Original Article

Impact of Electronic Word of Global Business Review

1–15
Mouth on Customers’ Buying © 2020 IMI
Reprints and permissions:
Intention Considering Trust as a [Link]/journals-permissions-india
DOI: 10.1177/0972150920976345
Mediator: A SEM Approach [Link]/home/gbr

Md. Shahed Mahmud1 , Md. Nazmul Islam2, Md. Rostam Ali2 and
Nadia Mehjabin3

Abstract
For customers’ purchasing decisions, word of mouth (WOM) has been considered as one of the
major influential factors. With the rise of Internet-based technology and usage of online-based devices,
customers are now considering online reviews and other users’ e-opinions as one of the significant
sources of information gathering for taking final purchasing decisions. Organizations also emphasize
electronic word of mouth (eWOM) as a major promotional tool for their business. This study aims to
examine the impact of eWOM on customers’ buying intention and tries to determine the mediating
relationship of trust between eWOM and customers’ buying intention. For this, an exploratory study
has been designed using the purposive and convenience sampling technique. With the assistance of a
self-administrated structured questionnaire, a total of 218 respondents’ data were finally selected for
the structural equation model (SEM) analysis. The result of the study reveals that eWOM has a direct
influence on customers’ intention to buy without the presence of the mediator trust. Nevertheless, with
the presence of trust as a mediator, the direct relationship gets weakened, resulting in full mediation.
The study results can contribute both theoretically and practically in many ways.

Keywords
eWOM, trust, customers’ intention, social exchange theory, SEM

Introduction
With the advancement and spread of the Internet over the past decades, the number of online users has
been growing rapidly, which has had a significant influence on different branches of business (Zainal et
al., 2017). To spread product- or service-related information, word of mouth (WOM) has been using
widely across different industries around the world (Abubakar & Ilkan, 2016; Bulut & Karabulut, 2018;

1
Department of Management, Mawlana Bhashani Science and Technology University, Tangail, Bangladesh.
2
Department of Accounting, Mawlana Bhashani Science and Technology University, Tangail, Bangladesh.
3
Department of Business Administration, Mawlana Bhashani Science and Technology University, Tangail, Bangladesh.

Corresponding author:
Md. Shahed Mahmud, Department of Management, Mawlana Bhashani Science and Technology University, Tangail 1902, Bangladesh.
E-mail: [Link]@[Link]
2 Global Business Review

Jacobsen, 2018; Kenton, 2020). With the spread of social media, a new form of WOM called electronic
word of mouth (eWOM) has emerged. Nowadays, many companies in different industries are actively
using social media as an essential tool for reaching their potential and existing customers (Zainal et al.,
2017). Traditionally, WOM occurs when a customer of a products shares their experience or talks about
the product with their friends and family (Kenton, 2020). With the spread of the Internet and social
media, the form of WOM has changed (Jha, 2019). Digital technologies have enabled consumers to share
their acceptance-related opinions, resulting in the creation of eWOM. Hennig-Thurau et al. (2004, p. 39)
defined eWOM communication 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’. In this sense, information sharing through blog sites, different social media
platforms or groups (i.e., Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.), discussion/forum or review sites can be a
source of eWOM (Goldsmith & Horowitz, 2006; Jacobsen, 2018). A wide range of studies from the past
indicate that reference groups are one of the main determiners of shaping consumers’ buying behaviour
(Engel et al., 1993; Hawkins & Mothersbaugh, 2010; Solomon, 1994). Furthermore, while making a
purchasing decision, a customer goes through numerous processes (Kim et al., 2011; Sparks & Browning,
2011; Zainal et al., 2017). Studies show that customers who previously made purchase decisions based
on advertising or any other non-online platform are now making their purchase decisions based on online
reviews (Lee et al., 2008; Roy et al., 2020). Customers are now heavily depending on different online
platforms for gathering information before purchasing products or services and making it an integral part
of the total purchasing decision–making process (Teng et al., 2014; Zhu & Zhang, 2010). However, not
all the comments and reviews on social media are real all the time. Positive comments and reviews online
build trust in products or sellers (Bulut & Karabulut, 2018). Trust, in turn, reduces the perceived risk
among the customers (Handi et al., 2018; Harridge-March, 2006), which ultimately boosts up consumers’
intention to purchase (Bulut & Karabulut, 2018; Fang et al., 2014; Limbu Yam et al., 2012; Seo et al.,
2020). Thus, trust in eWOM (i.e., comments, reviews and even webpage information) can transmit
positivity into the mindset of customers and can play a mediating role on consumers’ buying intention
(Lu et al., 2010; Ng, 2013; Seo et al., 2020; Zainal et al., 2017). Previous researchers, such as Pihlaja et
al. (2017), Seo et al. (2020), Tjhin and Aini (2019), Fan and Miao (2012), Ayeh et al. (2013) and Abubakar
and Ilkan (2016), have examined the relationship of eWOM with customers’ buying intention, but only
a very small portion of the studies considered trust as a mediator. Moreover, most of the studies were
focused on a specific industry (i.e., airline, clothing, tourism, etc.). Thus, this study makes an attempt to
determine the impact of eWOM on customers’ buying intention, at the first place, and then tries to
explore the impact of trust on the stated relationship in a non-industry-specific comprehensive approach.
The study results will be a helpful instrument for marketing-strategy formulators to sketch a better
online-based communication plan for their organizations and at the same time contribute theoretically, as
this study applies the social exchange theory (SET) to portray the eWOM phenomenon.
The rest of the article is structured as follows. First, the objectives of the study are presented, followed
by the sections ‘Literature Review and Hypotheses Development’, ‘Methodology’, ‘Analysis and
Results’ and ‘Discussion’. The article ends with the sections ‘Conclusion and Implications’ and
‘Limitations and Future Research Direction’.

