Int. J. Internet Marketing and Advertising, Vol. 11, No.

4, 2017 287

What makes eWOM viral?

Charu Sijoria, Srabanti Mukherjee* and

Subhojit Sengupta
Vinod Gupta School of Management,
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur,
Kharagpur 721302, India
Email: [Link]@[Link]
Email: srabanti@[Link]
Email: subhojitsengupta1991@[Link]
*Corresponding author
Abstract: The online communities and social media have evolved the way
of communication among the customers. Customers tend to depend more
on the information obtained from social networking sites and online reviews
about the products they wish to purchase. With an increasing need of being
connected with rest of the world 24×7, obtain and share product related
information, today’s customers engage in electronic Word of Mouth (eWOM)
communication. This study by structural equation modelling revealed that the
information quality, satisfaction and patronage, source attractiveness, loyalty,
and social relationship are the key factors that make eWOM viral. The study
contributes to the literature by identifying that the marketers should focus more
on quality of information that is being shared online and the platform of
sharing the information, to spread product related eWOM. They should also try
to satisfy the customers’ needs and emphasise on building social relationships
and loyal customers.

Keywords: word of mouth; electronic word of mouth; factors; viral.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Sijoria, C., Mukherjee, S.

and Sengupta, S. (2017) ‘What makes eWOM viral?’ Int. J. Internet Marketing
and Advertising, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp.287–306.

Biographical notes: Charu Sijoria is a Doctoral Research Scholar in Vinod

Gupta School of Management, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur. Her
key interest areas include data analytics and electronic word of mouth.

Srabanti Mukherjee is currently an Assistant Professor of Indian Institute of

Technology, Kharagpur, India and has served as a faculty in several premiere
institutions of India (e.g., Indian Institute of Management Indore, IIEST
Shibpur and Viswa Bharti University, Shantiniketan). Her key interest areas of
teaching and research are consumer behaviour, services marketing, and
marketing to bottom of the pyramid and advanced market research. She has
authored a book titled Consumer Behaviour which has been published by
Cengage Learning India Pvt. Ltd. She has published a number of research
papers and articles in peer-reviewed journals and presented papers in several
national and international conferences.

Subhojit Sengupta is a Doctoral Research Scholar in Vinod Gupta School of

Management, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur. His key interest areas
include marketing and marketing to bottom of the pyramid.

Copyright © 2017 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

288 C. Sijoria, S. Mukherjee and S. Sengupta

1 Introduction

The social media websites and online communities are allowing customers to interact
virtually by sharing their experience and information about any product. Although,
traditional word-of-mouth i.e. spreading information by oral communication, has been
shown to play a vital role for customers’ buying decisions (Richins and Root-Shaffer,
1988), but development of information technology has given an even more powerful
edge for this mechanism by extending consumers’ options for gathering product
information from other consumers (Sormunen, 2009; Resnick et al., 2000). The
communication among the customers via internet or by using information technology is
termed as Electronic word of mouth (eWOM) (Cheung and Thadani, 2010). EWOM can
be defined as “any positive or negative statement made by potential, actual, or former
customers about a product or company, which is made available to a multitude of people
and institutions via the Internet” (Hennig Thurau et al., 2004). Hence, the ease of using
internet and social networking sites had proven eWOM to be an important marketing tool
and a central platform for interactive marketing communication (Allsop et al., 2007).
Generally speaking, word of mouth (WOM) is defined as passing of information from
person to person by oral communication. It can also be defined as a form of interpersonal
communication among consumers about any product or service (Richins, 1983; Lam and
Mizerski, 2005). In terms of marketing, understanding the nature of word-of- mouth i.e.
spreading product information by the customers is important for the marketers as it has
significant influence on the probable customers who are exposed to such information
(Richins and Root-Shaffer, 1988).
The initiation of the Internet has resulted in the emergence of e-marketing concept,
eWOM and online discussion forums in the marketing domain (Sormunen, 2009;
Resnick et al., 2000). Moreover, eWOM provides a wide array of online-media which
encourage both online and peer-to-peer communication about a particular brand, a
product or a service. These media include, videos, e-mail messages, use of online social
networks and online forums (Golan and Zaidner, 2008; Porter and Golan, 2006). It is
seen, nowadays, that the new generation are relying more on the experience of the others
for any product or services so eWOM has gained importance for providing the required
information for products to the customers or the people.
Previous studies shows that there exist number of factors that drives internet -savvy
people to spread eWOM about the products or services to others and therefore, making it
viral. Researches have measured the factors affecting the positive eWOM in social
networking sites (Chu and Choi, 2011; Liang et al., 2013), and brand community
members (Yeh and Choi, 2011). However, so far not any concrete model that explores all
the common factors of spreading and making eWOM viral had been developed. In this
context, the current study aims to find out all the possible common key factors that
spreads eWOM and makes it viral. The remaining study is structured as follows. In
Section 2, the proposed constructs are developed through extensive review of the extant
literature. Section 3 demonstrated the conceptual model which is followed by the
sampling plan and questionnaire development. Section 4 portrays the findings and
provides the detailed analysis of the same. The last section concludes the study by
discussing the theoretical and managerial contribution and limitations of the study and
highlighting the directions for future research.
 What makes eWOM viral? 289

2 Literature review

Following the extant literature on various aspects that induce the customers to get
involved in Electronic Word of mouth communication, in the present study we enumerate
the spread of product-related eWOM as a function of information or argument quality
(Filieri and McLeay, 2013; Teng et al., 2014), trust (Teng et al., 2014; Sotiriadis and Zyl,
2013; Cheung and Thadani, 2012, Chu and Choi, 2011; Yeh and Choi, 2011; De Matos
and Rossi, 2008), loyalty (Yeh and Choi, 2011; De Matos and Rossi, 2008; Sotiriadis and
Zyl, 2013), social relationship (Chu and Choi, 2011; Liang et al., 2013), source quality
(Teng et al., 2014; Sotiriadis and Zyl, 2013; Cheung and Thadani, 2012), satisfaction (De
Matos and Rossi, 2008; Sotiriadis and Zyl, 2013), subjective norms (Liang et al., 2013),
and information quantity (Filieri and McLeay, 2013).
The next few paragraphs provide the literature related to the aforesaid constructs of
this study.

