The impact of eWOM information in social media on the online purchase intention of Generation Z

Figures & data

Figure 1. Information Adoption Model (Sussman & Siegal, 2003).

Figure 2. Information Acceptance Model (Erkan & Evans, 2016).

Figure 3. The proposed research framework.

Table 1. Respondents’ profile.

Respondents’ characteristics		Frequency	Percent
Gender	Male	135	48.2
	Female	138	49.3
	Other	7	2.5
Age	14-16	6	2.1
	17-19	97	34.6
	20-22	114	40.7
	23-25	51	18.2
	26-28	12	4.3
Use Time	More than 3 hours a day	78	27.9
	From 2 hours to 3 hours a day	71	25.4
	From 1 hour to 2 hours a day	85	30.4
	Less than 1 hour a day	46	16.4
Income	Under 5 million VND	129	46.1
	From 5 million to 10 million VND	93	33.2
	Over 10 million VND	58	20.7

Table 2. Cronbach’s alpha analysis.

Code	Standard Deviation (SD)	Corrected Item-Total Correlation	Mean	Cronbach’s Alpha
IC (Information credibility)			3.289	0.824
IC1	0.989	0.676	4.02
IC2	0.682	0.642	3.47
IC3	0.816	0.660	3.29
IC5	0.870	0.653	3.63
NI (Need of information)			3.984	0.749
NI1	0.902	0.599	4.08
NI2	0.872	0.599	3.89
IQL (Information quality)			3.696	0.822
IQL1	1.012	0.659	4.01
IQL2	0.863	0.694	3.71
IQL5	0.673	0.618	3.76
IQL6	0.894	0.650	3.30
ATI (Attitude towards information)			4.143	0.811
ATI1	0.894	0.654	4.018
ATI2	0.920	0.649	4.10
ATI3	0.922	0.677	4.15
IQT (Information quantity)			4.020	0.818
IQT1	0.983	0.692	4.07
IQT2	1.019	0.692	3.97
IA (Information adoption)			4.061	0.765
IA1	0.930	0.603	4.05
IA2	0.861	0.616	4.02
IA3	0.835	0.577	4.11
IU (Information usefulness)			4.181	0.782
IU1	0.890	0.642	4.21
IU2	0.919	0.583	4.14
IU3	0.914	0.635	4.19
PI (Purchase intention)			4.007	0.806
PI1	0.857	0.667	3.98
PI2	0.944	0.659	4.05
PI4	0.884	0.639	3.99

Table 3. Exploratory factor analysis.

Items	Factor
	PI	ATI	IC	IQL	IU	IA	IQT	NI
PI2	0.906
PI1	0.875
PI4	0.740
ATI1		0.870
ATI3		0.856
ATI2		0.815
IC5			0.888
IC3			0.809
IC1			0.793
IQL6				0.863
IQL2				0.843
IQL1				0.729
IU3					0.847
IU1					0.844
IU2					0.798
IA2						0.889
IA3						0.808
IA1						0.751
IQT1							0.926
IQT2							0.891
NI1								0.892
NI2								0.885
Eigenvalue	5.549	2.214	2.136	1.627	1.472	1.123	1.111	1.056
Total variance extracted (%)	74.037%

Table 4. Measurement model.

Goodness-of-fit indices	Value Obtained	Recommend Value
χ2 /df	1.107	< 5
GFI	0.939	> 0.8
TLI	0.988	> 0.9
CFI	0.991	> 0.9
RMSEA	0.020	< 0.08
PCLOSE	1.000	> 0.05

Table 5. AVE and CR results.

	CR	AVE	MSV	IA	IU	PI	IQL	ATI	IC	IQT	NI
IA	0.766	0.522	0.318	0.723
IU	0.784	0.548	0.285	0.464	0.740
PI	0.806	0.582	0.318	0.564	0.242	0.763
IQL	0.800	0.571	0.285	0.446	0.534	0.340	0.756
ATI	0.811	0.589	0.129	0.327	0.211	0.165	0.135	0.767
IC	0.794	0.562	0.285	0.358	0.341	0.202	0.534	0.186	0.750
IQT	0.819	0.693	0.177	0.338	0.404	0.107	0.420	0.360	0.354	0.833
NI	0.753	0.605	0.073	0.270	0.226	0.174	0.048	0.228	0.100	0.072	0.778

Note: Correlations below the diagonal; Squared root of AVE on the diagonal.

Figure 4. Structural Equation Model (SEM).

Table 6. Measurement model.

Goodness-of-fit indices	Value Obtained	Recommend Value
χ2 /df	1.101	< 5
GFI	0.938	> 0.8
TLI	0.989	> 0.9
CFI	0.991	> 0.8
RMSEA	0.019	< 0.08
PCLOSE	1.000	> 0.05

Table 7. Hypotheses testing results (direct relationships).

Direct Relationships	Coefficient	SE	P	Result
IU ← IQL	0.418	0.107	***	Accepted
IU ← ATI	0.043	0.079	0.59	Rejected
IU ← IC	0.020	0.091	0.825	Rejected
IU ← IQT	0.171	0.074	0.022	Accepted
IU ← NI	0.196	0.079	0.013	Accepted
IA ← IQL	0.290	0.113	0.010	Accepted
IA ← ATI	0.191	0.079	0.015	Accepted
IA ← IC	0.091	0.089	0.305	Rejected
IA ← IQT	0.017	0.073	0.818	Rejected
IA ← NI	0.172	0.079	0.030	Accepted
IA ← IU	0.204	0.091	0.025	Accepted
PI ← IA	0.535	0.076	***	Accepted

Note: (*P < 0.1; **P < 0.05, ***P < 0.01).

