Impact of electronic word of mouth to the purchase intention - the case of Instagram

Article Sidebar

PDF HTML
Published: Jun 1, 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14807/ijmp.v12i4.1336
Keywords:
-WOM Gen Y Gen Z Instagram Purchase intention Vietnam

Main Article Content

Vi Truc Ho
Industrial University of Ho Chi Minh City
Nhan Trong Phan
Industrial University of Ho Chi Minh City
Phuong Viet Le-Hoang
Industrial University of Ho Chi Minh City
صندلی اداری

Abstract

This research aims to discover and confirm the factors of e-WOM that influence users' shopping intentions on Instagram. The data was collected from 700 customers who belong to Gen Y and Gen Z from 18 to 39 years old who live and work in Vietnam. The research model and the scales were built from the empirical research of e-WOM from Lim (2016); Park et al. (2007); Prendergast et al. (2010). Quantitative methods were performed by Cronbach's Alpha reliability testing, EFA discovery factor analysis, regression, and ANOVA test. The research results showed that the fourth factor of e-WOM positively impacts users' purchase intent on Instagram with decreasing levels as Information Provider's Expertise, the quantity of e-WOM, and the Source credibility of e-WOM, and the quality of e-WOM, respectively. Also, users' purchase intention on Instagram under the impact of e-WOM varies by gender, but there is no difference by age and income.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Issue
Vol. 12 No. 4 (2021): Independent Journal of Management & Production
Section
Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

1. Proposal of Policy for Free Access Periodics

Authors whom publish in this magazine should agree to the following terms:

a. Authors should keep the copyrights and grant to the magazine the right of the first publication, with the work simultaneously permitted under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 that allows the sharing of the work with recognition of the authorship of the work and initial publication in this magazine.

b. Authors should have authorization for assuming additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this magazine (e.g.: to publish in an institutional repository or as book chapter), with recognition of authorship and initial publication in this magazine.

c. Authors should have permission and should be stimulated to publish and to distribute its work online (e.g.: in institutional repositories or its personal page) to any point before or during the publishing process, since this can generate productive alterations, as well as increasing the impact and the citation of the published work (See The Effect of Free Access).

 

Proposal of Policy for Periodic that offer Postponed Free Access

Authors whom publish in this magazine should agree to the following terms:

 

a. Authors should keep the copyrights and grant to the magazine the right of the first publication, with the work simultaneously permitted under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 [SPECIFY TIME HERE] after the publication, allowing the sharing of the work with recognition of the authorship of the work and initial publication in this magazine.

 

b. Authors should have authorization for assuming additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this magazine (e.g.: to publish in institutional repository or as book chapter), with recognition of authorship and initial publication in this magazine.

 

c. Authors should have permission and should be stimulated to publish and to distribute its work online (e.g.: in institutional repositories or its personal page) to any point before or during the publishing process, since this can generate productive alterations, as well as increasing the impact and the citation of the published work (See The Effect of Free Access).


d. They allow some kind of open dissemination. Authors can disseminate their articles in open access, but with specific conditions imposed by the editor that are related to:
     Version of the article that can be deposited in the repository:
           Pre-print: before being reviewed by pairs.
           Post-print: once reviewed by pairs, which can be:
                  The version of the author that has been accepted for publication.
                  The editor's version, that is, the article published in the magazine.
           At which point the article can be made accessible in an open manner: before it is published in the magazine, immediately afterwards or if a period of seizure is required, which can range from six months to several years.
      Where to leave open: on the author's personal web page, only departmental websites, the repository of the institution, the file of the research funding agency, among others.

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.

Awad, N. F., &Ragowsky, A. (2008). Establishing Trust in Electronic Commerce Through Online Word of Mouth: An Examination Across Genders. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(4), 101–121.

Bhattacherjee, A., & Sanford, C. (2006). Influence processes for information technology acceptance: An elaboration likelihood model. MIS Quarterly, 30(4), 805–825.

Bickart, B., & Schindler, R. M. (2001). Internet forums as influential sources of consumer information. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15(3), 31–40.

Bloch, P. H., & Richins, M. L. (1986). A Theoretical Model for the Study of Product Importance Perception. Journal of Consumer Research, 47, 69-81.

Cakim, I. M. (2009). Implementing Word of Mouth Marketing: Online Strategies to Identify Influencers, Craft Stories, and Draw Customers, John Wiley & Sons.

Chatterjee, P. (2001). Online Reviews: Do Consumers Use Them?. Advances in Consumer Research, 28(1), 129–134.

Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752-66.

Chen, Y., & Xie, J. (2004). Online consumer review: A new element of marketing communications mix. Working Paper. University of Arizona.

Cheung, C. M. K., & Thadani, D. R. (2012). The impact of electronic word-of-mouth communication: A literature analysis and integrative model. Decision Support Systems, 54(1), 461–470.