Objectives of the Study

The objectives of this empirical study are twofold. The study aims to investigate, first, whether eWOM
has any impact in shaping customers’ buying intention or not, and second, whether trust has any mediating
effect on the relationship between eWOM and customers’ buying intention.
Mahmud et al. 3

Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

Social Exchange Theory

Although the roots of the SET are embedded in the field of sociology and anthropology, in recent decades,
the theory has been applied in different business-related research studies too (Cook et al., 2013; Coulson
et al., 2014; Nunkoo, 2016; Rubel et al., 2017). SET has been considered as one of the prominent theories
explaining social interaction and social structure (Cook et al., 2013). It postulates that social behaviour
is the aftermath of exchange processes, where peer-to-peer information sharing happens, which permits
the modern way of social interactions (i.e., eWOM) (Abrate & Viglia, 2019; Akarsu et al., 2020; Priporas
et al., 2017). American sociologist George Homans published the primary form of SET, titled ‘Social
Behavior as Exchange’, in 1958. According to Tulane University (2018), ‘Social exchange theory is a
concept based on the notion that a relationship between two people is created through a process of cost-
benefit analysis. In other words, it’s a metric designed to determine the effort poured in by an individual
in a person-to-person relationship’. In the context of this study, the concept of SET fits well, because
positive or negative experiences after using a product can be exchanged through WOM by customers.
Positive WOM results in a good brand image for the product or the organization, and vice versa (Seo et
al., 2020). With the presence of different social media and other means of sharing experiences, customers
can easily influence potential customers and somehow build trust around products, as users continuously
share their experience over different online platforms (Roy et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2017). Besides, in
the field of marketing research, SET has significant influence (Akarsu et al., 2020; Coulson et al., 2014;
Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Lamb et al., 2020; Nunkoo, 2016; Ward & Berno, 2011). Hence, SET has
been considered as the underlying theory of the research hypotheses for this study.

Electronic Word of Mouth and Customers’ Buying Intention

eWOM has been considered as a major tool for exchanging information with diverse audiences both online
and offline at the same time (Hung & Li, 2007; Karakaya & Ganim Barnes, 2010). Because of its flexibility,
the multidimensional nature of online users and eWOM’s relatively lower costs, marketers are continuously
working on developing and applying sustainable eWOM strategies to maximize value for their business
(Babić Rosario et al., 2020; Liousas, 2018; Seo et al., 2020; Zainal et al., 2017). After having some form of
customer experience, customers usually share their thoughts with their surroundings. This trend of sharing
experiences is now shifted to online platforms. Thus, statements online influence potential consumers of a
product (Gruen et al., 2006; Roy et al., 2020; Tsao et al., 2015), although several factors are associated with
eWOM, including pre-purchase expectation and customer happiness, satisfaction or dissatisfaction, for
shaping consumer behaviour (Abubakar et al., 2017; Roy et al., 2017). eWOM, as a form of an online review
platform, serves as a mediator to assist customers in their final purchasing decision, which is supported by
previous studies too (Bronner & de Hoog, 2011; Abubakar et al., 2017; Roy et al., 2020; Smith et al., 2005;
Zainal et al., 2017). Based on the literature, the following hypothesis can be formed (Figure 1):
H1: eWOM has a direct impact on customers’ buying intention.

Trust as a Mediator
Trust is something that a person perceives personally, and it determines the nature of interaction and kind
of information they will reveal to others; it has been considered as one of the major influential factors in
4 Global Business Review

making a purchasing decision (Alhidari & Almeshal, 2017). According to Zainal et al. (2017), ‘trusting
belief represents the confidence in the belief-attitude intention framework’. Not only eWOM but also
brand trust boosts customers’ intention to buy (Esch et al., 2006). When positive WOM is high, there is
a good possibility of getting a positive result in purchasing intention (Lin & Lu, 2010). There is a
generalized concept that trust minimizes customers’ perceived risks (Abubakar & Ilkan, 2016), resulting
in a positive notion to buy (Chiu et al., 2012; Han & Hyun, 2013; Abubakar et al., 2017; Pavlou et al.,
2007). With the assistance of eWOM, potential customers get information about products and make their
purchasing decisions. Thus, in the presence of trust, as it gives a consumer perceived risk–related support,
customers feel more confident about making the final purchasing decision. Therefore, the following
hypothesis can be formed (Figure 1):
H2: Trust mediates the relationship between eWOM and customers’ buying intention.