Table 8. Hypotheses testing results (indirect effects).

Indirect Relationships	Beta (β)	P	Result
NI → IU → IA → PI	0.113	0.007	Accepted
IQT → IU → IA → PI	0.033	0.484	Rejected
IC→ IU → IA → PI	0.052	0.368	Rejected
ATI→ IU → IA → PI	0.109	0.010	Accepted
IQL→ IU → IA → PI	0.200	0.006	Accepted

Table 9. Measurement of variables in the research model.

No	Variables	Measurement
I.	Information Quality (Cheung et al., 2008; Filieri, 2015; Park et al., 2007)
1.		‘I can understand eWOM information shared in social media’.
2.		‘I think eWOM information shared in social media is clear’.
3.		‘I think eWOM information shared in social media is based on facts’.
4.		‘I find eWOM information in social media relevant to my needs’.
5.		‘I think eWOM information in social media is detailed’.
6.		‘In summary, I think eWOM information in social media is of high quality’.
II.	Information Credibility (Erkan & Evans, 2018; Filieri, 2015; Weitzl, 2017)
1.		‘I think eWOM information in social media is convincing’.
2.		‘I think eWOM information in social media is credible’.
3.		‘I think eWOM information in social media is believable’.
4.		‘I think eWOM information in social media is true’.
5.		‘I think eWOM information in social media is trustworthy’.
III.	Information Quantity (López & Sicilia, 2014)
1.		‘I can rely on the amount of eWOM information in social media’.
2.		‘The amount of eWOM information in social media can help me understand the product performance’.
IV.	Needs of Information (Chu & Kim, 2011)
1.		‘I like to apply eWOM information in social media when I concern new products’.
2.		‘If I have little experience with a product, I often find eWOM information in social media about them’.
V.	Attitude towards Information (Park et al., 2007)
1.		‘I always review eWOM information in social media when I want buy a product’.
2.		‘I find eWOM information in social media helpful for me to make decision when buying a product’.
3.		‘I feel eWOM information in social media make me more confident in purchasing product’.
VI.	Information Usefulness (Bailey & Pearson, 1983; Cheung et al., 2008; Erkan & Evans, 2018; Gökerik et al., 2018)
1.		‘eWOM information in social media is generally useful for me to evaluate the product’.
2.		‘eWOM information in social media is generally helpful for me to evaluate the product’.
3.		‘eWOM information in social media is generally informative for me to evaluate the product’.
VII.	Information Adoption (Shen et al., 2014)
1.		‘I learn something new of brands through eWOM information in social media’.
2.		‘I accept the eWOM information of brands in social media’.
3.		‘I accept the eWOM recommendation of brands in social media’.
VIII.	Purchase intention (Coyle & Thorson, 2001)	After reviewing the eWOM information spread in social media about the products:
1		‘It is very likely that I will buy the product’.
2		‘I will buy the product next time I need a product’.
3		‘I will definitely try the product’.
4		‘I will recommend the product to my friends’.

Sussman, S. W., & Siegal, W. S. (2003). Informational influence in organizations: An integrated approach to knowledge adoption. Information Systems Research, 14(1), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.14.1.47.14767

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Erkan, I., & Evans, C. (2016). The influence of eWOM in social media on consumers’ purchase intentions: An extended approach to information adoption. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cheung, C. M., Lee, M. K., & Rabjohn, N. (2008). The impact of electronic word-of-mouth: The adoption of online opinions in online customer communities. Internet Research, 18(3), 229–247. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240810883290

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Filieri, R. (2015). What makes online reviews helpful? A diagnosticity-adoption framework to explain informational and normative influences in e-WOM. Journal of Business Research, 68(6), 1261–1270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.11.006

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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. https://doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415110405

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Erkan, I., & Evans, C. (2018). Social media or shopping websites? The influence of eWOM on consumers’ online purchase intentions. Journal of Marketing Communications, 24(6), 617–632. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2016.1184706

 Google Scholar

Weitzl, W. (2017). Measuring electronic word-of-mouth effectiveness: Developing and applying the eWOM trust scale. Gabler Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-15889-7

 Google Scholar

López, M., & Sicilia, M. (2014). Determinants of E-WOM influence: The role of consumers’ internet experience. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 9(1), 7–8. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-18762014000100004

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chu, S. C., & Kim, Y. (2011). Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites. International Journal of Advertising, 30(1), 47–75. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJA-30-1-047-075

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bailey, J. E., & Pearson, S. W. (1983). Development of a tool for measuring and analyzing computer user satisfaction. Management Science, 29(5), 530–545. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.5.530

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gökerik, M., Gürbüz, A., Erkan, I., Mogaji, E., & Sap, S. (2018). Surprise me with your ads! The impacts of guerrilla marketing in social media on brand image. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 30(5), 1222–1238. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-10-2017-0257

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shen, X. L., Zhang, K. Z., & Zhao, S. J. (2014 Understanding information adoption in online review communities: The role of herd factors [Paper presentation]. 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 604–613). https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.81

 Google Scholar

Coyle, J. R., & Thorson, E. (2001). The effects of progressive levels of interactivity and vividness in web marketing sites. Journal of Advertising, 30(3), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2001.10673646

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar