How collectivistic values affect online word-of-mouth

Abstract

This research uncovers a social factor that helps to explain how a consumer’s cultural orientation affects the extent to which they engage in online word-of-mouth (eWOM). The first study aggregates archival data from 52 countries and finds a positive relationship between collectivism and the extent that consumers share product-related information on social networking sites; however, collectivism is not found to relate to the extent that consumers rate and review products online. A second study examines why collectivism is positively associated with sharing product-related information on social networking sites. Collectivism is measured at the individual level among consumers in two culturally distinct countries—India and the United States. The results demonstrate that a collectivistic orientation is positively associated with similarity among members of one’s online social network (i.e., homophily) and that homophily is positively associated with sharing product-related information on social networking sites. In an increasingly global online marketplace, these findings provide needed guidance on how culture affects eWOM.

Keywords

collectivism culture eWOM homophily social media social networking sites

Introduction

Consumers often go online to share their opinions about products with other consumers (eWOM; Ham et al., 2018; Moore & Lafreniere, 2020). As with traditional word-of-mouth, eWOM influences important marketing outcomes, such as customer loyalty (Srinivasan et al., 2002), product sales (Rosario et al., 2016), and even stock market performance (Tirunillai & Tellis, 2012). The extent that consumers engage in eWOM is known to be affected by personal motivations, such as the need to belong (Breazeale, 2009), the desire to help others (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004), and self-enhancement (Okazaki et al., 2014).

Cultural factors are also thought to influence eWOM. For instance, consumer engagement in eWOM has been found to vary across countries (e.g., Lam et al., 2009; Leonhardt et al., 2020; Lin & Kalwani, 2018; Tang, 2017). Less research, however, has focused on specific dimensions of culture that may explain why consumers in some countries are more likely to create and share eWOM. Likewise, there is a need to identify process mechanisms that explain how cultural differences might affect consumers’ willingness to create and share eWOM.

To address these gaps in the literature, the present research focuses on how a specific dimension of culture, that is, collectivism, relates to consumer engagement in two different types of eWOM—sharing product-related information on social networking sites and rating and reviewing products online (Berger, 2014; Breazeale, 2009). Sharing product-related information on social networking sites differs from rating and reviewing products online, because it involves sharing information with interconnected members of one’s online social network (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). Previous research suggests that social groups comprised of collectivistic consumers tend to exhibit shared beliefs, values, and social norms (i.e., they tend to be higher in homophily; (Leonhardt et al., 2020; Triandis et al., 1988). In addition, prior research suggests that homophily is positively related to the extent that consumers share product-related information (Moore & Lafreniere, 2020; Packard et al., 2016). Drawing on these insights, we predict that collectivism is positively associated with sharing product-related information on social networking sites, but not with rating and reviewing products online. Furthermore, we predict that collectivism is associated with sharing product-related information on social networking sites because collectivistic consumers perceive higher homophily among members of their online social networks.

These predictions are tested across two studies. The first study compares eWOM behavior across consumers in 52 countries. The results show that consumers in collectivistic countries share more product-related information on social networking sites than consumers in less collectivistic countries; however, consumers in more collectivistic countries are not more likely to rate and review products online. Our second study assesses collectivism at the individual level among consumers from two culturally distinct countries—India and the United States. Within each of these countries, the results indicate that collectivistic consumers may share more product-related information on social networking sites because there is higher homophily among members of their online social networks. These findings enhance our understanding of the relationship between collectivism and eWOM and should help managers better anticipate consumer engagement in eWOM across cultures.

Background

Collectivism may help us better understand consumer engagement in eWOM because it is a cultural dimension that specifically relates to social interactions (Leung et al., 2010). In general, collectivism reflects how consumers perceive themselves and others (Hofstede et al., 2010). Consumers high in collectivism, such as those in Asia and Latin America, see themselves as highly embedded in their social groups, and, as a result, value belonging to ingroups, interdependence, and relational harmony (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). On the contrary, consumers low in collectivism, such as those in North America and Western Europe, see themselves as less embedded in their groups. In turn, they place less importance on their ingroup, and they tend to value independence and self-reliance over interdependence (Triandis et al., 1988).

Previous research has compared eWOM across countries and their results provide initial evidence that collectivism may influence consumers’ propensity to create and share eWOM. For example, Chinese consumers living in Singapore were found to engage in more benevolent sharing on the social networking site Renren than on Facebook (Qiu et al., 2013). Although not tested directly, the authors suggest that this effect relates to Renren being a more collectivistic social networking site than Facebook. In addition, Chu and Choi (2011) found that undergraduate students in China, which rates high on collectivism, reported being more likely to share eWOM than undergraduate students in the United States, which rates low on collectivism. Other research, however, suggest a negative relationship between collectivism and creating and sharing eWOM. For example, Lin and Kalwani (2018) found the volume of reviews on Amazon Japan to be lower than that on Amazon USA, and, although not tested directly, the authors suggest that this difference may relate to Japanese consumers being more collectivistic, on average, than consumers in the United States.

