Motivations to engage in word-of-mouth behavior on social network sites

Abstract

The main objective of this study was to enhance the understanding of users’ motivation to engage in word-of-mouth behavior on social network sites. This study conducted a hierarchical regression analysis to examine the motivations of social and personal constructs that may influence users’ engagement in word-of-mouth. The results posited that not only social constructs (tie strength, expressiveness, social enhancement, relationship management, normative influence, and informational influence), but also personal constructs (altruism, narcissism, image building, and achievement) positively affect users’ engagement in word-of-mouth. These findings can provide useful implications for theory in relation to the motives to disseminate word-of-mouth, and be a useful resource and reference for marketing practice.

Keywords

word-of-mouth social network sites motivation tie strength

Users engage in word-of-mouth behavior on social networks to increase conversation and interaction.

Introduction

With the proliferation of new digital media, social network sites (SNSs) promote new forms of social interaction and collaboration (Chu and Kim, 2011; Park and Lee, 2009; Shu, 2013). In addition to communication and interaction on personal networks, SNSs have also become a new hybrid component of integrated marketing communication that allows organisations to establish strong relationships with their consumers (Gilly et al., 1998; Luarn and Chiu, 2014; Mangold and Faulds, 2009). The role of SNSs as a communication tool for marketing has received considerable attention in recent years. In addition, the mechanisms of SNSs partly replace the function of search engines, allowing users not just to search, but also to publish and receive shared information in their network (Dellarocas, 2006). Given the collaborative and social characteristics of SNSs, this study focuses on SNSs as an emerging venue for user-to-user conversations, and discusses the motivations of word-of-mouth (WOM) users.

WOM has been defined as “all informal communications directed at other users about the ownership, usage, or characteristics of particular goods and services or their sellers” (Westbrook, 1987). Users who had memorable shopping experiences tend to tell others in their social network about those experiences. Various tools of WOM communication such as blogs, emails, consumer review websites and forums and SNSs have become the main media for the exchange of news and experiences (Dwyer, Hiltz, and Passerini, 2007; Hung and Li, 2007). WOM made a huge breakthrough by getting rid of the limitations of face-to-face information exchange (Dellarocas, 2006; Okazaki, 2009). SNSs represent an ideal tool for WOM, as users can freely create and disseminate brand-related information in their established social networks of friends, classmates and other acquaintances (French and Read, 2013; Vollmer and Precourt, 2008). To deliver superior marketing plans, marketers must first understand why users disseminate WOM on SNSs, which is the main objective of this study.

Although a number of studies have examined the determinants of WOM communication in online settings, they have typically focused on the relationship between WOM messages and WOM adoption (Brown, Broderick, and Lee, 2007; Cheung, Lee, and Rabjohn, 2008), playing little attention to the motivations of WOM dissemination on SNSs. Compared to the original electronic WOM, the identities of communicator and receiver are becoming more clear and certain, and the information can also be spread via SNSs to other social circles and communities by individuals who belong to them (Hwang and Jeong, 2014). In addition, users can also respond to the environmental stimulation immediately, rather than posting photos and articles after they go back home and sit in front of their desks. Therefore, in addition to the social determinants reported in previous studies (Okazaki, 2009; Sotiriadis and van Zyl, 2013; Steffes and Burgee, 2009), it is interesting to know what personal constructs of motivation are related to WOM dissemination. In line with previous studies, this study suggests that there are different motivations to share WOM when the environment of dissemination changes. This study attempts to identify social and personal constructs that influence users engagement in WOM on SNSs.

The remainder of this study is organized as follows. The next section provides a synopsis of the extant literature on WOM, and then infers the preliminary motives to disseminate WOM on SNSs depending on prior WOM researches. The third section states the method that examined users’ motivation, and provides an empirical assessment of motive relevance and structure. The fourth section discusses the results of the follow-up study that tested the hypotheses. We then offer directions for future research and discuss theoretical and managerial implications.

Literature review

WOM behavior on SNSs

WOM refers to person-to-person communication between communicators and receivers who perceive messages as non-commercial information, even though the subject is a brand, product, or service (Arndt, 1967; Murphy, Mascardo, and Benckendorff, 2007). Information originating from non-commercial sources can be more effective in generating referrals for non-regulated and low-involvement products, which take a very important role in decision-making (Chatterjee, 2011; Shimp, Wood, and Smarandescu, 2007). For example, Cheung et al. (2009) reported that an individual’s experience-based recommendation is the most important information source for the choice of indigenous food products. Previous studies also suggested that WOM not only influences consumers’ choices and purchase decisions (De Bruyn and Lilien, 2008; Gilly et al., 1998; Murphy, Mascardo, and Benckendorff, 2007), but also shapes pre-usage attitudes (Herr, Kardes, and Kim, 1991) and the attitude towards the brand and the website (Park and Lee, 2009).

