Lu, and Wu
(2012) proposed that the main dimensions of source credibility were accuracy, believability,
fairness, objectiveness, and persuasiveness. Many agree that credibility influences one’s percep-
tion towards a brand (Grewal et al. 1997; Johnson and Kaye 2004). Therefore, we formulate the
following hypothesis:
H1d: Source credibility has a positive influence on e-reputation.

A fifth component of e-WOM, suggested by Lin, Lu, and Wu (2012), is message quality.
This refers to a message’s overall stylistic characteristics (Slater and Rouner 1996). A message
should be direct, precise, and linked to the purpose of the relationship between the sender and
the receiver. Sundar (1998) identified five components in the quality of a message. It must be
clear, coherent, comprehensive, concise, and well written. Through these components the
receiver can change or adapt perception of the message. Thus, we infer the following
hypothesis:
H1e: Message quality has a positive influence on e-reputation.

A sixth component suggested by the WOM literature is content quality (Higie, Feick, and
Price 1987; Bone 1995; Mangold, Miller, and Brockay 1999). Goyette et al. (2010) integrated
content in the study of WOM for e-services clients by highlighting eight measures of quality.
These address the quality, variety, and prices of the products, the user-friendliness of the site as
well as the security and the ease of transactions. Finally, these include the delivery and the
overall notoriety of the company. Transposing these initial contributions onto the social media
context, we suggest the following hypothesis:
H1f: Content quality has a positive influence on e-reputation.

A seventh component emphasized by the e-WOM literature is valence. Valence refers to the
“intrinsic attractiveness (positive valence) or averseness (negative valence) of an event, object,
 INVESTIGATING e-WOM's INFLUENCE ON e-REPUTATION 47

or situation” (Frijda 1986, 207). Lee and Youn (2009) highlighted the moderating role of
e-WOM valence. Other researchers found that unfavorable information is generally more influ-
ential than favorable information (Fiske 1980; Skowronski and Carlston 1987; Chiou and
Cheng 2003). For example, Mizerski (1982) found that unfavorable (versus favorable) product
information from a consumer led to a stronger affect regarding products. Negative product
information helps consumers to categorize the product as being of low quality because negative
attributes are held mostly by low-quality products (Skowronski and Carlston 1987, ; Herr,
Kardes, and Kim 1991). However, positive (versus negative) product information is perceived
as more ambiguous (Herr, Kardes, and Kim 1991). Some researchers, who analyzed valence,
consider a positive review to have a positive influence on e-WOM (Goyette et al. 2010) but
a negative review to have greater negativity. We follow the work of Burzynski and Bayer
(1977), who consider valence more globally, and formulate the following hypothesis:
H1g: Valence has a positive influence on e-reputation.
Finally, many studies have noted the crucial importance of interpersonal influence as a social
factor that could influence consumer decision-making (Bearden et al. 1989; D’Rozario and
Choudhury 2000; Chu and Kim 2011). The degree of influence can be considered to be either
normative (i.e., conforms to expectations of other people’s affects and attitudes) or informational
(i.e., the tendency to accept information from knowledgeable others and to be guided in a brand
search). This concept has also been supported in the IS literature, mainly in the adoption process,
thanks to the work of Venkatesh et al. (2003) in the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of
Technology (UTAUT). In this work, social influence is the degree to which individuals act
and/or use IT systems based on peers’ perception. Social influence has been recognized to influ-
ence the behavior of individuals. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:
H1h: Degree of influence has a positive influence on e-reputation.

FIGURE 1 Conceptual model investigating the influence of e-WOM on e-reputation

48 CASTELLANO AND DUTOT

To summarize, most studies have highlighted the importance of the activity of influencers
on the Web and how it could influence individuals’ decisions. The current research contributed
to current knowledge by focusing on a new dimension of the brand and the firm: its reputation.
To include the new digital channels, this study focuses on e-WOM and e-reputation, examined
empirically in the following sections. The model used in this examination is presented in
Figure 1.

METHODOLOGY

Design of the Survey

The questionnaire was divided into five subsections. The first three addressed e-WOM, the
fourth section focused on e-reputation, and the last section captured demographic characteris-
tics. Overall, 43 questions were asked (39 for the constructs, and 4 for demographic character-
istics; see Appendix for the final questionnaire). A pre-test was conducted among 25 Master’s
students in digital business and three professors and professionals specialized in e-reputation.
The final survey was launched after adapting some unclear questions (mainly on valence and
tie strength).

Measurement

The survey included twelve constructs selected to measure both e-WOM and e-Reputation.

Independent Variables

The measurement scales used in the survey were based on previous works and were selected
for their previously confirmed reliability and validity. Tie strength (3 items) and homophily (3
items) were defined following Brown, Broderick, and Lee (2007) and Chu and Kim (2011).
Trust (3 items) was measured by using the scale of Yeh and Choi (2011). Source credibility
(5 items) used the works of Lee and Youn (2009) and Lin, Lu, and Wu (2012). Message quality
(5 items) referred to the measurements of Sandar (1998) and Lin, Lu, and Wu (2012). Regard-
ing content quality (4 items), we used the Goyette et al. (2010) scale. Regarding valence (5
items), we referred to the scales of Lee and Youn (2009) and Goyette et al. (2010). Finally,
degree of influence (3 items) was based on Chu and Kim (2011).

