What is the role of personality traits on the
relationship between emotions and motives
to engage in negative O-WOM?
Master thesis
Author: Ramon Johannes Scholten
University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics and Business Student number: 5981034
Date July 5th, 2014
Table of Contents
Abstract ... 4
Introduction ... 4
Literature review ... 7
Negative O-WOM... 7
Motives to engage in negative O-WOM ... 8
Emotions ... 10
Difference between anger and disappointment ... 12
Differences between the relationship of emotions and motives ... 13
Personality traits ... 16
Personality traits towards motives ... 18
Moderator effect of Personality traits on the emotions-motives relationship ... 20
Method ... 26
Measures ... 26
Participants ... 29
Results ... 29
Reported negative experiences ... 29
Analyses of the hypotheses ... 30
Emotions-motives relationships ... 31
Main-effect of personality traits ... 38
Neuroticism ... 38
Extraversion ... 39
Agreeableness ... 40
Moderator effect of personality traits ... 41
Neuroticism as a moderator ... 41
Extraversion as a moderator ... 42
Agreeableness as moderator ... 43
Discussion ... 45
Emotions-motives relationships ... 45
Main-effects of personality traits ... 50
Implications ... 56
Limitations and future research ... 57
References ... 59
Appendices... 62
Appendix 1: The survey ... 62
Appendix 2: Measurement items motives (Wetzer et al., 2007) ... 72
Appendix 3: Measurement items personality traits (Buchanan et al., 2005) ... 73
Abstract
Online word of mouth (O-WOM) has a high potential to influence the revenues of
companies. In addition to understand what drives different consumers to engage in O-WOM, and what are they willing to achieve, it is necessary to conduct more specific research. This study focuses on the influence personality traits may have in a direct and moderating way on the intentions for consumers to engage in O-WOM. The results reveal that the personality traits influences the motives directly and in a moderating way. This in turn leads to
enhancement of prior research and explanations on how the emotions of anger and disappointment differ on their motives.
Introduction
Over the last decade a lot of new media channels, like Facebook and Twitter, emerged and enabled customer to gather and exchange information about product experiences with companies and other (potential) consumers (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010). The evolution of web 2.0 changed the traditional WOM, by developing one-to-many communication into many-to-many communication (Oosterveer, 2011). Consumers are provided with an easy to access and big amount of data about companies and their products (Verhagen et al., 2013). On the other side, customers are not just audience anymore, they are enabled to interact and communicate freely on the internet. This provides customers with the ability to share their opinions and experiences about products and companies to a wider public and in a way which is more viral than ever before (Oosterveer, 2011).
Nowadays, more and more consumers use social media to distribute unfavorable experiences with others, which is called negative online word-of-mouth (negative O-WOM). Given that social media is easy to access and that it provides consumers with more anonymity, the potential to share negative O-WOM via the social media is relatively high. Sharing negative O-WOM can influence other (potential) consumers in a viral way due to the high network density of the internet, which in turn has the potential to damage a company directly or indirectly within a short period of time (Verhagen et al., 2013). The aspect of O-WOM being viral, can be explained by the statement of Jansen et al. (2009) and (Duan et al., 2008), who state that customers do not only rely on their social network anymore, but also trust opinions of others who are outside their own social network.
Because web 2.0 changed the traditional WOM and negative O-WOM can influence other consumers in a viral way, which in turn could lead to decreased revenues of a company, it is important to increase our understand of negative emotions which are at the roots of these damages (Verhagen et al., 2013). By overcoming these damages, it isn’t enough for companies to just reticence and wait till it will blow over. Companies need to be responsive or proactive towards negative O-WOM to avoid or decrease damage to the company (Van Laer et al., 2010). Hong et al. (2005) found that interventions of companies in O-WOM could have a positive influence on the brand image and (potential) customers. However, interventions in negative O-WOM may also backfires the company. In the case the response is not in line with the motive of the customer, the intervention could lead to even more negative O-WOM in turn (Lee et al,. 2010).
Because of the great impact negative O-WOM can have on a company and its (potential) customers, it is essential for companies to have an as deep as possible understanding about when and why consumers engage in O-WOM, and above this how this differs per customer (Wetzer et al., 2007). By doing so, companies get the possibility to react more accurate and specific towards negative O-WOM, detect potential threats in an earlier stage and work more effectively and efficiently to overcome damage that could occur due to negative O-WOM or a wrong intervention.
Previous research mainly considered the effect of negative O-WOM on those who are confronted by it, leaving a gap with the focus on the sender (Verhagen et al., 2013; Yap et al., 2013). Moore et al. (2012) state that the personalities of consumers are major predictors of their internet usage motives. Because prior research left a gap with a specific focus on the sender, while personality trait is shown to be a major predictor, this research will test the influence of personality traits on negative O-WOM intentions.
The motives to engage in negative O-WOM serve different goals. One person may have the intention to strengthen a social relationship through bonding, while another has the intention to harm somebody by taking revenge. More importantly, these goals are dependent for the severity of damage it could do to a company (Wetzer et al., 2007). Because of this it is important to understand what differentiates consumers to have different intentions for negative O-WOM engagement. This in turn could help the company to understand the goal a customer want to achieve by negative O-WOM engagement, and by doing so intervene more
specific towards a certain negative O-WOM situation without getting backfired (Lee et al., 2010).
So this research will focus on the sender, the negative emotions and motives to negative O-WOM engagement, and the influence of personality traits on these relationships. This is done to deepen our understanding about the negative O-WOM antecedents in a more specific way. More specific, this research will try to answer the following research question:
Do the motives to engage in negative O-WOM differ for the emotions of anger
and disappointment? And what is the moderating effect of personality traits on
this relationship?