As observed from the literature, the direction of the effect of collectivism on sharing eWOM remains unclear. This confusion is likely the result of previous research suggesting collectivism as a possible factor driving their results without explicitly including collectivism in their statistical models. Moreover, previous research has not compared collectivism’s effect on the different ways in which consumers create and share eWOM. We address these limitations in the present research. First, we analyze aggregate data from different countries to determine how collectivism relates to creating and sharing eWOM while controlling for differences between countries including wealth, Internet access, and other dimensions of culture. In addition, we compare how collectivism relates to the propensity to share product-related information on social networking sites and how it relates to the likelihood that consumers rate and review products online.

We propose that collectivism affects whether consumers create and share eWOM by affecting how consumers relate to others. As previously mentioned, collectivism reflects the extent that consumers see themselves as embedded in their social groups (Hofstede et al., 2010; Triandis et al., 1988; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). Consequently, the extent that consumers see themselves as embedded in their social groups is likely to impact how they interact with other online consumers (Shavitt & Barnes, 2019). Because collectivistic consumers see themselves as embedded in their groups, they tend to place more importance on interdependence and relational harmony (Hofstede et al., 2010; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). One way to avoid conflict and maintain relational harmony within groups is by conforming to group norms (Asch, 1955; Bond & Smith, 2005). Indeed, research on culture and conformity shows that consumers high on collectivism tend to be more conforming than consumers that are lower on collectivism (Bond & Smith, 2005).

On social networking sites like Facebook and Instagram, consumers form a social network, which is a group of users with shared connections (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). By conforming to the norms, values, and behaviors of the consumers that are interconnected on social networks, the social networks of collectivistic consumers may exhibit higher levels of homophily. Homophily refers to the extent that members of a group are similar, for instance, on characteristics such as gender, age, values, and lifestyle (Pezzuti et al., 2018; Rogers, 1983). The importance of interdependence and relational harmony may also lead collectivistic consumers to form more homophilous social networks by connecting with similar others, for example, in terms of demographics or values (Rhee et al., 2012). Importantly, consumers are more likely to share information with others online when they perceive high levels of homophily among those in their social networks (Bahns et al., 2017; Wright, 2009). As a result, collectivistic consumers may be more likely to share product-related information on social networking sites because there is higher homophily among members of their online social networks.

However, we do not expect collectivism to affect the extent that consumers rate and review products online. Collectivism’s influence on behavior is based on differences in how consumers relate to interconnected group members, thus any effect of collectivism on sharing eWOM should depend on the social environment (Hofstede et al., 2010; Triandis et al., 1988; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). Rating and reviewing products typically occurs on ecommerce websites and apps, such as Amazon and Tripadvisor (Robson et al., 2013). These platforms differ from social networking sites in that consumers do not form social groups through shared connections and relationships (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). Rather, these platforms allow unconnected consumers to rate and review products and publicly post this information online. As a result, rating and reviewing products is less likely to occur in a social environment that facilitates social connectedness and the formation of social groups high in homophily (Halliday, 2016).

Since rating and reviewing products occurs in a social environment that does not encourage social connectedness, we do not expect collectivism to affect the extent that consumers share product information by rating and reviewing products online. However, since social networking sites do encourage social connectedness and allow users to form social groups that are high in homophily, we do expect collectivism to positively affect sharing product-related information on social networking sites. We examine how collectivism relates to sharing product-related information on social networking sites and how it relates to rating and reviewing products online by formally testing our first hypothesis (H1). We then examine whether homophily mediates the predicted relationship between collectivism and sharing product-related information on social networking sites by testing our second hypothesis (H2):

H1. Collectivism is positively associated with the extent to which consumers share product-related information on social networking sites; however, collectivism is not associated with the extent to which consumers rate and review products online.

H2. The positive relationship between collectivism and sharing product-related information on social networking sites is mediated by homophily, such that collectivism is positively associated with homophily among consumers on social networking sites, and homophily is positively associated with sharing product-related information on social networking sites.

Study 1

Study 1 tests H1, which predicts that collectivism is positively associated with sharing product-related information on social networking sites, but not with rating and reviewing products online. This hypothesis is assessed by analyzing the relationship between collectivism, sharing product-related information on social networking sites, and rating and reviewing products online using aggregated data from 52 different countries. The relationship between collectivism and these forms of eWOM is assessed while controlling for national differences in consumers’ propensity to post online content, access to the Internet, wealth, and other dimensions of culture.

