The Influence of eWOM Valence on Donation
Intention and the Moderating effect of eWOM
Sender Trustworthiness Regarding Charity
Organizations.
Experimental research to explore the influence of brand awareness on the relationship between eWOM valence and donation intention.
The Influence of eWOM Valence on Donation
Intention and the Moderating effect of eWOM
Sender Trustworthiness Regarding Charity
Organizations.
Experimental research to explore the influence of brand awareness on the relationship between eWOM valence and donation intention.
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
MSc Marketing Management Master Thesis
16 January 2016
First Supervisor: Dr. J.C. (Janny) Hoekstra Second Supervisor: Dr. Jannick Joye
1 Preface
This thesis is part of the Marketing Management studies at the University of Groningen. It has been a journey of two and half years where I have acquired great amount of knowledge and experience in marketing. Along with this thesis comes an end to my period of being student and start another journey as a professional marketer.
First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. J.C. Hoekstra for the feedback and supervision and my second supervisor Dr. Jannick Joye for the evaluation of the thesis. Furthermore, I want to thank fellow students for the team work and support in writing this thesis. As last and, certainly not least, I would like to thank my parents for the support and love, which helped me a lot through this intensive period.
Kind regards,
2 Abstract
The internet has enabled consumers to share and consume information in order to form attitudes and behavior. Whereas in the past consumers’ trust was based on offline recommendation, nowadays people consume information online. Online reviewers can encourage or discourage others by sharing their positive or negative experiences. Studies suggest that the trust in the reviewers can have influence on the intention to donate. Thus, the visibility of personal information about the reviewers can act as cues in determining the trustworthiness of the eWOM senders. In this study, the eWOM valence acts as the independent variable, the eWOM sender trustworthiness as the moderator, and donation intention as the dependent variable. The research model used in this study is a 2x2 between-subject design of which the data was collected through an online survey. The results of this study show that positive eWOM have a positive effect on donation intention, while the opposite effect is true for the negative eWOM. This effect is asymmetric- N-eWOM compared to P-eWOM has relatively greater impact on donation intention. However, providing personal information about the eWOM senders increases the donation intention in the case of positive eWOM, while decreases the donation intention in the case of negative eWOM. Conclusively, limitations of the study for future research are discussed in this thesis.
3
Table of Contents
List of Tables ... 4
1. Introduction ... 5
2. Literature review and hypotheses ... 8
2.1 Conceptual model ... 8
2.2 Literature review ... 9
3. Methodology ... 12
3.1 Procedure of data collection ... 12
3.2 Design... 12
3.2.1 Data collection ... 12
3.2.2 Valence research conditions ... 13
3.2.3 eWOM sender trustworthiness research conditions ... 14
3.2.4 Manipulation Check ... 17
3.2.5 Measurement and scales ... 18
3.3 Analysis method ... 18
3.3.1 Reliability analyses ... 19
4. Results ... 19
4.1 Hypotheses testing... 20
5. Discussion ... 22
5.1 General discussion and theoretical contribution ... 22
5.2 Practical implications ... 23
5.3 Limitations and future research directions ... 23
4
List of Figures
Figure 1 Conceptual Model ... 8
Figure 2 Scenario 1: negative reviews + personal information ... 15
Figure 3 Scenario 2: Positive reviews + personal information ... 15
Figure 4 Scenario 3: Negative reviews + no personal information ... 16
Figure 5 Scenario 4: Positive review + no personal information ... 16
Figure 6 Moderating effect ... 21
List of Tables
Table 1 Research conditions ... 13Table 2 Reviews ... 13
Table 3 Valence and Trustworthiness Items ... 17
Table 4 translation of purchase intention items ... 18
Table 5 Item scales, Factor loadings, KMO measure of sampling adequacy, and Barlett's Test of Sphericity results ... 19
5
1. Introduction
Invisible Children, a nonprofit organization, is known by a short film that had been shared on YouTube in 2012 to generate awareness of the activities of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in Central Afrika. In the video, Invisible Children made a call to prosecute Joseph Kony, a warlord of the Lord’s Resistance Army militia in Uganda. Soon after the video had been uploaded online, people started to further share and comment on the video either positively or negatively. Invisible Children raised $5m in just 48 hours after the video, which made an explicit call for contributions, was published online (McCarthy, 2012). Furthermore, donations increased from $13.8m in 2011 to 26.5m in 2012, an increase of 92% in monetary donations (Invisible Children, 2016).
While Invisible Children raised a large number of donations, annual charitable donations in the United States decreased from $1,940 per household (including non-donors) in 2009 (Giving USA, 2010) to $1,050 per household in 2013 (Giving USA, 2014). Charity organizations are highly dependent on donations from consumers, organizations, and governments. However, charity fundraising has become harder due to cuts in government expenditure (Das et al., 2008), and an increase in the number of charity organizations (Venable et al., 2005). For this reason, charity organizations need to rely on effective promotional strategy, like the example of the Kony 2012 campaign.