The information that this study will provide is of theoretical and managerial interest. From the perspective of theoretical interest, this study will fill up a gap in the current literature. The current study will look more specific to the relations between emotions and motives to engage in negative O-WOM. This is especially done with the inclusion of personality traits, for which is expected to have an influence on the relationship between negative emotions and motives to engage in O-WOM. By the inclusion of personality traits, an increased understanding is gained in how a person can differ on their motive to engage in negative O-WOM while experiencing the same emotion. The inclusion of personality traits broadens our understanding in how the motives for negative O-WOM intentions can be explained not just by emotions but also by the interaction with different personality traits. In this way, a deeper understanding is gained in how different emotions could lead to certain motives and how this differs among personality traits. Specific research on which emotions leads to which motives is largely neglected in prior research (Matzler et al., 2005; Wetzer et al., 2007; Ferguson et al., 2010; Moore et al., 2012; Chang et al., 2013). By implementing a more specific and extended focus in this paper compared to prior research, the current knowledge in O-WOM is brought into more detail. This point leads us directly to the managerial contribution. By getting more details, due to testing the influence of personalities, managers will be provided with more accurate information that will help them to make better decisions on how to respond to, or overcome negative O-WOM (Wetzer et al., 2007). By recognizing differences between customers and their potential behaviors, an intervention by a company can be more precisely attached to a specific situation. This would be an outcome of having a better
understanding what influence what exactly and above all why and how for who. By doing so, the negative consequences can be overcome or reduced more effectively and faster.
This study is structured in the following order; the next chapter reviews the literature that this research is based on. The literature review will discuss prior research on the motives to engage, the emotions that lead to certain motives and the influence of personality traits on the motives. The literature review will flow into the hypotheses and conceptual model that will be researched in this paper. The method section follows after the literature review and will explain which measures were used and how the research is done according to the survey and its participants. The method section will flow into the analysis of the data in the results chapter. This thesis will end with a discussion of the findings, the limitations, the implications and suggestions for future research.
Literature review
Negative O-WOM
The traditional WOM in an offline atmosphere already indicated that WOM conversations had a significant influence on a consumer’s overall buying behavior (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004). The internet increased this influence of WOM by making it easier to communicate with others, eroding barriers as anonymity and distance, increased availability over time and by doing so increased the amount of data available for customers overall (Zhu et al., 2010). While O-WOM can be as well positive as negative, prior research indicates that especially negative O-WOM has a strong significant effect on another consumer’s behavior (Lee et al., 2010). This in turn leads to the need for companies to invest in ‘their’ social media by setting up specialized teams to deal with the O-WOM (De Vries et al., 2012). This is done with the ideology to reduce the negative influence on other (potential) consumers before it becomes viral and has a high damage potential (Verhagen et al., 2013). In general, negative O-WOM is the consequence of a negative experience in the consumption process of consumer, mostly due to dysfunctioning of the product or dissatisfaction in the customer service (Verhagen et al., 2013).
Overall there are three groups of consumers involved with negative O-WOM, namely; the observer, the replier and the sender (Lee et al., 2010). The latter group is of major interest in this research due to the fact that it is the starting point of a negative O-WOM, which can
become viral and a critical factor to a company (Lee et al., 2010). The sender, also called complainer, is the consumers that post the initial report. The sender has, in most situations, already directly complained towards the provider and his next step is showing the dissatisfaction by actively engaging in negative O-WOM (Lee et al., 2010). By having an as deep as possible understanding of the sender, companies are provided with a better insight on how to react to or overcome negative O-WOM as soon and effective as possible (Lee et al., 2010).
From the perspective of relationship marketing and the above being said, O-WOM is an internet customer communication tool for customers to report and/or interact about their consumption experience on the internet, for several motives and in several roles (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004). Building further on this definition and with the focus of this research on the sender, negative O-WOM in this research will refer to:
Any negative report by a former, current or potential consumer about a product- or company due to dissatisfaction in the total consumption process which in turn is made public through
the online platform.
Motives to engage in negative O-WOM
While the internet is relatively new, and by doing so the O-WOM, a lot of research has been conducted in this broad, interesting and influential topic (Wetzer et al., 2007). Before negative WOM actually occurs, there must be a reason or motive to engage in negative O-WOM. Most of prior research on the motives to engage in O-WOM took a general and overlapping approach towards diversity in motives, which developed over time in a more specific approach (Zeelenberg et al., 2004; Wetzer et al., 2007; Verhagen et al., 2013).
It were for example Balasubramanian et al. (2001) who state that there were three distinctive types of motives to engage in negative O-WOM, namely; focus-related utility, consumption utility and approval utility. The former motive stands for adding value for other consumers and the company by engaging in O-WOM. The consumption utility has the goal to motivate consumers to write comments, which in turn create advice for other consumers or the company. The last utility, the approval utility, is concerned with the approval of their own (negative) experiences by other customer for the reason of self-enhancement (Balasubramanian et al., 2001).
Hennig-Thurau et al. (2004) agreed with Balasubramanian et al. (2001), but further extend the motives by adding two additional motives; moderator-related utility and homeostase utility. The former is concerned with a third party that can erode barriers of engagement. The latter is concerned with the need of balance in the human being. This is based on the Balance Theory, which indicates that when equilibrium is distorted it needs to be restored by a counter action, which could lead to a certain motive to engage (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004; Lee et al., 2010). For example, if dissatisfaction occurs in a consumption experience which results in feeling frustrated, negative O-WOM can reduce this frustration by venting, which in turn will restore a consumer’s emotional equilibrium (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004).
However, it were Wetzer et al. (2007) who mentioned that a more specific approach is needed to increase our understanding of the relationships between emotions and motives for negative O-WOM. By doing so, Wetzer et al. (2007) took another perspective on motives to engage in (negative) O-WOM, which is more specific. According to them, O-WOM is the concept of sharing one’s emotions in a social way. Wetzer et al. (2007) more specifically state that there are eight motives to engage in O-WOM. The first reason is to search for comfort, like moral support and understanding. The second reason is venting, which is the release of emotions by expressing them. The third reason is searching for advice, which stands for gaining cognitive clarity. The fourth reason is bonding, which has the goal to increase social bonds and decrease interpersonal distance. The fifth reason is entertaining, for the sake to amuse others and/or keeping a conversation going. The sixth reason is self-presentation, by managing others impression of oneself. The seventh reason is warning, by helping others to overcome the same negative experience. And the eighth, and last reason, is revenge, which is harming someone after being harmed by them (Wetzer et al., 2007). Some of those motives are related with the three utility reasons of Balasubramanian et al. (2001). The reason to search comfort is in line with the approval utility. The search for advice and the warning reason are in line with the focus-related utility, and the bonding reason is in line with the consumption utility. Besides, the reason for venting and revenge are in line with the Balancing theory of Hennig-Thurau et al. (2004).
