"
An explanation of word-of-mouth
intentions on the basis of personality
traits and personal values
"
"
An explanation of word-of-mouth
intentions on the basis of personality
traits and personal values
"
by Martijn (M.H.G.) Bosman
University of Groningen
MSc Marketing Management
Student: M.H.G. (Martijn) Bosman
Student number: S1917412
E-mail: martijnbosman@hotmail.com
Mobile phone number: +31(0)650534580
University supervisors: Prof. dr. J.C. Hoekstra
MSc. J.H. Wiebenga
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to help companies in developing effective marketing programs that could encourage positive word-of-mouth and avoid negative word-of-mouth communication. Past research has already suggested that both personality traits could help companies to target people who should facilitate the spread of information. The academic contribution of the current study is, that it links these personality traits with some personal values in an attempt to further explain word-of-mouth communication on the basis of individual character differences. Therefore, this study integrates the constructs of the personality traits extraversion (E), neuroticism (N), and the personal values ‘being well-respected’ (BWR), self-fulfillment (SF), warm relationships with others (WR), and the sense of belonging (SOB) into a model that could further explain of-mouth activity (WoMa) and word-of-mouth praise (WoMp). After conducting principal component analysis to find the underlying constructs, the original constructs of word-of-mouth activity (WoMa) and word-of-mouth praise (WoMp) are combined into the new variable ‘word-of-mouth intentions’ (WoM). The same holds for the constructs ‘warm relationship with others’ (WR) and ‘sense of belonging’, which have been combined to the construct ‘warm-relationships with friends & family’(WRFF). Subsequently, multiple regression analysis represents some interesting study results. This study have shown that the variables extraversion, neuroticism, and self-fulfillment have positive effect on the intention to use word-of-mouth communication. Furthermore, an interaction effect of the personal value ‘being well-respected’ is found in the relationship between extraversion and word-of-mouth intentions. Finally, this study represents some interesting findings that could further help companies to develop referral programs.
Keywords: word-of-mouth, personality traits, personal values, extraversion, neuroticism, being well-respected, self-fulfillment, market mavenism
PREFACE
This master thesis represents the final phase of my life as a student and was the last final step in obtaining my master degree Marketing Management. Whilst writing the final chapters of my master thesis I started to realize that a period of time has come to an end. A period of time in which I have learned a lot. Not only about marketing-related issues, but also about myself as a person. When I started thinking about a research question, I realized that it would be nice to combine these two aspects. The result was a research about the effects of personality traits and personal values on word-of-mouth intentions.
During the research process, I have experienced that it was hard to combine a fulltime job with writing a master thesis. Therefore, I would like to take the opportunity to thank a number of people who have contributed in finishing my master thesis. I would like to mention some people in particular. First, thanks to my supervisors prof. dr. Janny Hoekstra and MSc. J.H. Wiebenga for providing me with feedback throughout writing my master thesis. Even when I started to doubt about finishing my master thesis, prof. dr. Janny Hoekstra motivated me to go on. Second, I would like to thank my employer ING, and my supervisor Leonie Harleman for giving me the opportunity to get leave to finish my thesis. I would also thank my parents Gerard & Thea, who always supported me and gave me the opportunity to study in Groningen. Last but not least, special thanks to my girlfriend Ilse Jansen. She was a mainstay during writing my master thesis. Even when I was having a tough time, you always made me smile again.
Hope you will enjoy reading, Martijn Bosman
TABLE OF CONTENT
Abstract Preface 1. Introduction 6 2. Literature review 7 2.1 Word-of-mouth communication 7 2.1.1. Definition of word-of-mouth communication 7 2.1.2 Word-of-mouth communication in general 9 2.1.3 Word-of-mouth communication and individual situational characteristics 9 2.2 Personality traits and personal values 102.2.1 Categorization of personality traits 10 2.2.2 Categorization of personal values 11 2.3 Personality traits and word-of-mouth communication 11 2.4 Personal values and word-of-mouth communication 12 2.5 Conceptual model and hypotheses 13 2.5.1. Conceptual research model 13
2.5.2 Hypotheses 14
3. Research methodology 18
3.1 Data collection 18 3.2 Measurement of constructs 18 3.2.1 Measurement of personality traits 19 3.2.2 Measurement of personal values 19 3.2.3 Measurement of word-of-mouth and market mavenism 20 3.3 Adjusted conceptual research model and hypotheses 22 3.4 Method of analysis 23
4. Data analysis and results 24
4.1 Descriptive results 24 4.2 Multiple regression results 25 4.2.1 Effect of extraversion and neuroticism on word-of-mouth intentions 26 4.2.2 Interaction effect being well-respected 26 4.2.3 Interaction effect self-fulfillment 27 4.2.4 Interaction effect warm relationships with friends & family 27 4.2.5 Overall model results 27
5. Conclusion and discussion 29
1.
INTRODUCTION
In an increasingly networked society where customers can interact easily with each other through social networks, word-of-mouth is likely to become more and more important in the near future. The opportunity for one-to-many communication provided by the Internet potentially increases word-of-mouth activity exponentially, particularly for unfavourable communications. Traditionally, a dissatisfied customer could write a letter or an email, convey their displeasure to friends and family, or unleash a verbal tirade on a customer service representative. Today, dissatisfied customers leads to tweets, retweets, more retweets, and viral videos which can create negative awareness that could influence the way consumers make decisions. Moreover, one in five tweets is brand related, in of which nearly 20% contain some expression of brand sentiments (Jansen et al. 2009). Therefore, companies try to adapt word-of-mouth communication in their overall strategy and include measurements to investigate word-of-mouth communication in order to manage its customer relationships. According to recent research, companies spent more than $1.54 billion on word-of-mouth initiatives in 2008. That amount is expected to rise to $3 billion in 2013 (PQ Media 2009). Making use of the opportunities (and avoiding its dangers) provided by these new communication channels requires a thorough understanding of offline and online consumer-to-consumer interactions. Within this rapidly changing marketplace, the need to understand the customer has never been greater, because this (online) power customers have to express their opinion about a certain product or service can have enormous consequences for companies. Although some customers are easy to please, others are never satisfied. Understanding who these customers are, why they are (dis)satisfied, and how (or even whether) to market to them is an increasingly important issue.
As shown by Oliver (1997) and Anderson (1998), the likelihood of customers spreading word-of-mouth communication depends largely on their level of satisfaction. Customer satisfaction research has often adopted the expectancy-disconfirmation paradigm, which posits that “consumers compare perceived product / service performance with some prior standard (expectations) and that the confirmation or disconfirmation of those expectations predicts satisfaction, which can result in positive or negative word-of-mouth communication”. A number of studies supported this cognitive explanation (e.g. Oliver, 1980). However, past research also demonstrated that satisfaction has emotional antecedents (Oliver, 1993; Westbrook & Oliver, 1991). The role of these consumption-based emotions in consumer satisfaction formation makes personality research particularly valuable. Godes et al. (2005) already called for future research “to investigate the fundamental motives behind the individual’s proclivity for communication as a function of the individual’s characteristics” in order to answer the question: “who should target the firm to facilitate the spread of information?”. Also Mooradian & Olver (1997) suggested that it could be useful “to integrate personality variables with popular lifestyle segmentation schemes, such as VALS 2 or LOVS”. Because personality traits and personal values are relatively stable psychological constructs across contexts and time (Roccas et al. 2002), these constructs could probably help to answer the question mentioned above.