2.1 EWOM
The previous researchers have measured product related eWOM as a function of sharing
post-purchase experience with others, posting comments or reviews about the used
product online and the habit of sharing product related videos, clippings or pictures on
the social media and company’s websites (Alhidari et al., 2015).

2.2 Argument quality

Argument quality refers to “the persuasive strength of arguments embedded in an
informational message” (Teng et al., 2014, Bhattacherjee and Sanford, 2006). It is the
extent to which message receivers consider the argument convincing in defending its
position (Teng et al., 2014; Cheung et al., 2009). It is identified by strength,
comprehensiveness, accuracy, timeliness and relevance of an informational message
(Delone and McLean, 2003). As a result of extensive usage of the Internet, eWOM
information can now be created by almost everyone (Erkan and Evans, 2016) and thus,
quality and credibility of information has become more critical for consumers (Reichelt
et al., 2014; Yoo et al., 2015).
Argument quality of any product-related or usage information could again be
enumerated as a function of completeness (Filieri and McLeay, 2013; Cheung et al.,
2008; Wang and Strong, 1996), value added by the information (Filieri and McLeay,
2013; Wang and Strong, 1996).), relevance (Filieri and McLeay, 2013; Cheung et al.,
2008; Wang and Strong, 1996), timeliness (Filieri and McLeay, 2013; Cheung et al.,
2008; Nelson et al., 2005), understandability (Filieri and McLeay, 2013; Wang and
Strong, 1996) and accuracy (Filieri and McLeay, 2013; Cheung et al., 2008; Nelson
et al., 2005).
Information completeness is most commonly defined as the range up to which any
information is sufficient in every aspects which are necessary and required for taking any
decision by the customers. When the information is complete it adds some value to the
decision being taken by the customer and hence, value added by any information is
understood by the benefits and advantages that a customer gets by using any information
(Filieri and McLeay, 2013; Wang and Strong, 1996).
290 C. Sijoria, S. Mukherjee and S. Sengupta

Beyond information completeness and value added, information quality can also be
cast by Information relevance which is the degree to which information is appropriate
and helpful for others. In addition to relevance, accuracy has been identified as an
important factor in describing information quality. Information accuracy is defined as the
correctness in the mapping of stored information in an appropriate mode and context
(Nelson et al., 2005). According to the extant literature on eWOM, when the information
about a product is accurate, correct, believable it becomes easier for the customer to
interpret the same (Filieri and McLeay, 2013; Cheung et al., 2008). At the same time
quality of information also depends on its timeliness (Filieri and McLeay, 2013; Cheung
et al., 2008).
It is important to give any information in a way that is logical, meaningful and clear
for the one who is in need for that to enhance the involvement of the readers and indulge
them to share the information further. The extant literature referred the same as
Information understandability (Filieri and McLeay, 2013). All the above-mentioned
items are integrated as ‘Argument/information quality’ for the purpose of the present
study (refer Table 1). Hence the following hypothesis could be framed.
H01: Information Quality on the networking site spreads product related eWOM.

2.3 Trust
Trust on the eWOM is developed when the customer has confidence (De Matos and
Rossi, 2008) on the message and is sure about the reliability (De Matos and Rossi, 2008)
and credibility (Chu and Choi, 2011) of the same. Confidence is generated
when customers tend to rely on the services and information they receive. All the
above-mentioned items are integrated as ‘Trust’ for the purpose of the present study
(refer Table 1). Therefore, we frame the following hypothesis.
H02: Trust on the networking site on eWOM spreads product related eWOM.

2.4 Loyalty
Loyalty as defined by Gremler and Brown (1996) is the extent to which a customer shows
repeated purchasing from a service provider, possesses positive dispositions in favor of a
particular service provider, and visits the same service providers whenever there is a need
or demand for similar services arises. The willingness of customers to buy products or
availing services from any particular brand and the provider respectively will result in
increased loyalty of the customer towards that brand. This loyalty of the customer
towards any brand or service will produce positive eWOM (Sotiriadis and Zyl, 2013;
De Matos and Rossi, 2008).
Loyalty is measured by attitude and quality of being loyal (Sotiriadis and Zyl, 2013).
The performance and satisfaction derived from the product or the information will
determine the attitude and loyalty of the customers towards it. All the above-mentioned
items are integrated as ‘loyalty’ for the purpose of the present study (refer Table 1).
Hence, we frame the following hypothesis.
H03: Loyalty on the product and information site spreads product related eWOM.
 What makes eWOM viral? 291

2.5 Satisfaction
Satisfaction emerges with experience (De Matos and Rossi, 2008) from the product
which in turn develops repurchase intentions (De Matos and Rossi, 2008). According to
expectancy disconfirmation theory customers try to match the expected and perceived
performance from a product or service (Oliver, 1980). If the aforesaid two dimensions
match, the customer gets a satisfactory experience (De Matos and Rossi, 2008). The
satisfactory performance of the product insists the customers to write on the internet
about the same and increase their repurchasing intention (De Matos and Rossi, 2008).
All the above- mentioned items are integrated as ‘satisfaction’ for the purpose of the
present study (refer Table 1). Therefore, we frame the following hypothesis
H04: Satisfaction spreads product related eWOM.