Dependent Variable

For the e-reputation measurement, we followed Dutot and Castellano’s (2015) typology. The
scale they developed proposes 18 items divided in four blocs (see Table 1). The first bloc inte-
grates what authors called the reputation represented by the brand characteristics. The second
and third blocs look at the quality of the website and service. They are in that sense quite similar
to those ones found in NETQUAL and used by DeLone and McLean (2003). The fourth and
final dimension integrates social media with mainly quantitative items. All items were measured
 INVESTIGATING e-WOM's INFLUENCE ON e-REPUTATION 49

TABLE 1
The E-reputation Scale (Dutot and Castellano 2015)

Dimension (number of items) Items

Brand characteristic (2)
Quality of website (3)
Quality of service (5)
Social media (8)
Perception of the brand, role of the community manager
Quality of images, Internet users’ opinion, design
e-commerce experience, quality of products, CRM, after sales services, security
Activity of the community, influencers’ opinion on the Web, buzz, attendance on
social networks, number of fans, number of followers, number of tweets,
number of views

on Likert-type scales varying from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), which limits the
risks of misunderstanding or measurement error (Vehovar and Lozar Manfreda 2008).

Data Collection

Data were collected in the summer of 2014, using a convenience sample. The questionnaire was
administered through an online platform, which is considered to be an appropriate tool for
research (Vehovar and Lozar Manfreda 2008). It possesses several advantages, such as

TABLE 2
Demographics of the Population (n ¼ 251)

Characteristics Frequency %

Sex Male 116 46.2%

Female 135 53.8%
Age 15–25 126 50.1%
26–35 40 16%
36–45 29 11.5%
46–55 35 14%
Above 55 21 8.4%
Occupation Student 128 51%
Management position 58 23.1%
Employee 33 13.1%
Retired 16 6.4%
Other 16 6.4%
Number of hours on social media per week Less than 1 hour 58 23.1%
1 to 5 75 29.9%
5 to 15 71 28.3%
15 to 30 31 12.3%
Above 30 16 6.4%
Social media presence Facebook 215 85.6%
LinkedIn 89 35.4%
Twitter 74 29.4%
Forums 37 14.7%
Instagram 51 20.3%
Blogs 33 13.1%
Googleþ 55 21.9%
Pinterest 26 10.3%
50 CASTELLANO AND DUTOT

gathering data over a shorter period of time (Dillman 2006) and in a faster and cheaper manner
compared to other methods (Bethlehem and Biffignandi 2012). Out of the 260 completed
questionnaires, 251 were kept for the analysis.

Descriptive Statistics Analysis

Table 2 presents the demographic characteristics of the sample. We notice a slight overrepre-
sentation of females over males and of students. The majority of the respondents are active
on social media platforms for periods ranging from 1 to 15 hours a week, with Facebook being
their principal network.

RESULTS

Both PLS and PLS-Structural equation modeling (SEM) were used to assess the research model.
The component-based PLS method was deemed more appropriate than covariance-based SEM
methods such as LISREL given the relatively high number of variables relative to sample size
and the exploratory context of this research (Hair, Ringle, and Sarstedt 2011). We used the approach
defined by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), which first assesses the construct validity, allowing us to
re-specify the measurement model. Then, we analyze the structural model to test our hypotheses.

Assessment of Construct Reliability and Validity

We first assessed the construct validity of the twelve dimensions of the research model (tie
strength, homophily, trust, source credibility, message quality, content, valence, and influence
for e-WOM, and website quality, quality of service, social media and brand characteristics for
e-reputation) by performing principal component analysis and confirmatory factor analysis.
These analyses focus on reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity, allowing
us to confirm the internal consistency of the measures. Reliability and convergent validity
are satisfied by retaining variables with alphas that exceeded the value of 0.7, composite
reliability of 0.7, and the AVEs having the value of 0.5 (Gefen, Straub, and Boudreau 2000).
As a result, the measurement model was re-specified by deleting any item that did not load
sufficiently (k < 0.5) on its associated dimension, that is, 1 item out of 5 for the source
credibility dimension (SC5), 2 items out of 5 for the valence dimension (Tables 3 and 4).
The other property to be verified is discriminant validity, which shows the extent to which
each construct in the research model is unique and different from the others. The shared
variance between a construct and other constructs must be smaller than the average variance.
This was the case for all nine constructs, as shown in Table 5.