As can been seen above, prior research indicates different perspectives on motives and reasons to engage in negative O-WOM, some differ a lot while others are overlapping each other. But as is mentioned by Verhagen et al. (2013), it would be of interest to go to the roots of the motives to engage in negative O-WOM. This can be done by more specifically
researching the relationships between emotions and motives, because this is remained unaddressed (Verhagen et al., 2013; Wetzer et al., 2007). The best way to do so is by taking the specific emotions approach that Zeelenberg et al. (2004) introduced. Zeelenberg et al. (2004) state that this approach would help us to better understand and predict the specific behaviors that customers will engage in. Due to their most specific definitions, theoretical support and distinct made by Wetzer et al. (2007), their motives for O-WOM engagement are used in this research, namely; comfort search, venting, advice search, bonding, entertainment, self-presentation, warning and revenge.
Emotions
In prior literature is relatively much consensus about whether O-WOM is largely driven by emotions that occur during the consumption experience of a product (Verhagen et al., 2013). It are Wetzer et al. (2007) and White et al. (2005) who state that the emotions after a consumption experience are largely neglected. More specific, Wetzer et al. (2007) could only find seven publications in which emotions and negative O-WOM are related. The statement of Wetzer et al. (2007) is supported by Yi and Baumgartner (2004), who argue that too little attention is paid to the negative emotions that consumers experience after a negative consumption experience. Prior research focuses on a limited range of emotions and has looked to very specific responses (Wetzer et al., 2007). Wetzer et al. (2007) states that in the Emotion Theory deeper understanding could be gained by examining how emotions differ in their consequences and antecedents. As mentioned above, prior research indicates some findings for the relationship between emotions and O-WOM. However, as is mentioned for the motives, prior research on the relationship between emotions and O-WOM neglected a specific approach (Wetzer et al., 2007; White et al., 2005). Verhagen et al. (2013) agreed with the statements of White et al. (2005) and Wetzer et al. (2007). Verhagen et al. (2013) investigated in their research the influence of positive and negative affects on O-WOM motives. Verhagen et al. (2013) found that emotions may directly lead to behavioral consequences; engagement in negative O-WOM could lead to switching behavior or repartronage, which indicates a critical relationship and the relevance of understanding emotions.
The influence of positive affect and negative affect, as in emotions, on O-WOM can be explained by the Theory of Social Sharing which has been developed by Rimé (2009). He concludes in his research that social sharing of emotions can cover different motives. If a
negative emotion is experienced after consumption, help, support, comfort, consolation, legitimization, validation as well as advice and solutions are the goals consumers expect to achieve by social sharing (Rimé, 2009). As O-WOM reveals many social characteristics, it can is expected that if a consumer experiences negative emotions after a consumption, those emotional affects will influence the O-WOM (Verhagen et al. 2013; Rimé, 2009).
More specifically, Verhagen et al. (2013) found that negative emotions like sadness and anger contribute to the likelihood that consumers will engage in negative O-WOM. They even further state that negative emotions that occur during the consumption experience are directly linked to the engagement in negative O-WOM. This is supported by (Lee et al., 2010), who state that consumers who are dissatisfied in general after a negative consumer experience, will engage in negative O-WOM. These findings indicate the influence of negative emotions on negative O-WOM, which also leads to focus on negative emotions in this research.
So, while discussing among specific emotions is a cornerstone in the Emotion Theory, this is not the same for the literature of WOM (Wetzer et al., 2007). And this while an understanding of the close relation between emotions and action (intentions) can be seen as critical (Wetzer et al., 2007). Wetzer et al. (2007) further state that emotions provide specific directions for behavior intentions of consumers, for which the desired action depends on a certain emotion. For example, the emotion of anger is being related with the goal of willingness to hurt someone. Mattila et al. (2008) share this statement, and mention the differences between the based approach and specific emotion approach. The valance-based approach tells us that negative emotions will lead to the overall valence of dissatisfaction, which in turn becomes the driving force for a consumer’s behavioral intention. However, Laros et al. (2005) argue that adding more nuances in the emotions is meaningful and important to increase our understanding about consumer reaction towards dissatisfaction after a consumption experience. Focusing on the influence of specific emotions is not captured by the valence-based approach (Matilla et al., 2008). Laros et al. (2005) even found that specific negative emotions have a direct relation with the behavioral consequences, which are over and above dissatisfaction as a general valence. Above this, different specific negative emotions can result in total different coping styles (Matilla et al., 2008). To increase our understanding, this research will focus on the specific emotion approach, which takes the most specific approach towards negative emotions and motives.
In this research the focus will be on two specific negative emotions due to the strong link between emotions and negative O-WOM found by Verhagen et al. (2013), which is in turn linked with high potential damages to companies. For this reason and because of the time restriction, this paper will focus on the two negative emotions of anger and disappointment which will be explained in more detail below.
Difference between anger and disappointment
According to Bougie et al. (2003), emotions differ on the base of five different aspects, namely; feelings, thoughts, action tendencies, actions and emotional goals. Consumers who will feel anger after a negative consumption experience will get the feeling of ‘being overwhelmed by emotions’ and ‘as if they would explode’. The thoughts associated with anger are “thinking of how unfair something is’ and “thinking of violence towards another person’ (Bougie et al. 2003). The action tendencies related with anger are ‘letting go’ and “the feeling of like to behave aggressively”. Actions that are characterizing for anger are “saying something nasty about somebody else” and “complaining”. At last, anger has the emotional goal of ‘wanting to hurt someone” and “wanting to get back at someone” (Bougie et al., 2003), which can be seen as motives to engage in negative O-WOM. Two distinctive aspects of anger in regard to other negative emotions are that in anger another person is blamed for the experience combined with the belief that you have been voluntarily wronged unjustifiably (Bougie et al., 2003; Yi et al., 2004). Anger is also seen as one of the most powerful emotions and a powerful predictor of behavioral responses (Bougie et al., 2003). On the other hand, consumers who experience disappointment after a negative consumption experience will get the feeling of ‘being powerless’ (Zeelenberg et al., 2004; Yi et al., 2004). The thought associated with disappointment is “how could I get something what I didn’t expect’. An action tendency that occurs as a thought is “the tendency to get away from the current situation’ (Wetzer et al., 2007). The actions that characterize disappointment are “mental disengagement’ and “behavioral disengagement’. The emotional goal of disappointment is to ‘emotionally disengage themselves from the source of the problem’ (Zeelenberg et al., 2004; Yi et al., 2004).