2.6 Social relationship

Social relationship is the link or the association among the people. The extant literature
puts forth that eWOM is often influenced by interpersonal and social relations (Hsu and
Tran, 2013) as people could easily believe and rely on the information that their peers
share in the social media.
As per previous researches, the extent of social relationship is measured by social
capital, tie strength and interpersonal influence (Chu and Choi, 2011). Social relationship
dimension is presumed to serve as the major determinant for writing online (Chu and
Choi, 2011).
Social capital is defined as the mutual value of all social networks of people and the
tendency that generate from these to work for each other (Chu and Choi, 2011). Social
capital plays an important role in the process of an individual’s use of existing social
capital or attempt to build new social capital. It has been observed that eWOM
transmitters use social capital to fulfil various needs like attention seeking, strengthening
existing relationships and building new relationships (Stephen and Lehmann, 2008, p.3).
Another dimension of social relationship regarding eWOM antecedents is tie
strength. Tie strength is defined as “the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the
intimacy (mutual confiding) and the reciprocal services which characterise the tie”
(Granovetter, 1973, p.1361). Steffes and Burgee (2008, p.45) defined tie strength as “the
level of intensity of the social relationship between consumers or degree of overlap of
two individuals’ friendship that varies greatly across a consumer’s social network.”
Respondent’s social relations, frequency of communication, perceived importance and
perceived closeness attached to social relations (Chu and Choi, 2011) are the different
dimensions that explicate tie strength.
Researchers have suggested that interpersonal influences significantly affect
consumer’s decision making. The influence that one gets from their peers, society and
others affect them largely for taking the decision that may be regarding believing any
information or reviewing any product or service. Individuals with a high level of
interpersonal influence and susceptibility tend to follow the expectations of others
(Burnkrant and Cousineau, 1975) and seek information from others (Bearden et al.,
1990), which may lead to increased dependence and active involvement on product
related information shared over internet. Thus, consumer susceptibility to interpersonal
influence is identified as a potential social relationship factor that spreads eWOM
292 C. Sijoria, S. Mukherjee and S. Sengupta

(Chu and Choi, 2011). All the above- mentioned items are integrated as ‘social
relationship’ for the purpose of the present study (refer Table 1). Hence, we hypothesise,
H05: Social Relationship spreads product related eWOM.

2.7 Source quality

Source quality is defined by the function of source credibility (Sotiriadis and Zyl, 2013;
Teng et al., 2014; Cheung et al., 2008), source attractiveness, source perception, source
style (Teng et al., 2014), source reliability (Sotiriadis and Zyl, 2013).
Source credibility is formed by the reputation, experience, competition and the
expertise of the person/company sharing the information (Teng et al., 2014; Sotiriadis
and Zyl, 2013). Source attractiveness is the appeal, familiarity, likeability of the product
related information shared through internet (Teng et al., 2014). Source perception refers
to how people take in about the source from where they are getting some information.
The quality of source perception is measured by its usefulness, customers’ social ties and
homophily associated with the source (Teng et al., 2014).
In the context of providing positive or negative online reviews source style also plays
a significant role. Source style is defined by the visual representation of the information
(Teng et al., 2014). In view of the aforesaid measurements (refer Table 1) of source
quality the following hypothesis is framed.
H06: Source Quality spreads eWOM.

2.8 Information quantity

Information quantity is the extent to which the quantity or volume of online information
about a product (Park et al., 2007). The amount of online reviews per product is
considered an indicator of product popularity (Chevalier and Mayzlin, 2006). Although
the research in eWOM has found contrasting results regarding the influence of the
number of reviews on consumers’ purchasing intentions, in general, the customers tend
to believe that products with a large number of reviews are more popular than others with
fewer reviews. Erkan and Evans (2016) suggest that shopping websites have lots of
product reviews and this gives an opportunity to compare the different comments.
Therefore, information quantity is one of the reasons for consumers to prefer online
reviews. All the above mentioned items are integrated as ‘information quantity’ for the
purpose of the present study (refer Table 1). Therefore, we form the following hypothesis
(Filieri and McLeay, 2013).
H07: Information Quantity spreads product related eWOM.

2.9 Subjective norms

Subjective norm, also known as the social norm, is defined as “the perceived social
pressure to perform or not to perform the behavior” (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975, p.302).
It is seen from the previous researches that individual’s behavior is influenced by two
forms of subjective norm: the injunctive norm and the descriptive norm (Borsari and
Carey, 2001; Manning, 2009; Park and Smith, 2007). The injunctive norm suggests that
individuals are persuaded by their peers to perform a specific behavior like posting or
 What makes eWOM viral? 293

reading online comments. Moreover, the descriptive norm says that the individual’s
specific behavior would be rewarded when his/her peer groups accept or admire the same
(Borsari and Carey, 2003; Park and Smith, 2007).
Subjective norms influence eWOM by internalisation, compliance, and identification
(Kelman, 1958) (refer Table 1). Internalisation is defined as a process by which
individual members of a group are influenced by the attitudes, beliefs, and values held by
other members and accordingly shape their own. The compliance says that people will
try to adopt values of others to conform to the group norms. Identification calls for
maintaining an active relationship with others and need to be liked and respected by the
community members (Liang et al., 2013). Hence, we form the following hypothesis
H08: Subjective norms spreads product related eWOM.
Table 1 List showing all the constructs and items of e-WOM

Construct Items Source

e-WOM E1: I share information to others using e-WOM. Hennig Thurau et al., 2004
E2: I share pictures and videos about products
online.
Information IQ1: Online information about a product has Filieri and McLeay, 2014;
Quality sufficient breadth. Teng et al., 2014; Cheung
IQ2: Online information about a product has et al., 2008
sufficient depth.
IQ3: Online information about a product is
accurate.
IQ4: Online information about a product is
relevant.
IQ5: Online information about a product is
helpful.
IQ6: Online information about a product is up to
date.
IQ7: Online information about a product is
readable.
IQ8: Online information about a product is
clear.
IQ9: Online information about a product is
logical.
IQ10: Online information about a product is
meaningful.
Trust T1: I trust online information about a product. Teng et al., 2014; Sotiriadis
T2: I believe online information about a and Zyl, 2013; Cheung et al.,
product. 2012; Chu and Choi, 2011;
Yeh and Choi, 2011; De
Matos and Rossi, 2008
Loyalty L1: I write online about a product when I Have Yeh and Choi, 2011; De
positive attitude towards the product. Matos and Rossi, 2008;
L2: I write online about a product when I am Sotiriadis and Zyl, 2013
loyal towards the product.
294 C. Sijoria, S. Mukherjee and S. Sengupta