Data

Data on sharing product-related information on social networking sites and rating and reviewing products online was collected by Google from 2014 to 2015 as part of their Consumer Barometer initiative (https://www.consumerbarometer.com/en/about/). With the help of market research firms, Google collected these data from at least 1,200 consumers in each country to create a representative sample of each country’s adult population of Internet users. They collected the data through surveys and face-to-face interviews that were conducted in the native language of the respondents. One measure in the dataset relates to the prevalence of sharing product-related information on social networking sites. For this measure, participants were asked whether they shared information about a recent purchase experience on a social networking site. Another measure asked participants whether they had posted an online rating or review for a product that they had recently purchased. Participants responded to these items with a binary (“yes” or “no”) response. The percentage of participants in each country that responded “yes” to each question were the two dependent variables in this study—that is, (1) the percentage of Internet users in a country that shared product-related information on social networking sites and (2) the percentage of Internet users in each country that reviewed or rated a product online. The percentage of consumers that shared product-related information on social networking sites ranged from 3% to 34% and the percentage that posted reviews or rated a product online ranged from 3% to 30%.

Country-level collectivism ratings are based on cross-national survey research conducted by Hofstede and colleagues (2010; Hofstede, 2001; https://geerthofstede.com/research-and-vsm/dimension-data-matrix/). From this dataset, collectivism-individualism scores were reverse scored so that higher scores correspond with higher levels of collectivism. In addition to collectivism, ratings of other cultural dimensions were included in the analysis as control variables including power distance, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, long-term orientation, and indulgence (Hofstede et al., 2010).

Three additional factors that could potentially relate to the extent that consumers share product-related information on social networking sites and the extent that they rate and review products online were included as control variables. Cross-country access to wealth and resources in general were accounted for by including each country’s per capita GDP adjusted by purchasing power parity in thousands (World Bank, 2015). Access to the Internet was accounted for using a measure provided by the Consumer Barometer with Google survey, which represents the percentage of Internet users in a country that access the Internet daily. The percentage of consumers in each country that frequently post content online (i.e., the propensity to post online content) was also measured in the Consumer Barometer survey with the following item: “I often post content online.” Our complete dataset is included in Appendix 1.

Data analysis

The relationship between collectivism and our two dependent variables was assessed using two-stage hierarchical regression. We first tested the relationship between collectivism and sharing product-related information on social networking sites, and then we tested the relationship between collectivism and rating and reviewing products online. In each hierarchical regression, collectivism was entered as a predictor variable in Model 1. Wealth, access to the Internet, the propensity to post online content, and other cultural dimensions were included as additional predictor variables in Model 2 to assess whether collectivism affects these types of eWOM after accounting for these covariates and to assess whether these variables account for additional variance.

Results

Sharing product-related information on social networking sites

As shown in Table 1, Model 1 demonstrates that collectivism was positively associated with sharing product-related information on social networking sites (B = .23, t = 5.84, p < .001) and accounted for 40.6% of the variance in this outcome variable. Cross-country wealth, access to the Internet, the propensity to post online content, and the other dimensions of culture were added to Model 2. The overall model was significant, F(9, 42) = 20.86, p < .001, and adding the additional predictor variables explained an additional 41.2% of the variance in sharing product-related information on social networking sites, R² change: F(8, 42) = 11.82, p < .001. Importantly, the results of Model 2 also show that the positive relationship between collectivism and sharing product-related information persisted (B = .12, t = 3.18, p = .003), even after accounting for the control variables. Among the control variables, uncertainty avoidance was negatively related to this type of sharing (B = −.10, t = −3.38, p = .002). The propensity to post online content was positively associated with this type of sharing (B = .22, t = 4.53, p < .001). None of the other control variables related to sharing product-related information on social networks (all p’s > .09). In sum, these results provide partial support for H1—collectivism is positively associated with sharing product-related information on social networking sites.

Table 1.

Summary of regression results for variables predicting eWOM: sharing product-related information on social networking sites.

Variables	Model 1			Model 2
Variables	B	SE (B)	β	B	SE (B)	β
Collectivism	.23	.04	.64***	.12	.04	.33**
National wealth				−.08	.05	−.18
Access to Internet				−.003	.09	−.003
Propensity to post online content				.22	.05	.46***
Power distance				.07	.04	.18
Uncertainty avoidance				−.09	.03	−.25**
Masculinity				.02	.03	.06
Indulgence				.03	.04	.07
Long-term orientation				.007	.04	.02
R ²		.41			.82
F for change in R²		34.12***			11.82***

SE: standard error.