Methodology

Research Instrument
For data collection, this study used an online-based, self-administrated, structured questionnaire. For
developing the structured questionnaire, a stepwise approach was followed. First of all, an extensive
literature review was done by the authors. After the extensive literature review, some constructs related
to eWOM, WOM, trust and customer intention were identified (Bambauer-Sachse & Mangold, 2011;
Mohammed Abubakar, 2016). Based on the surfed constructs, two idea-sharing sessions were conducted
with 15 customers who had experience purchasing on the basis of online reviews/suggestions. In these
idea-sharing sessions, four academic experts were also present, and they contributed to the discussion.
In light of the discussion and the skimmed constructs, finally, three constructs were taken into
consideration for developing the questionnaire. The final questionnaire was developed in the English
language and reviewed and finalized by the authors. The English version of the questionnaire was then
translated into the Bangla version with the assistance of Bangla-language experts, since the respondents
were from Bangladesh only, with Bangla as their mother tongue, and an online questionnaire was
developed using Google Forms. The questionnaire had two sections. Part A contained demographic
information–related questions, and items related to the three latent variables used in this study were in
Part B (see Appendix 1). A 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree),
was used to measure all items in this study.

Trust

Electronic word of Customers’ buying

mouth (eWOM) intention (CBI)

Figure 1. Proposed Research Model.

Source: The authors.

Mahmud et al. 5

Sample Design and Data Collection

Online users who consider online product reviews for making their purchasing decisions constitute the
population for this study. To achieve the study objective, online users who had recent online-purchasing
experience and considered online reviews in making their purchase decision, from Bangladesh, were
taken as a sample. A purposive and convenience sampling technique (non-probability sampling) was
employed to collect data from the samples. The reason behind choosing the purposive and convenience
sampling technique was that this study collected data only from Bangladeshi respondents and invited
only social media users to fill the questionnaire. The survey questionnaire link was posted on the
authors’ Facebook and LinkedIn profiles, and data were collected between 5 April 2020 and 20 April
2020. The authors also sent the questionnaire link to some respondents privately using Facebook
Messenger. Only Facebook and LinkedIn platforms were used, because in Bangladesh, these two
platforms are widely used. A total of 232 responses were collected during the period. From the 232
responses, finally, 218 (93.96%) responses that met all criteria were employed for analysis. The
remaining 14 responses had to be dropped due to the problem of straightlining (Kim et al., 2019). For
performing an SEM analysis, a sample size of at least 150 was required for this study, as suggested by
Hair et al. (2019, p. 633).

Data Analysis
For performing an SEM analysis, it is essential to know the quality of the collected data. It is important
to assess the common method variance (CMV) at the very first place, because CMV may arise when the
independent and dependent variables’ respondents are the same person and when for collecting data a
self-administrated questionnaire is used (Podsakoff et al., 2003). As this study used a similar procedure
for collecting data, Harman’s single-factor test was performed to assess CMV. From the factor analysis,
if a single factor is found to represent a major share of variance, then common method biases are indicated
(Podsakoff et al., 2003). By applying principal-axis factoring with a fixed number (1) of factor extractions
and no rotation, a CMV analysis was performed for this study. The 41.69% variance extraction sums of
squared loadings revealed that CMV is not a very big issue for this study, as the threshold level is 50%
(Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Again, the normality of the data needs to be confirmed before performing an SEM analysis, because
SEM is based on covariance structure (Byrne, 2016) and thus both univariate and multivariate normality
statuses need to be confirmed.
Table 1 represents the assessment of normality. For univariate statistics, univariate kurtosis value and
its critical ratio (CR) (z-value) were analysed first (last two columns of Table 1). Table 1 shows that
positive values range from 0.005 to 1.104 and negative values from −0.777 to −0.007, yielding an overall
mean univariate kurtosis value of 0.149. In a normal distribution, the standard kurtosis index (β2) has a
value of 3 (although West et al., 1995 suggested the value of 7), whereby a larger value represents
positive kurtosis and a smaller value represents negative kurtosis. Considering the edge, it is seen from
Table 1 that no item was found to be substantially kurtotic.
Again, univariate normality does not secure multivariate normality (Byrne, 2016; West et al., 1995).
Thus, it is necessary to check the index of multivariate kurtosis and its CR, which appear at the bottom
of the kurtosis and CR columns of Table 1, respectively. Bentler (2005) suggested that normalized
estimates greater than 5.00 indicate non-normality of the data. In this study, the z-statistic (CR of
multivariate) is 17.664, which suggests the presence of multivariate non-normality in the sample.
6 Global Business Review

Table 1. Assessment of Normality.