There is little empirical research linking word-of-mouth to personality traits and personal values of customers (Ferguson et al. 2010). Therefore, an explanation of word-of-mouth intentions on the basis of these individual customer characteristics could be very useful, particularly for companies that have included word-of-mouth communication in their overall strategy. The purpose of this study is to help companies in developing effective marketing programmes that encourage positive word-of-mouth communication (and avoid negative word-of-mouth communication) by answering the following research question: “to what extent can personality traits and personal values influence word-of-mouth communication?”
In order to get an answer on this research question, existing academic literature about this subject will be analyzed firstly, followed by a conceptual research model and some hypotheses (chapter 2). Research data will be collected by developing a questionnaire in order to measure personality traits, personal values, word-of-mouth communication, and some control variables (chapter 3). The (online) questionnaire will be distributed randomly (respondents aged 18 years or
older) through the internet. Then, some statistical tests will be conducted in order to accept or reject the hypotheses, which are used to draw some conclusions with respect to the main research question (chapter 4). Finally, the managerial implications and the academic contribution of this research will be discussed (chapter 5).
2.
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter provides an extensive review of the existing literature about word-of-mouth communication (2.1), personality traits and personal values (2.2), the link between personality traits and word-of-mouth communication (2.3), and the link between personal values and word-of-mouth communication (2.4). Finally, hypotheses are formulated, and a conceptual research model is presented (2.5).
2.1
Word-of-mouth communication
Research on word-of-mouth has gained a lot of attention during the last decades. Brooks (1957) already showed that word-of-mouth can be highly influential in building a market for new or improved products. Ever since, much research was performed on the effects of word-of-mouth, rather than identifying the factors that influence word-of-mouth communication (Brown et al. 2005). In particular, individual customer characteristics have seldomly received attention in word-of-mouth research. The basic idea of word-of-mouth is that it can spread information about products, services, stores, companies from one customer to another (Brown et al. 2005).
2.1.1. Definition of word-of-mouth communication
Arndt (1967) defined word-of-mouth as social behavior involving person-to-person communication where the receiver perceives the giver to be non-commercial with regard to a service, product or brand. More recently, Harrison-Walker (2001) defined word-of-mouth as “informal, person-to-person communication between a perceived non-commercial communicator and receiver regarding a brand, product, organization, or service”. According to Harrison-Walker (2001), word-of-mouth consists of three aspects. One aspect is “enthusiasm”, which includes frequency (how often the individual engages in word-of-mouth) and the number of contact (Anderson, 1998; Brown and Reingen, 1987). A second aspect is “detail”, or how much is said (Bone, 1992). The third aspect is “praise”, or the favorableness of the word-of-mouth communication (Arndt, 1968; Singh, 1990). Finally, the aspects “enthusiasm” and “detail” were taken together and named as “word-of-mouth-activity”. More recently, three logical types of word-of-mouth were identified by Cheema and Kaikati (2010; positive, neutral, and negative. Positive word-of-mouth is characterized by giving recommendations to others about a specific product or service, while negative word-of-mouth is characterized by discouragement of buying a specific product or service. Neutral word-of-mouth consists of information about a product or service where no judgement is given.
Katz and Lazarsfeld (1955) were the first ones to find that word-of-mouth was the most important source of influence in the purchase of household goods and food products. Moreover, it is said to be seven times as effective as newspapers and magazines, four time as effective as personal selling, and twice as effective as radio advertising (Brown & Reingen, 1987). Word-of-mouth is thought to be more important in a service vs psychical goods context. Compared to physical goods, services have greater credence characteristics, are inherently intangible, difficult to standardize, and often involve substantial risk without guarantees and warrantees (Zeithaml et al. 2006). One of the most widely accepted notions in consumer behavior is that word-of-mouth communications plays an important role in shaping consumers’ attitudes and behaviors (Brown & Reingen, 1987).
Not only consumers are using word-of-mouth communication, also companies are trying to engineer word-of-mouth. Godes & Mayzlin (2009) made a distinction between endogenous and exogenous word-of-mouth communication. The conversations that naturally occur among consumers
as a function of their experiences with a product or service are called endogenous word-of-mouth communication. Exogenous word-of-mouth communication is the result of the firms’ actions to increase the number of (positive) conversations. Research showed that in some cases exogenous word-of-mouth communication is purely is associated with higher sales (Godes & Mayzlin, 2009).
2.1.2 Word-of-mouth communication antecedents
Much research focused on the effect word-of-mouth has on the receiver of the communication (Arndt, 1967; Brown & Reingen, 1987; Richins, 1983) in demonstrating the strong influence of word-of-mouth on product choice and selection, rather than on the sender of the word-word-of-mouth communication (Anderson, 1998; Gatignon and Robertson, 1985) as a key player in the promotion of the firm. Several studies have shown that positive word-of-mouth is an outcome of high customer satisfaction (Richins, 1983; Sundaram et al. 1998; Swan and Oliver; 1989; Westbrook, 1987). The dominant model for conceptualizing and measuring customer satisfaction bas been the expectancy disconfirmation theory, which posits that consumers compare perceived product / service performance with some prior standard expectations (De Matos & Rossi, 2008). Customers who perceive extremely high or low satisfaction are more likely to spread word-of-mouth (Oliver, 1997; Anderson, 1998). The likelihood of customers spreading word-of-mouth will depend on their satisfaction level for at least two reasons. First, the extent to which the product or service performance exceeds the customer’s expectations might motivate him or her to tell others about his or her positive experience. Second, the extent to which the customer’s expectations are not fulfilled, possibly creating a customer regret experience, this customer will engage in word-of-mouth behavior as a form of “venting” his or her negative emotions, such as anger and frustration, reducing anxiety, warning others, and/or seeking retaliation (Anderson, 1998). Highly satisfied customers have a desire to tell others about their positive experience (Brown et al. 2005). On the other hand, customers spreading negative word-of-mouth are those with the lowest satisfaction levels, such as those who experience a service failure followed by an unsatisfactory recovery (Sundaram et al. 1998). Overall, the association between word-of-mouth frequency and customer satisfaction is inversed U-shaped with most word-of-mouth communication being either negative or positive.