As this example shows, an important driver of a campaign’s success is the use of the online reach and the electronic word-of-mouth (hereafter, eWOM). The internet has, among other things, changed the way people communicate with each other and consume information. Social networking sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, enable people to connect with each other and share information. Furthermore, these platforms enable people to acquire information prior to making decisions and to form opinions. One characteristic of eWOM is that companies are no longer in control of the information flow (Lee et al., 2006). Therefore, they have to use strategies to influence the effects of eWOM on donations.
6 intentions and behavior (Chintagunta et al., 2010; Dellarocas et al., 2007). According to marketing literature, P-eWOM increases intentions while negative decreases intentions (Bansal and Voyer, 2000; Bailey, 2014). Some studies have shown that N-eWOM has greater impact on sales than P-eWOM (Chevalier and Mayzlin 2006; Sun 2012; Baumeister et al., 2001). While, on the other hand, other researchers show that N-eWOM increases product evaluations and sales (Doh and Hwang 2009; Hiura et al., 2010, Kikumori and Ono 2013). According to Doh and Hwang (2009), a website that contains no negative messages may generate suspiciousness that leads to a decrease of attitude toward a website and credibility of eWOM.
One possible explanation for these contradicting findings on the effects of eWOM valence on donation intention can be found in the degree of source credibility (Doh and Hwang 2009). When people have little knowledge about the use of their donations, they will try to reduce this uncertainty by reading online reviews. This is also known as the Uncertainty Reduction Theory (Hu et al., 2008). Source credibility consists of two components: trustworthiness and expertise (Ohanian 1990). Trustworthiness has been identified as the most important credibility dimension (Reichelt et al., 2014). According to McGinnies and Ward (1980), the trust is to be explained by the belief in the good intentions of the eWOM sender. Prior to making online decisions, consumers need to trust the online reviewer. According to Cheung et al. (2009), eWOM is used more often and perceived as having a greater value when the eWOM consumer perceives this as trustworthy. In other words, the higher the trustworthiness, the larger the influence of eWOM on decision making by eWOM consumers (Reichelt et al., 2014). A large range of literature has shown that trust has a positive direct (Chan & Ngai, 2011) and indirect effect (see-To and Ho, 2014; Al-Debei et al., 2015; Elwalda and Ali, 2016) on purchase intentions. Thus, trust will lead to an increase in the purchase intention while distrust decreases the effect.
7 positive and negative are contradicting. Berger and Milkman (2012) suggest to look further than just the valence of the message. A possible explanation for these contradicting findings might be the moderating role of sender’s credibility and, therefore, trustworthiness (Doh and Hwang, 2009). However, the relation between trustworthiness and the effect of eWOM is still under researched in the context of nonprofit online environment (Cheshire, 2011). Although trustworthiness is extensively studied in the profit sector, there is lack in studies about the moderating role of source credibility on the main relation between eWOM valence and the intention to donate to charity. This research attempts to build an understanding and fill the gap in literature as it is mentioned by Doh and Hwang (2009). Thus, this study differentiates from other studies by investigating empirically the moderating role of trustworthiness on the main relationship eWOM valence and donation intention. Marketing in nonprofit sector is a complex phenomenon, mainly because charity organizations have distinctive characteristics: an internal focus, and are “organization-centered” rather than being customer driven (Andreasen and Kotler, 2003). However, besides tough competition, lack public trust is considered to be a real threat to the existence of charitable organizations (Padanyi and Gainer, 2004). Considering the challenges the charitable organizations are facing, there is need to build an understanding why people donate money in order to develop successful marketing strategies in triggering donations (Piferi al., 2006). The valence of eWOM and the eWOM sender trustworthiness are likely to determine the effects on the donation intention. Specifically, the differential effect of eWOM valence (either positive or negative) on donation intentions and the moderating effect of trustworthiness on this relationship, with the aim to develop knowledge for nonprofit organizations with respect to the best and most effective way to raise donations.
8
2. Literature review and hypotheses
The goal of this chapter is to provide an overview of the conducted literature research concerning the topic of this study. Next, based on the literature review, the hypotheses will be presented. Topic that will be covered are, eWOM valence, donation intention, and eWOM sender trustworthiness.
2.1 Conceptual model
This study develops a theoretical framework (figure 1) by integrating the literature on eWOM, donation intention and eWOM sender trustworthiness. The framework will be tested empirically under both positive and N-eWOM conditions. The valence of eWOM is assumed to have an asymmetric effect on the intention to donate (Baumeister et al., 2001). Namely, a N-eWOM has a larger effect on the intention to donate compared to a P-eWOM.
Figure 1 Conceptual Model
9 Chang, 2007), marital status (Mesh et al., 2006) and gender (Rooney et al., 2005), and proneness to donate (Sharma and Chan, 2011) serve as control variables.