Assessment of the Structural Model

The research hypotheses are tested by assessing the direction, strength, and level of significance
of the path coefficients (betas) estimated by Smart PLS. We can first highlight that e-WOM has
 INVESTIGATING e-WOM's INFLUENCE ON e-REPUTATION 51

TABLE 3
Assessment of Construct Validity for e-WOM Dimensions

Construct Indicator Mean SID Standardized loading AVE Cronbach (reliability)

Tie strength TS1 4.02 1.41 0.82 0.59 0.72

TS2 4.06 1.14 0.90
TS3 3.11 1.11 0.62
Homophily HO1 2.70 1.00 0.68 0.59 0.73
HO2 2.73 0.98 0.81
HO3 3.42 0.86 0.80
Trust TR1 2.98 1.02 0.73 0.60 0.70
TR2 2.94 1.00 0.74
TR3 3.25 1.02 0.91
Source credibility SC1 3.87 0.94 0.79 0.55 0.74
SC2 3.67 1.09 0.81
SC3 3.22 1.04 0.70
SC4 3.38 1.01 0.74
Message quality MQ1 3.75 0.98 0.81 0.58 0.81
MQ2 3.81 0.97 0.85
MQ3 3.91 0.92 0.83
MQ4 3.46 1.06 0.77
MQ5 3.96 1.05 0.62
Content quality CO1 3.50 1.18 0.85 0.63 0.83
CO2 3.36 1.13 0.65
CO3 3.75 1.05 0.83
CO4 3.48 1.10 0.84
Valence VAL1 3.65 1.06 0.83 0.63 0.70
VAL2 3.65 1.02 0.85
VAL3 2.95 1.12 0.69
Degree of influence INF1 3.69 1.02 0.81 0.74 0.83
INF2 3.35 1.12 0.92
INF3 2.85 1.19 0.84

TABLE 4
Assessment of Construct Validity for e-reputation Dimensions

Construct Indicator Mean SID Standardized loading AVE Cronbach (reliability)

Website quality WQ1 3.90 1.00 0.88 0.68 0.75

WQ2 3.50 1.15 0.75
WQ3 4.05 0.98 0.83
Quality of service QS1 4.03 0.98 0.72 0.58 0.82
QS2 4.49 0.68 0.74
QS3 4.24 0.81 0.85
QS4 4.14 0.92 0.84
Social media SM1 3.01 1.04 0.67 0.60 0.86
SM2 2.61 1.07 0.76
SM3 2.66 1.14 0.80
SM4 2.69 1.16 0.80
SM5 2.24 1.18 0.79
SM6 2.29 1.13 0.79
Brand characteristics BC1 4.00 0.80 0.83 0.68
BC2 3.33 0.99 0.83
52 CASTELLANO AND DUTOT

TABLE 5
Discriminant Validity of Constructs

Construct 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

1. Tie strength 0.77

2. Homophily 0.36 0.77
3. Trust 0.32 0.45 0.77
4. Source credibility 0.22 0.24 0.06 0.74
5. Message quality 0.16 0.15 0.06 0.54 0.76
6. Content quality 0.09 0.08 0.14 0.23 0.22 0.79
7. Valence 0.09 0.11 0.04 0.12 0.07 0.65 0.78
8. Degree of influence 0.24 0.04 0.15 0.07 0.24 0.34 0.11 0.87
9. E-reputation 0.45 0.16 0.29 0.35 0.38 0.34 0.37 0.42 0.76

Diagonal: (average variance extracted)1/2 ¼ (Rki2/n).1/2

Subdiagonals: correlation ¼ (shared variance).1/2

a direct influence on e-reputation (explaining a significant amount of variance: 43.4%), thus

providing overall support for the research model (Figure 2). Furthermore, the test of the
research model shows that 6 of the eight hypotheses are accepted. In other words, the results
summarized in Table 6 show that tie strength, trust, source credibility, message quality, valence,
and degree of influence have a significant influence on e-reputation.

FIGURE 2 Test of the research model

 INVESTIGATING e-WOM's INFLUENCE ON e-REPUTATION 53

TABLE 6
Summary of Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis Path coefficient Result

***
H1: Tie strength – eRep 0.30 Accepted
H2: Homophily – eRep 0.14 Rejected
H3: Trust – eRep 0.20* Accepted
H4: Source credibility – eRep 0.16* Accepted
H5: Message quality – eRep 0.19* Accepted
H6: Content – eRep 0.04 Rejected
H7: Valence – eRep 0.29*** Accepted
H8: Influence – eRep 0.20*** Accepted

*: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01; ***: p < 0.001.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Our study investigates the impact of e-word of mouth on e-reputation. Our model reveals new
insights into the key factors that influence individual perceptions towards firms. The results
show that some criteria suggested in the literature as components of e-WOM do not affect
e-reputation. The following sub-sections discuss the results more precisely.