Table 1 List showing all the constructs and items of e-WOM (continued)

Construct Items Source

Satisfaction S1: I share positive information about a product De Matos and Rossi, 2008;
when I am satisfied with the product. Sotiriadis and Zyl, 2013
S2: I share positive information about a Product
when it gives consistent performance.
S3: I share positive information about a product
when I had a good experience with the
information received online.
Social SR1: I believe on the information given by Chu and Choi, 2011; Liang
Relationship social networks about a product. et al., 2013; Stephen and
SR2: I write online about a product to Lehmann, 2008
strengthen the existing relationships.
SR3: I write online about a product to Build new
relationships via social networks.
SR4: I write online about a product to frequently
communicate with others.
SR5: I get influenced by online information
about a product given by my friends and
relatives.
SR6: I get influenced by online information for
those products which I think others will also
like.
SR7: I am sensitive towards the information
being given by my peers about a product.
SR8: I think there exists social relations between
the customers who share information online
about a product.
SR9: I tend to associate online with those who
have similar interests like mine.
Source SQ1: I rely mostly on reputed source (Flipkart, Teng et al., 2014; Sotiriadis
Quality amazon, Myntra etc.) of online information and Zyl, 2013; Cheung et al.,
about a product. 2012
SQ2: I think that the sources that provide
information about the products have
professional knowledge about the same.
SQ3: I think that the communicator of the online
information about the product is familiar with
those products/services.
SQ4: I think source of online information about
a product is attractive.
SQ5: I read reviews about the product when I
find similar responses/feelings that I have for
the same.
SQ6: I think there exists a level of comfort
between customer and communicator during
online communication about a product.
 What makes eWOM viral? 295

Table 1 List showing all the constructs and items of e-WOM (continued)

Construct Items Source

Source SQ7: I think physical appearance or personal Teng et al., 2014; Sotiriadis
Quality traits of the online source giving Information and Zyl, 2013; Cheung et al.,
about a product develop affection towards it. 2012
SQ8: I like reviews about a product that are
posted with pictorial information.
SQ9: I think the users of source, where reviews
are written about a product, are reliable.
SQ10: I think the platform of spreading
information about a product is reliable.
Information IQt1: I attend online reviews about a product Filieri and McLeay, 2013;
Quantity when number of reviews per product is large. Davis and Khazanchi, 2008
IQt2: I am attentive to online reviews about a
product when quantity of reviews per product is
large.
Subjective SN1: I share positive information about product Liang et al., 2013; Kelman,
Norms experience to achieve a favourable reaction from 1958
others.
SN2: I share positive information about product
experience to develop a new social relationship.
SN3: I comment positively on reviews about
product experience for similar products where I
stayed.

3 Methodology

3.1 Conceptual model

The main aim of the study was to determine the factors that make product related eWOM
viral. Accordingly, the conceptual model was built with the aforesaid eight antecedents to
test the eight hypothesis mentioned above. Each antecedent was treated as a latent
variable which was measured by two or more observed variables. Similarly, eWOM was
treated as a latent variable and was measured by two items.

3.2 Sampling and questionnaire design

A survey was conducted through means of questionnaire made up of 43 items, obtained
from literature i.e. existing studies and some expert interviews, for measuring the
antecedents of eWOM and eWOM itself. Students between the age 18 years to 30 years
of various undergraduate, master’s, and PhD courses were the respondents of the
questionnaire as it is seen that Internet has turned out to be an integral part of student life
(Khare and Rakesh, 2011) and they spend more time on social networking sites like
Facebook, twitter etc. According to Burbary (2011), they are the highest demographics of
any social networking site. A five point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 2=somewhat
disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=somewhat agree, 5=strongly agree) was used to
record the responses.
296 C. Sijoria, S. Mukherjee and S. Sengupta

Figure 1 Conceptual model

Around 450 respondents were approached, the responses of the customers who have
posted/shared any product review or information in any one of the four major online
shopping sites namely, [Link], [Link], www. [Link] and
[Link] had been considered for analysis purpose. Altogether, the final
sample of 300 respondents consisted of 40% female and 60% male students residing in
the campus. Out of the responses the items which had response rate of at least 80% were
finally subjected to analysis. That way, out of total 43 questions only 29 questions were
considered for further analysis.
The questionnaire was tested for reliability and validity using SPSS 21 and AMOS 21
followed by path analysis using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) technique to test
the fit of the data with the conceptual model using AMOS 21 software. .

4 Findings and analysis

4.1 Reliability and validity

First to test the internal consistency i.e. how closely the items are related as a group,
Cronbach’s alpha value is calculated for all the constructs obtained from the literature
(refer Table 2). A value greater than 0.5 shows that the items are closely related as a
group.
 What makes eWOM viral? 297

Table 2 Measures of Cronbach’s alpha

Construct Cronbach’s alpha

Information Quality 0.957
Trust 0.968
Loyalty 0.956
Satisfaction 0.966
Social Relationship 0.954
Source Quality 0.960
Information Quantity 0.964
Subjective Norms 0.959

To test the reliability and validity of constructs rooted in the conceptual model;
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was run using AMOS 21. However, we could not
obtain any admissible solution out of the CFA. Therefore, to redefine the constructs to
extract the underlying dimensions exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted on
the obtained responses. Although the EFA revealed 8 factors slightly different from the
conceptual model (Figure 1) explaining around 70% of the total variance and exceeded
Eigen value of 1 and p value as 0.001, nonetheless, considering the nature of cross-
loadings, we have designed five possible models and tested them through CFA to test
their validity. Only the fifth model (shown in Figure 2) was admissible with an
acceptable fit on all indices (χ2=249.161, DF=111, CMIN/DF=2.2, GFI=0.922,
CFI=0.976, RMSEA=0.065).