As mentioned above, anger is a very negative emotion which has a lot of different characteristics in comparison with the emotion of disappointment. By doing so, it can be seen that anger is more extreme in negativity compared to disappointment. Furthermore the
emotions of anger and disappointment are distinctive on the base of the motives for negative O-WOM engagement, which will be mentioned further below in more detail and will lead to the first hypotheses.
Differences between the relationships of emotions and motives
When the emotion anger is experienced, somebody else is blamed for a negative experience, which in turn stimulates the angry consumer to harm the source of this negative experience. In psychology, anger is often related with hostile behavior and aggression (Matilla et al., 2008; Yi et al., 2004). As a result, an action tendency of anger is the feeling of wanting to hit somebody (Wetzer et al., 2007). Yi et al. (2004) define this as confrontive coping, which is arguing of a case and trying to get back at the source of the problem by openly displaying their negative feelings of displeasure. This suggests that a consumer who experiences anger after a negative product experience will cope with this situation by bringing aggressive effort to change the situation, and will displeasure the person who is hold responsible of this negative experience (Yi et al., 2004).
Disappointment on the other hand, occurs if an outcome does not match up to previously held expectations (Zeelenberg et al., 2004). In many cases the source that is responsible for the disappointed feeling is the consumer himself, and there is nobody else to blame but himself. However, if an outcome is not what is expected and a person can be hold responsible for this, disappointment can become a little similar like anger, but it is expected that they would go for the intention of advice search in that situation (Yi et al., 2004; Wetzer et al., 2007). In the exploratory research of Wetzer et al. (2007) it is found that anger, and not disappointment, is related with the motive of revenge for intentions to engage in negative O-WOM. This relationship can be explained by the Emotion Theory, which states that angry customers held somebody else responsible for the negative consumption experience and have the goal to hurt that responsible person (Wetzer et al., 2007). Because of these statements and findings, it is expected that revenge is the motive to engage in O-WOM when anger is experienced, but revenge is not a motive of consumers experiencing disappointment.
H1a: The emotions anger and disappointment differ for the motive of revenge, in which the
emotion of anger has a positive significant relation with revenge.
If a customer is asked to describe a feeling of anger after a negative experience, they often answer with ‘being overtaken by emotions’ and ‘nearly exploding’ (Matilla et al., 2008; Yi et
al., 2004). By going more into depth, anger is shown to be associated with tendencies of action like yelling and saying something bad about the source of the problem (Yi et al., 2004). Because of this, it is expected that anger is related with the motive of venting. This can be further explained by the Balance Theory, which states that this extreme negative emotion can be rebalanced by letting out their feelings (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004).
Disappointment is associated with the feeling of the consumer being powerless and the tendency to get away from the current situation, which in turn leads to the abandonment of the goal (Blachnio et al., 2013). In the present study, this is interpreted as emotionally separating themselves from the source, which is called mental disengagement (Yi et al., 2004). Due to the tendency to disengage from the source of the problem, it is expected that disappointment is not related with the motives to vent. Besides, in many situations the source of the problem is the consumer himself and there is nobody else to vent on (Yi et al., 2004). The exploratory research of Wetzer et al. (2007) also found that anger, and not disappointment, is related with the motive of venting for intentions to engage in negative O-WOM. The goal of venting is explained by Wetzer et al. (2007) with support of the Catharsis Theory, which states that people should release their emotion of anger by venting (Wetzer et al., 2007). Because of this it is expected that venting is the motive to engage when experiencing anger but not when experiencing disappointment.
H1b: The emotions anger and disappointment differ for the motive of venting, in which the
emotion of anger has a positive significant relation with venting.
Because a disappointed customer did not get what was expected, the consumer may search for advice on whether their expectancies were whether wrong or right (Wetzer et al., 2007). This is due to the impersonal situation which cannot be changed anyway. And even if somebody else can be held responsible, the consumer would not have the intention to hurt that person but will rather search for advice (Wetzer et al., 2007; Yi et al., 2004). Advice search is the result of people with disconfirmed expectancies who search for reason why it went wrong. It is for this reason that it is expected that disappointment leads to the intention of O-WOM engagement with the goal to search for advice.
The experience of feeling anger is distinguished from all other motives by the crucial aspect of having the belief or blame that you have been voluntarily wronged unjustifiably (Bougie et al., 2004). Anger is associated with the thought of “violence towards others’ (Bougie et al.,
2004; Wetzer et al., 2007). Due to this it is expected that anger does not lead to search of advice, but is rather related with actions towards the source of the negative experience. Wetzer et al. (2007) found that anger is not related with the motive of advice search, but that disappointment is related with the goal to search for advice. The above findings and arguments leads to the following hypothesis.
H1c: The emotions anger and disappointment differ for the motive of advice search, in which
the emotion of disappointment has a positive significant relation with advice search.
When a disappointed consumer has searched for advice and found out that he was wrong in his predictions, than the only thing left to do is to search for comfort on how to deal with the situation at hand (Wetzer et al., 2007). Wetzer et al. (2007) found in their study that disappointment is related with the motive of comfort search and that anger is not related with the motive of comfort search. Consumers experiencing anger are in such a state of extreme emotion that, because they can held somebody else responsible, they will not let it go and by doing so will not search for comfort (Wetzer et al., 2007; Bougie et al., 2004). Anger is also found to be the most powerful emotion and a powerful predictor of behavioral responses (Bougie et al., 2003). Because of these statements and findings, it is expected that comfort search will not be related with consumers experiencing anger but will be related for consumers experiencing disappointment.
H1d: The emotions anger and disappointment differ for the motive of comfort search, in
which the emotion of disappointment has a positive significant relation with comfort search.
Wetzer et al. (2007) found in their research that disappointment is also related with the motive of warning. This is explained by the findings that disconfirmed expectancies can lead to the feeling of preventing others from the same negative experience by warning them. This social-motive distinguishes disappointment from anger (Alexandrov et al., 2013). If a consumer is experiencing anger, he is concerned about what somebody else has done to him (Bougie et al., 2004). Because of this self-motive, the consumer experiencing anger will not be concerned about others, and by doing so will not have the intention to warn others (Wetzer et al., 2007; Alexandrov et al., 2013).