The Main Influencers of E-Reputation

As noted in the results, tie strength, valence and the degree of influence constructs (i.e., have a
strong and significant influence on e-reputation. Regarding tie strength (the most significant
link at .30, p < 0.001), the results show that the stronger (weaker) the ties are, the higher (lower)
the e-reputation. This means that contacts on the virtual sphere play a major role in conferring
reputation online. The bond between them must be strong to influence e-reputation. Thus, when
individuals communicate frequently with their close contacts on social media, such as family
and friends, they tend to put more emphasis on the information exchanged. This is even true
when the audience feels close to its contacts and when the contacts’ opinion matters.
The second main influencer of e-reputation is valence (.29, p < 0.001). Valence is the “intrin-
sic attractiveness or averseness of an event, object, or situation” (Frijda 1986, 207). Hence, a
positive review generates, most of the time, a positive influence. This review can take the form
of a comment, an evaluation (e.g., rating of a video on YouTube), or simply a recommendation
to a peer. Once again, the bond between the individual issuing the review and the one receiving
it is crucial. Therefore, the more favorable the electronic WOM, the higher the e-reputation
granted by the evaluating audience.
The third influencer is the degree of influence (.20, p < 0.01). In this research, we focus
exclusively on informational influence as presented in Chu and Kim (2011). The fact that
individuals ask for help when considering buying a new product or need another type of
information, and that they obtain an answer from their peers, seems to positively influence their
perception of the firm’s e-reputation. This influence takes place mainly in a decision with two
steps. The first step is when looking for information about a specific dimension (e.g., a product);
the individual will ask her/his network about the firm as well as some alternatives. The second
54 CASTELLANO AND DUTOT

step is when the decision is made. In this case, the need for obtaining advice is clear and
explicit.
Overall, the most prominent factors that drive e-reputation are personal and linked to the
individual’s perception of his/her peers. Indeed, the bond between the individual and his/her
community, or the quest for approval as well as the informational influence, all appear to push
for more collusion between members than for face-to-face exchanges or content quality. There-
fore, when evaluating the e-reputation of a firm, audiences put more emphasis on their personal
contacts (i.e., tie strength) and even reinforce the influence of such ties through valence and
influence mechanisms.

The Secondary Influencers of E-Reputation

The results also highlight the fact that some factors influence e-reputation to a lesser extent.
Such factors are trust, source credibility, and message quality. When interacting with their
online community, people tend to trust their contacts (0.20, p < 0.05). Trust is therefore
materialized in discussions or based on recommendations. Such trust can be cognition-based
or affect-based. The former is linked to the knowledge of one’s contacts on specific topics.
Individuals can then use such knowledge to grant e-reputation. The latter is instead linked to
interpersonal relationships between members of the community. E-reputation appears to be
impacted by both types of trust. The fact that trust does influence e-reputation to a full extent
is somehow understandable. Trust is based on long-term relationships, whereas the Internet
rather emphasizes speed and immediacy. Creating tools to establish trust online is the first step.
Only then can it further positively influence e-reputation.
The last two constructs (i.e., source credibility and message quality) can be presented
together, as they rely both on the perception of the quality of the exchange. Individuals do care
very much about message credibility. By credibility we mean the accuracy of the information
exchanged, the recognition of the person on social media (i.e., is he an expert, a moderator, or
just a first-time user), or the level of objectivity and impartiality in every message or discussion.
In these exchanges, the messages must be clear, concise, and understandable. Otherwise, the
consequences could lead to a negative influence on e-reputation.
This second subgroup of influencers is more focused on content and sender (tangible
information) rather than on perceptual insights (i.e., the first subgroup), and firms should also
consider this aspect in their communication strategies with their community. Are messages
always clear and well perceived by the members? Who in the company should initiate these
conversations? The overall stylistic characteristics of the message influence the perception of
individuals and ultimately can negatively impact e-reputation.

The No-Influencers of E-Reputation

Finally, two constructs did not load significantly: homophily and content quality. Regarding the
homophily dimension, the results show that it has no significant effect on e-reputation ( 0.14).
Consequently, congruence and similarity in certain attributes between individuals do not
influence reputation online. The contacts of any audience do not necessarily need to be alike
to influence the reputation on the virtual sphere. Heterogeneous profiles are not perceived
 INVESTIGATING e-WOM's INFLUENCE ON e-REPUTATION 55

negatively in regard to e-WOM. With the Internet, people might look for diversity and be
willing to interact with different types of social media users, such as users from different coun-
tries and with different hobbies. On another note, all elements of e-WOM have been analyzed
separately. However, the joint effect between homophily and other dimensions might provide
insightful results. For instance, individuals might not only look for similar people, but for both
similar and close (tie strength) or similar and trustworthy (trust) people, calling for further
investigation.
As far as content quality is concerned, the fact that consumers talk among themselves
about prices or product variety or quality does not significantly influence their perception of
e-reputation. This result is not in line with the findings of Goyette et al. (2010) and seems to
indicate that individuals either already have their perception of these elements or just do not
integrate these elements into their decision criteria. Therefore, in regard to e-WOM, who people
talk to (e.g., tie strength, trust, credibility, etc.) matters more than what is discussed online (such
as the ease of transaction or the product characteristics). People are still paying attention to the
human factor, even when they communicate and evolve online.