Collectivism refers to country (N = 52) rating according to the transformed Hofstede index (0–100). National wealth is the per capita GDP adjusted by purchasing power parity (in thousands). B indicates the beta coefficient. β indicates the standardized beta coefficient.

**p < .01, ***p < .001.

Rating and reviewing products online

We repeated the analysis above but used the percentage of consumers that rated or reviewed a product online as the outcome variable. The relationship between collectivism and this outcome variable was tested without controlling for possible confounds in Model 1. Model 2 tested this relationship after accounting for wealth, access to the Internet, the propensity to post online content, and other dimensions of culture. The results of Model 1 indicate a positive relationship between collectivism and rating and reviewing products online (B = .13, t = 4.09, p < .001). Collectivism accounted for 25% of the variation in this outcome variable. However, the results of Model 2 show that the relationship between collectivism and rating and reviewing products online was not significant when accounting for the relevant control variables (B = .06, t = 1.28, p = .209). The results also show that Model 2 was significant, F(9, 42) = 2.82, p < .05, and that adding the control variables accounted for an additional 12.6% of the variance in the outcome variable. None of the control variables significantly related to rating and reviewing products online. We conducted a follow-up analysis using fewer predictor variables to confirm that collectivism is not significantly associated with rating and reviewing products. Given our sample size of 52, a backward stepwise regression was estimated with five predictor variables (collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, power distance, long-term orientation, and the propensity to post online content) to allow for at least 10 subjects per variable (cf., Austin & Steyerberg, 2015). Again, neither collectivism (B = .07, t = 1.48, p = .146) nor the control variables reached significance (p’s > .062). These results provide further support for H1 and demonstrate that collectivism does not relate to the extent that consumers rate and review products online, when accounting for relevant factors. The results of the two-stage hierarchical regression are shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Summary of regression results for variables predicting eWOM: rating and reviewing products online.

Variables	Model 1			Model 2
Variables	B	SE (B)	β	B	SE (B)	β
Collectivism	.13	.03	.50***	.06	.05	.25
National wealth				−.03	.06	−.10
Access to Internet				.11	.11	.17
Propensity to post online content				.10	.07	.27
Power distance				.05	.05	.18
Uncertainty avoidance				−.05	.04	−.18
Masculinity				.04	.04	.14
Indulgence				−.01	.05	−.05
Long-term orientation				.07	.05	.24
R ²		.25			.38
F for change in R²		16.69***			1.06

SE: standard error.

***p < .001.

Discussion

The results of our regression analyses show a positive relationship between a country’s national ranking on collectivism and the extent that their consumers share product-related information on social networking sites. However, the results do not suggest that collectivism influences the extent to which consumers rate and review products online. The benefit of using data from Google’s Consumer Barometer and from Hofstede’s research on cultural dimensions to test these relationships is that it permitted us to study the online behavior of consumers in 52 different countries. The data, however, did not allow us to test the process underlying the relationship between collectivism and sharing product-related information. Moreover, although Hofstede’s ratings are widely used, they are not without limitations (Lee, 2019). Hofstede’s ratings have been criticized for not accounting for changes that have occurred within national cultures and for problems with the structure of the dimensions (Orr & Hauser, 2008; Shaiq et al., 2011). Study 2 addresses these limitations by measuring individual consumer’s endorsement of collectivistic values, homophily on social networking sites, and the frequency of sharing product-related information on social networking sites.

Study 2

Study 1 found a positive relationship between country ratings on collectivism and the extent that consumers within those countries share product-related information on social networking sites. Study 2 tests the robustness of the relationship between collectivism and sharing product-related information on social networking sites by examining this relationship at the level of the individual consumer rather than at the country level. This study also tests whether homophily mediates the relationship between collectivism and sharing product-related information on social networking sites (H2).

Method

Participants were recruited from the United States and India. We recruited participants from these countries to make sure that any relationships between the endorsement of collectivistic values, social networking site homophily, and sharing product-related information on social networking sites are not limited to a specific culture or country (e.g., Pezzuti et al., 2018). Consumers in these countries are also recognized for their large presence on social networks—there are more users of Facebook, the world’s largest online social network, from the United States and from India than from any other two countries (Statista, 2019). Participants were recruited and paid using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. The sample consisted of 1,084 participants, with 568 from the United States (47.4% female, M_age = 35.0, range 18–76) and 516 from India (28.1% female, M_age = 28.7, range 18–64).