H1e: The emotions anger and disappointment differ for the motive of warning, in which the
In the case a consumer experiences anger, he will be in such a mood of negativity that it is not expected that he has the intention to make fun or entertain about the situation (Bougie et al., 2004). A consumer who experiences disappointment because of his wrong predictions, he should held himself responsible (Wetzer et al., 2007). Because of his own mistake, it is not expected that he will make fun out of himself and has the motive to entertain. So for both the emotions it is expected that they are not related with the motive to entertain.
Self-presentation is defined by managing another’s image or impression of the consumer himself (Wetzer et al., 2007). A consumer who is disappointed due to his own mistake, is not expected to engage in O-WOM for the motive of self-presentation. After all, it would only be counterproductive. Consumers experiencing anger will have their focus on the responsible person and not on managing another’s impression of himself (Bougie et al., 2004). So for both the emotions it is expected that they are not related with the motive of self-presentation. Wetzer et al. (2007) found in their study that there is no relationship of anger and disappointment with self-presentation.
At last, bonding, stands for decreasing interpersonal distance and strengthening social bonds (Wetzer et al., 2007). Once again, in the case a consumer is experiencing anger, he will not be concerned with social intentions, but will have a full focus on how to get back at the responsible source (Wetzer et al., 2007; Bougie et al., 2004). Disappointment is expected to relate with advice search and comfort search which is also due to a more social focus of disappointment than anger has. However, the internet is an easy to access open source of information for which social relationships aren’t necessarily needed for a disappointed customer to achieve his goals for O-WOM engagement (Zhu et al., 2010). Because of this it is also expected for disappointment to not be related with the motive of bonding.
H1f: The emotions anger and disappointment do not significantly differ for the motives of
entertaining, self-presentation and bonding, in which both the emotions are not significant related to those motives.
Personality traits
Chen et al. (2013), define personality trait as a style characteristic and an unique personality that individual consumers own. They add to this that even in a certain situation, here referring to emotions, which is conditionally the same, the behavior that a consumer will display differs due to their personality traits. Because Moore et al. (2012) found that the personality
of a consumer is a major predictor of internet usage motives, it is important to have an as deep as possible understanding about how these different personality traits can influence the O-WOM motives directly and indirectly and how this differs per consumer (Lee et al., 2010; Wetzer et al., 2007). Followed up, Chen et al. (2013) state that if companies have an understanding of how different personality traits influence the O-WOM, companies can be more efficiently and effectively in interventions in negative O-WOM. Personality traits got a lot of attention in prior research, beginning with the ‘Norman’s Big Five. In 1936, Allport et al. (1936) discovered five major characteristics in personality traits, namely; openness to experience, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness and neuroticism.
Chang et al. (2013) and Blachnio et al. (2013) added some other personality traits besides the Big Five, and found that the personalities were related with aspects of O-WOM engagement. Especially, personality traits were found to influence the intention to send information (Chang et al., 2013). This is of major concern to this research with its focus on the sender. Blachnio et al. (2013) further established a direct link between personality traits and O-WOM. However, the indirect influence of personality traits on negative O-WOM remains unaddressed (Wetzer et al., 2007; Verhagen et al., 2013).
While Blachnio et al. (2013) used the most extensive and specific variables, this research is not able to capture them all in the given time frame. With an exploration of the effect of personality traits on motives for O-WOM, this paper will start with a focus on ‘The Big Five’. This is due to the fact that personality psychologists have reached the consensus that the personality domain of a person can best be described by the five factor model with The Big Five dimensions (Moore et al., 2012). The first two that were selected were extraversion and neuroticism, those were fundamental in the five factor model and have the least controversy (Moore et al., 2012). As last factor agreeableness is selected. This is because agreeableness is associated with pro-social orientation and being straightforward and helpful Ferguson et al. (2010). This is expected to have a counter influence on the negative O-WOM and its negative antecedents. Below the three chosen personality traits are described in more detail and their relationship with the motives and emotions are given, which will flow into the hypotheses.
Personality traits towards motives
Besides the emotions itself, there are a lot of other factors that may have an influence on the motives to engage in O-WOM (Blachnio et al., 2013; Ferguson et al., 2010; Mooradian et al., 1997). In this research, personality traits are the factors that are expected to have an influence on the motives to engage in O-WOM, in a direct and an indirect way. Below are the hypotheses for which it is expected that the personality traits have a direct influence on the motives to engage in negative O-WOM.
Neuroticism
Neuroticism is characterized with an aroused level of anxiety, anger, emotional instability and moodiness (Blachnio et al., 2013). When socially exposed, neuroticism is displayed by psychological distress (Blachnio et al., 2013; Costa et al., 1992; Mooradian et al., 1997; Rusting et al., 1996). It is also found that scoring high on neuroticism is highly correlated with negative affect (Mooradian et al., 1997). Someone that scores high on neuroticism prefers to spend time alone rather than spending time with others, and by doing so, has a focus on oneself rather than on others (Ferguson et al., 2010). It is further found that neuroticism negatively relates with the use of internet, which is explained by Mooradian et al. (1997), by stating that neuroticism is related with anxiety for punishment if being socially exposed. This in turn could lead to avoidance of social exposure, like O-WOM engagement. However, nowadays the internet provides more possibilities to stay anonymous which in turn provides the possibility to be socially active online without being socially exposed. Due to this, it is expected that people scoring high on neuroticism significantly relates with the motives of venting and revenge, based on the Balance Theory of Hennig-Thurau et al. (2004). Revenge and venting are expected to reduce moodiness and emotional instability by rebalancing the emotional state through release (Wetzer et al., 2007).
H2a: Neuroticism is significant related with the motive of revenge. H2b: Neuroticism is significant related with the motive of venting.
On the other hand, advice search and comfort search can also rebalance the emotional instability, by indicating how to deal with the situation and providing moral support (Wetzer et al., 2007). This in turn will lead to acceptance of the situation, which results in a rebalance of the negative emotional state into a balanced ‘normal’ state (Wetzer et al., 2007). This is enabled for people scoring high on neuroticism with the options internet provides to stay
anonymous. Because of this it is expected that scoring high on neuroticism is significant related with the motive of advice search and comfort search.