Figure 2 Revised conceptual model

298 C. Sijoria, S. Mukherjee and S. Sengupta

4.1.1 Construct validity of the revised model

To test the reliability and validity of constructs and of the revised model (as shown in
Figure 2), at first the Cronbach’s alpha value for each construct was calculated through
SPSS 21.
The Cronbach’s alpha values of each construct exceeded 0.5 and hence the construct
reliability was achieved (refer Table 3).
Table 3 Measures of Cronbach’s alpha for revised conceptual model

Construct Cronbach’s alpha

Information Quality 0.858
Satisfaction and Patronage 0.771
Subjective Norms 0.790
Source Attractiveness 0.725
Source Credibility 0.735
Social Relationship 0.637
Loyalty 0.700
Tie strength 0.555

To cross check the internal consistency of the scale, the composite reliabilities of all
the constructs were calculated. Ideally, the acceptable range of composite reliability is
0.7–1.00. In the revised model the composite reliability of all constructs exceeded 0.7
portraying internal consistency of all the constructs (refer Table 4).
Table 4 Measures of composite reliability

Construct Composite Reliability

Information Quality 0.860
Satisfaction and Patronage 0.801
Subjective Norms 0.744
Source Attractiveness 0.722
Source Credibility 0.747
Social Relationship 0.716
Loyalty 0.791
Tie strength 0.70

To check that all the factors obtained are unique, discriminant validity of the model was
assessed. The rule of thumb for assessing discriminant validity requires that the square
root of AVE be larger than the squared correlations between constructs (Cooper and
Zmud, 1990; Hair et al., 1998). The values obtained showed that all the factors are totally
different from each other (refer Table 5).
With reference to the revised model, a set of revised hypotheses were framed and
tested through path analysis using AMOS 21.
H11: Information Quality spreads eWOM.
H12: Satisfaction and Patronage spread eWOM.
 What makes eWOM viral? 299

H13: Subjective Norms spreads eWOM.

H14: Source Attractiveness spreads eWOM.
H15: Source Credibility spreads eWOM.
H16: Loyalty spreads eWOM.
H17: Social Relationship spreads eWOM.
H18: Tie Strength spreads eWOM.
Table 5 Comparison between square root of AVE and squared correlation estimates

IQ S&P SN SA SC SR L TS
IQ 0.676
S&P 0.288 0.639
SN 0.0144 0.007 0.699
SA 0.060 0.239 0.096 0.686
SC 0.010 0.026 0.051 0.201 0.708
SR 0.255 0.265 0.0004 0.260 0.163 0.614
L 0.117 0.107 0.226 0.031 0.066 0.011 0.749
TS 0.048 0.256 0.0625 0.150 0.075 0.163 0.011 0.621

4.2 Testing common method bias

Common method bias (CMB) is the source of measurement error that impends the
validity of the results of relationships. In this study, we have used some popular tests to
address the concerns regarding CMB (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

4.2.1 Harman’s single factor test

At the first place Harman’s single factor test was used to measure the CMB in the model.
It is the most common technique that has been used by researchers to measure the
existence of CMB in the models. Following the earlier researches, we tried to load all the
observed variables forming the antecedents of eWOM into a single factor using
Exploratory Factor Analysis (Aulakh and Gencturk, 2000). Thereafter, the unrotated
factor solution was checked to figure out whether most of the total variance can be
explained by that single factor or not (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Ideally, if CMB is high
then most a considerable portion of the total variance is explained by that single factor
(Iverson and Maguire, 2000). For our study, we started with including all the 46 items of
all the eight constructs in to a single factor to measure the CMB. Although all the
variables were loaded in a single factor after with 53 iterations, the said factor accounted
for any 12.187% of the total variance. This indicates that the CMB is within a
permissible range in the said study.
300 C. Sijoria, S. Mukherjee and S. Sengupta

4.2.2 Common latent factor

However, some researchers using the Harman’s single factor test have often resorted to
CFA as a more sophisticated measure to check if there exists a common factor describing
the majority of the variance with all observed variables used in the study (Mossholder
et al., 1998). To test the same we have framed the following hypothesis.
H19: A single latent factor can explain more than 20% of the variance in the dataset.
A common latent factor is added in to the CFA model using AMOS which is then
correlated with all the observed variables forming the antecedents of eWOM in order to
measure the common variance that the latent variable shares with all observed variables
(refer to Figure 3).

Figure 3 CFA model with a common latent variable

The regression weights of the observed variables and the common factor was constrained
as “a”. The variance in the common factor was constrained to 1. Thereafter, the CFA
model was run and the results indicated that the value of “a” was equal to [Link] value
was squared to get the common variance which was 0.0049. Given the obtained common
 What makes eWOM viral? 301

variance between the latent variable and all observed variables used in the model was
less than 0.20 (Confirmatory Factor Analysis, April 30, 2017), we can conclude that the
hypotheses H19 is rejected. Therefore, the influence of common method bias on the said
study is negligible.