Variable Min. Max. Skew CR Kurtosis CR

CBI_3 1 5 −0.427 −2.576 −0.007 −0.022
CBI_2 1 5 −0.618 −3.723 0.646 1.948
CBI_1 1 5 −0.78 −4.701 0.714 2.151
TRUST_1 1 5 −0.8 −4.819 0.547 1.649
TRUST_2 1 5 −0.074 −0.448 −0.745 −2.245
TRUST_3 1 5 −0.593 −3.577 0.076 0.228
TRUST_4 1 5 −0.289 −1.74 −0.173 −0.522
eWOM_5 1 5 −0.109 −0.657 −0.777 −2.342
eWOM_4 1 5 −0.708 −4.27 0.005 0.014
eWOM_3 1 5 0.26 1.565 −0.625 −1.883
eWOM_2 1 5 −1.042 −6.282 1.104 3.328
eWOM_1 1 5 −1.087 −6.554 1.018 3.069
Multivariate 43.859 17.664
Source: The authors.

Table 2. Respondents’ Descriptive Profile (n = 218).

Variable Attribute Frequency Percentage

Male 103 47.20
Gender
Female 115 52.80
18–35 years 204 93.60
Age Range 36–50 years 12 05.50
51–60 years 02 0.90
Secondary 06 02.80
Higher secondary 27 12.40
Education
Undergraduate 133 61.00
Postgraduate 52 23.90
Less than 1 hour 20 09.20
1–2 hours 116 53.20
Average time spent in social
3–5 hours 66 30.30
media (daily)
6–8 hours 12 05.50
More than 8 hours 04 01.80
Source: The authors.

For handling multivariate non-normal data, the researchers such as Hancock and Liu (2012), West et
al. (1995), Zhu (1997) and Kline (2011) suggested a bootstrapping method for testing the hypothesized
model. Thus, for this study, a bootstrap of 5,000 samples with 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals
were used for analyzing the structural model (Bollen & Stine, 1992, 1993; Byrne, 2016).
Mahmud et al. 7

Table 3. Model Fit Measures.

Measure Estimate Threshold Interpretation

CMIN 69.562
df 49.000
CMIN/df 1.420 Between 1 and 3 Acceptable range
CFI 0.975 >0.95 Acceptable range
SRMR 0.051 <0.08 Acceptable range
RMSEA 0.044 <0.06 Acceptable range
PClose 0.645 >0.05 Acceptable range
Source: The authors.

In this study, to import data from the online survey and primary analysis, the IBM SPSS software was
used, whereas the IBM AMOS v24 software was used for the multivariate data analysis.

Analysis and Results

Demographic Profile
The demographic profiling of the respondents is illustrated in Table 2. From the collected data, finally,
218 respondents’ responses were considered for further analysis. From Table 2, it is seen that there were
nearly an equal number of male (47.20%) and female (52.80%) respondents. Most of the respondents lay
in the 18–35 age range, and regarding education level, most of them had completed undergraduate- and
postgraduate-level education. While reporting on the average time spent on social media (daily), the
respondents said that on average, they spent 1–2 hours on different social media platforms.

The Measures of Model Fit

It is necessary to assess the association between the latent variables and their items for having a good
model fit and structural relationship. For this study, three latent variables (12 questions) were taken into
consideration for further processing. Table 3 illustrates the different model fit indicators.
From Table 3, it can be concluded that the study questions/items of latent variables pass through all
the major model fit indicators suggested by Gaskin and Lim (2016), Hair et al. (2019), Hu and Bentler
(1999) and Malhotra and Dash (2016).

The Results of the Measurement Model

Before assessing the structural model, it is necessary to assess the measurement model. Table 4 illustrates
the reliability and validity of the measurement model.
Table 4 illustrates the different measures of the measurement model. The estimate or standard loading
of each item ranges from 0.49 to 0.80. The recommended standard loading estimate is 0.50 or higher
(Hair et al., 2019; Malhotra & Dash, 2016). From Table 4, it can be seen that almost all the items’ loading
8 Global Business Review

passes through the edge. For measuring reliability, Cronbach’s alpha has been considered as another
prominent criterion. The value of Cronbach’s alpha ranges from 0 to 1, and 0.60 is considered as the
floor, as suggested by Hair et al. (2019). From Table 4, it is seen that the Cronbach’s alpha values are in
the acceptable range. Finally, CR and average variance extracted (AVE) are evaluated. The lower
boundaries for CR and AVE are 0.70 and 0.50, respectively, as suggested by Hair et al. (2019). However,
Malhotra and Dash (2016) stated that ‘AVE is a more conservative measure than CR’; thus, based on the
values of CR, it can be concluded that the constructs are valid and reliable. Hence, this study fulfils all
the necessary requirements for the structural model.

The Results of the Structural Model

For the structural model, this study applied a bootstrapping method (the rationale for applying the method
is described in the ‘Methodology’ section). After performing a bootstrap of 5,000 samples with 95%
bias-corrected confidence intervals, the results of the structural relationship were found.

Table 4. The Items’ Estimate and the Constructs’ Cronbach’s Alpha, AVE and CR.