The dependent variable was the extent to which consumers share product-related information on social networking sites. This was measured by asking participants: “How many times have you shared information about a product or service on a social networking site within the last twelve months?” In place of using national ratings of collectivism as a proxy for the extent to which consumers endorse collectivistic values, we relied on an individual measure to capture the extent to which participants endorse collectivistic values. Measuring collectivism at the individual level is important as it permits a test of whether collectivism directly relates to homophily and sharing product-related information, independent of other cultural differences. Collectivism was measured using a scale developed by Triandis and Gelfand (1998). The scale includes eight items (e.g., “It is important to me that I respect the decisions made by my group”) with responses anchored at 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree (alpha = .87).

The hypothesized mediator, homophily, was measured using a semantic-differential scale developed by Chu and Kim (2011). Participants responded to the statement, “In general, members of my online social networking sites . . .” using 7-point scales with the following endpoints: “are different than me/are similar to me,” “don’t behave like me/behave like me,” “are unlike me/like me,” and “don’t think like me/think like me” (alpha = .86). The survey also included measures that could potentially relate to and sharing product-related information on social networking sites, including daily usage of social media, the number of contacts in their largest online social network, gender, and age.

Results

We analyzed the data from the United States and India separately to determine whether the proposed relationship holds within two distinct cultures. To begin, we tested whether collectivism is positively related to sharing product-related information on social networking sites within the United States and then within India. The relationship between collectivism and sharing product-related information was assessed by regressing the prevalence of sharing product-related information on collectivism and the control variables (daily usage of social media, the number of social network contacts, gender, and age) in each country.

The results of the two regression models support H1 and show that collectivism was positively related to sharing product-related information among US consumers (B = 3.81, t = 3.77, p < .001) and among consumers in India (B = 7.28, t = 2.49, p = .013). Daily usage of social media was the only control variable that significantly related to sharing product-related information within the United States (B = .03, t = 3.41, p = .001). Within India, the only control variables that related to sharing product-related information were the number of social network contacts (B = .01, t = 4.21, p < .01) and age (B = -.78, t = −2.1, p = .036). These results support those found in Study 1 by demonstrating that collectivism is positively related to the extent to which consumers share product-related information on social networking sites.

Mediation analysis

The next step in the analysis was to determine whether homophily mediates the relationship between collectivism and sharing product-related information on social networking sites (H2) in the United States and India. To test this hypothesis, we estimated mediation models for each country that included collectivism as the predictor variable, homophily as the mediator, and sharing product-related information on social networking sites as an outcome variable (Model 4; Hayes, 2013). The models included the same control variables as in the previous analysis.

The results of the mediation model for participants in the United States reveal that collectivism was positively associated with homophily (B = .47, t = 9.57, p < .001) and that homophily was positively associated with sharing product-related information (B = 3.04, t = 3.55, p < .001), resulting in a positive indirect effect of collectivism on sharing product-related information through homophily (indirect effect = 1.43; 95% CI = [.74, 2.59]) (Figure 1). The indirect effect of collectivism on sharing product-related information (through homophily) among participants in India was also significant (indirect effect = 4.18; 95% CI = [2.41, 6.50]). Collectivism was positively associated with homophily (B = .56, t = 10.43, p < .001) and homophily was positively associated with sharing product-related information on social networks (B = 7.45, t = 3.12, p < .001). Moreover, among participants in India, the relationship between collectivism and sharing product-related information became non-significant after accounting for the effect of homophily (B = 3.10, t = .97, p = .333), which indicates that homophily fully mediated the effect of collectivism on sharing product information. These results support H2 and show that homophily among users on social networking sites mediates the effect of collectivism on sharing product-related information on social networking sites.

Figure 1.

Study 2 mediation models.

Discussion

The results show that more collectivistic consumers share more product-related information on social networking sites, even after controlling for participants’ usage of social media and the size of their online social networks. These results were found among consumers in the United States and India. The study also identifies a process linking collectivism with sharing product-related information. The results suggest that collectivistic values positively influence homophily among users on social networking sites, which, in turn, increases the extent to which consumers share product-related information with others on social networking sites.

Conclusion

Summary of findings

The influence of eWOM on marketing outcomes, such as sales, loyalty, satisfaction, and trust, is well established (Berger, 2014; Moore & Lafreniere, 2020; Rosario et al., 2016). What is less known is how specific cultural dimensions affect consumers’ propensity to create and share eWOM. The present research focused on a specific and primary dimension of culture—collectivism, which varies across countries and individual consumers (Hofstede et al., 2010; Lalwani & Wang, 2019; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). We also assessed the influence of collectivism on sharing eWOM in the inherently social context of social networking sites and the less social context of online product reviews and ratings.