Also some individual differences could have an influence on word-of-mouth communication. Empirical research by Gremler et al. (2001) have shown that higher level of trust are associated with a greater tendency to offer favorable word-of-mouth. This is based on the rationale that customers mostly provide recommendations to other individuals of their reference group in which her or she has previous experience and confidence in. Furthermore, trust can be defined as “the perception of confidence in an exchange partner’s reliability and integrity” (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Bowman and Narayanas (2001) found that customers who described themselves as loyal, were significantly more likely to engage in mouth. However, these customers were less likely to engage in of-mouth the higher their satisfaction. This suggests that loyal customers only engage in negative word-of-mouth when they are dissatisfied. Moreover, in a disloyalty situation, in which customers switch from providers, they are also likely to spread negative word-of-mouth in order to reduce their cognitive dissonance (Wangenheim, 2005). Hennig-Thurau et al. (2002) found that also commitment has a positive relationship with word-of-mouth communication. Commitment can be defined as “an enduring desire to maintain a valued relationship” (Moorman et al. 1992). Some authors consider two dimensions of commitment, namely “affective” and “calculative” commitment (Harrison-Walker, 2001). Affective commitment is related to the customer identification with, and involvement in, a particular organization. Calculative commitment refers to the customer’s sense of being “locked-in” to the service provider, due to constraints like loss of benefits and costs for switching. Verhoef et al. (2002) showed that affective commitment has a significant positive effect on word-of-mouth, while for calculative commitment no effect was found. Brown et al. (2005) demonstrated that for higher-commitment customers, positive word-of-mouth behavior is less dependent on their satisfaction level. These customers speak positively about the company regardless of their satisfaction level, whereas low-commitment customers will provide favorable recommendations to the extent that they are satisfied.
2.1.2 Word-of-mouth communication and individual situational characteristics
While the cognitive link between customer satisfaction and word-of-mouth has been confirmed several times, it appears to be likely that consumers also engage in word-of-mouth when they experience notable emotions (Westbrook, 1987). For example, consumers engage in word-of-mouth because of social or psychological benefits. Past research suggested that word-of-mouth is driven by motivation (Dichter, 1966), and a word-of-mouth giver may be motivated by personality, sociability, a desire to help others (Lau & Ng, 2007), or self-presentation (Dichter, 1966; Gatignon & Robertson, 1986).Sundaram et al. (1998) found that consumers engage in word-of-mouth communication for altruistic motives, anxiety reduction, advice seeking, product involvement and self-enhancement reasons. Sundaram et al. (1998) also stated that customers engage in word-of-mouth because they find it intrinsically satisfying or because they have a helpful social personality.
Most people want others to think highly of them, and talking about interesting (vs boring) things should facilitate this goal. When sharing word-of-mouth, consumers communicate not only information but also something about themselves, which can explain why people may talk more about interesting products or services because it makes them seem interesting or signal their identity (Berger & Heath, 2007; Wojnicki & Godes, 2008). Nambisan & Baron (2009) provided empirical evidence for the critical role of four consumer benefits (learning/cognitive, social, hedonic and status) for active community participation and Dholakia et al. (2010) supported the relevance of functional and social benefits in the same context. Achieving social status and power or to justify decisions (generate approval from others) are reasons for consumers to engage in word-of-mouth (Gatignon & Robertson, 1986).
There may also be motivation to avoid engaging in negative word-of-mouth. Individuals may be reluctant to transmit bad news to avoid guilt feelings, association with bad news, or alienating recipients (Tesser and Rosen, 1975). Moreover, word-of-mouth communication also include costs such as social obligation and time commitments, and risk of communicating inappropriate advice (Gatignon & Robertson, 1986). Prior research also demonstrated that consumers are less likely to engage in positive word-of-mouth if the supply of sale items is limited (Frenzen & Nakamoto, 1993). Also consumers who have a high need for uniqueness are less willing to provide positive word-of-mouth about a product that is perceived to be publicly used (Cheema & Kaikati, 2008).
Prior research has identified consumers who are more likely to engage in (positive) word-of-mouth communication. Feick & Price (1987) identified three distinct types of influential customers; the innovator, the opinion leader, and the market maven. Market mavens are likely to spread a lot of word-of-mouth across a wide variety of products, whereas opinion leaders and innovators both tend to be experts within a specific product domain. A market maven can be defined as an “individual who has information on many kinds of products, places to shop, and other facets of the market, who initiate discussion with, and respond to, information requests from other consumers” (Feick & Price, 1987). Market mavens are motivated by a greater sense of obligation to talk, a desire to help others, and a feeling of pleasure from telling others about products or services.
Clark and Goldsmith (2005) compared mavens to non-mavens and found that mavens were somewhat more susceptible to normative interpersonal influences (more likely to conform to the expectations of others. Mavens also tend to show more need for uniqueness and it seems that mavens wish to differentiate themselves from others but in a way that is still considered acceptable in terms of the normative beliefs of others. Increasing levels of status consumption, brand engagement with self-concept, and the aspiration to be attractive are associated with greater levels of market mavenism (Sprott et al, 2009). Feick & Price (1987) developed the market maven scale to measure the consumers’ propensity to provide general shopping and marketplace information. Consumers scoring high on this scale are referred as ‘market mavens’.
2.2
Personality traits and personal values
Both personality traits and personal values are relative stable psychological constructs across context and time, and makes them useful for research about word-of-mouth communication. Personality traits are dimensions of individual differences in tendencies to show consistent patterns of thoughts, feelings, and actions (McCrae & Costa, 1990). For example, people who have an extroverted personality are by nature more active, assertive, enthusiastic, and outgoing (McCrae & John, 1992; Mooradian & Olver, 1997) than introverts. Hence, traits are enduring dispositions. In contrast, values are enduring goals. Traits describe “what people like” rather than the intentions behind their behavior. Values refer to “what people consider important”, the goals they wish to pursue. People believe their values are desirable, at least to a significant reference group, whereas traits may be positive or negative. People may explain behavior referring to traits or to values, but they refer to their values when they wish to justify choices or actions as legitimate or worthy. For example, when a young teenage girl is thinking about buying an iPhone, she could justify her action as legitimate or worthy because all her close friends also have an iPhone. In this case, she probably considers “sense of belonging” as an important value, which could explain her buying behavior. Therefore, values – but not traits – serve as standards for judging the behavior of self and others (Roccas et al. 2002).
2.2.1 Categorization of personality traits
As already said, personality traits can be used to gain a more detailed understanding of the intention to use word-of-mouth communication. Although personality has not been shown to be strongly related to consumer behavior (Kassarjian, 1971), some researchers believe that more reliable measures of traits, developed in a consumer context, would reveal a relationship (Lastosvicka et al. 1988). The most widely used and extensively researched model of personality is The Big Five framework developed by Costa & McRae (1980). This hierarchical model of personality traits with five broad factors (extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience) represent personality at the broadest level of abstraction. Each bipolar factor (e.g. extraversion vs. introversion) summarizes several more specific facets (e.g. sociability), which, in turn, subsume a larger number of even more specific traits (e.g. talkative, outgoing). Costa & McRae (1992) also related the Big-Five personality traits to demographic segmentation variables, including age and gender. Neuroticism scores are typically higher during adolescence and early adulthood, after which they stabilize (Costa & McRae, 1992). Females also score significantly higher on neuroticism than males (Mooradian & Olver, 1997).
The Big Five framework enjoys considerable support and has become the most widely used and extensively researched model of personality. Several rating instruments have been developed to measure the Big Five dimensions. The most comprehensive instrument is Costa and McRae’s (1992) 240-item NEO Personality Inventory, Revised. Taking about 45 minutes to complete, the NEO-PI-R is too lengthy for many research purposes and so a number of shorter instruments are commonly used (John & Srivastava, 1999; Costa & McRae, 1992; Saucier, 1994; Goldberg, 1992; Gosling, 2003).