4.3 Path Analysis for causal relationships

Finally, to test which construct triggers eWOM, path analysis was conducted. Path
analysis is a SEM technique used to describe the directed dependencies among a set of
variables.
The path model achieved the convergent validity with an overall acceptable/
moderate range of model fit. For the model the fitness indices were as follows:
 CMIN/DF=3.0
 GFI=0.876
 CFI=0.955
 RMSEA=0.56
The fitness indices indicate the model is convergent.
The path estimates support the hypotheses H11, H12, H14 which showed that it is the
quality of information, satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the product and attractiveness of
the source from which the message has originated or the platform where information is
being shared spreads eWOM. From the path estimates we find H16 and H17 were also
supported, which means that the constructs like loyalty and social relationship also have
an effect on exhibiting positive eWOM. On the other hand, from the path estimates it was
observed that subjective norms, source credibility, and tie strength exhibited a negligible
impact on eWOM as the path estimates for H13, H15, and H18 were insignificant.
Table 6 Path estimates of the supported hypotheses

Path p-value (acceptable Test

Hypothesis
Estimates range p<0.001) Result
Information Quality→ eWOM H11 0.25 *** Supported
Satisfaction & Patronage→ eWOM H12 0.87 *** Supported
Source Attractiveness→ eWOM H14 0.027 *** Supported
Loyalty→ eWOM H16 0.307 *** Supported
Social Relationship → eWOM H17 .321 *** Supported

5 Theoretical and managerial contributions

The study empirically tested some proposed models to measure the antecedents that
make product/company related eWOM viral. The results of the study provide an
empirical support to previous researches (Filieri and McLeay, 2014; Teng et al., 2014;
Cheung et al, 2008; Sotiriadis and Zyl, 2013; Cheung et al., 2012) by identifying the
major antecedents or factors (such as information quality, satisfaction with the product
and source quality/attractiveness) for spreading eWOM. The study also confirms with the
302 C. Sijoria, S. Mukherjee and S. Sengupta

previous researches (Chu and Choi, 2011; Liang et al., 2013; Stephen and Lehmann,
2008; Yeh and Choi, 2011; De Matos and Rossi, 2008; Sotiriadis and Zyl, 2013) which
had advocated for social relationship and loyalty as the important factors in spreading
positive eWOM about products and services. This suggests that the generation Y
customers value more the quality of information being shared and the platform or the
source on which the information is being shared. Going by a pragmatic mode, if the
products are up to their expectations they feel satisfied with the purchase, and, they
become loyal towards the product or the brand and feel the urge to share the experience
online to other possible user rather than only to their social networks. Other factors like
social relationship and loyalty were also motivating the customers in spreading eWOM.
A previous study highlighted the importance of source credibility in affecting users’
acceptance and intention to use online reviews (Park and Kim, 2008). Contrary with that
result this study proposes source attractiveness as a critical factor in influencing users’
perceptions of online reviews before making final decisions. The finding that the eWOM
platform to which the review is posted can be a potential factor in influencing
consumers’ product judgment. However, the results suggest that argument quality is also
the most influential determinant factor of persuasive eWOM messages.
Since the study focused more on customer’s information sharing on the purchasing
sites, it provides manifold practical implications for global marketers. First, the company
should focus more on assessing the needs of the customers appropriately and translate
them into appropriate product and service standards so that the post-purchase reviews go
in their favor to satisfy their self-enhancement need (Sundaram et al., 1998). Secondly,
the marketers may try to create some opinion leaders (celebrities or group of loyal
customers) to share their positive experience about the product so that the readers feel the
urge to share the information more and make the eWOM viral. However, if the customers
are not satisfied and writes negative reviews about the product to vent their cognitive
dissonance or vengeance against the company (Sundaram et al., 1998), it could snap the
brand from the prospective customers’ mind too. An appropriate customer recovery
mechanism is always a call for today’s business houses. Online communities and social
networking sites have entirely changed the way of communication among the customers
in recent past. In the growing technological scenario, the merchant must understand the
aspects that drive satisfaction in customers so that they can build constructive marketing
strategies to attract the customers.

6 Conclusion

The study began with exploring the antecedents of spreading positive eWOM from the
literature or the previous studies in the same domain. A pool of items were derived and
grouped into several constructs from the review of literature. Thereafter, attempt was
made to consolidate the common antecedents that spread positive eWOM. Accordingly, a
conceptual model was drawn and subjected to exploratory factor analysis to check the
composition of the constructs. Based on the results of EFA the constructs were redefined
and subjected to Confirmatory factor analysis. The reliability and validity and model fit
indices of CFA confirmed that the data fit to the model reasonably well. Thereafter, a
common method bias test was performed and it was observed that the existence of such
bias was negligible. A path analysis was performed to check if each of the antecedents
triggers positive eWOM. The study concluded that the satisfaction obtained from the
 What makes eWOM viral? 303

product and urge for patronages as well as loyalty for the brand are the key factors for
spreading of eWOM among the customers. It also states that there are some other factors
like information quality, social relationship and source attractiveness which help in
spreading eWOM.
The study contributes a better understanding of the factors that can make the product-
related positive eWOM viral. These findings can help the marketers or the service
providers to emphasis on the certain factors which will induce the customers to write
online about their experiences as well as will make them to trust and believe the
information that they are receiving.

7 Limitations and directions for future research

Although the present study contributes to better understanding of antecedents in

spreading eWOM, it is not free from limitations. First, the study concentrated only on the
positive valance of eWOM. However, there is an ample scope to specifically test whether
the negative responses motivate the readers more to share than the positive eWOMs.
Secondly, due to lack of resources, the data for the said study was collected from
Indian consumers only. The study could be extended to more geo-demographic groups
with a large sample size to make it more elaborative and extensive.