Our first study used data from different countries to assess the relationship between collectivism and eWOM. The results demonstrate that collectivism relates to sharing product-related information on social networking sites, but it does not relate to rating and reviewing products online. These results support our first hypothesis, which is based on the inherent difference in the social context of social networking sites and the websites and apps on which consumers rate and review products. Unlike the websites and apps on which consumers rate and review products (e.g., Amazon and Tripadvisor), social networking sites (e.g., Facebook and Instagram) allow consumers to form and maintain social networks of interconnected members (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). By comparing consumers’ proclivity for sharing product-related information in these two contexts, our results help to resolve inconsistencies in the literature on the relationship between culture and sharing eWOM (Chu & Choi, 2011; Lin & Kalwani, 2018; Qiu et al., 2013). Moreover, examining the relationship between collectivism and sharing eWOM across many different countries allowed us to control for other cultural differences, thus extending prior research that has compared eWOM sharing behavior across two countries (Chu & Choi, 2011; Fong & Burton, 2008).

Our second study surveyed individual consumers in two culturally distinct countries—India and the United States. The results show that homophily among users of social networking sites mediates the relationship between collectivism and sharing product-related information on social networking sites. This finding supports our second hypothesis and sheds light on a mechanism underlying the relationship between collectivism and sharing information on social networking sites. These results extend the literature on cultural dimensions theory and eWOM by demonstrating the importance of social connectedness on the likelihood that consumers will share eWOM.

Managerial implications

Our results suggest that managers should anticipate higher levels of sharing product-related information on social networking sites among consumers that endorse collectivistic values. However, managers should not anticipate higher levels of rating and reviewing products among collectivistic consumers. As a result, strategies designed to facilitate the sharing of product-related information on social networking sites should be more successful when targeting collectivistic consumers, such as those from Brazil, China, Mexico, and Vietnam. Such strategies may involve virality, hashtag, and influencer marketing campaigns on social networking platforms that are popular among one’s target market, for example, WeChat, Instagram, and Facebook (Leonhardt & Ball, 2018; Lou & Yuan, 2019). On Instagram, for instance, marketers could sponsor brand ambassadors or influencers to stimulate eWOM sharing behavior among collectivistic social media users (Lou & Yuan, 2019). In addition, our results suggest that less collectivistic consumers engage in less eWOM sharing behavior on social networking sites because they perceive less homophily among members in their online social networks. Thus, when targeting less collectivistic consumers, such as those from Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, marketers should work to facilitate sharing eWOM among similar social media users.

Moreover, regardless of whether consumers are higher or lower in collectivism, our results suggest that consumers are more likely to share product-related information when they perceive other social media users as similar to themselves. This finding is aligned with previous word-of-mouth research which suggests that consumers are generally more likely to engage in word-of-mouth among similar others (Leonhardt et al., 2020; Moore & Lafreniere, 2020; Packard et al., 2016). Managers should, therefore, consider ways to heighten homophily among their online customer base. For example, marketers should promote the similarities, instead of the diversity, that exists among the members of their online brand communities. An increase in the actual or perceived homophily of an online brand community should increase interactivity and product-related information sharing among community members. Harley-Davidson, for example, may foster perceived homophily among members of their online community by using slogans like, “. . . bound by passion” on their brand community’s website. Considering Harley-Davidson’s success in building and sustaining brand communities with high levels of engagement, creating a sense of similarity instead of diversity among community members may benefit other brands as well (Fournier & Lee, 2009).

Limitations and future research

Future research is needed to further unpack the effect of culture on eWOM sharing behavior. Our results, for example, show that uncertainty avoidance negatively relates to sharing product-related information on social networks. Although identifying the process through which uncertainty avoidance affects this type of eWOM is beyond the scope of our research, this effect offers an exciting opportunity for future research. In addition to uncertainty avoidance, research has identified other important cultural differences, many of which extend beyond those identified by Hofstede et al. (2010), which could influence eWOM. For example, future research could examine the cultural dimensions included in the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavioral Effectiveness study (GLOBE, House et al., 2004), survival versus self-expressive values (Inglehart & Welzel, 2005) and cultural tightness-looseness (Gelfand et al., 2006). Another opportunity for future research is to study the possible bidirectionality of the relationship between collectivism and homophily, since the act of creating and sharing eWOM could, in and of itself, foster homophily among members of one’s online social network.

There is also an opportunity to build on the present research by identifying boundary conditions that may amplify or attenuate collectivism’s positive influence on sharing eWOM. For example, to maintain relational harmony, collectivistic consumers may be less likely to share opinions that conflict with the opinions of others in their online social networks (Tang, 2017). For similar reasons, they may also be less likely to share negative information about products and brands, especially those that they perceive as representative of themselves and their social networks. Addressing these topics, as well as other topics related to culture and eWOM, is needed to advance our understanding of eWOM and provide managers with guidance on brand promotion strategy for an increasingly online and global marketplace.