Gosling et al. (2003) developed a very short single-item instrument to measure the Big Five personality dimensions for situations where very short measures are needed, personality is not the primary topic of interest, or researchers can tolerate the somewhat diminished psychometric properties associated with very brief measures. Robins et al. (2001a) noted that single-item measures eliminate item redundancy and therefore reduce the fatigue, frustration, and boredom associated with answering highly similar questions repeatedly.
Eysenck (1947) also developed a personality scale (EPQ), primarily designed to measure the dimensions extraversion (vs introversion) and neuroticism. In 1976, psychoticism was added as a third dimension. Extraversion and neuroticism in the Big Five are very similar to Eysenck’s traits of the same name. However, the trait psychoticism corresponds to two traits in the Big Five; conscientiousness and agreeableness. One of the briefer versions of the personality scale is known as Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised Short Scale (EPQ-RSS). Although this short personality scale is very useful, some researchers found that reliability coefficients of the measures (especially for the psychoticism scale) have been less than satisfactory (Forrest et al. 2000).
2.2.2 Categorization of personal values
Next to personality traits, personal values can be used as well to gain a more detailed understanding of the antecedents of word-of-mouth intentions. The most recognized scales for measuring personal values include the value surveys of Rokeach (1973), Schwartz (1992), and the List of Values (Kahle, 1983). Rokeach Value Survey (RVS), divided values into seven categories: maturity, security, prosocial behavior (doing nice things for others), restrictive conformity, enjoyment, achievement, and self-direction. One drawback of the questionnaire is that some values measured by the RVS are less relevant to consumer behavior. Therefore, some researchers recommended using a shortened form of the RVS containing only the values most relevant to the context of consumer behavior (Munson & McQuarrie, 1988). Another way to identify customer segments and personal values is the List of Values (LOV), designed by Kahle et al. (1986). Compared with the RVS, the nine-item LOV is purported to be more parsimonious, easier to administer, quicker to complete, and contain more items relating to people’s daily lives (Beatty et al. 1985). LOV is also useful for identifying segments of consumers with similar value systems. The nine values are: self-respect, warm relationships with others, sense of accomplishment, self-fulfillment, fun and enjoyment life, excitement, sense of belonging, being well respected, and security. The values can also be described in terms of whether they are fulfilled through interpersonal relationships (warm relationship with others, sense of belonging), personal factors (self-respect, being well respected, self-fulfillment), or nonpersonal things (sense of accomplishment, fun, security, and excitement).
2.3
Personality traits and word-of-mouth communication
The influence of an individuals’ personality is often cited as a very important factor when spreading word-of-mouth. The concept of personality helps researchers to understand why people behave differently in different situations. Personality consists of the distinct patterns of behaviors, tendencies, qualities, or personal dispositions that make one individual different from another. These patterns are internal characteristics that we are born with or that result from the way we have been raised. Certain types of personality may be more related to consumer behavior than others. Two of these, extraversion and neuroticism have been linked theoretically and empirically with the experience of emotions (Mooradian & Olver, 1994). For example, extraversion (Mooradian & Olver, 1997), and facets subsumed by extraversion such as ‘sociability’ (Lau & Ng, 2001), and ‘social needs’ (Reynolds & Beatty, 1999) has been linked with word-of-mouth communication.
Extraversion focused on the quantity and intensity of relationships (such as sociability and dominance), energy level, positive emotionality, and excitement seeking (DeNeve & Cooper, 1999). Costa & McRae (1980) proposed that extraversion leads to positive affect, because extroverts are simply more cheerful and high-spirited than introverts. Mooradian et al. (2006) defined extraversion as being energetic, cheerful, gregarious, and sociable with a predisposition to positive affect and a preference for interpersonal interactions. Extraverts tend to vent to others their emotions in response to daily stressors (David & Suls, 1999). Extraversion is found to be associated with a reliance on word-of-mouth (Mooradian & Swann, 2006) and, via brand affect, indirectly may influence attitudinal and purchase loyalty (Matzler et al. 2006). Researchers also related extraversion to support seeking (Amirkhan et al. 1995; O’Brien & DeLongis, 1996) and to subjective wellbeing (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998). On the other hand, neuroticism has been closely linked with negative affect, which could result in higher levels of dissatisfaction, negative word-of-mouth, and complaining (Mooradian & Olver, 1994). Neuroticism focused on adjustment variables (such as psychoticism and distress), as well as negative emotional and behavioral traits (such as ambivalence over emotional expressiveness and aggression). Costa & McRae (1980) proposed that neuroticism leads to negative affect, because emotional unstable individuals are naturally more prone to negative affect.
As already mentioned, empirical evidence has shown that extraversion and neuroticism are related to positive and negative affect, respectively (e.g. Costa & McCrae, 1980; Diener & Emmons, 1984; Larsen & Ketelaar, 1989). At least two explanations can be hypothesized for this relationship between personality and (negative) affect; a temperamental theory posits that neurotics are more
likely to experience negative affect in a given situation, and an instrumental view holds that neurotics may place themselves in more adverse life situations (and therefore experience more negative affect). Larsen and Ketelaar (1991) found support for the temperamental perspective, drawing on theory developed by Eysenck (1967) and expanded by Gray (1981, 1987), which proposes that neurotics are more likely to focus on punishment signals (negative aspects in a given situation), while extroverts attend more to reward signals (positive aspects of situations). Watson and Clark (1997) also stated that neurotics and extraverts have a temperamental susceptibility to experience negative and positive affect, respectively. Gray (1991) claimed that two underlying brain systems are responsible for much of the individual difference in personality. One of these neuronal systems, the behavioral activation system (BAS), is thought to regulate behavior in the presence of signals of reward. The other system, the behavioral inhibition system (BIS), is thought to regulate behavior in the presence of signals of punishment. Gray has suggested that individuals differ in the relative strengths of these two signal-sensitivity systems, with extraversion relating to a strong sensitivity to signals of reward and neuroticism relating to a strong sensitivity to signals of punishment.
2.4
Personal values and word-of-mouth communication
Whereas personality traits are believed to be endogenous characteristics related to the underlying bio-psychological and genetic structures of the individual, personal values are learned believes about preferred ways of acting or being which serve as guiding principles in life (Olver & Mooradian, 2003). Values are enduring beliefs that a given behavior or outcome is desirable or good (Rokeach, 1973). As enduring beliefs, values serve as standards that guide behavior across situations and over time. People learn values through the process of socialization, which results from exposure to reference groups and other sources of influence.