Cronbach’s Construct Average Variance

Constructs Items Estimate Alpha (α) Reliability (CR) Extracted (AVE)
eWOM_1 0.58
eWOM_2 0.49
Electronic word
eWOM_3 0.51 0.71 0.70 0.32
of mouth
eWOM_4 0.64
eWOM_5 0.61
TRUST_1 0.68
TRUST_2 0.57
Trust 0.73 0.75 0.44
TRUST_3 0.78
TRUST_4 0.59
Customer CBI_1 0.80
buying CBI_2 0.72 0.72 0.74 0.49
intention CBI_3 0.56
Source: The authors.

Table 5 presents the results of the structural model. From the results, it is found that eWOM has a
significant direct impact on customers’ buying intention. Thus, H1 is supported statistically.
In contrast, in the presence of trust as a mediator, it can be seen that the relationship between eWOM
and customers’ buying intention gets weak, as trust has a full-mediation effect on the relationship. In full
mediation, in the presence of mediator(s), a significant direct relationship is converted into a non-
significant relationship (Gunzler et al., 2013). In this study, initially, it was found that without the
presence of a mediator, eWOM significantly impacted customers’ buying intention. However, in the
presence of a mediator (trust), the original relationship became non-significant. Thus, the indirect
relationship was analysed (Malhotra & Dash, 2016), the results of which are shown in Table 6.
Mahmud et al. 9

Table 5. The Result of the Structural Model.

Hypothesis Paths Estimate SE CR p-Value Result

Effect of eWOM on customers’ buying intention (before mediation)
H1 CBI ← eWOM 1.122 0.174 6.442 0.000*** H1 is supported
Effect of eWOM on customers’ buying intention (after mediation)
Trust ← eWOM 0.966 0.150 6.431 0.000***
H2 is supported,
H2 CBI ← eWOM −0.133 0.391 −0.339 0.735
with full mediation
CBI ← Trust 1.213 0.385 3.149 0.002**
Source: The authors.
Note: Significance of the estimates: ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; and *p < 0.05.

Table 6. Indirect Effect of the Model.

Indirect Effect
Unstandardized Standardized
Indirect Path Lower Upper p-Value
Estimate Estimate
eWOM → Trust → CBI 1.172 0.897* 0.598 3.32 0.019*
Source: The authors.
Note: Significance of the estimates: ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; and *p < 0.05.

Figure 2. The Results of the Structural Model.

Source: The authors.

On testing the indirect relationship (Table 6), it was found that with the presence of the mediator
(trust), the direct relationship between eWOM and customers’ buying intention became insignificant
and creates a full-mediation relationship at the 95% significance level, whereby the standardized
estimate was 0.897 and the unstandardized estimate was 1.172. The structural model of this analysis
illustrated in Figure 2.
10 Global Business Review

Discussion
Customers’ buying intention is mostly influenced by reference groups, which is supported by previous
studies too. Traditionally, different reference groups play the role of influencing customers to choose a
product to buy through WOM, but with the emergence of Internet-based technology, the online form of
WOM, or eWOM, has emerged. This study empirically tested hypotheses based on SET. The empirical
results found that eWOM has a direct impact on customers’ buying intention, but with the presence of
trust, the relationship took on a different dimension. With the presence of trust as a mediator, the direct
relationship between eWOM and customers’ buying intention weakened, resulting in full mediation,
which means that eWOM somehow builds trust among consumers and influences them in their buying
decisions. If trust positively affects the consumers’ minds, then their buying intention gets a positive
turn, and vice versa. Thus, organizations should employ eWOM strategies very carefully, because if
customers’ trust fades, then it will negatively affect their eWOM and the future buying behaviour of the
customers.

Conclusion and Implications

While considering customers’ buying intention, WOM has been considered as a major influential factor.
With the upsurge of Internet-based technology, the dominance of eWOM has been witnessed, and
eWOM has created a new horizon that has empowered customers in many ways. Both positive and
negative reviews have a critical impact on customers’ purchasing decisions. Customers feel discouraged
from making a final purchase decision after being exposed to unfavourable reviews or information about
products and services from other customers. Negative eWOM has a deeper impact on customers’ mind
than positive eWOM. The empirical results of this study indicate that without building trust among the
customers’ minds, only eWOM cannot ensure a better result for the organization. Thus, marketers should
adopt eWOM strategies in spreading information about their products among potential customers and
must place emphasis on building trust among the customer base by providing reliable, consistent and
valid information.
This study’s results have both theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, the study results
will contribute to the understanding of the impact of eWOM on customers’ buying intention with a
mediator (trust) through the lens of SET. Only a handful of studies have applied SET in research related
to the relationship between eWOM and customers’ buying intention. Thus, this study aimed to add some
different flavours in this regard. On the other hand, practically, the study’s results provide insights for
marketing practitioners. Marketing practitioners, especially those working in product planning and
promotional strategy development–related tasks, can develop a good understanding from this study for
formulating and implementing better strategies to sustain in the market in the long run.