Since most SNSs offer a closed and non-anonymous social circle structure, both communicators and receivers can know each other in the physical world with true friendship (Cheung, Lee, and Rabjohn, 2008). Hence, SNSs contacts are members of users’ existing networks and may be perceived as more trustworthy and credible than strangers, which leads SNSs to become an important source of product information for users and tremendously facilitates and accelerates WOM (Keenan and Shiri, 2009; Okazaki, 2009). The target group of WOM is narrowed down from ‘every user’ to ‘our friend’, thus WOM on SNSs is more helpful for decision-making than before (Chu and Kim, 2011; Prendergast, Ko, and Siu Yin, 2010).

The motive to disseminate WOM on SNSs

Motives are the general drivers that direct a user’s behavior toward attaining their needs (Hennig-Thurau, Walsh and Walsh, 2003; Wei et al., 2015). Motives significantly determine user behavior and therefore are useful in explaining why users engage in WOM behavior. For example, Hennig-Thurau, Walsh and Walsh (2003) examined WOM readers’ motives and the corresponding impact on consumer buying and communication behavior. It is reasonable to develop motives of WOM usage on SNSs from electronic WOM usage because of their similar traits. This study thus attempts to identify social constructs and personal constructs that influence users’ engagement in WOM on SNSs.

Social constructs

Tie strength refers to the potency of the bond between members of a network, which determines the ways, means, and expression of communication between the nodes, as well as the motivations, needs, and desires for communication (Granovetter, 1973; Haythornthwaite, 2002; Steffes and Burgee, 2009). The level of intensity of the social relationship between users, or the degree of overlap in two individuals’ friendship, varies greatly across a users’ social network. Brown, Broderick, and Lee (2007) and Chu and Kim (2011) have indicated that all of the ties across a user’s social network affect and support WOM dissemination. All WOM communication occurs within a social relationship that may be categorized according to the closeness of the relationship between the information seeker and the source, represented by the tie strength construct. For example, information of a sensitive or personal nature is more likely to be shared through strong ties than weak ones (Duhan et al., 1997; Money, Gilly, and Graham, 1998). Therefore, this study suggests that tie strength will facilitate user engagement in WOM on SNSs. From this perspective, this study argues that:

H1: Tie strength will have a positive effect on user engagement in WOM on SNSs.

Expressiveness is the degree to which a communicator perceives WOM as suitable for expressing information such as his or her emotions and social and personal identity (Palka, Pousttchi, and Wiedemann, 2009). Social identity refers to the need for a sense of belonging to a specific community (Dholakia, Bagozzi, and Pearo, 2004; Worchel, 1998), and is positively affected by trust among community members (Lin and Bhattacherjee, 2008). People are sometimes willing to engage in WOM activities because they need to display their popularity and ability (Lee, Im, and Taylor, 2008). For example, users may need to share their positive consumption experiences through SNSs to enhance their image among others by projecting themselves as intelligent shoppers. This study posits that:

H2: Expressiveness will have a positive effect on user engagement in WOM on SNSs.

Social enhancement refers to the social benefits derived from establishing and maintaining contact with other people, such as social support, friendship and intimacy (Dholakia, Bagozzi, and Pearo, 2004) – for example, information leading the subject to believe that he/she is cared for and loved and belongs to a network of communication and mutual obligation (Gefen and Ridings, 2005; Shin, 2013). Other scholars have defined social enhancement as interpersonal transactions involving affect, affirmation, aid, encouragement, and validation of feelings. (Nolen-Hoeksema and Davis, 1999; Vinokur and Van Ryn, 1993). Many SNSs users hope to obtain positive appraisal and comfort from others, which increases their life satisfaction (Svensson, 2011; Zhao, Lu, and Gupta, 2012). The ‘like’ button is an obvious example. Steinfield, Ellison and Lampe (2008) suggested that online activities (such as clicking the like button on Facebook) can increase the social enhancement. Therefore, this study suggests that:

H3: Social enhancement will have a positive effect on user engagement in WOM on SNSs.

Relationship management involves developing and maintaining close relationships (Lee, Im, and Taylor, 2008). Relationships progress from casual exchanges to increasingly intimate associations over time (Collins and Miller, 1994). Thus, people who visit chat rooms or message boards frequently tend to have personal values that include desiring respect and maintaining close relationships with others (Schiffman, Sherman, and Long, 2003). Given that social connectivity is at the core of SNSs, social relationship-related variables are crucial in comprehending the underlying WOM process. In addition, users can exchange information and self-disclosure immediately to facilitate the maintenance of relationships via SNSs. Thus, this study suggests that:

H4: Relationship management will have a positive effect on user engagement in WOM on SNSs.