A value that has become increasingly prevalent in Western cultures is materialism. In a materialistic society, people gauge satisfaction in terms of what they have or have not acquired in life and in terms of desired possessions. Materialism can reflect a high value on accomplishment, if people judge self-worth by what they have acquired or their achievement of a comfortable life. Some people value materialism more highly than others. People also differ in the value they place on individualism. The “rugged individualist” consumer values independence and self-reliance, tending to see the individual’s needs and rights as a higher priority than the group’s needs and rights. In a generally individualistic society there are allocentric consumers (who prefer interdependence and social relationships) and idiocentric consumers (who put more emphasis on individual freedom and assertiveness). People in different countries are exposed to different cultural experiences, which leads to cross-cultural differences in values. In a classic study, Hofstede (1983) found that cultures can vary along the value dimensions individualism vs collectivism (the degree to which a culture focuses on the individual rather than the group) and masculinity vs. femininity (the extent to which a culture stresses masculine values such as assertiveness, success, and competition, over feminine values such as quality of live, warm relationships, and caring).
Values can influence consumers’ reactions to their product or service experience, and thereby word-of-mouth communication. Consumers who value “self-fulfillment” (more masculine values such as success and competition) high are likely to react very differently from those who value “warm relationships with others” (more feminine values such as quality of life and caring) after an unsatisfactory service experience. For example, it is suggested that those who highly value “self-fufillment” are more likely to complain (Rubin & Brown, 1975) than those who highly value ‘warm relationships with others’. It is suggested that the underlying cause of such behavior is that people who highly value “self-fulfillment”, are more likely to complain as a consequence of their willingness to achieve their goal (e.g. getting money back) than those people who highly value “warm relationship with others”, because they probably will omit complaining because it could disrupt their relationship with others.
Further, different social classes hold specific values, which in turn affects consumer behavior. For example, upper-upper-class consumers value giving back to society, which spurs them to become active in social, cultural, and civic causes (Hoyer & McInnis, 2007).
2.5
Conceptual model and hypotheses
The literature review will be used to determine the expectations concerning the influence of personality traits and personal values on word-of-mouth communication. These expectations will be formulated as hypotheses (2.5.2) and are supported by literature in the following paragraphs. Before the hypotheses are presented, the conceptual research model (2.5.1) will be shown.
2.5.1. Conceptual research model
According to Harrison-Walker (2001), of-mouth communication consists of two aspects; word-of-mouth activity and word-word-of-mouth praise. Therefore, these two constructs will be separately added to the conceptual research model as independent variablies. Among the various factors that could have an effect on the intention to use word-of-mouth communication, two personality traits and four personal values are of principal interest in this research. Past research indicated that both personality traits “extraversion” and “neuroticism” have been linked theoretically and empirically with the experience of emotions. Because word-of-mouth communication also contains emotional antecedents (Oliver, 1993), it is suggested that these two personality traits in particular could have an influence on the intention to use word-of-mouth communication. Moreover, research suggests that four personal values could also influence word-of-mouth communication, and will be added to this research as moderator variables. These four personal values are: being well-respected, warm-relationship with others, self-fulfilment, and sense of belonging. The values were originally described in the (nine-items) List of Values designed by Kahle et al. (1986), which is very useful for identifying segments of customers with similar value systems. The abovementioned four values were chosen, because these in particular can influence customers’ reactions to product or service experience, and thereby word-of-mouth communication. It was decided to use the personality traits as an independent variable, because these endogenous characteristics are believed to be related to the bio-psychological and genetic structure of the individual. In contrast, personal values are enduring believes which were learned through the process of socialization (exogeneous), and thereby influences these endogenous characteristics. Because of the fact that the process of socialization results from exposure to reference groups and other sources of influences, it is suggested that personal values will have a moderating effect on the relationship between extraversion and word-of-mouth communication. A moderating effect of personal values in the relationship between neuroticism and word-of-mouth communication was not hypothesized, because it is suggested that socialization in particular is a result of individuals’ extroverted behavior.
Finally, market mavenism will act as a control variable. Market mavenism was chosen as a control variable, because the characteristics of market mavens could potentially influence the research results. Previous studies already suggested that market mavenism influences word-of-mouth communication, whereas the present study attempts to identify the underlying personality traits and personal values of these (and other) customers. It is suggested that the characteristics of market mavens are more or less similar to extraverted people who highly value being well-respected, warm-relationship with others, self-fulfilment, and/or sense of belonging. These characteristics could result from a market maven’s greater motivation to talk (extraversion), a desire to help others (extraversion), and their susceptibility to normative interpersonal influences (being well-respected, warm relationships with others, and sense of belonging). The conceptual research model is shown in fig. 2.1.
Fig. 2.1 Conceptual research model
2.5.2 Hypotheses
Extroverts are by nature more active, assertive, enthusiastic, and outgoing (McCrae & John, 1992; Mooradian & Olver, 1997) than introverts and tend to be energetic, cheerful, gregarious, and view stressful situations as challenges (Costa & McCrae, 1985). However, there is some evidence that extraversion is characterized by surgency to a greater degree than sociability (e.g. Hogan & Holland, 2003). Individuals high in extraversion tend to be highly social, talkative, affectionate, and commonly have numerous friendships and good social skills (McCrae & Costa, 1992). Their outgoing and assertive nature, along with their tendencies to view others and opportunities for social interactions positively, may make them likely to be helpful to others (King et al. 2005). Richins (1983) also found that extraversion and complaint propensity were positively related. In the study, the author suggested that non-assertive individuals appear to be too anxious to voice complaints regarding an unsatisfactory product or service experience. Overall, it is suggested that extroverts are more likely to use word-of-mouth communication after a (dis)satisfying experience than introverts. Hence, it is hypothesized that;
H1: Extraversion positively influences word-of-mouth activity
As already mentioned, empirical evidence has shown that extraversion is related to positive affect, because extroverts are simply more cheerful and high-spirited than introverts (e.g. Costa & McCrae, 1980; Larsen & Ketelaar, 1989). In their study on affect in consumption experiences, Westbrook & Oliver (1991) found that neuroticism will predict negative consumption-based affect, which is a set of negative emotional responses elicited during product usage or consumption experiences. They also found that these negative consumption based affect predicted consumer satisfaction. Extroverts are more susceptible to experience positive affect, because they are more likely to focus on signals of reward instead of signals of punishment (Gray, 1981, 1987). Overall, because extroverts focus more on reward signals, it is hypothesized that, via positive affect, they are more likely to spread positive word-of-mouth than introverts. Therefore, it is hypothesized that;
H2: Extraversion positively influences word-of-mouth praise
Being well-respected Word-of-mouth activity Extraversion (vs Introversion) Word-of-mouth praise Neuroticism (vs. Emotional Stability)
Customer’s perceived value also has an influence on word-of-mouth. Customer-perceived value can be described as the consumer’s overall assessment of the utility of a product or service based on perceptions of what is received and what is given (Zeithaml, 1988). It is suggested that neurotics and emotionally stable people differ in their perception of value, probably due to an individuals’ locus of control. The locus of control construct captures individuals’ general and daily expectancies about the causes of their reward and punishment (Rotter, 1966). Individuals with a high internal locus of control generally believe there are in control of their lives and events affecting their lives, while those with a high external locus of control see the outcomes of events as being due to uncontrollable external variables such as luck, fate and powerful others (Lam & Mizerski, 2005). Locus of control can heavily influence consumer’s perceptions of satisfaction in a consumption experience and determine how the consumer feels. For example, a consumer who blame themselves for product failure might feel shame (e.g. emotionally stable people), whereas those who blame product failure on an external source might feel anger and irritation (e.g. neurotics).