References
Alhidari, A., Iyer, P. and Paswan, A. (2015) ‘Personal level antecedents of eWOM and purchase
intention, on social networking sites’, Journal of Customer Behaviour, Vol. 14, No. 2,
pp.107–125.
Allsop, D.T., Bassett, B. and Hoskins, J. (2007) ‘Word-of-mouth research: principles and
applications’, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp.398–411.
Aulakh, P.S. and Gencturk, E.F. (2000) ‘International principal-agent relationships:
control, governance and performance’, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 29, No. 6,
pp.521–538.
Bearden, W.O., Netemeyer, R. and Teel, J. (1990) ‘Further validation of the consumer
susceptibility to interpersonal influence scale’, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17,
No. 1.
Bhattacherjee, A. and Sanford, C. (2006) ‘Influence processes for information technology
acceptance: an elaboration likelihood model’, MIS Quarterly, pp.805–825.
Borsari, B. and Carey, K. (2001) ‘Peer influences on college drinking: a review of the research’,
Journal of Substance Abuse, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp.391–424.
Borsari, B. and Carey, K.B. (2003) ‘Descriptive and injunctive norms in college drinking: a meta-
analytic integration’, Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Vol. 64, No. 3, p.331.
Burbary, K. (2011) Facebook demographics revisited–2011 statistics. Retrieved October 11.
Burnkrant, R.E. and Cousineau, A. (1975) ‘Informational and normative social influence in buyer
behavior’, Journal of Consumer Research, pp.206–215.
Cheung, Christy MK, and Dimple R. Thadani. (2010) The effectiveness of electronic word-of-
mouth communication: A literature analysis. Proceedings of the 23rd Bled e-Conference
e-Trust: Implications for the Individual, Enterprises and Society, pp.329–345.
Cheung, Christy MK, Matthew KO Lee, and Neil Rabjohn. (2008) The impact of electronic word-
of-mouth: The adoption of online opinions in online customer communities. Internet Research
Vol. 18, No. 3, pp.229–247.
304 C. Sijoria, S. Mukherjee and S. Sengupta

Cheung, Christy MK, and Dimple R. Thadani. (2012) The impact of electronic word-of-mouth
communication: A literature analysis and integrative model. Decision Support Systems
Vol. 54, No. 1, pp.461–470.
Cheung, Man Yee, Chuan Luo, Choon Ling Sia, and Huaping Chen. (2009) Credibility of
electronic word-of-mouth: Informational and normative determinants of on-line consumer
recommendations. International Journal of Electronic Commerce Vol. 13, No. 4, pp.9–38.
Cheung, Man Yee, Chuan Luo, Choon Ling Sia, and Huaping Chen. (2009) Credibility of
electronic word-of-mouth: Informational and normative determinants of on-line consumer
recommendations. International Journal of Electronic Commerce Vol. 13, No. 4, pp.9–38.
Chevalier, Judith A., and Dina Mayzlin. (2006) The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book
reviews. Journal of marketing research Vol. 43, No. 3, pp.345–354.
Chu, Shu-Chuan, and Sejung Marina Choi. (2011) Electronic word-of-mouth in social networking
sites: A cross-cultural study of the United States and China. Journal of Global Marketing
Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.263–281.
Chu, Shu-Chuan, and Yoojung Kim. (2011) Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic
word-of-mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites. International journal of Advertising
Vol. 30, No. 1, pp.47–75.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis. April 30, (2017) In Wikipedia. Retrieved, from [Link]
[Link]/[Link]?title=Confirmatory_Factor_Analysis&redir ect=no, on May 7,
2017.
Cooper, Randolph B., and Robert W. Zmud. (1990) Information technology implementation
research: a technological diffusion approach. Management science Vol. 36, No. 2,
pp.123–139.
Davis, Alanah, and Deepak Khazanchi. (2008) An empirical study of online word of mouth as a
predictor for multi‐product category e‐commerce sales. Electronic Markets Vol. 18, No. 2,
pp.130–141.
Delone, William H., and Ephraim R. McLean. (2003) The DeLone and McLean model of
information systems success: a ten-year update. Journal of management information systems
Vol. 19, No. 4, pp.9–30.
De Matos, Celso Augusto, and Carlos Alberto Vargas Rossi. (2008) Word-of-mouth
communications in marketing: a meta-analytic review of the antecedents and moderators.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Vol. 36, No. 4, pp.578–596.
Doh, Sun-Jae, and Jang-Sun Hwang. (2009) How consumers evaluate eWOM (electronic word-of-
mouth) messages. Cyber Psychology & Behavior Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.193–197.
Datta, Palto R., Dababrata N. Chowdhury, and Bonya R. Chakraborty. (2005) Viral marketing: new
form of word-of-mouth through internet. The business review Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.69–75.
East, Robert, Mark Uncles, Jenni Romaniuk, and Francesca Dall’Olmo Riley. (2015) Factors
associated with the production of word of mouth. International Journal of Market Research
Vol. 57, No. 3, pp.439–458.
Erkan, I., & Evans, C. (2016). The influence of eWOM in social media on consumers’ purchase
intentions: An extended approach to information adoption. Computers in Human Behavior,
61, 47–55.
Erkan, I., & Evans, C. (2016). Social media or shopping websites? The influence of eWOM on
consumers’ online purchase intentions. Journal of Marketing Communications, 1–17.
Filieri Raffaele, and Fraser McLeay. (2014) EWOM and accommodation an analysis of the factors
that influence travelers’ adoption of information from online reviews. Journal of Travel
Research Vol. 53, No. 1, pp.44–57.
Fishbein, Martin, and Icek Ajzen. (1977) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction
to theory and research.
Golan, Guy J., and Lior Zaidner. (2008) Creative Strategies in Viral Advertising: An Application
of Taylor’s Six‐Segment Message Strategy Wheel. Journal of Computer‐Mediated
Communication Vol. 13, No. 4, pp.959–972.
 What makes eWOM viral? 305

