Interaction between cognitive process and social dynamics in shaping individual analyzing of online reviews. Part II.

While internal factors like review and reviewer characteristics have been extensively studied, the influence of external, particularly social factors, on online review processing remains relatively unexplored. This research bridges this gap by investigating how social pressures: social conformity, social validation, affects how individuals analyze online reviews. By combining the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) and the Social Influence Theory (SIT), we propose a comprehensive framework to examine two key dimensions: Online review processing and the influence of social factors on this process. We conduct a study among skincare product consumers, revealing that social conformity, significantly influence reliance on peripheral cues (ratings, source credibility), however social validation does not exhibit a significant effect. Furthermore, by introducing expertise as a moderator, we observe that the direct impact of social factors becomes attenuated. This suggests that individuals with strong subject knowledge are less susceptible to the persuasive power of social cues when evaluating online review.

4 Respondent’s profile

Table 2: Sample description
Source: Authors

There is a noticeable difference in the gender representation in our sample 91% female vs 9% male. As an example from previous studies interested to skincare products in witch this imbalance is also present we can mention: Hsu et al. 2017 (100% female), Alamar et al. 2023 (100 female), Lee et al. 2019 (74.7 female and 25.3 male). We can justify our sample imbalance by a high concentration of female users in this group, estimated to be around 86% of the total (pending confirmation of the authenticity of all accounts). For that, we can say that this gender imbalance is significant and raises questions about the representativeness of the data.
Before evaluating a structural model, it is essential to establish the convergent validity and factor loading of the measurement instrument used to collect the data. By examining convergent validity and factor loading, we can gain confidence in the reliability of our measurement instrument.

Table 3: Convergent validity and reliability test
Source: Authors

The constructs in the model demonstrate strong reliability and convergent validity, as evidenced by high Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, satisfactory AVE values, and acceptable Composite Reliability values. These findings suggest that the items within each construct effectively measure the intended underlying constructs and exhibit consistency and reliability.
These findings can be confirmed by examining table 4, which shows that almost all variable’s loadings are above 0.7. Factor loadings above 0.70 are generally considered acceptable, indicating a strong relationship between the observed variables and their underlying constructs as a result, we can confirm previous results of convergent validity of our construct.

Table 4: Factor loadings
Source: Authors

5 Findings

Our first findings from table 5 provide support for Hypothesis H01, indicating that elevated levels of social conformity tendency significantly influence individuals’ adoption of the peripheral route during online review processing. This conclusion is substantiated by the statistically significant relationships observed between social conformity and various indicators of the peripheral route. Specifically, higher social conformity was associated with decreased emphasis on argument quality (β=-0.31, p<0.05), accuracy (β=-0.23, p<0.05), and valence (β=-0.28, p<0.05). Interestingly, a positive association was observed with rating (β=0.57, p<0.05), source credibility (β=0.38, p<0.05), and consistency (β=0.31, p<0.05), suggesting that individuals conforming to social pressure (in skincare product) might prioritize superficial cues over in-depth evaluation.
For our second independent variable, the findings do not support hypothesis H02, demonstrating that individuals with higher levels of social validation may not exhibit a propensity towards the peripheral route during online review processing. This conclusion is solidified by statistically insignificant relationships observed across various indicators of the peripheral route. Notably, social validation was negatively associated with only argument quality (β=-0.472, p<0.05), suggesting that individuals relying on social validation prioritize superficial cues over critical evaluation of argument structure and persuasiveness. However, insignificant positive relationships were observed with rating (β=0.190, p>0.05), source credibility (β=0.087, p>0.05), and consistency (β=0.114, p>0.05). Based on these findings This finding suggests that social validation might not significantly influence how individuals prioritize specific cues like ratings, source credibility, and consistency when processing online review messages. Furthermore, insignificant association was also detected between social validation and perceived accuracy (β=-0.090, p>0.05), valence (β=-0.234, p>0.05), implying that reliance on social validation may not necessarily undermine the evaluation of factual correctness, and valence of online reviews.

Table 5: Structural equation (step01)
Source: Authors

By introducing moderate variable (table 6), the observed decrease in coefficients underscores a significant devaluation of direct impact of social confirmation on various aspects such as argument quality, accuracy, valence, rating, source credibility, and consistency. For instance, before integration, the coefficient for argument quality (Arg.Q) stood at -0.31, however, after integrating expertise, this coefficient reduced to -0.11 with p<0.05. This suggests that when individuals have high expertise skincare products, their focus on argument quality is less affected by social conformity pressure compared to individuals with low expertise. This means that those with higher expertise are less swayed by social factors and are more likely to consider the quality of arguments in their online review analysis. The integration of expertise diminishes the relation between social conformity with all peripheral route variable like rating (0.57 to 0.28), Source credibility (0.38 to 0.16) and Consistency (0.31 to 0.16), indicating that those with higher expertise are less likely to process information superficially and are more inclined to evaluate online reviews based on substantive criteria.