Normative influence refers to the tendency to conform to the expectations of others (Ajzen, 1991; Burnkrant and Cousineau, 1975; Hwang and Jeong, 2014; Park and Lee, 2009; Shin, 2013). People whose behavior is consistent with the social norm may view themselves as a member of the community (Dholakia, Bagozzi, and Pearo, 2004). That is, recipient behaviour is driven by the desire to maintain the relationship with the influencer and be associated with a referent community by fitting in to evoke a favourable response from the community. However, people whose behavior is inconsistent with social norms may be criticized by others. Previous studies have indicated that the fear of being considered out of date or behind the times by not engaging in a blog can prompt a person to start a blog (Lee, Im, and Taylor, 2008; Park and Lee, 2009; Shin, 2013). Users who are susceptible to normative influence are more likely to adhere to the expectations of significant others and seek social approval through the acquisition and use of products these others view as acceptable. This may further facilitate their engagement in WOM on SNSs. From this perspective, it is reasonable to argue that:

H5: Normative influence will have a positive effect on user engagement in WOM on SNSs.

Informational influence reflects a psychological need to share information and be guided in product, brand and store search (Lee, Im, and Taylor, 2008). Prior studies have indicated that WOM is a crucial source of risk-reducing information because the independent, intentional nature of disclosing information in this way reveals true insight (Lee, Im, and Taylor, 2008). Users may be comfortable disclosing relevant WOM information on blogs to inform other users about experiences and products (Chen and Dubinsky, 2003; French and Read, 2013; Wei et al., 2015). In SNSs, users who are subject to informational influence are predicted to display a higher need to acquire and share information, which will facilitate their engagement in WOM on SNSs. Sending and receiving messages on SNSs is immediate, and thus makes the benefits from information exchange more realistic. This study proposes that:

H6: Informational influence will have a positive effect on user engagement in WOM on SNSs.

Personal constructs

Altruism is the performance of an act for others without anticipating compensation (Paul, Miller, and Paul, 1993; Sundaram, Mitra, and Webster, 1998). Numerous studies have suggested that altruism is an important construct to explain individuals’ willingness to share information and WOM in online social spaces (Dellarocas, Zhang, and Awad, 2007; Hung and Li, 2007; Kim et al., 2015). Many people wish to contribute to others’ decision-making or help those with the same interests by spreading their consumption experience (Carman, 1992). By sharing useful product information and experience, SNSs users can help their social connections with purchase-related decisions. This study thus proposes that

H7: Altruism will have a positive effect on user engagement in WOM on SNSs.

Narcissism is associated with positive self-views such as intelligence or attractiveness, involves the need to be admired and an exaggerated sense of self-importance (Mehdizadeh, 2010). For example, Facebook offers a gateway for shallow relationships and emotionally detached communications (i.e., wall posts, comments), which allow narcissistic users to post self-promoting content (Buffardi and Campbell, 2008). The development of information and communication technologies has encouraged many users to attract attention to themselves and boost their self-presentation by sharing WOM (Tang et al., 2010). This study suggests that the higher the level of a communicator’s narcissism, the more likely they are to engage in WOM dissemination on SNSs:

H8: Narcissism will have a positive effect on user engagement in WOM on SNSs.

Image building is conducted by people who seek to control published content to match the ideal self they have created (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010). Image is a crucial asset that a person can leverage to achieve and maintain a status within a collective network. The mutual and decontextualized nature of interpersonal links between connections and posts on profile pages reduces the propensity of profile owners to distort information or present a self-idealized virtual identity. In order to shape their image correctly, SNSs users must consider carefully what they post. Thus, users do not recommend content that might damage their positive image, and are likely to disseminate the specific positive content to manage and build their image (Tang et al., 2010). This study strongly believes that the higher the level of a communicator’s image building, the more likely they are to engage in WOM dissemination on SNSs:

H9: Image building will have a positive effect on user engagement in WOM on SNSs.

Achievement is one of the basic human motives (Deci and Ryan, 2012; Jadin, Gnambs, and Batinic, 2013). Achievement-related situations are characterized by approach and components that trigger hope for success or fear of failure (Cheng and Lam, 2013; Salami, 2004). According to previous studies, achievement-oriented people have the drive to achieve success related to competitiveness, persistence, and striving for perfection within their social environment (Cassidy and Lynn, 1989; Deshpandé et al., 2013). In addition, they have a high intention to contribute to community activities by offering information and attempting to identify solutions for both individuals and groups (Ardichvili, Page, and Wentling, 2003). For example, frequent posting and information sharing enables people to be recognized as opinion leaders by others (Füller, Jawecki, and Mühlbacher, 2007), which also increases their sense of achievement. This study supports these views and proposes that users tend to engage in WOM dissemination on SNSs in order to have a sense of achievement. Based on this, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H10: Achievement will have a positive effect on user engagement in WOM on SNSs.

Methods

Procedure and participants

This study referred to prior WOM relevant research to examine motivation, and generalized 10 constructs that may affect WOM dissemination on SNSs. After using several proxies to ensure the validity of the scale, a structured questionnaire and descriptive statistical methods were used to examine H1 to H10. All analyses were conducted in SPSS 18. The questionnaire is presented in Appendix A.