Granovetter, Mark S. (1973) The strength of weak ties. American journal of sociology,
pp.1360–1380.
Gremler, Dwayne D., Kevin P. Gwinner, and Stephen W. Brown. (2001) Generating positive word-
of-mouth communication through customer-employee relationships. International Journal of
Service Industry Management Vol. 12, No. 1, pp.44–59.
Gremler, Dwayne D., and Stephen W. Brown. (1996) Service loyalty: its nature, importance, and
implications. Advancing service quality: A global perspective, pp.171–180.
Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, R. E. Anderson, and R. L. Tatham. (2006) Multivariate data
analysis, vol. 6. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hennig‐Thurau, Thorsten, Kevin P. Gwinner, Gianfranco Walsh, and Dwayne D. Gremler. (2004)
Electronic word‐of‐mouth via consumer‐opinion platforms: What motivates consumers
to articulate themselves on the Internet? Journal of interactive marketing Vol. 18, No. 1,
pp.38–52.
Hsu, Yi, and Thi Hong Chau Tran. (2013) Social Relationship Factors Influence on EWOM
Behaviors in Social Networking Sites: Empirical Study: Taiwan and Vietnam. International
Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology Vol. 3, No. 3, pp.22–31.
Iverson, Roderick D., and Catherine Maguire (2000). The relationship between job and life
satisfaction: Evidence from a remote mining community. Human relations Vol. 53, No. 6,
pp.807–839.
Jalees, Tariq, Huma Tariq, Syed Imran Zaman, and Syed Hasnain Alam Kazmi. (2015) Social
Media in Virtual Marketing. Market Forces Vol. 10, No. 1, pp.15–32.
Kelman, Herbert C. (1958) Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of
attitude change. Journal of conflict resolution, pp.51–60.
Khare, Arpita, and Sapna Rakesh. (2011) Antecedents of online shopping behavior in India: An
examination. Journal of Internet Commerce Vol. 10, No. 4, pp.227–244.
Lam, Desmond, and Dick Mizerski. (2005) The effects of locus of control on word‐of‐mouth
communication. Journal of Marketing Communications Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.215–228.
Liang, Silvia Wan-Ju, Yuksel Ekinci, Nicoletta Occhiocupo, and Georgina Whyatt. (2013)
Antecedents of travellers’ electronic word-of-mouth communication. Journal of Marketing
Management Vol. 29, No. 5–6, pp.584–606.
Liu, Chih-Hsing Sam, and Tingko Lee. (2016) Service quality and price perception of service:
Influence on word-of-mouth and revisit intention. Journal of Air Transport Management
Vol. 52, pp.42–54.
Longart, Pedro. (2010) What drives word-of-mouth in restaurants? International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management Vol. 22, No. 1, pp.121–128.
Manning, Mark. (2009) The effects of subjective norms on behavior in the theory of planned
behavior: A meta‐analysis." British Journal of Social Psychology Vol. 48, No. 4, pp.649–705.
Moorman, Christine, Rohit Deshpande, and Gerald Zaltman. (1993) Factors affecting trust in
market research relationships. The Journal of Marketing, pp.81–101.
Mossholder, Kevin W., Nathan Bennett, Edward R. Kemery, and Mark A. Wesolowski. (1998),
Relationships between bases of power and work reactions: The mediational role of procedural
[Link] of Management Vol. 24, No. 4, pp.533–552.
Nelson, R. Ryan, Peter A. Todd, and Barbara H. Wixom. (2005) Antecedents of information and
system quality: an empirical examination within the context of data warehousing. Journal of
management information systems Vol. 21, No. 4, pp.199–235.
Oliver, Richard L. (1980) A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction
decisions. Journal of marketing research, pp.460–469.
Park, Do-Hyung, Jumin Lee, and Ingoo Han. (2007) The effect of on-line consumer reviews on
consumer purchasing intention: The moderating role of involvement. International Journal of
Electronic Commerce Vol. 11, No. 4, pp.125–148.
306 C. Sijoria, S. Mukherjee and S. Sengupta

Park, Hee Sun, and Sandi W. Smith. (2007) Distinctiveness and influence of subjective norms,
personal descriptive and injunctive norms, and societal descriptive and injunctive norms on
behavioral intent: A case of two behaviors critical to organ donation. Human Communication
Research Vol. 33, No. 2, pp.194–218.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases
in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal
of applied psychology, 88(5), 879.
Porter, Lance, and Guy J. Golan. (2006) From subservient chickens to brawny men: A comparison
of viral advertising to television advertising. Journal of Interactive Advertising Vol. 6, No. 2,
pp.30–38.
Resnick, Paul, Ko Kuwabara, Richard Zeckhauser, and Eric Friedman. (2000) Reputation systems.
Communications of the ACM Vol. 43, No. 12, pp.45–48.
Richins, M. L., and T. Root-Shaffer. (1988) The role of evolvement and opinion leadership in
consumer word-of-mouth: An implicit model made explicit. Advances in consumer research
15, pp.32–36.
Richins, Marsha L. (1983) Negative word-of-mouth by dissatisfied consumers: A pilot study. The
journal of marketing, pp.68–78.
Sormunen, Vilja. (2009) International viral marketing campaign planning and evaluation.
Sotiriadis, Marios D., and Cinà van Zyl. (2013) Electronic word-of-mouth and online reviews in
tourism services: the use of twitter by tourists. Electronic Commerce Research Vol. 13, No. 1,
pp.103–124.
Steffes, Erin M., and Lawrence E. Burgee. (2009) Social ties and online word of mouth. Internet
research Vol. 19, No. 1, pp.42–59.
Stephen, Andrew T., and Donald R. Lehmann. (2008) Recipient Characteristics and Product-
Related--Transmission: The Role of Social Capital. Available at SSRN 1150996.
Sundaram, Dinesh S., Kaushik Mitra, and Cynthia Webster. (1998) Word-of-Mouth
Communications: A Motivational Analysis. Advances in Consumer Research Vol. 25, No. 1.
Teng, Shasha, Kok Wei Khong, Wei Wei Goh, and Alain Yee Loong Chong. (2014) Examining the
antecedents of persuasive eWOM messages in social media. Online Information Review
Vol. 38, No. 6, pp.746–768.
Tsao, Wen-Chin, and Ming-Tsang Hsieh. (2012) Exploring how relationship quality influences
positive eWOM: the importance of customer commitment. Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence Vol. 23, Nos. 7–8, pp.821–835.
Wang, Richard Y., and Diane M. Strong. (1996) Beyond Accuracy: What data quality means to
data consumers? Journal of management information systems Vol. 12, No. 4, pp.5–33.
Yeh, Yi-Hsin, and Sejung Marina Choi. (2011) MINI-lovers, maxi-mouths: An investigation of
antecedents to eWOM intention among brand community members. Journal of Marketing
Communications Vol. 17, No. 3, pp.145–162.