Limitations and Future Research Direction

Despite its noteworthy findings, this study also has some limitations, especially with regard to the sample
size. Though this study passed through the threshold of minimum sample size, it would be better to have
a larger sample size, which might reduce the multivariate non-normality of the data. Again, this study
examines the impact of eWOM on customers’ buying intention with the presence of a mediator. Future
Mahmud et al. 11

researchers can consider this limitation and can explore the moderating effect of trust. Furthermore, a
multi-group analysis can be performed to explore the effects of different age or income groups. A cross-
cultural or multinational analysis can also provide a wider exposure to the concept.

Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees of the journal for their extremely useful suggestions to improve
the quality of the article. Usual disclaimers apply.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of
this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Appendix 1. Measurement Items.

eWOM_1 I read/watch review before purchasing any product.

I always care about the experience of other users who have used the
eWOM_2
product beforehand.
Electronic Before making a purchasing decision of any product, I even have a chat or
eWOM_3
word of mouth make conversation with a reviewer regarding the product.
(eWOM)
I frequently gather information about different products online to enrich
eWOM_4
my knowledge.
I feel indecisive or in discomfort if I do not read/ watch other users’ online
eWOM_5
reviews.
When I shop for a product, online reviews on social media or webpages
TRUST_1
make me confident to purchase the product.

Trust TRUST_2 I prefer online review more than a brand for my purchasing decision.
TRUST_3 Reviewers’ ratings of the user affect my purchasing decision.
TRUST_4 I believe that product reviews on the Internet are true and accurate.
While buying a product, the positive or negative reviews online affect my
CBI_1
buying decision.
Customers’
buying CBI_2 In my future purchase, I will always give priority to online reviews.
intention (CBI)
After purchasing and using a product, I will also leave my review/feedback
CBI_3
online, so that potential buyers can learn about the product quality.
Source: Bambauer-Sachse and Mangold (2011), Mohammed Abubakar (2016).

ORCID iDs
Md. Shahed Mahmud [Link]
Md. Rostam Ali [Link]
12 Global Business Review

References
Abrate, G., & Viglia, G. (2019). Personal or product reputation? Optimizing revenues in the sharing economy.
Journal of Travel Research, 58(1), 136–148. [Link]
Abubakar, A. M., & Ilkan, M. (2016). Impact of online WOM on destination trust and intention to travel: A medical
tourism perspective. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 5(3), 192–201. [Link]
jdmm.2015.12.005
Abubakar, A. M., Ilkan, M., Meshall Al-Tal, R., & Eluwole, K. K. (2017). eWOM, revisit intention, destination trust
and gender. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 31, 220–227. [Link]
jhtm.2016.12.005
Akarsu, T. N., Foroudi, P., & Melewar, T. C. (2020). What makes Airbnb likeable? Exploring the nexus between
service attractiveness, country image, perceived authenticity and experience from a social exchange theory
perspective within an emerging economy context. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 91, 102635.
[Link]
Alhidari, A. M., & Almeshal, S. A. (2017). Determinants of purchase intention in Saudi Arabia: A moderating role
of gender. Journal of Economics, Management and Trade, 17(2), 1–10.
Ayeh, J. K., Au, N., & Law, R. (2013). Predicting the intention to use consumer-generated media for travel planning.
Tourism Management, 35, 132–143. [Link]
Babić Rosario, A., de Valck, K., & Sotgiu, F. (2020). Conceptualizing the electronic word-of-mouth process: What
we know and need to know about eWOM creation, exposure, and evaluation. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 48(3), 422–448. [Link]
Bambauer-Sachse, S., & Mangold, S. (2011). Brand equity dilution through negative online word-of-mouth
communication. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 18(1), 38–45. [Link]
jretconser.2010.09.003
Bentler, P. M. (2005). EQS 6 Structural equations program manual. Multivariate Software INC.
Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. A. (1992). Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit measures in structural equation models.
Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 205–229. [Link]
Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. A. (1993). Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit measures in structural equation modeling. In K.
A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 111–135). SAGE Publications.
Bronner, F., & de Hoog, R. (2011). Vacationers and eWOM: Who posts, and why, where, and what? Journal of
Travel Research, 50(1), 15–26.
Bulut, Z. A., & Karabulut, A. N. (2018). Examining the role of two aspects of eWOM in online repurchase intention:
An integrated trust–loyalty perspective. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 17(4), 407–417. [Link]
org/10.1002/cb.1721
Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming
(3rd ed.). Routledge.
Chiu, C., Hsu, M., Lai, H., & Chang, C. (2012). Re-examining the influence of trust on online repeat purchase
intention: The moderating role of habit and its antecedents. Decision Support Systems, 53(4), 835–845.
Cook, K. S., Cheshire, C., Rice, E. R. W., & Nakagawa, S. (2013). Social exchange theory. In J. DeLamater & A.
Ward (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 61–88). Springer.
Coulson, A. B., MacLaren, A. C., McKenzie, S., & O’Gorman, K. D. (2014). Hospitality codes and social exchange
theory: The Pashtunwali and tourism in Afghanistan. Tourism Management, 45, 134–141. [Link]
org/10.1016/[Link].2014.03.019
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of
Management, 31(6), 874–900. [Link]
Engel, J., Blackwell, R., & Miniard, P. (1993). Consumer behavior (7th ed.). Dryden Press. [cités par Laroche et al,
2003]
Esch, F. R., Langner, T., Schmitt, B. H., & Geus, P. (2006). Are brands forever? How brand knowledge and
relationships affect current and future purchases. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 15, 98–105.
Mahmud et al. 13