Richins (1983) found that dissatisfaction (as a consequence of low perceived value), rather than satisfaction, leads to greater word-of-mouth. Therefore, it was argued that people are more likely to communicate negative attitudes to more people than positive attitudes. In addition, Anderson (1998) found that extremely dissatisfied customers engage in greater word-of-mouth than extremely satisfied customers. Farber and Wyckoff (1991) showed that a satisfied customer will tell 3-5 other people of his or her experience, whereas a dissatisfied customer will tell 10 to 11 people. This implies greater word-of mouth activity when consumers are dissatisfied after a product or service experience. Neurotics also have a greater motivation to engage in word-of-mouth after a dissatisfying product or service experience in order to vent hostility (Jung, 1959), as well as reduce anxiety, warn others, or seek vengeance (Knapp, 1944). Moreover, it is suggested that emotionally stable personalities are likely to use less word-of-mouth than neurotics, because they are less “prone” to exhibit behavior based on emotions. Altogether, it is more likely that neurotics will experience an unsatisfactory product or service experience because of negative affect, and thus will spread more (negative) word-of-mouth as a form of “venting” his or her negative emotions. Hence, it is hypothesized that;
H3: Neuroticism positively influences word-of-mouth activity
People who are high in neuroticism tend to experience more negative emotions such as anxiety, depression, and anger, and they are likely to appraise stressful situations as threats rather than challenges (Costa & McCrae, 1985). On the other hand, individuals who are high on emotional stability tend to be calm, content, well-adjusted, and stable. They are not prone to getting upset and anxious. Emotional stability is defined in terms of the low pole of the trait and referred to as neuroticism or negative affectivity (John & Srivastava, 1999). Individuals high in neuroticism (or low in emotional stability) tend to worry a great deal and feel insecure and nervous (Schultz & Schultz, 1994). Neurotics are described as anxious, self-pitying, tense, touchy, unstable, and worrying (McCrae & John, 1992). Individuals who are high on neuroticism are more likely to be consumed by their own anxieties and stress, and in need of help rather than being able to offer it to others. (King et al. 2005). Neurotics are also more sensitive to experience negative affect. Whereas extroverts are more likely to focus on reward signals, neurotics are more likely to focus on punishment signals (Gray, 1981; 1987). Another view holds that neurotics may place themselves in more adverse life situations and therefore experience more negative affect. Altogether, it is hypothesized that;
H4: Neuroticism negatively influences word-of-mouth praise
The next hypotheses suggest a moderating effect of one of the personal values ‘being well-respected’, ‘self-fulfillment’, ‘warm relationships with others’, and ‘sense of belonging’ in the relationship between extraversion and word-of-mouth communication. As already mentioned, it is suggested that this moderating effect is the result of the process of socialization.
Individuals normally wish to present themselves in a positive way. Telling others that a product one purchased was unsatisfactory is, in essence, admitting failure as a consumer. Dichter (1966) and Arndt (1967) already provided a variety of theoretical reasons in support of a positive customer satisfaction – word-of-mouth relationship, including altruism (desire to help others), instrumentalism (desire to appear well informed or “smart”), ego defense, and reduction of cognitive dissonance. Some customers may be high on self-enhancement, or the desire for positive recognition by others, and they have been shown to engage in higher word-of-mouth behavior (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004; Sundaram et al. 1998). Engaging in positive word-of-mouth is consistent with the need to present the self in as positive a light as possible (Goffman, 1959; Richins, 1984). Gatignon and Robertson (1986) cited decision support, decision justification, social status and social power as the main factors that motivated word-of-mouth communication. Some customers engage in positive word-of-mouth in order to show their expertise in a certain area in order to project their social status and power. Status consumption is the use of products and services to elevate or demonstrate one’s social status. Some consumers have a greater desire to enhance their image as observed by others and are therefore willing to be influenced or guided by them. It is suggested that customers who are high in the need for recognition are trying to achieve this image by using word-of-mouth communication in order to enhance its social status and social power. Summarized, some people consider ‘being well respected’ as an important value and will use word-of-mouth communication as a form of personal branding to enhance their image. Hence, it is hypothesized that;
H5: The positive effect of extraversion on word-of-mouth activity is positively influenced when people consider ‘being well-respected’ as an important value.
Some customers use (positive, negative or neutral) word-of-mouth to discuss interesting topics and enhance their knowledge about a certain product or service.Dichter (1966) and Arndt (1967) already found that some customers find it intrinsically satisfying to appear well informed or “smart”, they use word-of-mouth communication as a form of self-fulfillment. Gewirth (2009) defined self-fulfillment as “carrying to fruition one’s deepest desire or one’s worthiest capacities” and noted that "to seek for a good human life is to seek for self-fulfillment”. It is suggested that customers who consider “self-fulfillment” as an important value are more likely to use word-of-mouth communication to achieve their goal. For example, some customers have an economic incentive to complain after a dissatisfying product or service experience, and they could probably use their social power as a customer in order to get their money back. In contrast, they could also use their social power in order to get an economic reward in the form of a future discount when they spread positive word-of-mouth communication about the particular product or service. Overall, it is suggested that extroverted people who consider “self-fulfillment” as an important value are more likely to use word-of-mouth communication in order to achieve their goals in life. Therefore, it is hypothesized that;
H6: The positive effect of extraversion on word-of-mouth activity is positively influenced when people consider ‘self-fulfillment’ as an important value.
Ferguson et al. (2010) stated that individuals with higher socially oriented values (e.g. “warm relationship with others”) and more socially oriented personality traits (e.g. “extraversion”) would have a greater tendency to engage in word-of-mouth. Socially responsible people tend to help people even when there is nothing to be gained from others. They are concerned about the welfare of people around them, and they would be more likely to give negative word-of-mouth to warn others about the unsatisfactory product, brand, or service. Consumers transmit information about products and services because they have a helpful personality or find it intrinsically satisfying (Cheema and Kaikati, 2010). Some individuals feel it is their moral obligation to gather useful information and pass it on to others (Kassarjian, 1981). Walsh et al. (2004) examined three motivations for word-of-mouth communication; the sense of obligation to share information, feeling of gratification at informing others, and the desire to help others. Hence, it was hypothesized that;
H7: The positive effect of extraversion on word-of-mouth activity is positively influenced when people consider ‘warm relationships with others’ as an important value.