H2c: Neuroticism is significant related with the motive of advice search. H2d: Neuroticism is significant related with the motive of comfort search. Extraversion
Extraversion represents other socially oriented personality types and is related with being assertive, sociable, excitement, novelty, active and talkativeness (Blachnio et al., 2013). It is furthermore found that extraversion relates with support seeking, deriving pleasure from and looking for social interaction with others (Blachnio et al., 2013; Ferguson et al., 2010; Mooradian et al., 1997; Rusting et al., 1996).
It is also found that extraversion is related to social media use in order to communicate with others (Ferguson et al., 2010). Extraverted people are more prone to addictive trends and unrelated to self-presentational needs (Blachnio et al., 2013). Extraverted persons are found to vent their feelings and emotions to others in response to their stressors and reliance on O-WOM (Ferguson et al., 2010). This can be explained by the fact that they like to talk and will do so if possible or needed. Because of this it is expected that extraversion significantly relates to venting.
H3a: Extraversion is significant related with the motive of venting.
People scoring high on extraversion are also socially oriented and concerned about their quantity and intensity of interpersonal relationships (Ferguson et al., 2010). This in combination with the aspects of being sociable and talkativeness, leads to the expectation that extraversion relates to warning others, advice search and comfort search as intentions for O-WOM engagement. This expectancy is further supported by the aspects of extraversion of support seeking and being assertive (Blachnio et al., 2013). The many relationships extraverted people have, makes the steps towards advice search, comfort search and warning easier to take. At last, it is not expected that extraversion has a relationship with revenge, because extroverted people are sociable and derive pleasure out of relationships and conversations, which is in contrast to the result of venting and revenge.
H3c: Extraversion is significant related with the motive of advice search. H3d: Extraversion is significant related with the motive of comfort search. H3e: Extraversion is not significant related with the motive of revenge. Agreeableness
Agreeableness represents other or socially oriented personality types and is related with sympathetic, warm, altruistic, forgiving, kind, courteous, helpful, trustful, straightforward, cooperative and considerate (Blachnio et al. 2013). Agreeableness can also be referred to as the quality of one’s interpersonal relationships (Ferguson et al., 2010). Scoring high on agreeableness is related with knowledge sharing, helping behaviors, giving and receiving social support and avoiding conflicts (Moore et al., 2010). Because of its many social aspects, it is expected that agreeableness significant relates with comfort search, advice search and warning in order to express their social intentions.
H4a: Agreeableness is significant related with comfort search. H4b: Agreeableness is significant related with advice search. H4c: Agreeableness is significant related with warning.
Because people scoring high on agreeableness are sympathetic and forgiving, it is not expected that agreeableness is related with the intention to vent or to take revenge. Due to this it is expected that there is a significant relation with venting and revenge for agreeableness (Blachnio et al., 2013). People scoring high on agreeableness are kind, warm and are concerned about the quality of their relationships (Ferguson et al., 2010), and it is due to this expected that agreeableness significantly relates with entertaining.
H4d: Agreeableness is significant related with entertaining. H4e: Agreeableness is significant related with venting. H4f: Agreeableness is significant related with revenge.
Moderator effect of Personality traits on the emotions-motives relationship
The relationships between the emotional states of anger and disappointment with the motives found by Wetzer et al. (2007), are combined here with the possible moderator effects of personality traits. As mentioned above, anger is expected to positively relate revenge and
venting. Disappointment is expected to positively relate to warning, comfort search and advice search (Wetzer et al., 2007). These relationships are established by Wetzer et al. (2007), and in this study further tested on whether there can be another explanation for this relationship. For this study it is expected that personality traits can also influence the relationship between emotions and motives. This more specific approach will lead to a deeper insight into the emotions-motives relationships and explanations motives to engage in N-WOM in general.
Neuroticism as a moderator
In the case anger is experienced and this person scores high on neuroticism, it is expected that the intention to take revenge and vent is increased. This is because people scoring high on neuroticism are more prone to emotional instability and moodiness (Blachnio et al., 2013). This in turn will lead to a higher intention to vent or take revenge in order to rebalance a consumer’s emotional state (Blachnio et al., 2013; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004). The relationship of disappointment with revenge and venting, on the other hand, is not expected to be influenced by neuroticism. This is due to the aspect of self-blame in the case disappointment is experienced, by which revenge and venting will not rebalance the emotional state because there is nobody else to blame on (Wetzer et al., 2007; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004). By doing so, it is expected that the emotions anger and disappointment also differ for the motives of revenge and anger due to the moderating effect of neuroticism.
H5a: Neuroticism has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between anger and
revenge, but has no moderating effect on the relationship between disappointment and revenge.
H5b: Neuroticism has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between anger and
venting, but has no moderating effect on the relationship between disappointment and venting.
For disappointment, it is expected that neuroticism will have a positive influence on the relationships with the motives to search advice and to search comfort. This is expected due to the Balance Theory of Hennig-Thurau et al. (2004). People scoring high on neuroticism experience an increased effect on their emotional instability, which will extra motivates them to rebalance this by searching for advice and/or comfort. However, it is expected that there is a negative effect of neuroticism on the relationship between disappointment and warning. This is explained by the combined effect of the aspects of self-blame and the aroused level of
anxiety when the disappointed consumer is socially exposed (Ferguson et al., 2010). It is expected that the anxiety of being socially exposed will increase the barrier to warn others. This is expected because warning others will also result in embarrassment due to the exposure of their own wrong prediction and mistake. For somebody with anxiety for social exposure, it is expected that is consumer is not willing to hurt or embarrass himself.
For anger, it is expected that due to the aspect of being able to blame somebody else for their negative experience (Wetzer et al., 2007; Bougie et al., 2004), neuroticism has no effect on the relationship of anger with advice search, comfort search and warning. This can be further explained by their self-focus and the motivational goal of ‘wanting to get back at somebody’ (Bougie et al., 2004). Due to the focus on the responsible person, it is expected that consumers who experience anger will not be concerned about social interactions, like the motives of warning, advice search and comfort search. Consumers experiencing anger also have high goal relevance (Bougie et al., 2004). Because of this it is expected that the goal of wanting to hurt somebody will not be changed due to the moderating effect of neuroticism. So it is expected that the emotions of anger and disappointment also differ for the motives of comfort search, advice search and warning due to the moderating effect of neuroticism.
H5c: Neuroticism has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between
disappointment and comfort search, but has no moderating effect on the relationship between anger and comfort search.
H5d: Neuroticism has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between
disappointment and advice search, but has no moderating effect on the relationship between anger and advice search.