Cheung, C. M. K., Lee, M. K. O., & Rabjohn, N. (2008). The impact of electronic word‐of‐mouth, Internet Research, 18(3), 229–247.

doi:10.1108/10662240810883290

Clement, J. (2019). Number of monthly active Instagram users 2013-2018. https://www.statista.com/statistics/253577/number-of-monthly-active-instagram-users/?id=5601&resource_name=eBookBrandAmbassadorProgram&resource_type=Guide/ (Accessed 03 December 2019).

DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60–95.

Erkan, I. (2016). The Influence of Electronic Word of Mouth in Social Media on Consumer’ Purchase Intention. Retrieved from https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/12972/1/FulltextThesis.pdf.

Filieri, R., & McLeay, F. (2014). E-WOM and Accommodation: An Analysis of the Factors That Influence Travelers’ Adoption of Information from Online Reviews. Journal of Travel Research, 53(1), 44–57.

Gilly, M. C., Graham, J. L., Wolfinbarger, M. F., & Yale, L. J. (1998). A dyadic study of interpersonal information search. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 26(2),83-100.

Goldenberg, J., Libai, B., & Muller, E. (2001). Talk of the Network: A Complex Systems Look at the Underlying Process of Word-of-Mouth. Marketing Letters, 12(3), 211–223.

Hair, J. F., Tatham, R. L., Anderson, R. E., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed. Pearson: New York.

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.

Holvland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness, Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635-650.

Huang, M., Cai, F., Tsang, A. S. L., & Zhou, N. (2011). Making your online voice loud: the critical role of WOM information. European Journal of Marketing, 45(7-8), 1277–1297.

Kalwani, M. U., & Silk, A. J. (1982). On the reliability and predictive validity of purchase intention measures. Marketing Science, 1(3), 243-286.

Kemp, S. (2019). Digital 2019: Vietnam. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2019-vietnam/ (Accessed 31 January 2019).

Knightley, E. (2018). 20 Influencer Marketing Statistics that Will Surprise You. Retrieved from https://digitalmarketinginstitute.com/blog/20-influencer-marketing-statistics-that-will-surprise-you.

Lee, E.-J., & Shin, S. Y. (2014). When do consumers buy online product reviews? Effects of review quality, product type, and reviewer’s photo. Computers in Human Behavior, 31(1), 356–366.

Lim, L. M. J. (2016). Analyzing the impact of electronic word of mouth on purchase intention and willingness to pay for tourism related products. Retrieved from http://www.apbersociety.org/Asia_Pacific_Business_and_Economics_Research_Society/Journal_files/LLim2016.pdf.

Lin, C., Wu, Y-S., & Chen, J-C. V. (2013). Electronic word-of-mouth: the moderating roles of product involvement and brand image. Proceedings of 2013 International Conference on Technology Innovation and Industrial Management. 29-31.

Litvin, S. W., Goldsmith, R. E., & Pan, B. (2008). Electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and tourism management. Tour Manage, 29, 458–468. DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2007.05.011.

Liu, Y. (2006). Word of Mouth for Movies: Its Dynamics and Impact on Box Office Revenue. Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 74–89.

Moran, G., & Muzellec, L. (2014). eWOM credibility on social networking sites: A framework. Journal of Marketing Communications, (ahead-of-print)), 1–13.

Nielsen. (2012). State of the Media: The Social Media Report. Available at: http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/reports-downloads/2012-Reports/The-Social-Media-Report-2012.pdf.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). The Assessment of Reliability. Psychometric Theory, 3, 248-292.

Park, D., Lee, J., & Ham, I. (2007). The effect of on-line consumer reviews on consumer purchasing intention: The moderating role of involvement. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 11(4), 125-148.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change, Springer-Verlag: New York.

Pitta, D. A., & Fowler, D. (2005). Online consumer communities and their value to new product developers. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14(5), 283–291.

Prendergast, G., Ko, D., & Yuen, S. Y. V. (2010). Online word of mouth and consumer purchase intentions. International Journal of Advertising, 29(5), 687–708.

Sussman, S. W., & Siegal, W. S. (2003). Informational influence in organizations: An integrated approach to knowledge adoption. Information Systems Research, 14(1), 47–65.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using Multivariate Statistics, 3rd ed, Harper Collins: New York.

Thomas, G. M. (2004). Building the buzz in the hive mind. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4(1), 64–72.

Wang, X., Yu, C., & Wei, Y. (2012). Social Media Peer Communication and Impacts on Purchase Intentions: A Consumer Socialization Framework. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(4), 198–208.

Social Media Statistics For Marketers in 2020 +. [online] https://statusbrew.com/insights/social-media-statistics-2020/ (Accessed 19 November 2019)

فروشگاه اینترنتی