Fan, Y.-W., & Miao, Y.-F. (2012). Effect of electronic word-of-mouth on consumer purchase intention: The
perspective of gender differences. International Journal of Electronic Business Management, 10(3), 175.
Fang, Y., Qureshi, I., Sun, H., McCole, P., Ramsey, E., & Lim, K. H. (2014). Trust, satisfaction, and online repurchase
intention: The moderating role of perceived effectiveness of e-Commerce institutional mechanisms. MIS
Quarterly, 38(2), 407–A409. [Link]
Gaskin, J., & Lim, J. (2016). Model fit measures. AMOS Plugin. [Link]
php?title=References#Model_Fit
Goldsmith, R. E., & Horowitz, D. (2006). Measuring motivations for online opinion seeking. Journal of Interactive
Advertising, 6(2), 2–14. [Link]
Gruen, T. W., Osmonbekov, T., & Czaplewski, A. J. (2006). eWOM: The impact of customer-to-customer online
know-how exchange on customer value and loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 59(4), 449–456. [Link]
org/10.1016/[Link].2005.10.004
Gunzler, D., Chen, T., Wu, P., & Zhang, H. (2013). Introduction to mediation analysis with structural equation
modeling. Shanghai Archives of Psychiatry, 25(6), 390–394. [Link]
issn.1002-0829.2013.06.009
Hair Jr, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage
Learning, EMEA.
Han, H., & Hyun, S. (2013). Image congruence and relationship quality in predicting switching intention:
Conspicuousness of product use as a moderator variable. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 37(3),
303–329.
Hancock, G. R., & Liu, M. (2012). Bootstrapping standard errors and data-model fit statistics in structural equation
modelling. In R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of structural equation modeling. (pp. 296–306). The Guilford
Press.
Handi, H., Hendratono, T., Purwanto, E., & Ihalauw, J. J. (2018). The effect of E-WOM and perceived value on the
purchase decision of foods by using the Go-Food application as mediated by trust. Quality Innovation Prosperity,
22(2), 112–127.
Harridge-March, S. (2006). Can the building of trust overcome consumer perceived risk online? Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, 24(7), 746–761. [Link]
Hawkins, D. I., & Mothersbaugh, D. L. (2010). Consumer behavior: Building marketing strategy. McGraw-Hill
Irwin.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004). Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-
opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the Internet? Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 18(1), 38–52. [Link]
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://
[Link]/10.1080/10705519909540118
Hung, K. H., & Li, S. Y. (2007). The influence of eWOM on virtual consumer communities: Social capital, consumer
learning, and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Advertising Research, 47(4), 485–495.
Jacobsen, S. (2018). Why did I buy this? The effect of WOM and online reviews on post purchase attribution for
product outcomes. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 12(3), 370–395. [Link]
JRIM-12-2017-0102
Jha, B. (2019). The role of social media communication: Empirical study of online purchase intention of financial
products. Global Business Review, 20(6), 1445–1461. [Link]
Karakaya, F., & Ganim Barnes, N. (2010). Impact of online reviews of customer care experience on brand or
company selection. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27(5), 447–457. [Link]
org/10.1108/07363761011063349
Kenton, W. (2020). Word-of-mouth marketing (WOM Marketing). [Link]
[Link]
14 Global Business Review