Table 6: Structural equation results (step 02): including moderated effect of expertise
Source: Authors

Despite introducing expertise as a moderator, our findings revealed that social validation still do not exert a statistically significant influence on the use of peripheral cues like ratings, source credibility, and consistency (p>0.05). This suggests that even when individuals possess expertise in this domain, their reliance on these readily available cues might not be primarily driven by a desire for social approval. These findings support partially the hypothesis „H5“ that expertise moderates the effect of social variables on online review processing, leading to an attenuation of reliance on the peripheral route.

6 Discussion of results, limits and conclusion

Building upon previous research on online review, this study delves into a relatively unexplored area of online review, examining the influence of social, and personal factors on consumer review processing. Our choice of combining the ELM and SIT models was relevant and made a significant contribution to research on online review analysis. Based on Varma’s et al. (2023a) and Varma et al. (2023b) limits, we conducted this study to demonstrate that individuals in skincare product market, are open (SIT) to the persuasive power of social cues when analyzing related online review (ELM). In other words, our objective, was to examine how social pressure influences users’ route choice in online review analysis, postulating that social conformity, social validation, can lead individuals to sway their own deep evaluation, and rely to the peripheral route variables.
The findings support partially the hypotheses, and provide valuable insights into how these variables affect information processing in this context (skincare product), demonstrating that social conformity (Zhu et al. 2009) can lead individuals to prioritize readily available cues over critical analysis of online review. Individuals with a higher tendency towards social conformity demonstrate a significant shift towards the peripheral route when processing online reviews in the skincare sector. This is evidenced by the negative associations between social conformity and emphasis on argument quality, accuracy, and valence, suggesting that conforming individuals prioritize less critical evaluation.
However, the introduction of expertise as a moderating variable reveals a crucial nuance. The observed decrease in the strength of the relationships between social conformity and all peripheral route indicators (argument quality, accuracy, etc.) suggests that expertise mitigates the influence of social pressure. For further research, we can investigate if the moderating effect of expertise is specific to the product category (skincare in this case). Replication across different product domains (e.g., electronics, finance) can reveal if expertise in a particular field consistently weakens the influence of social conformity on review processing.
We can notably notice the lack of association between social validation and peripheral cue reliance, even when expertise is considered. Social validation failed (according to our findings) to exert a statistically significant influence on how individuals utilized peripheral cues like ratings, source credibility, and consistency when evaluating online review, this means, that people’s reliance on these readily available cues might not be primarily driven by a desire for social approval. Social validation might influence online review processing in ways not captured by these specific measures. The desire for social approval might for example vary depending on the social circle or online community like peers (Sukumaran, Vezich, McHugh and Nass 2011; Eastman et al. 2022). Future studies could explore if validation from specific groups (e.g., close friends, familly) has a stronger influence on peripheral route reliance compared to validation from broader online communities. We suggest to employ qualitative methods (interviews, focus groups) to go deeper and explore the motivations behind social validation and its role in influencing online review processing. We suggest also to conduct studies across different online communities or social media platforms to investigate if the impact of social validation varies depending on the social context.
This intriguing result about central route variables, confirm that the persuasive power of well-constructed arguments, regardless of their emotional tone or factual accuracy, holds the key to influencing online review credibility perception, while valence exerts the least influence (Varma et al. 2023a)
Despite its valuable insights, this study acknowledges limits that warrant further exploration. The reliance on self-reported data introduces potential bias and social desirability effects, where participants might misrepresent their true motivations or behavior. Social desirability bias effects are complex and have the potential to attenuate, inflate, or moderate variable relationships depending on the measures being used and the model under consideration (Fisher and Katz 2000). In our case, participants might over report their reliance on central route processing (careful evaluation) to appear more thoughtful and less susceptible to social pressure. On the contrary, they might underreport their use of peripheral cues to avoid appearing easily swayed by others’ opinions. In other word, this social desirability bias could downplay the true impact of social pressure.
Another limit of this study lies in its focus on the skin care sector. While valuable insights may be gleaned here, the findings might not be generalizable to other product categories. Consumers’ decision-making processes and susceptibility to social pressure may vary depending on the product type and its perceived importance. Exploring this limit in future studies could involve comparative analyses across diverse product categories. This can involve developing sector-specific questionnaires or adapting existing methods to capture the nuances of decision-making in different product domains. This would broaden the understanding of generalizability and identify potential variations in social influence depending on the product type and its perceived importance.
In further research, we propose to examine the influence of cultural Context. Social influence can manifest differently across cultures (Abbasi et al. 2011), so future research could explore how cultural contexts influence the way individuals weigh social influence during online review analysis. This would involve recruiting participants from diverse backgrounds and potentially adapting research instruments to capture cultural nuances in information processing. This study did not also delve into potential demographic variations in susceptibility to social pressure. Future investigations could explore the influence of factors like age, gender, on how individuals respond to social pressure in their online reviews analyzing process.
Additionally, as it was mentioned in the methodology section, the use of a convenience sampling method restricts the generalizability of the results to the entire population. This method relies on readily available participants, potentially leading to a sample that does not accurately reflect the demographics or social media usage patterns of the target audience within the skin care sector. For that, employ probability sampling methods (e.g., stratified sampling) to obtain a more representative sample of the target audience within the skin care sector, may be an appropriate perspective of research.
Furthermore, the study primarily analyzed static factors, excluding the dynamic nature of online interactions and potential long-term effects of social influence on online review processing. Future research could address these limitations by incorporating objective measures, diversifying the sample (more equilibrate) , and exploring longitudinal designs to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the complex interplay between social influence, expertise, and online review processing.