Footnotes

Appendix

Data from Study 1 (Table 2 of 2), Hofstede Data.

Country	Power distance	Uncertainty avoidance	Masculinity	Long-term orientation	Indulgence
Indonesia	78	48	46	62	28
Taiwan	58	69	45	93	49
South Korea	60	85	39	100	29
Thailand	64	64	34	32	45
Vietnam	70	30	40	57	35
Singapore	74	8	48	72	46
China	80	40	66	87	24
Saudi Arabia	95	80	60	36	52
Serbia	86	92	43	52	28
Ukraine	92	95	27	55	18
Hong Kong	68	29	57	61	17
Malaysia	100	36	50	41	57
Portugal	63	99	31	28	33
Slovenia	71	88	19	49	48
Nigeria	80	55	60	13	84
Mexico	81	82	69	24	97
Romania	90	90	42	52	20
Bulgaria	70	85	40	69	16
Philippines	94	44	64	27	42
Croatia	73	80	40	58	33
Turkey	66	85	45	49	49
Brazil	69	76	49	65	59
Russia	93	95	36	81	20
Argentina	49	86	56	20	62
Japan	54	92	95	88	42
India	77	40	56	51	26
Spain	57	86	42	48	44
Slovak Republic	100	51	100	77	28
Hungary	46	82	88	58	31
Austria	11	70	79	60	63
Czech Republic	57	74	57	70	29
Poland	68	93	64	38	29
Estonia	40	60	30	82	16
Lithuania	42	65	19	82	16
Finland	33	59	26	38	57
South Africa	49	49	63	34	63
Germany	35	65	66	83	40
Switzerland	34	58	70	74	66
Norway	31	50	8	35	55
Ireland	28	35	68	24	65
Latvia	44	63	9	69	13
Sweden	31	29	5	53	78
France	68	86	43	63	48
Denmark	18	23	16	35	70
Belgium	65	94	54	82	57
Italy	50	75	70	61	30
New Zealand	22	49	58	33	75
Canada	39	48	52	36	68
Netherlands	38	53	14	67	68
United Kingdom	35	35	66	51	69
Australia	36	51	61	21	71
United States	40	46	62	26	68

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Todd Pezzuti

References

Asch

S. E.

(1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193, 31–35.

Austin

P. C.

Steyerberg

E. W.

(2015). The number of subjects per variable required in linear regression analyses. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68, 627–636.

Bahns

A. J.

Crandall

C. S.

Gillath

Preacher

K. J.

(2017). Similarity in relationships as niche construction: Choice, stability, and influence within dyads in a free choice environment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 329–355.

Berger

(2014). Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: A review and directions for future research. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24, 586–607.

Bond

Smith

P. B.

(2005). Group size and conformity. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8, 331–354.

Boyd

D. M.

Ellison

N. B.

(2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 13, 210–230.

Breazeale

(2009). Word of mouse: An assessment of electronic word-of-mouth research. International Journal of Market Research, 51, 1–19.

Chu

Choi

S. M.

(2011). Electronic word-of-mouth in social networking sites: A cross-cultural study of the United States and China. Journal of Global Marketing, 24, 263–281.

Chu

Kim

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

10.

Fong

Burton

(2008). A cross-cultural comparison of electronic word-of-mouth and country-of-origin effects. Journal of Business Research, 61, 233–242.

11.

Fournier

Lee

(2009). Getting brand communities right. Harvard Business Review, 84, 105–111.

12.

Gelfand

M. J.

Nishii

L. H.

Raver

J. L.

(2006). On the nature and importance of cultural tightness-looseness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1225–1244.

13.

Halliday

S. V.

(2016). User-generated product information about brands: Understanding its creators and consumers. Journal of Business Research, 69, 137–144.

14.

Ham

C. D.

Lee

Hayes

J. L.

Bae

Y. H.

(2018). Exploring sharing behaviors across social media platforms. International Journal of Market Research, 61, 1–21.

15.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to Mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: Regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

16.

Hennig-Thurau

Gwinner

K. P.

Walsh

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, 38–52.

17.

Hofstede

(2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). SAGE.

18.

Hofstede

Minkov

(2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind, revised and expanded (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

19.

House

R. J.

Hanges

P. J.

Javidan

Dorfman

P. W.

Gupta

(2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. SAGE.

20.

Inglehart

Welzel

(2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. Cambridge University Press.

21.

Lalwani

A. K.

Wang

J. J.

(2019). How do consumers’ cultural backgrounds and values influence their coupon proneness? A multimethod investigation. Journal of Consumer Research, 45, 1037–1050.