H5e: Neuroticism has a negative moderating effect on the relationship between
disappointment and warning, but has no moderating effect on the relationship between anger and warning.
Extraversion as a moderator
For a person scoring high on extroversion while experiencing anger, it is expected that due to their talkativeness and being assertive, there is a positive effect of extraversion on the relationship between anger and venting and anger and revenge (Blachnio et al., 2013). This is expected because a consumer who is more inclined to talk will also have a higher intention to vent. For revenge, the aspect of being assertive plays a role. In the case somebody is feeling anger and is assertive, he will be willing to stand up for himself in order to take revenge on what somebody else has done to him (Bougie et al., 2004). As mentioned above,
disappointment is related with self-blame by which the personality of extraversion doesn’t has influence the aspect of self-blame. Revenge and venting are motives which focus on somebody or something else (Wetzer et al., 2007). So because extraversion does not change anything on the aspect of self-blame, it is expected that extraversion has no moderating influence on the relationships of disappointment towards the motive of venting and revenge.
H6a: Extraversion has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between anger and
revenge, but has no moderating effect on the relationship between disappointment and revenge.
H6b: Extraversion has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between anger and
venting, but has no moderating effect on the relationship between disappointment and venting.
It is also expected for extraversion, due to their focus on others, talkativeness and social interactions, to have a positive moderating effect on the relationship between disappointment and warning, comfort search and advice search (Blachnio et al., 2013). If a consumer is experiencing disappointment, the barrier to engage in comfort search, advice search and warning others is even lower in the case a consumer scores high on extraversion. For anger, due to their self-focus, it is not expected that a consumer will engage in O-WOM for a social intention (Alexandrov et al., 2013). This in turn will lead to the assumption that extraversion has no moderating effect on the relationship of anger with advice search, comfort search and warning. A consumer experiencing anger will not have a social intention to engage in O-WOM, but will focus on the responsible person for his own sake (Bougie et al., 2004). So it is expected that the emotions of anger and disappointment also differ in the motives of advice search, comfort search and warning due to the moderating effect of extraversion.
H6c: Extraversion has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between
disappointment and advice search, but has no moderating effect on the relationship between anger and advice search.
H6d: Extraversion has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between
disappointment and comfort search, but has no moderating effect on the relationship between anger and comfort search.
H6e: Extraversion has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between
disappointment and warning, but has no moderating effect on the relationship between anger and warning.
Agreeableness as a moderator
A person scoring high on agreeableness is related with the characteristics of being sympathetic, forgiving and courteous (Blachnio et al., 2013). Because of these characteristics, it is expected that scoring high on agreeableness has a negative effect on the relationship between anger and the intentions to vent or take revenge (Moore et al., 2010). Agreeableness is expected to work as a filter. The personal characteristics like sympathetic and forgiving, will reduce the intentions to take revenge or vent about something. Also here the personality trait of agreeableness is not expected to influence the relationship of disappointment on revenge or venting. Besides the aspect of self-blame, disappointed consumers scoring high on agreeableness will have higher intentions to use other motives than harmful once because of their social-focus (Alexandrov et al., 2013) . So it is expected that the emotions of anger and disappointment also differ due to the moderating effect of agreeableness.
H7a: Agreeableness has a negative moderating effect on the relationship between anger and
revenge, but does have no moderating effect on the relationship between disappointment and revenge.
H7b: Agreeableness has a negative moderating effect on the relationship between anger and
venting, but does have no moderating effect on the relationship between disappointment and venting.
On the other hand, agreeableness can have an influence on the relationship between disappointment and the motives of advice search, comfort search and warning. Because people scoring high on agreeableness are socially oriented, helpful and giving and receiving social support, it is expected that agreeableness has a positive moderating effect on these three relationships (Blachnio et al., 2013; Alexandrov et al., 2013). Due to the social aspect of being helpful, it is expected that agreeableness will increase the intention to warn other consumers. Especially the aspect of giving and receiving social support is expected to increase the intention to search for comfort and advice when feeling disappointed. Also here it is expected that the personality trait does not influence the high goal relevance and high coping potential of consumers of experiencing anger. The consumer who experiences anger will be in such a state of willing to hurt somebody (Bougie et al., 2004), that it is not expected to influence his intentions. So the emotions of anger and disappointment also differ in their motives of comfort search, advice search and warning due to the moderating effect of agreeableness.
H7c: Agreeableness has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between
disappointment and advice search, but has no moderating effect on the relationship between anger and advice search.
H7d: Agreeableness has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between
disappointment and comfort search, but has no moderating effect on the relationship between anger and comfort search.
H7e: Agreeableness has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between
disappointment and warning, but has no moderating effect on the relationship between anger and warning.
To empirically asses the hypotheses about emotions, motives and personality traits, a sample of 260 consumers were examined. The method and the results of this study are described next. The conceptual model that is tested in this research can be found in figure 1.
Figure 1. Conceptual model
Personality traits:
extraversion agreeableness neuroticismMotives:
revenge venting bonding self-presentation advice search comfort search entertaining warningEmotions:
anger & disappointmentMethod Measures
The survey used in this research combined two prior studies, based on their measurement items. The survey itself is provided in appendix 1. The survey starts with an introduction page where the respondent is welcomed. The same page provides information what is researched in this study and by whom, examples how to answer questions on base of an example and the what the different scale suggests. At the end some important reminders and contact information is given.