End of Part II.

Literatúra/List of References

1. Abbasi, Z. A. et al., 2023. Investigating the impact of social media images’ value, consumer engagement, and involvement on eWOM of a tourism destination: A transmittal mediation approach. In: Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 2023, 71. ISSN 0969-6989. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.103231>
2. Alamar, M. A. et al., 2023. Impact of social media on choosing skin care and cosmetic products among females in Saudi Arabia. In: Cureus. 2023, 15(12). ISSN 2168-8184. Available at: <https://doi.org/7759/cureus.49922>
3. Andrade, C., 2020. The inconvenient truth about convenience and purposive samples. In: Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine. 2020, 43(1). ISSN 0975-1564. Available at: <https://doi.org/1177/025371762097700>
4. Asch, S., 1951. Groups, leadership and men. In: H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judjments. Oxford: Carnegie Press, 1951, p. 177-190.
5. Augusto, M. and Torres, P., 2018. Effects of brand attitude and eWOM on consumers’ willingness to pay in the banking industry: mediating role of consumer-brand identification and brnad equity. In: Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 2018, 42, 1-10. ISSN 0969-6989.
6. Badawi, B. et al., 2021. Consumer conformity, social ties and EWOM in digital marketing. In: Ingénierie des Systèmes d’Information. 2021, 569-576. ISSN 1247-0317.
7. Chakraborty, U., 2019. Perceived credibility of online hotel reviews and its impact on hotel booking intentions. In: International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality. 2019, 31(9), 3465-3483. ISSN 1757-1049.
8. Cheng, Y. H. and Ho, H. Y., 2015. Social influence’s impact on reader perceptions of online reviews. In: Journal of Business Research. 2015, 68(4), 883-887. ISSN 1905-355X.
9. Cheng, X. et al., 2021. The paradox of word-of-mouth in social commerce: Exploring the juxtaposed impacts of source credibility and information quality on SWOM spreading. In: Information & Management. 2021, 58(7), 103505. ISSN 0262-2769.
10. Cheung, C. Y., Sia, C. L. and Kuan, K., 2012. Is this review believable? A study of factors affecting the credibility of online consumer reviews from an ELM perspective. In: Journal of the association information system. 2012, 13(8), 618-635. ISSN 1536-9323.
11. Cheung, R., 2014. The influence of electronic word-of-mouth on information adoption in onlne customer communities. In: Global economic review. 2014, 43(1), 42-57. ISSN 1226-508X.
12. Cheung, M. Y. et al., 2009. Credibility of electronicword-of-mouth: Informational and normative determinants of online consumer recommendations. In: International Journal of Electronic Commerce. 2009, 13(4), 9-38. ISSN 1086-4415.
13. Cheung, C. and Lee, M., 2012. What drives consumers to spread electronic word of mouth in online consumer-opinion platforms. In: Decision Support Systems. 2012, 53(1), 218-225. ISSN 0167-9236.
14. Chung, C. M. K. and Thadani, D. R., 2012. The impact of electronic word-of-mouthcommunication: A literature analysis and integrative model. In: Decision Support Systems. 2012, 54(1), 461-470. ISSN 0167-9236. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.06.008>
15. Cialdini, R., 1984. Influence: The psychology of persuasion. Harper Collins, 1984. ISSN 978-0-06-189990-4.
16. Cialdini, R. B. and Goldstein, N. J., 2004. Social influence: Dompliance and conformity. In: Annual Review Psychology. 2004, 55, 591-621. ISSN 0066-4308. Available at: <https://doi.org/1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015>
17. De Canniére, M. H. et al., 2010. Relationship quality and purchase intention and behavior: The moderating impact of relationship strength. In: Journal of Business and Psychology. 2010, 25, 87-98. ISSN 0889-3268.