Individuals differ in the degree to which they look to others for cues on how to behave. Therefore, we can distinguish high and low self-monitors. High self-monitors are typically sensitive to the desires and influences of others as guides for behavior, and low self-monitors are guided more by their own preferences and desires and are less influenced by normative expectations (Hoyer & McInnis, 2007). Consumers are influenced in their behavior by many sources, especially by their (associative and aspirational) reference groups through the process of socialization. Aspirational reference groups are groups we admire and wish to be like but are not currently a member of. Associative reference groups are groups to which we actually belong, such as clique of friends, an extended family, a particular work group, etc. The gender, ethnic, geographic, and age groups to which people belong are also associative reference groups with whom people may identify. Both sources of influence can exert in normative influence. Consumer susceptibility to normative interpersonal influence is defined as “the need to identify or enhance one’s image with significant others through the acquisition and use of products and brands, the willingness to conform to the expectation of others regarding purchase decisions and/or the tendency to learn about products and services by observing others and/or seeking information from others” (Bearden et al. 1989). Normative influence in a consumer context includes the need to utilize products and brands to enhance one’s social image as well as the need to conform to the expectations of significant others. Normative influence affects brand-choice congruence, the likelihood that consumers will buy what others in their group buy. Normative influence can also affect conformity, the tendency for an individual to behave as the group behaves. The personalities of some customers make them readily to susceptible to influence by others. Consumers who are susceptible to interpersonal influence try to enhance their self-image by acquiring products that think others will approve of. As a consequence, it is suggested that people who consider “sense of belonging” as an important value, are more likely to use word-of-mouth communication to show that they belong to a certain (associative or aspirational) reference group. Hence, it is hypothesized that;
H8: The positive effect of extraversion on word-of-mouth activity is positively influenced when people consider ‘sense of belonging’ as an important value.
3.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the research design to test the hypotheses mentioned in the previous chapter. It contains information about how the data was collected (3.1), how the constructs were measured (3.2), and how the data was analyzed (3.3). The purpose of this research is to provide empirical evidence about the influence of personality traits and personal values on word-of-mouth communication.
3.1 Data collection
An online questionnaire with 74 questions in total was developed to collect data for this research project. Respondents aged 18 years or older were asked to answer several questions about personality traits, personal values, word-of-mouth activity, word-of-mouth praise, and market mavenism. No data was gathered on the number of people approached with the survey (due to link sharing on Facebook, retweets on Twitter and forwarding email), and therefore response rates could not be computed. Finally, the sample size consisted of a satisfactory amount of 230 respondents. The questionnaire was randomly distributed through the Internet because of the importance of “perceived anonymity” and “social desirability” in case of the sensitivity of the research subject. The first refers to the respondent’s perception that their identities will not be discerned by the researcher. Perceived anonymity is high during Internet surveys, because there is no contact with the interviewer while responding. Second, Internet surveys are also less susceptible to social desirability, which refers to the tendency of the respondents to give answers that are socially acceptable (Malhotra, 2007). An Internet survey was the best suitable option, because the questionnaire consisted of highly sensitive personal questions about subjects such as personality and personal values. Furthermore, an online questionnaire is the fastest method of obtaining data from a large number of respondents, and has relative low costs. In order to test whether the questions were understood and no questions were misinterpreted, and even though the measurement items scales have been used in previous research settings, a pre-test was done prior to the distribution of the questionnaire. For this pre-test, five individuals were asked to fill in the online questionnaire. After some adjustments were made, the online questionnaire was distributed.
3.2
Measurement of constructs
All measurement scales are based on previous studies (see table 3.1)
. Existing scales were used to
measure personality traits,
personal values, word-of-mouth intentions, and market mavenism. Furthermore, the original questions of the mouth construct were modified from word-of-mouth behavior about a specific product or service, into questions of word-of-word-of-mouth intentions in general. The questionnaire started with a short introduction about the context of the research and ended with a word of thank for filling in the questionnaire. The questionnaire that was used in this study can be found in Appendix A.Variable Construct Source
Personality traits - Extraversion (EXTR)
- Neuroticism (NEUR) Eysenck & Eysenck (1991) Sanderman et al. (1995) Personal values - Being well respected (BWR)
- Self-fulfilment (SF) - Sense of belonging (SOB)
- Warm relationships with others (WR)
Kahle et al. (1986) Herche (1994)
Word-of-mouth - Word-of-mouth activity (WoMa)
- Word-of-mouth praise (WoMp) Harrison - Walker (2001) Market mavenism - Market maven scale (MM) Feick & Price (1987)
Table 3.1 Variables, constructs and sources
3.2.1 Measurement of personality traits
In order to measure the personality traits extraversion and neuroticism, the scale items originally developed in the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) by Eysenck & Eysenck (1991) were used. An important advantage of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire with respect to other measurement scales is, that it is translated and validated in many other languages. Sanderman et al. (1995) translated the EPQ into Dutch, and subjected the scale-items to principal component analysis (PCA). In the Dutch version, some items were removed from the original English scale because of low factor loadings. Sanderman et al. (1995) found a satisfactory reliable Cronbach’s alpha of .87 and .85 for the constructs neuroticism and extraversion respectively. The Eysenck’s Personality Questionnaire is a formative scale, which means that answering a question with ”yes”, the respondent will “score” one point. When answering a question with “no”, zero points were rewarded. The scale also contained some reversed questions, which were recoded later on. The final score is calculated by counting the total number of points that was scored on each the scale-items. In order to (re-)test the internal consistency of the dichotomous scales to measure extraversion and neuroticism, the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20) is used. The KR-20 is calculated in IBM SPSS Statistics version 20 in the same manner as when calculating Cronbach’s alpha. The internal consistency of the neuroticism and extraversion scale in the present study resulted in an acceptable value of .85 and .81 respectively, which is slightly lower than in the study of Sanderman et al. (1995). An overview of the scale items for the extraversion and neuroticism constructs can be found in Appendix A.
3.2.2 Measurement of personal values
The List of Values (LOV) scale, originally designed by Kahle et al. (1986) and further developed to a 9-points Likert-scale by Herche (1994), was used to measure the values warm relationships with others, self-fulfillment, being well-respected, and sense of belonging. The original 19 items of the LOV-scale to measure the four personal values were subjected to principal components analysis (PCA), in an attempt to determine if four separate constructs can be found. Prior to performing PCA, the suitability of data for factor analysis was assessed. Inspection of the correlation matrix revealed the presence of many coefficients of .3 and above. The Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin value was (0,794), exceeding the recommended value of .6 (Kaiser, 1974), and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (Bartlett, 1954) reached statistical significance, supporting the factorability of the correlation matrix.
Principal components analysis revealed the presence of 5 components with eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining 25,16%, 12,90%, 12,51%, 6,93%, and 6,05% of the variance respectively. An inspection of the scree plot revealed a clear break between the first and second components and another little break between the third and fourth components. Using Catell’s (1966) scree test, it was decided to retain three components for further investigation, because a one-factor solution in the research context seemed inappropriate. The three-component solution explained a total of 50,67% of the variance, with component 1 contributing 25,16%, component 2 contributing 12,90%, and component 3 contributing 12,51%.
In an attempt to refine the three-factor solution scale, items with a communality value less than .3 were removed from the scale. In this case, one item (WR1) was found with a communality value less than .3, which could indicate that this item does not fit well with the other items in its component. Item WR1 showed the lowest communality value (.258), and also showed the lowest loading on component 1. After a rerun of the analysis, without the removed item WR1, also item WR4 showed a low communality value (.274). Therefore, it was decided to remove both items (WR1 and WR4) from the scale to increase the reliability of the construct. To further refine the scale and to understand whether how closely related the remaining set of items are as a group, the Cronbach's alpha for each component was measured. This resulted in a higher internal consistency when the two items BWR1 (in component 1) and WR6 (in component 3) will be removed from the scale. Finally, each factor showed a Cronbach’s alpha of .7 or higher, which means that the selected items measured the same construct. The remaining 15 items explained a total of 57,30% of the variance,
with component 1 contributing 29,17%, component 2 contributing 14,53%, and component 3 contributing 13,59%.