Implications

From an academic perspective, this study highlights the influence of WOM not only in market-
ing (e.g., on purchase), but also in management, especially its influence on e-reputation. This
study confirms the results retrieved in previous research. However, by identifying the most
important influencers of e-WOM on e-reputation (i.e., tie strength, valence, and the degree
of influence), this study offers a more detailed analysis. It also shows that homophily, as well
as the content of the message, are not influencers of e-reputation, leading the way to a new
conceptualization of e-WOM in an e-reputation context/setting. This research also supports
the findings of Dutot and Castellano (2015) regarding their measurement scale of e-reputation.
The research contributes to the current stream of literature on e-reputation by providing new
insight into the influencers of e-reputation, leading the way to greater comprehension and appre-
hension of this concept and its antecedents and consequences.
From a practical point of view, this study helps managers and practitioners to improve their
e-reputation. E-WOM should not be taken as a whole, and managers should distinguish between
its different constituents. By prioritizing and emphasizing the different dimensions of e-WOM,
firms can use this tool more efficiently. Efforts should be made toward establishing credibility
for the sender (and therefore targeting social influencers) and toward creating a bond between
members of the community. To succeed, companies should hire new resources (the first step is,
in many cases, a community manager), train their employees to use of new technologies, and
develop their community through engagement strategies (e.g., creation of content on a platform,
stimulating discussions, and feedback).

AVENUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND CONCLUSION

This research has some limitations that must be highlighted. The first limitation is the context of
the study. The French context may not be similar to other nations; therefore, one can question
56 CASTELLANO AND DUTOT

the generalization of the model. Further research in different countries (where WOM or repu-
tation is also understood) should be considered to strengthen the reliability of the conceptual
model. In addition, replication in different settings such as the types of firms (e.g., B2B,
B2C, G2B) and their characteristics (i.e., size, industry, etc.) can provide insightful results.
Another limitation lies in the use of a convenience sample. Indeed, even if the sample size is
appropriate for an exploratory study, one must keep in mind that the results are exploratory. A
replication of the study would provide empirical support to both e-WOM and e-reputation
constructs. Yet, the strong support highlighted in the current research shows that the initial
application is a useful starting point for further research.

REFERENCES

Allsop, D. T., B. R. Bassett, and J. A. Hoskins. 2007. “Word-of-Mouth Research: Principles and Applications.” Journal
of Advertising Research 47(4):398–411. doi:10.2501/s0021849907070419
Alreck, P. L., and R. B. Settle. 1995. “The Importance of Word-of-Mouth Communications to Service Buyers.”
Proceedings of American Marketing Association Winter, 188–193.
Anderson, J. C., and D. W. Gerbing. 1988. “Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended
Two-Step Approach.” Psychological Bulletin 103(3):411–423. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
Arndt, J. A. 1967. “Role of Product Related Conversations in the Diffusion of a New Product.” Journal of Marketing
Research 4(3):291–295. doi:10.2307/3149462
Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., and J. E. Teel. 1989. “Measurement of Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal
Influence.” Journal of Consumer Research 15(4):473–481.
Bejou, D., C. T. Ennew, and A. Palmer. 1998. “Trust, Ethics and Relationship Satisfaction.” International Journal of
Bank Marketing 16(4):170–175. doi:10.1108/02652329810220729
Bethlehem, J., and S. Biffignandi. 2012. Handbook of Web Surveys. Wiley Handbooks in Survey Methodology 567.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
Blackshaw, P. 2006. “Commentary: Consumer-Generated Media is Fragile – Don’t Mess It Up.” Accessed July 16,
2013. http://adage.com/digital/article.php?article_id=111679
Bone, P. F. 1995. “Word of Mouth Effects on Short-Term and Long-Term Product Judgments.” Journal of Business
Research 32(3):213–223. doi:10.1016/0148-2963(94)00047-i
Brown, J., A. J. Broderick, and N. Lee. 2007. “Word of Mouth Communication within Online Communities: Concep-
tualizing the Online Social Network.” Journal of Interactive Marketing 21(3):2–20. doi:10.1002/dir.20082
Burzynski, M. H., and D. J. Bayer. 1977. “The Effect of Positive and Negative Prior Information on Motion Picture
Appreciation.” The Journal of Social Psychology 101(2):215–218.
Castellano, S. and V. Dutot. 2013. “Analogies and Contrasts Between e-Reputation and Reputation: A Social Media
Perspective.” Revue Française du Marketing 2013(243):35–51.
Chatterjee, P. 2001. “Online Review: Do Consumers Use Them?” Advances in Consumer Research 28(1):129–133.
Cheung, C. M. K., K. O. Lee Mathew, and N. Rabjohn 2008. “The Impact of Electronic Word-Of Mouth: The Adoption
of Online Opinions in Online Customer Communities.” Internet Research 18(3):229–247. doi:10.1108/
10662240810883290
Cheung, C. M. K., and D. R. Thadani. 2010. “The Effectiveness of Electronic Word of Mouth Communication: A
Literature Analysis.” Accessed November 30, 2012. http://www.domino.fov.uni-mb.si/proceedings.nsf/0/.../$File/
24_Cheung.pdf
Chevalier, J. A., and D. Mayzlin. 2006. “The Effect of Word of Mouth on Sales: Online Book Reviews.” Journal of
Marketing Research 43(3):345–354. doi:10.1509/jmkr.43.3.345
Chiou, J.-S., and C. Cheng. 2003. “Should a Company have Message Boards on its Web Sites?” Journal of Interactive
Marketing 17(3):50–61. doi:10.1002/dir.10059
Chu, S., and Y. Kim. 2011. “Determinants of Consumer Engagement in Electronic Word-Of-Mouth (E-WOM) in Social
Networking Sites.” International Journal of Advertising 30(1):47–75. doi:10.2501/ija-30-1-047-075
 INVESTIGATING e-WOM's INFLUENCE ON e-REPUTATION 57