2.2 Literature review
eWOM Valence. The development of the internet and the increase of its relevance of people’s lives enables people to communicate in new ways. In the early years of the internet, communication techniques were simple whereas recent developments enabled easier communication between two or more parties. Together with these developments, a new field of study emerged known as “eWOM.” According to Sun et al. (2006), eWOM compared to traditional WOM has more influence on people. Hanning et al. (2004) define eWOM as “any positive or negative statement made by potential, actual, or former customers about a product or company, which is made available to a multitude of people and institution via the internet.” Ho & Dempsey (2010) simplified the definition as “the act of forwarding electronic content.” The forwarding of electronic content takes place in an informal manner between two parties (Yang et al., 2012). According to Yang et al. (2012) eWOM consists of two processes, during which one party sends the information and the other party consumes the information for decision making purposes. The eWOM shared by the sender of the electronic content can be either positive or negative. The former occurs when the consumer spreads reviews framed positively, while N-eWOM is the opposite behavior. There is extensive research conducted on the valence of the eWOM. Researches have shown that N-eWOM generally reduces intentions (Bansal and Voyer, 2000; Ryu and Feick, 2007) while P-eWOM increases the intentions (Bailey, 2014).
H1a: eWOM valence positively influences donation intention.
10 Theory states that consumers of eWOM can reduce their perceived risk by reading online reviews. According to Kahneman and Tversky (1979), people are loss averse and, therefore, will be more likely to avoid losses. Negative reviews, compared to positive reviews, provide consumers with warnings about losses (Yin et al., 2013). Therefore, N-eWOM is expected to have a greater impact on donation intention compared to P-eWOM.
H1b: N-eWOM compared to P-eWOM has greater impact on donation intention.
eWOM sender trustworthiness.
Source credibility- the trust toward a source of information- consist of two components: trustworthiness and expertise (Ohanian 1990). Trustworthiness refers to the motivation to provide the truth, while expertise refers to sender’s knowledge and ability in providing true information (Petty and Cacioppo, 1981). Trustworthiness has been identified as most important credibility dimension in the context of eWOM (Reichelt et al., 2014). Trust has been defined by Moorman et al. (1992, p. 315) as “a willingness to rely on an exchange partner in whom one has confidence.” On the other hand, Morgan and Hunt (1994, p. 23) state that trust exists when “the one party has confidence in the exchange partner’s reliability and integrity.” The party that is to be trusted in might take different forms. Therefore, trust has different referents in literature, such as a sales person, product and the company and sender of eWOM (Plank et al., 1999; Babic Rosario et al., 2016). In this paper, the focus lies on the eWOM sender trustworthiness in an online environment.
11 anonymity, researchers suggested to integrate personal information about the eWOM sender on online platforms (Xie et al., 2011; Rosario et al., 2016). Thus, including information about the eWOM sender decreases uncertainty which, subsequently, increases intention. Rosario et al. (2016) suggest that eWOM receivers evaluate three cues in order to conclude if the eWOM sender is trustworthy: (1) if the senders' real names are displayed and whether the it is a real name, (2) if the duration of the eWOM senders' memberships within the platform is displayed and (3) if it is possible to contact the eWOM senders through e-mail or private message. On the other hand, Xie et al. (2011) state that eWOM sender anonymity can avoided by accounting for personal information of the sender, such as a real name of the eWOM sender and a profile picture.
Studies show that trustworthiness in the eWOM sender persuade the eWOM reader and change the attitude in the direction of the eWOM valence than less trustworthy eWOM senders (Pentina et al., 2015; Leen and Koo, 2012). Thus, reading a P-eWOM while trusting the eWOM sender leads to a higher probability of attitude a change compared to a scenario where the eWOM sender is not trusted. More recent studies have shown the positive effect of eWOM sender trustworthiness on the purchase intention (Rosario et al., 2016; Hayes and Carr, 2015). On the other hand, when eWOM readers perceive a low trustworthiness, the eWOM will not affect their intention (Lee and Koo, 2012).
Concluding, eWOMs that are paired with personal information are expected to be perceived as more trustworthy while eWOMs that are not paired with information about the eWOM sender are perceived less trustworthy. Therefore, the eWOM sender's trustworthiness is expected to positively moderate the relationship between the eWOM valence and donation intention. Furthermore, this effect is expected to be greater in the scenario where the eWOM sender is trusted.
12
3. Methodology
In this chapter, the method and measurement are covered. In section 3.1, the design of the research will be dealt with and section 3.2 the procedure applied in the study. Section 3.3 covers the measurement of scales.
3.1 Procedure of data collection
For this research Qualtrics, an online survey software, has been used in order to collect the data. The advantage of such an online survey is the ability to reach a large group of respondents at low costs. Participants were recruited through a message that was shared on social media platforms, such as Facebook and LinkedIn. The message sent to these respondents consisted of a request to participate in the research including the URL-link to the online survey without uncovering the purpose of the study.