The interpretation of the three components was quite consistent with previous research on the scales to measure personal values, with warm relationship with others (WR) and sense of belonging (SOB) items both loading strongly on component 1, being well respected items (BWR) loading strongly on component 2, and self-fulfillment (SF) items loading strongly on component 3. Finally, the results of this analysis supported the use of the items ‘being well respected’ (BWR) and ‘self-fulfillment’ (SF) as separate scales, as suggested by the scale author (Herche, 1994). However, the original items that were part of scale for warm relationship with others (WR) and sense of belonging (SOB) will be merged and labelled into a new variable ‘warm relationships with friends and family’ (WRFF). An overview of the (sub)scales can be found in table 3.2 – table 3.4.
Item Label Loading Cronbach’s alpha
Being part of the lives of those whom I am close is a
high priority for me SOB4 .877
0.835 I feel appreciated and needed by my closest relatives
and friends SOB3 .823 I value warm relationships with my family and friends
highly WR5 .799
I need to feel there is a placet hat I can call ‘home’ SOB2 .707 I make a point of reassuring others that their presence
is welcomed and appreciated WR2 .639 I try to be as open and genuine as possible with others WR3 .618 I play an important role in my family SOB1 .564
Table 3.2 Factor analysis results for the multi-item scale ‘Warm relationship with friends and family’
(WRFF)
Item Label Loading Cronbach’s alpha
I am easily hurt by what others say about me BWR2 .853
0.791 I care what others think of me BWR4 .840
The opinions of others are important to me BWR3 .800
Table 3.3 Factor analysis results for the multi-item scale ‘Being well respected’ (BWR)
Item Label Loading Cronbach’s alpha
The finer things in life are for me SF4 .845
0.753 I deserve the best, and often give myself what I deserve SF2 .733
I like to buy the best of everything when I go shopping SF3 .698 Meeting my desires is a full-time job for me SF5 .670 I treat myself well SF1 .530
Table 3.4 Factor analysis results for the multi-item scale ‘Self-fulfillment’ (SF)
3.2.3 Measurement of word-of-mouth and market mavenism
In order to find a valid and reliable construct to measure the “different shades of meaning” of word-of-mouth communication, the scale developed by Harrison-Walker (2001) was used. They demonstrated that both word-of-mouth praise and word-of-mouth activity are independent constructs, rather than aspects of a single, more generalized construct. Word-of-mouth activity included aspects of how often the WOM communication takes place, the number of people told, and the quantity of information provided by the sender. Word-of-mouth praise reflects the valence of the
WOM communication (positive, negative, or neutral). Both scales were found reliable, valid, and unidimensional. In order to develop a suitable scale for this current research, the original set of questions developed by Harrison-Walker (2001) were reformulated and translated into Dutch. The questions in the original questionnaire measured actual word-of-mouth behavior about a certain product or service, whereas in this research word-of-mouth intentions about products and services in general will be measured. The market mavenism scale (MMS) of Feick & Price (1987) was used as a control variable to measure word-of-mouth activity, because market mavens could potentially influence research results. The originally market mavenism scale consists of 6 items that were measured by using a 7-point Likert-scale.
The items to measure word-of-mouth activity, (3 items), word-of-mouth praise (2 items) and market mavenism (6 items) were subjected to principal components analysis (PCA), in an attempt to determine if three separate constructs can be found. Again, the suitability of the data for factor analysis was assessed prior to performing PCA. An inspection of the correlation matrix revealed that all coefficients are of .3 and above, and the Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin value was (0,925), exceeding the recommended value of .6 (Kaiser, 1970, 1974). Also, Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (Bartlett, 1954) reached statistical significance. Concluded, the data was very useful for PCA.
Principal components analysis found 1 component with an eigenvalue exceeding 1, which explains 56,11% of the variance. All the 11 items had a communality value above .3, which would suggest that all items fit well in the scale. When checking the reliability of the construct, a Cronbach’s apha of .920 was found. In an attempt to further refine the scale, it was decided to remove the items MM3 and WoMp2 from the scale, because it increased the coefficient of internal consistency to 0.923.
Finally, the results of this analysis did not support the use of word-of-mouth activity (WoMa), word-of-mouth praise (WoMp), and marketing mavenism (MM) as three separate constructs, as suggested in literature (Harrison-Walker, 2001; Feick & Price, 1987). Therefore, a total of 9 items will be combined as one component and labelled into the new variable ‘word-of-mouth intentions’ (WoM). An overview of the scale-items that measure ‘word-of-mouth intentions’ can be found in table 3.5.
Item Label Loading Cronbach’s alpha
I do often tell other people about my experiences with
products and services WOMa1 .836
0.924 People ask me for information about products, places to
shop, or sales MM4 .821 My friends think of me as a good source of information
when it comes to new products or sales MM2 .814 I like introducing new brands and products to my friends MM1 .805 Think about a person who has information about a
variety of products and likes to share this information.
Does this description fits you? MM6 .803 I seldom miss an opportunity to tell others about my
experiences with products or services WOMa2 .789 I am proud to tell others about my positive experiences
with products and services WOMp1 .784 I like helping people by providing them with information
about many kinds of products and services MM5 .775 I’ve told more people about my experiences with
products and services when these experiences are very
negative or very positive. WOMa3 .664
Table 3.5 Factor analysis results for the multi-item scale ‘Intention to use word-of-mouth’ (WoM)
The results of this principal component analysis (PCA) showed that the values being well-respected (BWR), and self-fulfillment (SF) were found as a single construct. However, the variables warm relationship with others (WR), sense of belonging (SOB), mouth activity (WoMa), word-of-mouth praise (WoMp) and market mavenism (MM) could not be found as separate single constructs. In contrast, two new variables were created; ‘warm relationship with friends and family’ (WRFF), and ‘word-of-mouth intentions’ (WoM). The first is a combination of the original constructs warm relationship with others (WR) and sense of belonging (SOB), and the second is a combination of word-of-mouth activity (WoMa), word-of-mouth praise (WoMp), and market mavenism (MM).
3.3 Adjusted conceptual research model and hypotheses
Some adjustments should be made in the conceptual research model, because dependent variables word-of-mouth activity and word-of-mouth praise, and the control variable marketing mavenism should be removed. In contrast, the new construct ‘word-of-mouth intentions’ will be added as a dependent variable in the conceptual research model, and the construct ‘warm relationship with friends and family’ will be added as a moderator variable that influences the effect between extraversion and word-of-mouth intentions. The adjusted conceptual research model is shown in fig. 3.1.
Fig. 3.1 Adjusted conceptual research model
Word-of-mouth intentions Extraversion (vs introversion) Neuroticism (vs emotional stability) Being
well-respected fulfillment