Kim, M.-J., Chung, N., & Lee, C.-K. (2011). The effect of perceived trust on electronic commerce: Shopping online
for tourism products and services in South Korea. Tourism Management, 32(2), 256–265. [Link]
org/10.1016/[Link].2010.01.011
Kim, Y., Dykema, J., Stevenson, J., Black, P., & Moberg, D. P. (2019). Straightlining: Overview of measurement,
comparison of indicators, and effects in mail–web mixed-mode surveys. Social Science Computer Review,
37(2), 214–233. [Link]
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guildford.
Lamb, Y., Cai, W., & McKenna, B. (2020). Exploring the complexity of the individualistic culture through social
exchange in online reviews. International Journal of Information Management, 54. [Link]
ijinfomgt.2020.102198
Lee, J., Park, D.-H., & Han, I. (2008). The effect of negative online consumer reviews on product attitude: An
information processing view. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 7(3), 341–352. [Link]
org/10.1016/[Link].2007.05.004
Limbu Yam, B., Wolf, M., & Lunsford, D. (2012). Perceived ethics of online retailers and consumer behavioral
intentions: The mediating roles of trust and attitude. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 6(2), 133–
154. [Link]
Lin, L., & Lu, C. (2010). The influence of corporate image, relationship marketing, and trust on purchase intention:
The moderating effects of word-of-mouth. Tourism Review, 65(3), 16–34.
Liousas, E. A. (2018). Ratings & reviews: What’s old should be new again. [Link]
whats-old-should-be-new-again/
Lu, Y., Zhao, L., & Wang, B. (2010). From virtual community members to C2C e-commerce buyers: Trust in virtual
communities and its effect on consumers’ purchase intention. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications,
9(4), 346–360. [Link]
Malhotra, N. K., & Dash, S. (2016). Marketing research: An applied orientation (7th ed.). Pearson India Education
Services Pvt. Ltd.
Mohammed Abubakar, A. (2016). Does eWOM influence destination trust and travel intention: a medical tourism
perspective. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 29(1), 598–611. [Link]
77X.2016.1189841
Ng, C. S.-P. (2013). Intention to purchase on social commerce websites across cultures: A cross-regional study.
Information & Management, 50(8), 609–620. [Link]
Nunkoo, R. (2016). Toward a more comprehensive use of social exchange theory to study residents’ attitudes to
tourism. Procedia Economics and Finance, 39, 588–596. [Link]
Pavlou, P. A., Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2007). Understanding and mitigating uncertainty in online exchange relationships:
A principal-agent perspective. MIS Quarterly, 31, 105–136.
Pihlaja, J., Saarijärvi, H., Spence, M. T., & Yrjölä, M. (2017). From electronic WOM to social eWOM: Bridging the
trust deficit. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 25(4), 340–356. [Link]
2017.1345593
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),
879–903. [Link]
Priporas, C.-V., Stylos, N., Rahimi, R., & Vedanthachari Lakshmi, N. (2017). Unraveling the diverse nature of
service quality in a sharing economy: A social exchange theory perspective of Airbnb accommodation.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(9), 2279–2301. [Link]
IJCHM-08-2016-0420
Roy, G., Basu, R., & Ray, S. (2020). Antecedents of online purchase intention among ageing consumers. Global
Business Review, 0(0), 0972150920922010. [Link]
Roy, G., Datta, B., & Basu, R. (2017). Effect of eWOM valence on online retail sales. Global Business Review,
18(1), 198–209. [Link]
Rubel, M. R. B., Rimi, N. N., & Walters, T. (2017). Roles of emerging HRM and employee commitment: Evidence
from the Banking Industry of Bangladesh. Global Business Review, 18(4), 876–894. [Link]
org/10.1177/0972150917692223
Mahmud et al. 15

Seo, E. J., Park, J.-W., & Choi, Y. J. (2020). The effect of social media usage characteristics on e-WOM, trust, and
brand equity: Focusing on users of airline social media. Sustainability, 12(4), 1691.
Smith, D., Menon, S., & Sivakumar, K. (2005). Online peer and editorial recommendations, trust, and choice in
virtual markets. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19(3), 15–37. [Link]
Solomon, M. R. (1994). Buying, having and being. Prenticle Hall.
Sparks, B. A., & Browning, V. (2011). The impact of online reviews on hotel booking intentions and perception of
trust. Tourism Management, 32(6), 1310–1323. [Link]
Teng, S., Wei Khong, K., Wei Goh, W., & Yee Loong Chong, A. (2014). Examining the antecedents of persuasive
eWOM messages in social media. Online Information Review, 38(6), 746–768. [Link]
OIR-04-2014-0089
Tjhin, V. U., & Aini, S. R. N. (2019). Effect of E-WOM and social media usage on purchase decision in Clothing
Industry. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2019 5th International Conference on E-business and Mobile
Commerce, Taichung, Taiwan. [Link]
Tsao, W.-C., Hsieh, M.-T., Shih, L.-W., & Lin, T. M. Y. (2015). Compliance with eWOM: The influence of hotel
reviews on booking intention from the perspective of consumer conformity. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 46, 99–111. [Link]
Tulane University. (2018). What is social exchange theory? [Link]
social-exchange-theory
Ward, C., & Berno, T. (2011). Beyond social exchange theory: Attitudes toward tourists. Annals of Tourism Research,
38(4), 1556–1569. [Link]
West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and
remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. (pp. 56–75).
SAGE Publications.
Zainal, N. T. A., Harun, A., & Lily, J. (2017). Examining the mediating effect of attitude towards electronic words-of
mouth (eWOM) on the relation between the trust in eWOM source and intention to follow eWOM among
Malaysian travellers. Asia Pacific Management Review, 22(1), 35–44. [Link]
apmrv.2016.10.004
Zhang, T., Abound Omran, B., & Cobanoglu, C. (2017). Generation Y’s positive and negative eWOM: use of social
media and mobile technology. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(2), 732–
761. [Link]
Zhu, W. (1997). Making bootstrap statistical inferences: A tutorial. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,
68(1), 44–55. [Link]
Zhu, F., & Zhang, X. (2010). Impact of online consumer reviews on sales: The moderating role of product and
consumer characteristics. Journal of Marketing, 74(2), 133–148. [Link]