N % Gender Male 129 62.02 Female 79 37.98 Age Age 25.14 5.03 Marital Status Maried 18 8.65 In relationship 71 34.13 Not maried 119 57.21 Table 1: Demographics
In total, 208 participants took part in the research, of which 129 were male and 79 females. The age of the respondents is between 17 and 53 with a mean of 25.14 and standard deviation of 5.03. Further demographics about the respondents are presented in table 1.
3.2 Design
3.2.1 Data collection
13
Condition N
1 P-eWOM /eWOM sender trustworthiness 51
2 N-eWOM / eWOM sender trustworthiness 53
3 P-eWOM / no eWOM sender trustworthiness 52
4 N-eWOM / no eWOM sender trustworthiness 52
Table 1 Research conditions
For this research, Trust Pilot, a review website has been used for developing the four scenarios. These reviews are framed either positively or negatively referring to Invisible Children, which has been introduced to the participants.
3.2.2 Valence research conditions
In total, two review sets have been developed in order to correspond to the eWOM valence combinations in this research.
Positive scenario Negative scenario
Review number 1 I have been donating to Invisible Children for 3 years. The organization is wonderful. They have very pleasant employees. I have received a check accordingly and the donations are mostly used for helping to better the world. It is a fantastic charity organization.
I have been donating to Invisible Children for 3 years. The organization is awful. They have very unpleasant employees. I have received a check after I terminated the contract and the donations are mostly used for paying bails, fines and lawyers. It is a terrible charity organization.
Review number 2 Excellent people are working there. They try to make the world better.
Terrible people are working there. They try to make the world worse.
Review number 3 I am happy about people donating to Invisible Children, because the organization has a clear purpose in how they want to help improve the world. All they did is raising money to capture Kony.
I am unhappy about people donating to Invisible Children, because the organization has an unclear purpose in how they want to help improve the world. All they did is raising money to support Kony.
Review number 4 Invisible Children didn’t help any people. A non-transparent organization, unclear and inaccurate reports, bad and unfriendly customer service.
Invisible Children helped a lot of people. A transparent organization, clear and detailed reports, excellent and friendly customer service.
Review number 5 Not bad at all. A charity organization that does deliver what it promises.
It is very bad. A charity organization that does not deliver what it promises.
14 In order to manipulate the valence of the eWOM, several adjective terms as recommended by Myers and Warner’s (1968) have been used. They propose a research methodology for evaluating products. These terms in the eWOM of this research are chosen based on the extremity of the valence (either positive or negative) and, thus, include bi-polar meaning adjectives: “wonderful” and “awful”, “fantastic” and “terrible” as well as “pleasant” and “unpleasant.” According to Park et al. (2007), the attitude towards a product can be influenced by the volume of eWOM. Consumers of eWOM use the number of written reviews as a cue to evaluate the product or service (Li and Wang, 2013), which decreases uncertainty about the product resulting in higher sales (Chintagunta et al., 2010). Therefore, the volume of eWOM needed to be controlled. In doing so, the volume of the valence eWOM in both scenarios is based on the paper of Li and Wang (2013), and is manipulated in such a way that either 80% out of 5 reviews is positive or negative. The reviews are presented in table 3.
3.2.3 eWOM sender trustworthiness research conditions
15
Figure 2 Scenario 1: negative reviews + personal information
16
Figure 4 Scenario 3: Negative reviews + no personal information
17 3.2.4 Manipulation Check
In order to check for the manipulations of the independent and the moderator variables, respondents are asked to rate different items on a five-point scale as presented in table 4 and 6. In order to assess the positive or negative framing of the manipulated review sets, participants were asked to rate the valence of the review using a five-point scale (1= extremely negative, 5= extremely positive), as adopted by Wu (2013). According to Ohanian (1990), the trustworthiness can be measured by using five items which are to date relevant in literature considering the high number of citations. These items include “dependable,” “honest,” “reliable,” “sincere” and “trustworthy.” The trustworthiness construct is measured using a five-point bipolar scale.
An independent sample t-test was conducted to test the perceived valence of the reviews. Positive reviews (M = 3.66, SD = 0.81) were rated more positive than negative reviews (M = 1.92, SD = 0.93), t (206) = 14.38, p < 0.05. To conduct a manipulation check for trust, a t-test was conducted to compare the groups who saw either information about the eWOM sender or did not see any information. Participants who saw information about the eWOM sender perceived the reviewers as being more trustworthy (M=3.54, SD=0.071) compared to the scenario where no personal information was provided (M=3.28, SD=0.072), t (206) = 2.58, p < 0.05. These results suggest that the manipulations were successful.
Extremely negative Extremely positive
To what extent did you find the reviews being positive/negative?
o o o o o o
To what extent do you rate
the reviewer as being: 1 5
undependable o o o o o dependable
dishonest o o o o o honest
unreliable o o o o o reliable
insincere o o o o o sincere
untrustworthy o o o o o trustworthy
18 3.2.5 Measurement and scales
In measuring the donation intention, a three-item scale (1= strongly disagree, 5= strongly agree) used by Xia and Bechwati (2008) has been adopted.