The first part of the survey is based on the research of Wetzer et al. (2007). The survey starts with three questions about the respondents gender (male or female), age and income (<500, 500-1000, 1001-2000 and >2000 Euro a month). This is followed up by the question in which the respondent has to recall and describe a specific personal negative product/service experience, this is either first anger in the balanced design or disappointment in the counter-balanced design. This research makes use of a counter-counter-balanced design to check whether there is any differences due to the order of the questions. It is found that there is no significant difference between the two surveys, so we can conclude that the order of the questions and its conditions had no effect on the answers (Bryman et al., 2009). After the description, the respondent has to respond to questions that were related to the specific characteristics of the negative O-WOM situation. It starts with how long ago this negative situation is experienced (1 week ago, 1 month ago, 2 months ago, more than 2 months ago). The next question addresses with whom this negative experience is shared for the first time (partner/spouse, relative, close friend, acquaintance, colleague, stranger or someone else). This is followed up by the question in which way this experience was communicated (online, offline, online and offline). How soon the negative experience is shared for the first time is measured on the scales; within 1 hour, within half a day, within 1 day within 1 week and later. How negative the content of the communication is, is measured on a 5 point scale with the items ranging from very negative (1), negative (2), neutral (3), positive (4) to very positive (5). The last question about specific characteristics of the negative O-WOM situation covers how often the respondent talked about the experience in total (once, several times with the same person, several times with different persons and many times). The questions about the characteristics are followed up with 2 twenty-four questions that relate to the following question; How applicable were the following motives to the experienced situation and the
reason to share the feeling experienced with others? The respondent has to answer on a 7-point Likert scale (ranging from not applicable at all (1), unapplicable (2), slightly unapplicable (3), neutral (4), slightly applicable (5), applicable (6) to fully applicable (7)) how applicable a certain intention is to their situation. The twenty-four questions cover the eight motives of sharing their negative consumption experiences which, is also based on the research of Wetzer et al. (2007). The first three questions cover the motive comfort search (
, with for example: I wanted to feel that someone understood me. The questions four until six, cover the motive of venting (
with for example; I wanted to pour my heart out. The questions seven until eight cover the motive of advice search (
, with for example; I wanted advice on how to handle my feelings. The questions ten until twelve cover the motive of bonding (
= 0.86), with for example; I wanted to strengthen the bond with my conversation partner. The questions thirteen until fifteen teen cover the motive of entertaining (
= 0.90), with for example; I liked talking about this blunder. The questions sixteen until eighteen cover the motive of self-presentation (
= 0.85), with for example; Actually, I wanted to tell that I use this product/service. The questions nineteen until twenty-one cover the motive of warning (
= 0.76), with for example; I wanted to warn my conversation partner not to use this product/service. The last three question cover the motive of revenge (
= 0.91). As can be seen, all Cronbach Alpha’s exceed the 0.7 and by doing so these measurement items can be interpreted as reliable on base of the internal-consistency reliability, which is the reason why these measure items are chosen for this research (Bryman et al., 2009). The questions measuring each items are provided in appendix 2, which also provides the related Cronbach’s Alpha’s.The part of the survey described above is repeated from here on, in which the balanced survey now starts with a description about a consumption experience in which they experienced disappointment and the counter-balanced design starts with a consumption experience in which they experienced anger.
After this, the survey ends with questions that are related with the personality traits of the respondent. This part of the research is based on the study of Buchanan et al. (2005). They developed in their research a set of scales that appear to provide acceptable measures for the personality inventory on a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from strongly disagree (1), disagree
about the personality of the respondent, in which the respondent has to indicate how strongly they agree or disagree with a certain statement. The items measuring the personality trait extraversion (
= 0.89) consists of statements like; I am the life of the party, and reversed questions like; I have little to say. The items measuring neuroticism (
= 0.83) consists of statements like; I often feel blue, and reversed questions like; I rarely get irritated. The last personality trait agreeableness (
= 0.74) consists of questions like; I accept people as they are, and reversed questions like; I get back at others. As can be seen, also here all the Cronbach’s alphas exceed the 0.7, and by doing so the measure items can be seen as reliable on base of their internal-consistency reliability (Bryman et al., 2009). These questions and the related Cronbach’s Alpha’s are provided in appendix 3.The survey ends with a last page in which the respondent had to submit the survey and are thanked once again for their participation.
The survey itself is conducted with the program Qualtrics, which has the option to select that respondent cannot proceed to the next page if one or more questions are unanswered. By doing so, a survey cannot be submitted if not all the questions are filled in. This in turn led to no missing values in the data that was gathered.
The data is analyzed by making use of the General Linear Model with two-way repeated measures Anova. This is done because this research compares the means of groups in which the respondents are the same in each group and need to respond twice for every depend variable, the motives. This is also due to the fact that each respondent is subjected to both the conditional situation, anger and disappointment, in the same test and that the responses to these conditions were compared on the base of the difference between the two motives. Above all, this research makes us of more independent variables which are tested on their interaction and their relation towards the depend variable (Bryman et al., 2009). The significance levels were based on Bryman et al. (2009) and are as follows; p = 0.001 (***) and below indicates a very high significance, p = 0.01 (**) and below indicates a high significance, p = 0.05 (*) and below indicates a significance and p = 0.1 indicates a moderate significance. The partial eta squared effect size is based on the guidelines of Borenstein et al. (1988) and are as follows; 0.01 and below is a small effect size, 0.06 is a moderate effect size and 0.14 and above is a large effect size.
Participants
In the month of May 2014, 260 data submissions were recorded via the online questionnaire program Qualtrics. For this research, respondents were recruited via Facebook and E-mail. The link of the questionnaire was shared among Facebook-groups and by personal messages on Facebook. To ensure the inclusion of respondents outside the possible reach, due to restriction for privacy rights, a snowballing procedure was used by asking for forwarding the message. Also an E-mail was send to students of the Business School of the University of Amsterdam for those who were in reach via the groups of the courses.
Two weeks after the start of sharing the link for the questionnaire, a reminder was given for every E-mail and message on Facebook. This was done to increase the amount of respondents. This led at the end of the month May in 2014 to a total amount of 260 completed questionnaires. Due to no missing values as a criteria for the questionnaire, no missing values were found and all the 260 recorded questionnaires were analyzed in this study.
Of these, 158 of the respondents are male, which accounts for 60.8 % of the total and 102 are female, which accounts for the remaining 39.2%. The mean age is 24, with a minimum of 19 and a maximum age of 53. 78.5% of the respondents are between the 21 and 27 years of age. The median income is 1000 Euro’s a month.
Results
Reported negative experiences
The respondents reported negative consumption experiences in a wide variety of occasions. Examples of these reported occasions when anger was experienced are; “extra costs after implementation of the product” or “a product that did not function at all”. And examples for disappointment are; “a pizza did not have the toppings that were ordered’ and “the product was different in comparison to the picture presented online’.
Of the 260 participants who experienced anger, 67 (25.8%) shared their experience with their partner/spouse, 28 (10.8%) with a relative, 118 (45.4%) with a close friend, 3 (1.2%) with an acquaintance, 24(9.2%) with a colleague and 20 (7.7%) with someone else. For the same condition it is found that; 113 (43.5%) shared their negative experience within one hour, 53