Chun, R., and G. Davies. 2001. “E-reputation: The Role of Mission and Vision Statements in Positioning Strategy.”
Journal of Brand Management 8(4&5):315–333.
Chun, R., Davies, G., Silva, R. V. D., and S. Roper. 2004. “A Corporate Character Scale to Assess Employee and
Customer Views of Organization Reputation.” Corporate Reputation Review 7(2):125–146.
Chung, C. M. Y., and P. R. Darke. 2006. “The Consumer as Advocate: Self-Relevance, Culture, and Word-Of-Mouth.”
Marketing Letters 17(4):269–279. doi:10.1007/s11002-006-8426-7
D’Rozario, D., and P. K. Choudhury. 2000. “Effect of Assimilation on Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal
Influence.” Journal of Consumer Marketing 17(4):290–307.
Davies, G., and L. Miles. 1998. “Reputation Management: Theory Versus Practice.” Corporate Reputation Review
2(1):16–27.
De Bruyn, A., and G. L. Lilien. 2008. “A Multi-Stage Model of Word-Of-Mouth Influence through Viral Marketing.”
International Journal of Research in Marketing 25(3):151–163. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2008.03.004
Dellarocas, C. 2003. “The Digitization of Word-Of-Mouth: Promise and Challenge of Online Feedback Mechanisms.”
Management Science 49(10):1407–1424. doi:10.1287/mnsc.49.10.1407.17308
Delone, W. H., and E. R. McLean. 2003. “The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-
Year Update.” Journal of Management Information Systems 19(4):9–30.
Dick, A. S., and K. Basu. 1994. “Customer Loyalty: Toward an Integrated Conceptual Framework.” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 22(2):99–113. doi:10.1177/0092070394222001
Dillman, D. A. 2006. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons.
Doney, P. M., and J. P. Cannon. 1997. “An Examination of the Nature of Trust in Buyer–Seller Relationships.” Journal
of Marketing 61(2):31–35. doi:10.2307/1251829
Duhan, D. F., S. D. Johnson, J. B. Wilcox, and G. D. Harrell. 1997. “Influence on Consumer Use of Word-Of-Mouth
Recommendation Sources.” Academy of Marketing Science 25(4):283–295. doi:10.1177/0092070397254001
Dutot, V. 2014. “Adoption of Social Media Using Technology Acceptance Model: The Generational Effect.”
International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction 10(4):18–35. doi:10.4018/ijthi.2014100102
Dutot, V., and S. Castellano. 2015. “Designing a Measurement Scale for E-Reputation.” Corporate Reputation Review
18(4):294–313. doi:10.1057/crr.2015.15
Engel, J. F., R. D. Blackwell, and R. J. Kegerreis. 1969. “How Information is used to Adopt an Innovation.” Journal of
Advertising Research 9(4):3–8.
Fillias, E., and A. Villeneuve. 2010. E-réputation, stratégies d’influence sur Internet. Edition Ellipse
Fiske, S. T. 1980. “Attention and Weight in Person Perception: The Impact of Negative and Extreme Behavior.”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38(6):889–906. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.38.6.889
Flavian, C., M. Guinaliu, and E. Torres. 2006. “How Bricks-And-Mortar Attributes Affect Online Banking Adoption.”
International Journal of Bank Marketing 24(6):406–423. doi:10.1108/02652320610701735
Flynn, L. R., R. E. Goldsmith, and J. K. Eastman. 1996. “Opinion Leaders and Opinion Seekers: Two New Measurement
Scales.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 24(2):137–147. doi:10.1177/0092070396242004
Frijda, N. H. 1986. The emotions: Studies in emotion and social interaction. Paris: Maison de Sciences de l'Homme.
Frochot, D. and F. Molinaro. 2008. Livre Blanc sur l'e-reputation. Paris: Les Infostratèges.
Garbarino, E., and M. S. Johnson. 1999. “The Different Roles of Satisfaction, Trust, and Commitment in Customer
Relationships.” Journal of Marketing 63(2):70–87. doi:10.2307/1251946
Gefen, D. 2002. “Reflections on the Dimensions of Trust and Trustworthiness among Online Consumers.” Database for
Advances in Information Systems 33(3):38–53.
Gefen, D., E. Karahanna, and D. W. Straub. 2003. “Trust and Tam in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model.” MIS
Quarterly 27(1):51–90.
Gefen, D., D. W. Straub, and M. C. Boudreau. 2000. “Structural Equation Modeling and Regression Guidelines for
Research Practice.” Communications of the Association for Information Systems 4(7):1–76.
Gilly, M. C., Graham, J. L., Wolfinbarger, M. F., and L. J. Yale. 1998. “A Dyadic Study of Interpersonal Information
Search.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 26(2):83–100.
Goldsmith, R. E., and D. Horowitz. 2006. “Measuring Motivations for Online Opinion Seeking.” Journal of Interactive
Advertising 6(2):2–14. doi:10.1080/15252019.2006.10722114
Gounaris, S., and V. Stathakopoulos. 2004. “Antecedents and Consequences of Brand Loyalty: An Empirical Study.”
Journal of Brand Management 11(4):283–306. doi:10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540174
58 CASTELLANO AND DUTOT

Goyette, I., L. Ricard, J. Bergeron, and F. Marticotte. 2010. “E-WOM Scale: Word-Of-Mouth Measurement Scale for
Service Context.” Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 27(1):5–23. doi:10.1002/cjas.129
Granovetter, M. S. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 78(6):1360–1380.
Grewal, D., S. Kavanoor, E. F. Fern, C. Costley, and J. Barnes. 1997. “Comparative Versus Non-comparative Adver-
tising: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Marketing 61(4):1–15. doi:10.2307/1252083
Hair, J., C. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt. 2011. “PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet.” The Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice 19(2):139–152. doi:10.2753/mtp1069-6679190202
Hatch, M. J., and M. Schultz, M. 1997. “Relations Between Organizational Culture, Identity and Image.” European
Journal of marketing 31(5/6):356–365.
Hennig-Thurau, T., K. P. Gwiner, G. Walsh, and D. D. Gremler. 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
Herr, P. M., F. R. Kardes, and J. Kim. 1991. “Effects of Word-Of Mouth and Product Attribute Information on
Persuasion: An Accessibility-Diagnosticity Perspective.” Journal of Consumer Research 17(4):454–462.
doi:10.1086/208570
Higie, R. A., L. F. Feick, and L. L. Price. 1987. “Types and Amount of Word-Of-Mouth Communications about
Retailers.” Journal of Retailing 63(3):260–279.
IFOP. 2014. L’Observatoire des Réseaux Sociaux 2013. Accessed January 2014. http://www.ifop.com/media/poll/2436-
1-study_file.pdf
Johnson, T. J., and B. K. Kaye. 2004. “Wag the Blog: How Reliance on Traditional Media and the Internet Influence
Credibility Perceptions of Weblogs among Blog Users.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly
81(3):622–642. doi:10.1177/107769900408100310
Kaplan, A. M., and M. Haenlein. 2010. “Users of the World, Unite! The Challenges and Opportunities of Social
Media.” Business Horizons 53(1):59–68. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003
Katz, E., and P. E. Lazarsfeld. 1955. Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communica-
tions. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Kim, D. J., D. L. Ferrin, and H. R. Rao. 2008. “A Trust Based Consumer Decision-Making Model in Electronic Com-
merce: The Role of Trust, Perceived Risk, and Their Antecedents.” Decision Support Systems 44(2):544–564.
doi:10.1016/j.dss.2007.07.001
Lee, M., and S. Youn. 2009. “Electronic Word of Mouth (E-WOM): How E-WOM Platforms Influence
Consumer Product Judgement.” International Journal of Advertising 28(3):473–499. doi:10.2501/s02650487092
00709
Lin, T. M. Y, K.-Y. Lu, and J.-J. Wu. 2012. “The Effects of Visual Communication in E-WOM Communication.”
Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 6(1):7–26.
Liu, C., J. T. Marchewka, J. Lu, and C-S. Yu. 2004. “Beyond Concern: A Privacy–Trust–Behavioral Intention Model of
Electronic Commerce.” Information & Management 42(1):127–142. doi:10.1016/j.im.2004.01.002
Mangold, W. G., F. Miller, and G. R. Brockay. 1999. “Word-of- Mouth Communication in the Service Marketplace.”
Journal of Services Marketing 13(1):73–89. doi:10.1108/08876049910256186
Mittal, V., Huppertz, J. W., and A. Khare. 2008. “Customer Complaining: The Role of Tie Strength and Information
Control.” Journal of Retailing 84(2):195–204.
Mizerski, R. W. 1982. “An Attribution Explanation of the Disproportionate Influence of Unfavorable Information.”
Journal of Consumer Research 9(3):301–310. doi:10.1086/208925
Moorman, C., Deshpande, R., and G. Zaltman. 1993. “Factors Affecting Trust in Market Research Relationships.” Jour-
nal of Marketing 57(21):81–102.
Pigg, K. E. and L. D. Crank. 2004. “Building Community Social Capital: The Potential and Promise of Information and
Communications Technologies.” Journal of Community Informatics 1(1):58–73.
Rogers, E. M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.
Rogers, E. M., and D. K. Bhowmik. 1970. “Homophily–Heterophily: Relational Concepts for Communication
Research.” Public Opinion Quarterly 34(4):523–538. doi:10.1086/267838
Sen, S., and D. Lerman. 2007. “Why are you Telling me this? An examination into Negative Consumer Reviews on the
Web.” Journal of Interactive Marketing 21(4):76–94. doi:10.1002/dir.20090
Shamma, H. M. 2012. “Toward a Comprehensive Understanding of Corporate Reputation: Concept, Measurement
and Implications.” International Journal of Business and Management 7(16):151–169. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v7n16p151
 INVESTIGATING e-WOM's INFLUENCE ON e-REPUTATION 59

Skowronski, J. J., and D. E. Carlston. 1987. “Social Judgment and Social Memory: The Role of Cue Diagnosticity in
Negativity, Positivity, and Extremity Biases.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52(4):689–699.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.4.689
Slater, M. D., and D. Rouner. 1996. “How Message Evaluation and Source Attributes May Influence Credibility Assess-
ment and Belief Change.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 73(4):974–991. doi:10.1177/
107769909607300415
Sundar, S. S. 1998. “Effect of Source Attribution on Perception of Online News Stories.” Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly 75(1):55–68. doi:10.1177/107769909807500108
Thelwall, M. 2009. “Homophily in MySpace.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology
60(2):219–231.
Themba, G., and M. Mulala. 2013. “Brand-Related E-WOM and Its Effects on Purchase Decisions: An Empirical Study
of University of Botswana Students.” International Journal of Business and Management 8(8):31–40. doi:10.5539/
ijbm.v8n8p31
Vehovar, V., and K. Lozar Manfreda. 2008. “Overview: Online Surveys.” In Handbook of Online Research Methods,
edited by N. Fielding R. M. Lee and G. Blank 177–194. London: Sage.
Venkatesh, V., M. Morris, G. Davis, and F. Davis. 2003. “User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a
Unified View.” MIS Quarterly 27(3):425–478.
Wang, Z., Walther, J. B., Pingree, S., and R. P. Hawkins. 2008. “Health Information, Credibility, Homophily, and
Influence Via the Internet: Web Sites Versus Discussion Groups.” Health Communication 23(4):358–368.
Wu, P. C. S., and Y. Wang. 2010. “The Influences of Electronic Word-of-Mouth Message Appeal and Message Source
Credibility.” Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 23(4):448–472.
Yeh, Y.-H., and S. M. Choi. 2011. “MINI-Lovers, Maxi-Mouths: An Investigation of Antecedents to WOM Intention
among Brand Community Managers.” Journal of Marketing Communications 17(3):145–162. doi:10.1080/
13527260903351119

APPENDIX 1

Measurement: Likert 5 levels from strongly disagree to strongly agree

Tie strength (Brown, Broderick, and Lee 2007; Chu and Kim 2011)
TS1: Approximately how frequently do you communicate with the contacts on your “friends
list” on any social media? (never/very frequently)
TS2: Overall, how important do you feel about the contacts on your “friends list” on any
social media? (Not at all important/Very important)
TS3: Overall, how close do you feel to the contacts on your “friends list” on any social
media? (not at all close/ very close)
Homophily (Chu and Kim 2011)
In general, the contacts on my “friends list” on any social media
HO1: Don’t think like me/Think like me?
HO2: Don’t behave like me/Behave like me? HO3: Unlike me/Like me?
Trust (Chu and Kim 2011; Yeh and Choi 2011)
TR1: I trust my contacts on my “friends list” on any social media?
TR2: I have confidence in the contacts on my “friends list” on any social media?
TR3: I can believe in the contacts on my “friends list” on any social media?
Source credibility (Lee and Youn 2009; Lin, Lu, and Wu 2012)
SC1: Accuracy of information provided by my relatives is important
SC2: Credibility of my relatives online is important
60 CASTELLANO AND DUTOT

SC3: Impartiality of my relatives online is important; SC4: Objectivity of my relatives online

is important
Message quality (Lin, Lu, and Wu 2012; Sundar 1998)
MQ1: A clear message from my contacts is important to me
MQ2: A consistent message from my contacts is important to me
MQ3: A comprehensible message from my contacts is important to me
MQ4: A concise message from my contacts is important to me
MQ5: A well-written message from my contacts is important to me
Degree of influence (Chu and Kim 2011)
INF1: If I have a little experience with a product, I often ask my friends about the product
INF2: I often consult other people to help choose the best alternative available from a
product class
INF3: I frequently gather information from friends or family about a product before I buy
Valence (positive) (Goyette et al. 2010)
VAL1: I speak of this company’s good sides to my contacts
VAL2: I am proud to say to others that I am this company’s customer
VAL3: I strongly recommend people buy products online from a company
Content quality (Goyette et al. 2010)
CO1: I discuss the prices of products offered
CO2: I discuss the variety of the products offered
CO3: I discuss the quality of the products offered
CO4: I speak of the company’s notoriety