Purchase Intention (Xia and Bechwati, 2008)
Donation intention scales
It is very likely that I will buy the Kodak digital camera
It is very likely that I will donate to Invisible Children. If I have to decide now, I probably will buy the Kodak digital
camera
If I have to decide now, I probably will donate to Invisible Children.
The likelihood that I will buy the Kodak digital camera is high The likelihood that I will donate to Invisible Children is high.
Table 4 translation of purchase intention items
However, the measure has been adjusted to the context of this study by changing specific words. These changes are presented in table 4.
3.3 Analysis method
In this research, four models have been developed which are described in this section. First, for model 1 all control variables have been included in the regression analysis in order to account for the data validation and possible confounds. Next, in order to test for H1a, a regression analysis was conducted to test if eWOM valence has significant effect on donation intention (Model 2). In testing for the asymmetric effect of eWOM valence on donation intention (H1b), two regression analyses were conducted: one for the respondents who perceived the conditions as negative (model 3a) and one for the respondents who perceived the conditions as positive (model 3b). As last, Model 4 represents the regression analysis that was conducted to test for the moderating effect of eWOM sender trustworthiness on the main relation of eWOM valence on donation intention (H2).
Model 1: DI = β0 + β1 × DP + β2 × Marital Status + β3 × Age + β4 × Gender + ε Model 2:DI = β0 + β1 × eV + β2 × DP + ε
19
Where:
eV = eWOM Valence
eST = eWOM Sender Trustworthiness DP = Donation Proneness
3.3.1 Reliability analyses
In order to see if eWOM sender trustworthiness, donation proneness, and donation intentions are loading high on their intended latent construct, a factor analysis has been conducted.
A Kaiser Meyer Olkin measure of sampling of adequacy of 0.885 for donation intention, 0.861 for donation proneness, and 0.802 for trust after deleting the item “undependable/dependable”. The Barlett’s test of sphericity resulted in a 0.00 significance. Two factor analyses were performed, one for the items of donation intention and one for the items of donation proneness and eWOM sender trustworthiness. For donation intention, a total of 81.5% of the variance within the responses is explained. The scree plot indicated that 1-factor solution is most optimal. For the eWOM sender trustworthiness and donation proneness, a total of 68.52% of the variance within the responses is explained. The scree plot indicated that 2-factor solution is most optimal. The results regarding the factor- and reliability analysis are presented in table 5.
Construct Items Factor
loadings 1 2 α KMO measure of sampling adequacy Barlett’s Test of Sphericity Donation Intention Xia and Bechwati (2008)
It is very likely that I will donate to Invisible Children. .919 .89 .738 .000 If I have to decide now, I probably will donate to Invisible Children. .881
The likelihood that I will donate to Invisible Children is high .908
eWOM sender Trustworthi ness Ohanian (1990) Dependable/undependable -.010 .337 .80 .769 .000 Dishonest/honest .069 .802 Unreliable/reliable .049 .818 Insincere/sincere -.019 .736 Untrustworthy/trustworthy .071 .846 Donation proneness (Sharma and Chan, 2011)
Donating makes me feel good. .868 -.051 .80 .769 .000 I feel excited when donating to charity. .858 -.038
When I donate to charity, I feel that I am helping someone in need. .803 .039 I enjoy donating to charity, regardless of the amount I donate. .830 .178
Table 5 Item scales, Factor loadings, KMO measure of sampling adequacy, and Barlett's Test of Sphericity results
4. Results
20 Donation Proneness as a control variable will be included in the further analyses. Results are shown in table 6. Hypothesis (Effect) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3a Model 3b Model 4 Control Variables Donation Proneness .145b .169b .076 .383a .148b Marital Status -.123 Gender .076 Age .073 Main Variable
eWOM Valence H1a (+) .311a .312a
H1b (+/-) .418b .327
Moderator
eWOM sender Trustworthiness -.066
Effect
eWOM Valence * eWOM sender Trustworthiness H2 (+) .291a R2 (Adjusted R2) .035 (.016) .117 (.108) .064 (.044) .137 .116 .177 (.161) R2 change .035 .117 .064 .137 .177 F-value 1.894 13.518a .3.255b 6.354a 10.90 a
Note: a p-value<.01; b p-value < .05; c p-value < .10
Table 6 Regression analysis results for donation intention 4.1 Hypotheses testing
A linear regression was conducted to see if eWOM valence predicted the donation intention. It was found that eWOM valence explain a significant amount of the variance in the donation intention (F(1, 206) = 19.895, p < .05, R2 = .088). The analysis shows that eWOM valence significantly predict donation intention (Beta = 0.603, p<.01). In other word, eWOM valence significantly influence donation intention. Therefore, H1a is supported.
