4.1 Article

How collectivistic values affect online word-of-mouth

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MARKET RESEARCH
Volume 63, Issue 4, Pages 436-453

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1470785320929200

Keywords

collectivism; culture; eWOM; homophily; social media; social networking sites

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available