22.

Lam

Lee

Mizerski

(2009). The effects of cultural values in word-of-mouth communication. Journal of International Marketing, 17, 55–70.

23.

Lee

W. N.

(2019). Exploring the role of culture in advertising: Resolving persistent issues and responding to changes. Journal of Advertising, 48, 115–125.

24.

Leonhardt

J. M.

Ball

(2018). Dynamic virality: A review of the Ice Bucket Challenge. Journal of Digital & Social Media Marketing, 6, 118–127.

25.

Leonhardt

J. M.

Pezzuti

Namkoong

J. E.

(2020). We’re not so different: Collectivism increases perceived homophily, trust, and seeking user-generated product information. Journal of Business Research, 112, 160–169.

26.

Leung

K.-Y.

Chiu

Y.-C.

Hong

Y. Y.

(2010). Cultural processes: An overview. In Leung

A. K.-Y.

Chiu

Y.-C.

Hong

Y. Y.

(Eds.), Cultural processes: A social psychological perspective (pp. 3–24). Cambridge University Press.

27.

Lin

H. C.

Kalwani

M. U.

(2018). Culturally contingent electronic word-of-mouth signaling and screening: A comparative study of product reviews in the United States and Japan. Journal of International Marketing, 26, 80–102.

28.

Lou

Yuan

(2019). Influencer marketing: How message value and credibility affect consumer trust of branded content on social media. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 19, 58–73.

29.

Moore

S. G.

Lafreniere

K. C.

(2020). How online word-of-mouth impacts receivers. Consumer Psychology Review, 3, 34–59.

30.

Okazaki

Rubio

Campo

(2014). Gossip in social networking sites: Why people chitchat about ad campaigns. International Journal of Market Research, 56, 317–340.

31.

Orr

L. M.

Hauser

W. J.

(2008). A re-inquiry of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions: A call for 21st century cross-cultural research. The Marketing Management Journal, 18, 1–19.

32.

Packard

Gershoff

A. D.

Wooten

D. B.

(2016). When boastful word of mouth helps versus hurts social perceptions and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 43, 26–43.

33.

Pezzuti

Pierce

M. E.

Leonhardt

J. M.

(2018). Does language homophily affect migrant consumers’ service usage intentions? Journal of Services Marketing, 32, 581–591.

34.

Qiu

Han

Leung

A. K. Y.

(2013). Cultural differences and switching of in-group sharing behavior between an American (Facebook) and a Chinese (Renren) social networking site. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 44, 106–121.

35.

Rhee

Yang

Yoo

(2012). National culture and friendship homophily in the multinational workplace. Asian Business & Management, 12, 299–320.

36.

Robson

Farshid

Bredican

Humphrey

(2013). Making sense of online consumer reviews: A methodology. International Journal of Market Research, 55, 521–537.

37.

Rogers

E. M.

(1983). Diffusion of innovations. Free Press.

38.

Rosario

A. B.

Sotgiu

De Valck

Bijmolt

(2016). The effect of electronic word of mouth on sales: A Meta-analytic review of platform, product, and metric factors. Journal of Marketing Research, 53, 297–318.

39.

Shaiq

H. M. A.

Khalid

M. S. K.

Akram

Ali

(2011). Why not everybody loves Hofstede? What are the alternative approaches to study culture? European Journal of Business and Management, 3, 101–111.

40.

Shavitt

Barnes

A. J.

(2019). Cross-cultural consumer psychology. Consumer Psychology Review, 2, 70–84.

41.

Srinivasan

S. S.

Anderson

Ponnavolu

(2002). Customer loyalty in ecommerce: An exploration of its antecedents and consequences. Journal of Retailing, 78, 41–50.

42.

Statista. (2019). Leading countries based on number of Facebook users as of April 2019 (in millions). https://www.statista.com/statistics/268136/top-15-countries-based-on-number-of-facebook-users/

43.

Tang

(2017). Mine your customers or mine your business: The moderating role of culture in online word-of-mouth reviews. Journal of International Marketing, 25, 88–110.

44.

Tirunillai

Tellis

G. J.

(2012). Does chatter really matter? Dynamics of user-generated content and stock performance. Marketing Science, 2, 198–215.

45.

Triandis

H. C.

Bontempo

Villareal

M. J.

Asai

Lucca

(1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323–338.

46.

Triandis

H. C.

Gelfand

M. J.

(1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 118–128.

47.

World Bank. (2015). The World Bank data. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.PP.CD?end=2016&start=1990

48.

Wright

(2009). Perceptions of online support providers: An examination of perceived homophily, source credibility, communication and social support within online support groups. Communication Quarterly, 48, 44–59.