Hypothesis 1b states that N-eWOM compared to P-eWOM has greater impact on donation intention. To test this hypothesis, two separate regression analyses were conducted: the first regression analysis tests the effect of N-eWOM effect on donation intention (model 3a) and the second regression analysis tests the effect of P-eWOM on donation intention (Model 3b). Responses 1-2 have been regressed as negative, responses 4-5 have been regressed as positive, and the response 3 is excluded from the analyses. Results show a significant effect for both models: p < 0.05 for P-eWOM and p < 0.01 for N-eWOM.
Results show a significant effect of N-eWOM on donation intention (Beta = 0.418, p < .05, R2 =
21 .137). This is in line with H1b. In other words, N-eWOM compared to P-eWOM has greater impact on donation intention. Therefore, H1b is supported.
To test H2, linear regression has been conducted. Prior to incorporating the variables, the moderator “eWOM Sender Trustworthiness” has been mean centered in order to prevent multicollinearity. When including the interaction effect between eWOM valence and eWOM sender trustworthiness into the model, the main effect of eWOM sender trustworthiness on donation intention is not significant (p > 0.10). However, the interaction effect is significant, as can be seen in table 6. Therefore, H2 is supported.
Figure 6 Moderating effect
22 Table 7 contains an overview of the hypotheses results.
Hypothesis Support
H1a eWOM valence positively influences donation intention. Yes
H1b N-eWOM compared to P-eWOM has greater impact on donation intention. Yes
H2 There is a positive interaction effect between the eWOM sender trustworthiness and the eWOM valence on the intention to donate.
Yes
Table 7 Hypothesis results
5. Discussion
This study was set out to explore the effect of eWOM valence on donation intentions, and how this effect is influenced by eWOM sender trustworthiness. The focus is on the online review platforms, using a between subject design with four types of review webpages. The research question that this study is based on is: ‘What is the effect of eWOM valence on donation intention and how this effect is influenced by eWOM sender trustworthiness?’.
5.1 General discussion and theoretical contribution
23 sender is provided. The opposite is true for the N-eWOM scenario. Thus, providing information about the eWOM sender decreases the mean donation intentions in the N-eWOM condition.
This study was conducted to fill two knowledge gaps in the eWOM literature for the non-profit organizations. The first knowledge gap related to the inconclusive literature about the asymmetric effect of eWOM valence on donation intention. This study found a significant effect of asymmetric effect on donation intention. The second knowledge gap this study aims to fill is the moderating role of eWOM sender trustworthiness. The findings of this study support the assumption that providing information about the eWOM sender moderate the relationship between eWOM valence and donation intention.
5.2 Practical implications
The results of this study provide recommendations that can be implemented in practice. Previous literature stated the importance and influence of online reviews on consumers’ intentions. It is therefore essential for non-profit organizations to anticipate in this phenomenon in the online field. First, looking at eWOM valence alone, results showed that P-eWOM lead to more donations while the opposite is true for N-eWOM. Therefore, it is recommended for non-profit organizations to influence the order of reviews on a webpage. Thus, providing positive reviews first as these reviews have positive influence on donation intentions. Furthermore, enabling online users to reveal personal information could positively influence the trust in the eWOM sender. Non-profit organization could offer the possibility for reviewers to upload a profile picture, place of residence, duration of membership, and the possibility to contact the reviewer. Implementing these functions on a website, could lead to higher donation intention in the case of P-eWOM. However, the opposite is true in a N-eWOM scenario.
5.3 Limitations and future research directions
25 References
Al-Debei, M. M., Akroush, M. N., & Ashouri, M. I. (2015). Consumer attitudes towards online shopping: the effects of trust, perceived benefits, and perceived web quality. Internet Research, 25(5), 707-733.
Andreasen, A. R., Kotler, P., & Parker, D. (2003). Strategic marketing for nonprofit organizations (pp. 44-53). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Andreoni, J., Brown, E., & Rischall, I. (2003). Charitable Giving by Married Couples Who Decides and Why Does it Matter?. Journal of human Resources,38(1), 111-133.
Andreoni, J., & Vesterlund, L. (2001). Which is the fair sex? Gender differences in altruism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 293-312.
Babić Rosario, A., Sotgiu, F., De Valck, K., & Bijmolt, T. H. (2016). The effect of electronic word of mouth on sales: A meta-analytic review of platform, product, and metric factors. Journal of Marketing
Bailey, A. A. (2004). Thiscompanysucks. com: the use of the Internet in negative
consumer‐to‐consumer articulations. Journal of Marketing Communications, 10(3), 169-182.
Bansal, Harvir S. and Peter A. Voyer (2000), “Word-of-Mouth Processes Within a Services Purchase Decision Context,” Journal of Service Research, 3 (2), 166–77. Research, 53(3), 297-318.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of general psychology, 5(4), 323.
26 Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2012). What makes online content viral?. Journal of marketing research, 49(2), 192-205.
Basil, D. Z., & Weber, D. (2006). Values motivation and concern for appearances: the effect of personality traits on responses to corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11(1), 61-72.