To verify the main reasons for participating in WOM behavior on SNSs, the target sample consisted of people who had used SNSs at least once to share WOM information. Hence, this study asked all participants whether they had experience by sharing WOM on SNSs before completing the questionnaire. If participants had shared WOM at least once in the past, they could complete the survey in this study. A total of 439 respondents completed the formal online survey; 9 invalid samples that did not finish the questionnaire completely were excluded. The response rate was 97.9%. A total of 430 samples were then used for further statistical analyses. The samples comprised 201 males (46.7%) and 229 females (53.3%). The average age was 24.57 years (SD = 5.41), ranging from 18 to 42. More than 50% of the participants had earned a college degree. The average SNSs usage experience of participants was 4.92 years (SD = 1.97). The average frequency of posting was 4.31 times/day (SD = 1.42) (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Demographic and usage information of the sample.

	n	M	SD
Gender
Male	201 (46.7%)
Female	229 (53.3%)
Highest level of education
High school or technical secondary school	12 (2.8%)
University or college	307 (71.4%)
Postgraduate	111 (25.8%)
Occupation
Governmental agencies or institutions	29 (6.7%)
Corporations or enterprises in the service industry	76 (17.8%)
Individual industrialists and businessman	35 (8.1%)
Researchers and teachers	17 (3.9%)
Students	273 (63.5%)
Age		24.57	5.41
SNSs usage experience		4.92	1.97
Average frequency of posting		4.31	1.42

Note: n=number of participants, M=mean, SD=standard deviation.

Measurements

This study secured expert validity by including WOM and SNSs experts in the item generation process. Through several feedback loops, the motivation items were clarified to ensure criterion validity by asking two SNSs users and two marketing academics not involved in the study to assign each item to one of 10 motive categories. This procedure helped to ensure that all respondents understood each item and that each item accurately measured the respective motive. The convergent validity of each item was tested using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) through SPSS. The t values of all motive items were significant, and the average variance extracted was greater than 0.5 for every motive. The convergent validity was thus confirmed.

The questionnaire was used to discover whether participants were influenced by the 10 motivational constructs while engaging in WOM on SNSs. The constructs were derived as follows. In the first part, social constructs, the motivations of tie strength and normative influence were adopted from the scale developed by Chu and Kim (2011); the expressiveness and social enhancement scales were based on Dholakia, Bagozzi, and Pearo (2004); and relationship management and informational influence were derived from Lee, Im, and Taylor (2008). In the second part, personal constructs, altruism was adopted from the scale developed by Dholakia, Bagozzi, and Pearo (2004); narcissism was adopted from the scale developed by Mehdizadeh (2010); image building was derived from Shimp and Kavas (1984); achievement was derived from Wu and Sukoco (2010) (see Appendix A).

The study employed a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). SPSS 18 was used to complete descriptive statistics and hierarchical regression analysis of the survey results. Before the formal experiment, a test-retest reliability analysis was performed to assess the reliability of these measurement items.

Results

Descriptive statistics

Table 2 lists the mean values for the relevance assessments of all motives. The results showed that the mean scores for all motives were not very high; none of them achieved a score of 5.0 or more, from a scale with a maximum of 7.0. The level of agreement varied strongly among motives, with mean scores ranging from 3.70 for narcissism to 4.44 for tie strength. Based on the comparison of means, tie strength and social enhancement are the most critical motives for disseminating WOM on SNSs. On the other hand, narcissism was the only construct that fell below the overall mean of 4.0.

Table 2.

Importance of motives.

	Motive	Mean
1	Tie strength	4.44
2	Social enhancement	4.44
3	Image building	4.39
4	Expressiveness	4.29
5	Altruism	4.25
6	Achievement	4.22
7	Informational influence	4.21
8	Relationship management	4.16
9	Normative influence	4.09
10	Narcissism	3.70

Note: Scale ranges from 1= strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree.

This study used Harman’s one-factor test to detect common method variance (Peng, Kao, and Lin, 2006; Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). A problem of common method bias exists if the factor analysis extracts only one factor, or the variance the first principal component is higher than 50% in the unrotated condition. The analysis extracted 10 constructs and the cumulative variance explained was 64.25%. The variance explained of the first component was 38.2% (the variances explained ranged from 4.37% to 38.2%) and no general construct yielded a percentage higher than 50%. Based on the results, this study did not have a problem of common method variance. In addition, there was no difference in the results between the earlier participants (47%) and the later participants (53%) in the survey, showing that non-response bias was not an issue.

Based on the Kaiser criterion and Varimax rotation, we conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to purify the instrument (Lai and Ong, 2010). This study extracted all motive constructs with eigenvalues greater than 1, yielding a KMO value (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy) of 0.872. Items with a factor loading less than 0.6 or a cross loading greater than 0.3 were eliminated (Wang and Chang, 2010). These items exhibited high loadings within factors and no cross loading with other factors, indicating stability. These constructs and their relationships with the original theoretically derived motives improved our understanding of articulation motives. All of the motives showed strong reliability (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Factor loading based on a principal components analysis with Varimax rotation for 10 items.

Construct		Items	Loading	Cronbach’s Alpha
Tie strength	People who can see the WOM on SNSs are important to me.	TS1	.79	.88
Tie strength	People who saw the WOM are close to me.	TS2	.83	.88
Expressiveness	I want to impress others by distributing the WOM I found.	EX1	.85	.85
Expressiveness	I want others to recognize me as an important WOM source.	EX2	.83	.85
Social enhancement	I want my friends have some response to give me some feedback.	SE1	.83	.83
Social enhancement	Sharing WOM can get positive encouragement and enhancement to me.	SE2	.87	.83
Relationship management	Sharing WOM to keep a close relationship with others.	RM1	.85	.87
	Sharing WOM to communicate with friends.	RM2	.87
	Sharing WOM to let people know my current affairs.	RM3	.79
Normative influence	I generally share WOM that I think others will approve of.	NI1	.79	.81
	I achieve a sense of belonging by sharing WOM on SNSs.	NI2	.78
	I often disseminate WOM that other people expect me to share.	NI3	.83
Informational influence	I like to share WOM to help other people choose the best alternative available from a product class.	II1	.87	.85
	I like to share my experience.	II2	.85
	I like to share the WOM about a certain issue.	II3	.89
Altruism	I like spreading WOM without any reward in return.	AL1	.77	.81
Altruism	The WOM on SNSs may provide some benefit for my friends.	AL2	.71	.81
Narcissism	I can get the praise and admire when spreading WOM on SNSs.	NA1	.84	.87
	I think everyone want to know what I know.	NA2	.81
	I share WOM to show off by commercializing and publicizing my activities.	NA3	.85
Image building	I can shape the impression of myself by sharing WOM on SNSs.	IB1	.82	.89
Image building	I can build image of myself by sharing WOM on SNSs.	IB2	.84	.89
Achievement	Sharing WOM on SNSs feels like complete an important thing.	AC1	.85	.90
Achievement	Sharing WOM on SNSs makes me feel a sense of achievement.	AC2	.88	.90

Hypothesis tests

Preliminary analyses revealed that some demographic variables were related to the variables of motivations. These were considered as covariates in the following analyses. The hierarchical regression analysis with two steps to examine the effects of demographic variables and motivations constructs in this study. In the first control step of the regression, we used demographic variables (sex, age and education) and usage behavior on SNSs (use experience and frequency of usage) as control variables to examine their relationship with the intention to engage in WOM on SNSs. The results reveal that only the frequency of usage significantly related to the intention to engage in WOM on SNSs. These control variables only explained 1% of the variance (F(5,424) = 3.53, p < .01) (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Hierarchical regression analysis predicting the motivations to engage in WOM.

Predictor variables	Step 1	Step 2
Control step
Sex	.08	.02
Age	.06	.02
Education	.04	.02
Use experience	.09	.01
Frequency of usage	.15*	.01
Main effect step
Tie strength		.28*
Expressiveness		.04*
Social enhancement		.13*
Relationship management		.12*
Normative influence		.11*
Informational influence		.11*
Altruism		.07*
Narcissism		.04*
Image building		.07*
Achievement		.09*
R²	.01	.87
▵R²		.85
F	3.53*	267.90*
df	(5,424)	(16,413)

Note: Sex and Education are dummy variables; *P < .01; ▵R² indicates the effect size added.

The 10 motivations of WOM dissemination were enter in step 2. As shown in Table 4, 87% of the variance was explained by these motivations (F(16,413) = 267.9, p < .01). According to the results, tie strength (β = .28, p < .01), expressiveness (β = .04, p < .01), social enhancement (β = .13, p < .01), relationship management (β = .12, p < .01), normative influence (β = .11, p < .01), informational influence (β = .11, p < .01), altruism(β = .07, p < .01), narcissism (β = .04, p < .01), image building (β = .07, p < .01), and achievement (β = .09, p < .01) were all significant. Therefore, all the social and personal constructs have positive effect on engagement in WOM on SNSs. H1 to H10 were consistently and strongly supported by the data.

Conclusions

Discussion

The main objective of this study was to enhance the understanding of users’ motivation to engage in WOM on SNSs. Several conclusions can be drawn in this study. First of all, consistent with the findings of past WOM communication research (Chu and Kim, 2011; Prendergast, Ko, and Siu Yin, 2010), the results showed that the motivations of social constructs have positive effect on users engagement in WOM on SNSs. Specifically, SNSs users are socially-oriented; people attach importance to the interaction between friends and hope that the information can help strengthen their sense of personal belonging (Keenan and Shiri, 2009; Okazaki, 2009). The information exchange process facilitates SNSs users’ development of cohesive social relationships and increases their social interactions and engagement in WOM. Hence, the results support H1-H6.

Secondly, the finding confirms the hypotheses that altruism, narcissism, image building, and achievement have a positive effect on users engagement in WOM on SNSs. The results support H7-H10. One possible explanation for this may be that SNSs are not anonymous and are linked to the profile owner (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010), so the identities of communicator and receiver are clear. At this time, users who exchange WOM through SNSs tend to be more conscious, and more intentional, than those who exchange information through other anonymous platform in the past make it difficult for users to determine the quality and credibility of the WOM.

In summary, this study provides new insights that help in understanding the motivations of WOM dissemination on SNSs. As expected, six motivations of social constructs (tie strength, expressiveness, social enhancement, relationship management, normative influence and informational influence) and four motivations of personal constructs (altruism, narcissism, image building, and achievement) significantly influenced the engagement in WOM behaviour on SNSs.

Theoretical and practical implications

The results of this study provide new theoretical insights into the motivations for using WOM. First, this study advances our understanding of WOM behavior by delineating the motivations of WOM dissemination in the SNSs context. The present study not only supports the application to WOM of Okazaki (2009)’s social influence model, but also consistent with many previous studies in that these social constructs are antecedents affecting WOM behavior (Chu and Kim, 2011; Dholakia, Bagozzi, and Pearo, 2004; Palka, Pousttchi, and Wiedemann, 2009).

Secondly, studies in the past focused on the social motivations of WOM dissemination (Okazaki, 2009; Sotiriadis and van Zyl, 2013; Steffes and Burgee, 2009). This study extends their research and confirms that that the motivation of personal constructs are also important antecedents for WOM dissemination on SNSs. This provides a fresh insight on WOM communication indicating that the motivation of personal constructs must also be taken into consideration in order to understand the usage or impact of WOM on SNSs.

Thirdly, through a theoretical and empirical investigation, this study helps reveal the differential effect of social and personal constructs based on a conceptual framework. The proposed model fits the data reasonably well; all hypotheses are supported. The finding can be viewed as a benchmark study for explaining WOM dissemination on SNSs.

The results have certain practical implications. First, the social constructs identified in this study show that the primary reason why users engage in WOM behavior on SNSs is to increase conversation and interaction with members of their social network. Platform providers should develop more sociable environments, with specific offers addressing each motivating factor. For example, they can provide useful elements for social interaction, such as emoticons, to satisfy users’ social needs.

Secondly, marketers must take social relationship constructs into account and develop personalized marketing communication strategies to fulfill users’ needs. In addition, in light of the importance of interpersonal connectivity on SNSs, marketers should also try to identify social influencers in a strategically segmented group to take advantage of a group-to-person shortcut to disseminate the WOM.

Thirdly, given the presence of different motivation constructs, strategies for encouraging and increasing WOM behaviour should be developed with particular segments in mind. For example, in encouraging users with altruists motivation to engage in more WOM behaviour on SNSs, marketers may want to emphasize how doing so aids both other users and the company. Moreover, marketers should explain how SNSs users may personally benefit from engaging in WOM if they want to encourage WOM dissemination among users with image building or achievement motivation.

Limitations and directions for future studies

This study has a number of limitations. First, although the scales used in this study have been shown to be reliable, an extension of the number of scale items per motive would be helpful. Secondly, this study mainly focused on the dissemination motivations of WOM on SNSs; the dissemination procedures and effects were not determined by this study, and need to be clarified in the future. In addition, further studies are necessary to redefine the disseminator and receiver, and identify opinion leaders on SNSs. Thirdly, the contextual differences between various SNSs platform (i.e., Facebook, Twitter, Plurk), which may also influence the motivations for WOM dissemination, were not discussed in this study.

There is still much to do in this area, and this paper therefore concludes with a call for further research drawing on a variety of perspectives to create a more complete picture of online user-to-user communications. For example, with the growth of SNSs usage, there is a need to address cross-cultural differences in how and why individuals use SNSs to disseminate WOM. Additional research is needed because the ongoing diffusion and use of the SNSs by business and consumers in an increasingly globalized economy are sure to make WOM a major challenge for online and offline companies.

Footnotes

Appendix A: Questionnaire items employed in this study

If I engage in word-of-month behavior on social network sites, the reason will be:

References

Ajzen

(1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50(2): 179–211.

Ardichvili

Page

Wentling

(2003) Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management 7(1): 64–77.

Arndt

(1967) Role of product-related conversations in the diffusion of a new product. Journal of Marketing Research 4(3): 291–295.

Brown

Broderick

Lee

(2007) Word of mouth communication within online communities: Conceptualizing the online social network. Journal of Interactive Marketing 21(3): 2–20.

Buffardi

Campbell

(2008) Narcissism and social networking web sites. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34(10): 1303–1314.

Burnkrant

Cousineau

(1975) Informational and normative social influence in buyer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research 2(3): 206–215.

Carman

(1992) Theories of altruism and behavior modification campaigns. Journal of Macromarketing 12(1): 5–18.

Cassidy

Lynn

(1989) A multifactorial approach to achievement motivation: The development of a comprehensive measure. Journal of Occupational Psychology 62(4): 301–312.

Chatterjee

(2011) Drivers of new product recommending and referral behaviour on social network sites. International Journal of Advertising 30(1): 77–101.

10.

Chen

Dubinsky

(2003) A conceptual model of perceived customer value in e-commerce: A preliminary investigation. Psychology & Marketing 20(4): 323–347.

11.

Cheng

RW-Y

Lam

S-F

(2013) The interaction between social goals and self-construal on achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology 38(2): 136–148.

12.

Cheung

Lee

Rabjohn

(2008) The impact of electronic word-of-mouth: The adoption of online opinions in online customer communities. Internet Research 18(3): 229–247.

13.

Cheung

Luo

Sia

Chen

(2009) Credibility of electronic word-of-mouth: Informational and normative determinants of on-line consumer recommendations. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 13(4): 9–38.

14.

Chu

S-C

Kim

(2011) Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites. International Journal of Advertising 30(1): 47–75.

15.

Collins

Miller

(1994) Self-disclosure and liking: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin 116(3): 457–475.

16.

De Bruyn

Lilien

(2008) A multi-stage model of word-of-mouth influence through viral marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing 25(3): 151–163.

17.

Deci

Ryan

RM.

(2012). Motivation, personality, and development within embedded social contexts: An overview of self-determination theory The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation (pp. 85–107): Oxford University Press.

18.

Dellarocas

(2006) Strategic manipulation of internet opinion forums: Implications for consumers and firms. Management Science 52(10): 1577–1593.

19.

Dellarocas

Zhang

Awad

(2007) Exploring the value of online product reviews in forecasting sales: The case of motion pictures. Journal of Interactive Marketing 21(4): 23–45.

20.

Deshpandé

Grinstein

Kim

S-H

Ofek

(2013) Achievement motivation, strategic orientations and business performance in entrepreneurial firms: How different are Japanese and American founders? International Marketing Review 30(3): 231–252.

21.

Dholakia

Bagozzi

Pearo

(2004) A social influence model of consumer participation in network-and small-group-based virtual communities. International Journal of Research in Marketing 21(3): 241–263.

22.

Duhan

Johnson

Wilcox

Harrell

(1997) Influences on consumer use of word-of-mouth recommendation sources. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 25(4): 283–295.

23.

Dwyer

Hiltz

Passerini

(2007). Trust and privacy concern within social networking sites: A comparison of Facebook and MySpace. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Thirteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Keystone, Colorado.

24.

Füller

Jawecki

Mühlbacher

(2007) Innovation creation by online basketball communities. Journal of Business Research 60(1): 60–71.

25.

French

Read

(2013) My mom’s on Facebook: an evaluation of information sharing depth in social networking. Behaviour & Information Technology 32(10): 1049–1059.

26.

Gefen

Ridings

(2005) If you spoke as she does, sir, instead of the way you do: a sociolinguistics perspective of gender differences in virtual communities. ACM SIGMIS Database 36(2): 78–92.

27.

Gilly

Graham

Wolfinbarger

Yale

(1998) A dyadic study of interpersonal information search. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 26(2): 83–100.

28.

Granovetter

(1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78(6): l360–1380.

29.

Haythornthwaite

(2002) Strong, weak, and latent ties and the impact of new media. The Information Society 18(5): 385–401.

30.

Hennig-Thurau

Walsh

(2003) Electronic word-of-mouth: motives for and consequences of reading customer articulations on the internet. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 8(2): 51–74.

31.

Herr

Kardes

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.

32.

Hung

(2007) The influence of eWOM on virtual consumer communities: Social capital, consumer learning, and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Advertising Research 47(4): 485.

33.

Hwang

Jeong

(2014) Electronic commerce and online consumer behavior research A literature review. Information Development 1–12. Epub ahead of print July 2, 2015. doi:10.1177/0266666915593621.

34.

Jadin

Gnambs

Batinic

(2013) Personality traits and knowledge sharing in online communities. Computers in Human Behavior 29(1): 210–216.

35.

Kaplan

Haenlein

(2010) Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons 53(1): 59–68.

36.

Keenan

Shiri

(2009) Sociability and social interaction on social networking websites. Library Review 58(6): 438–450.

37.

Kim

Chung

Lee

C-K

Preis

(2015) Why do smartphone shoppers help others on websites? The effects of attachments on reciprocal altruism. Information Development 1–15. Epub ahead of print March 3, 2015. doi:10.1177/0266666915575167.

38.

Lai

J-Y

Ong

C-S

(2010) Assessing and managing employees for embracing change: A multiple-item scale to measure employee readiness for e-business. Technovation 30(1): 76–85.

39.

Lee

Taylor

(2008) Voluntary self-disclosure of information on the Internet: A multimethod study of the motivations and consequences of disclosing information on blogs. Psychology & Marketing 25(7): 692–710.

40.

Lin

C-P

Bhattacherjee

(2008) Elucidating individual intention to use interactive information technologies: The role of network externalities. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 13(1): 85–108.

41.

Luarn

Chiu

Y-P

(2014) Influence of network density on information diffusion on social network sites: The mediating effects of transmitter activity. Information Development 1–9. Epub ahead of print September 30, 2014. doi:10.1177/0266666914551072.

42.

Mangold

Faulds

(2009) Social media: The new hybrid element of the promotion mix. Business Horizons 52(4): 357–365.

43.

Mehdizadeh

(2010) Self-presentation 2.0: Narcissism and self-esteem on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 13(4): 357–364.

44.

Money

Gilly

Graham

(1998) Explorations of national culture and word-of-mouth referral behavior in the purchase of industrial services in the United States and Japan. Journal of Marketing 62(4): 76–87.

45.

Murphy

Mascardo

Benckendorff

(2007) Exploring word-of-mouth influences on travel decisions: friends and relatives vs. other travellers. International Journal of Consumer Studies 31(5): 517–527.

46.

Nolen-Hoeksema

Davis

(1999) “Thanks for sharing that”: ruminators and their social support networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77(4): 801–814.

47.

Okazaki

(2009) Social influence model and electronic word of mouth PC versus mobile internet. International Journal of Advertising 28(3): 439–472.

48.

Palka

Pousttchi

Wiedemann

(2009) Mobile word-of-mouth–A grounded theory of mobile viral marketing. Journal of Information Technology 24(2): 172–185.

49.

Park

Lee

(2009) Information direction, website reputation and eWOM effect: A moderating role of product type. Journal of Business Research 62(1): 61–67.

50.

Paul

Miller

Paul

(1993) Altruism:. Cambridge University Press.

51.

Peng

Kao

Lin

C-C

(2006) Common method variance in management research: Its nature, effects, detection, and remedies. Journal of Management 23(1): 77–98.

52.

Podsakoff

Organ

(1986) Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management 12(4): 531–544.

53.

Prendergast

Siu Yin

(2010) Online word of mouth and consumer purchase intentions. International Journal of Advertising 29(5): 687–708.

54.

Salami

(2004) A path model to examine factors influencing career orientations of school-going adolescents in Nigeria. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling 26(1): 79–94.

55.

Schiffman

Sherman

Long

(2003) Toward a better understanding of the interplay of personal values and the internet. Psychology & Marketing 20(2): 169–186.

56.

Shimp

Kavas

(1984) The theory of reasoned action applied to coupon usage. Journal of Consumer Research 11(3): 795–809.

57.

Shimp

Wood

Smarandescu

(2007) Self-generated advertisements: Testimonials and the perils of consumer exaggeration. Journal of Advertising Research 47(4): 453–461.

58.

Shin

D-H

(2013) User experience in social commerce: in friends we trust. Behaviour & Information Technology 32(1): 52–67.

59.

Shu

(2013) Continual use of microblogs. Behaviour & Information Technology 33(7): 666–677.

60.

Sotiriadis

van Zyl

(2013) Electronic word-of-mouth and online reviews in tourism services: the use of twitter by tourists. Electronic Commerce Research 13(1): 103–124.

61.

Steffes

Burgee

(2009) Social ties and online word of mouth. Internet Research 19(1): 42–59.

62.

Steinfield

Ellison

Lampe

(2008) Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 29(6): 434–445.

63.

Sundaram

Mitra

Webster

(1998) Word-of-mouth communications: A motivational analysis. Advances in Consumer Research 25(1): 527–531.

64.

Svensson

(2011). Facebook–the social newspaper that never sleeps. A study of Facebook eWOM’s persuasiveness on the receivers. http://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/26249/1/gupea_2077_26249_1.pdf

65.

Tang

Lin

Hong

Siewiorek

Sadeh

(2010). Rethinking location sharing: exploring the implications of social-driven vs. purpose-driven location sharing. Proceedings of the 12th ACM International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, New York, NY: USA.

66.

Vinokur

Van Ryn

(1993) Social support and undermining in close relationships: their independent effects on the mental health of unemployed persons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65(2): 350–359.

67.

Vollmer

Precourt

(2008) Always On: Advertising, marketing, and media in an era of consumer control. New York: McGraw Hill Professional.

68.

Wang

C-C

Chang

Y-T

(2010) Cyber relationship motives: Scale development and validation. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 38(3): 289–300.

69.

Wei

H-L

Lin

K-Y

H-P

Chuang

I-H

(2015) Understanding the intentions of users to “stick” to social networking sites: A case study in Taiwan. Behaviour & Information Technology 34(2): 151–162.

70.

Westbrook

(1987) Product/consumption-based affective responses and postpurchase processes. Journal of Marketing Research 24(3): 258–270.

71.

Worchel

(1998) Social Identity: International perspectives: London: Sage.

72.

W-y

Sukoco

(2010) Why should I share? Examining consumers’ motives and trust on knowledge sharing. Journal of Computer Information Systems 50(4): 11–19.

73.

Zhao

Gupta

(2012) Disclosure intention of location-related information in location-based social network services. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 16(4): 53–90.