Buchan, N. R., Croson, R. T., & Solnick, S. (2008). Trust and gender: An examination of behavior and beliefs in the Investment Game. Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization, 68(3), 466-476.
Chan, Y. Y., & Ngai, E. W. (2011). Conceptualising electronic word of mouth activity: An input-process-output perspective. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 29(5), 488-516.
Chaiken, S., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and. Unintended thought, 212.
Chatterjee, P. (2011). Drivers of new product recommending and referral behaviour on social network sites. International Journal of Advertising, 30(1), 77-101.
Cheshire, C. (2011). Online trust, trustworthiness, or assurance?. Daedalus, 140(4), 49-58.
Cheung, M. Y., Luo, C., Sia, C. L., & Chen, H. (2009). Credibility of electronic word-of-mouth: Informational and normative determinants of on-line consumer recommendations. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 13(4), 9-38.
Chevalier, J. A., & Mayzlin, D. (2006). The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book reviews. Journal of marketing research, 43(3), 345-354.
27 on movie box office performance: Accounting for sequential rollout and aggregation across local markets. Marketing Science, 29(5), 944-957.
Comer, J. M., Plank, R. E., Reid, D. A., & Pullins, E. B. (1999). Methods in Sales Research: Perceived Trust in Business-to-Business Sales: A New Measure. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 19(3), 61-71.
Dellarocas, C., Zhang, X. M., & Awad, N. F. (2007). Exploring the value of online product reviews in forecasting sales: The case of motion pictures.Journal of Interactive marketing, 21(4), 23-45.
Dichter, E. (1966). {How word-of-mouth advertising works}. Harvard business review, 44(6), 147-160.
Doh, S. J., & Hwang, J. S. (2009). How consumers evaluate eWOM (electronic word-of-mouth) messages. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(2), 193-197.
Elwalda, A., Lü, K., & Ali, M. (2016). Perceived derived attributes of online customer reviews. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 306-319.
Fan, Y. W., Miao, Y. F., Fang, Y. H., & Lin, R. Y. (2013). Establishing the adoption of electronic word-of-mouth through consumers' perceived credibility.International Business Research, 6(3), 58.
Godin, G., Sheeran, P., Conner, M., & Germain, M. (2008). Asking questions changes behavior: mere measurement effects on frequency of blood donation. Health Psychology, 27(2), 179.
28 Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
Hennig‐Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004). Electronic word‐of‐mouth via consumer‐opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the Internet?. Journal of interactive marketing, 18(1), 38-52.
Hiura, K., Kikumori, M., Kishimoto, K., Matsumoto, N., Nakagawa, M., Ujita, M., & Ono, A. (2010). Does Negative e-WOM Affect Consumer Attitude Negatively or Positively?. Journal of eBusiness, 10(1), 38-42.
Ho, J. Y., & Dempsey, M. (2010). Viral marketing: Motivations to forward online content. Journal of Business Research, 63(9), 1000-1006.
Hsin Chang, H., & Wen Chen, S. (2008). The impact of online store environment cues on purchase intention: Trust and perceived risk as a mediator. Online information review, 32(6), 818-841.
Hu, N., Liu, L., & Zhang, J. J. (2008). Do online reviews affect product sales? The role of reviewer characteristics and temporal effects. Information Technology and Management, 9(3), 201-214.
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory - Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
Kikumori, M., & Ono, A. (2013). Paradoxical Relationship Between the Amount of Negative eWOM Messages and Positive Consumer Attitude (No. 2012-035). Keio/Kyoto Joint Global COE Program.
29 Management, 46(5), 302-311.
Lee, K. T., & Koo, D. M. (2012). Effects of attribute and valence of e-WOM on message adoption: Moderating roles of subjective knowledge and regulatory focus. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1974-1984.
Lee, M. K., Cheung, C. M., Lim, K. H., & Ling Sia, C. (2006). Understanding customer knowledge sharing in web-based discussion boards: An exploratory study. Internet Research, 16(3), 289-303.
Lee, M. K., & Turban, E. (2001). A trust model for consumer internet shopping. International Journal of electronic commerce, 6(1), 75-91.
Lee, M., & Youn, S. (2009). Electronic word of mouth (eWOM) How eWOM platforms influence consumer product judgement. International Journal of Advertising, 28(3), 473-499.
Lee, Y. K., & Chang, C. T. (2007). Who gives what to charity? Characteristics affecting donation behavior. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 35(9), 1173-1180.
Li, C., & Wang, X. (2013). The power of eWOM: A re-examination of online student evaluations of their professors. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1350-1357.
Ling, K. C., Chai, L. T., & Piew, T. H. (2010). The effects of shopping orientations, online trust and prior online purchase experience toward customers' online purchase intention. International Business Research, 3(3), 63.
Malhotra, N. and Birks, D. (2007). Marketing research. Harlow: Prentice Hall/Financial Times.
30 McGinnies, E., & Ward, C. D. (1980). Better liked than right trustworthiness and expertise as factors in credibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6(3), 467-472.
Mesch, D. J., Rooney, P. M., Steinberg, K. S., & Denton, B. (2006). The effects of race, gender, and marital status on giving and volunteering in Indiana. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(4), 565-587.
Michel, G., & Rieunier, S. (2012). Nonprofit brand image and typicality influences on charitable giving. Journal of Business Research, 65(5), 701-707.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationships between providers and users of market research: The dynamics of trust within and between organizations. Journal of marketing research, 29(3), 314.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. The journal of marketing, 20-38.
Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers' perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of advertising, 19(3), 39-52.
Padanyi, P., & Gainer, B. (2004). Market orientation in the nonprofit sector: taking multiple constituencies into consideration. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 12(2), 43-58.
Park, D. H., Lee, J., & Han, I. (2007). The effect of on-line consumer reviews on consumer purchasing intention: The moderating role of involvement. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 11(4), 125-148.
31 Reichelt, J., Sievert, J., & Jacob, F. (2014). How credibility affects eWOM reading: The influences of expertise, trustworthiness, and similarity on utilitarian and social functions. Journal of Marketing Communications, 20(1-2), 65-81.
Rooney, P. M., Mesch, D. J., Chin, W., & Steinberg, K. S. (2005). The effects of race, gender, and survey methodologies on giving in the US. Economics Letters, 86(2), 173-180.
Ryu, Gangseog and Lawrence Feick (2007), “A Penny for Your Thoughts: Referral Reward Programs and Referral Likelihood,” Journal of Marketing, 71 (January), 84–94.
Samson, A. (2006). Understanding the buzz that matters: negative vs positive word of mouth. International Journal of Market Research, 48(6), 647-657.
See-To, E. W., & Ho, K. K. (2014). Value co-creation and purchase intention in social network sites: The role of electronic Word-of-Mouth and trust–A theoretical analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 182-189.
Sharma, P., & Chan, R. Y. (2011). Counterfeit proneness: Conceptualisation and scale development. Journal of Marketing management, 27(5-6), 602-626.
Sun, M. (2012). How does the variance of product ratings matter? Management Science, 58(4), 696-707.
Venable, B. T., Rose, G. M., Bush, V. D., & Gilbert, F. W. (2005). The role of brand personality in charitable giving: An assessment and validation. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 33(3), 295-312.
32 Wu, P. F. (2013). In search of negativity bias: An empirical study of perceived helpfulness of online reviews. Psychology & Marketing, 30(11), 971-984.
Yang, S., Hu, M., Winer, R. S., Assael, H., & Chen, X. (2012). An empirical study of word-of-mouth generation and consumption. Marketing Science, 31(6), 952-963.
Yin, D., Mitra, S., & Zhang, H. (2012). Mechanisms of Negativity Bias: An Empirical Exploration of App Reviews In Apple’s App Store.
Xia, L., & Bechwati, N. N. (2008). Word of mouse: the role of cognitive personalization in online consumer reviews. Journal of interactive Advertising, 9(1), 3-13.
Xie, H. J., Miao, L., Kuo, P. J., & Lee, B. Y. (2011). Consumers’ responses to ambivalent online hotel reviews: The role of perceived source credibility and pre-decisional
33
Appendix
Dear respondent,
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this survey, which should only take 3-4 minutes to complete. This survey is part of my master thesis about the influence of online reviews, and is part of my study conducted at the University of Groningen. Be assured that all answers you provide will be kept in strictest confidentiality. If you may have questions concerning the survey, please do not hesitate to contact me at n.masoud@student.rug.nl.
Click on the red button below to start the survey.
Best regards,
Ninos Masoud
Now, imagine that you are interested in reading about charitable organizations. While surfing the web, you have found a review page. On this review platform, people are able to review an organization by commenting and giving a star-rating.
On the next screen, this review page will be presented to you. Please observe the webpage and make sure you read the text carefully. Only then you can proceed to the questionnaire.
The respondent will be presented with one of the conditions. By clicking on the red button below, the respondent will proceed with the survey.
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
Strongly disagree Strongly agree
It is very likely that I will donate to Invisible
Children. o o o o o
If I have to decide now, I probably will donate to
Invisible Children. o o o o o
The likelihood that I will donate to Invisible
34
To what extent did you find the reviews being positive/negative?
Extremely negative (1)
Extremely positive (5)
o o o o o
To what extent do you perceive the reviewers as being:
undependable o o o o o dependable
dishonest o o o o o honest
unreliable o o o o o reliable
insincere o o o o o sincere
untrustworthy o o o o o trustworthy
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
Strongly disagree Strongly agree
Donating makes me feel good. o o o o o
I feel excited when donating to charity. o o o o o
When I donate to charity, I feel that I am helping
someone in need. o o o o o
I enjoy donating to charity, regardless of the
amount I donate. o o o o o
What is your gender? o Male o Female What is your age?
What is your marital status? o Single