18. Eastman, J. K. et al., 2022. Luxury not for the masses: Measuring inconspicuous luxury motivations. In: Journal of business research. 2022, 145, 509-523. ISSN 2079-8296.
19. Erkan, I. and Evans, C., 2016. The influence of eWOM in social media on consumers’ purchaseintentions: An extended approach to information adoption. In: Computers in Human Behavior. 2016, 61, 47-55. ISSN 0747-5632. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.003>
20. Fan, Y. et al., 2016. Applications of structural equation modeling (SEM) in ecological studies: an updated review. In: Ecological Processes. 2016, 5(19). ISSN 2192-1709. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-023-00477-2>
21. Fang, Y. H., 2014. Beyond the credibility of electronic word of mouth: Exploring eWOM adoption on social networking sites from affective and curiosity perspectives. In: International Journal of Electronic Commerce. 2014, 18(3), 67-102. ISSN 1086-4415. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415180303>
22. Fernandes, S. et al., 2022. Measuring the impact of online reviews on consumer purchase decisions – A scale development study. In: Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 2022, 68. ISSN 0969-6989. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.103066>
23. Filieri, R., 2016. What makes an online consumer review trustworthy. In: Annals of Tourism Research. 2016, 58, 46-64. ISSN 0160-7383. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2015.12.019>
24. Fisher, R. J. and Katz, J., 2000. Social desirability bias and the validity of self-reported values. In: Psychology and Marketing. 2000, 17(2), 105-120. ISSN 0742-6046.
25. Gawronski, B. and Creighton, L. A., 2013. Dual process theory. In: D. Carlston, The Oxford handbook for social cognition. Oxford University Press, 2013, p. 282. ISBN 9780199984688.
26. Good, M. C. and Hyman, M. R., 2020. Fear of missing out’: antecedents and influence on purchase likelihood. In: Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. 2020, 28(3), 330-341. ISSN 1069-6679. Available at: <https://doi.org/1080/10696679.2020.1766359>
27. Granovetter, M. S., 1973. The strength of weak ties. In: American Journal of Sociology. 1973, 78(6), 1360-1380. ISSN 0002-9602.
28. Guandagno, R., 2013. Social Influence Online: The Six Principles in Action. In C. Liberman, Social influence online: The six principles in action from casing persuasive communication. Kandall Hunt Publishing, 2013. ISBN 978-1-4652-1753-0.
29. Gunawan, D. D. and Huarng, K. H., 2015. Viral effects of social network and media on consumers’purchase intention. In: Journal of Business Research. 2015, 2237-2241. ISSN 0148-2963.
30. Hagiladi, N. and Plaut, P. O., 2021. Social networks’ group tie strength and travel behavior. In: Journal of transport Geograpghy. 2021, 93 103079. ISSN 0966-6923.
31. Hennig-Thurau, T. et al., 2004. Electronic word of mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet. In: Journal of Interactive Marketing. 18(1), 38-52. ISSN 1094-9968.
32. Hong, S. and Pittman, M., 2020. eWOM anatomy of online product reviews: Interaction effects of review number, valence, and star ratings on perceived credibility. In: International Journal of Advertising. 2020, 39(7), 892-920. ISSN 0265-0487.
33. Hsu, C. L. et al., 2017. Exploring purchase intention of green skincare products using the theory ofplanned behavior: Testing the moderating effects of country of origin and. In: Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 2017, 34, 145-152. ISSN 0969-6989.
34. Huberman, B. and Zhu, H., 2012. To switch or not to switch: Understanding social influence in online choices. In: American Behavior Scientist. 58(10), 1329-1344. ISSN 0002-7642. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214527089>
35. Hung, S. W., Chang, C. W. and Chen, S. Y., 2023. Beyond a bunch of reviews: The quality and quantity of electronic word of mouth. In: Information & Management. 2023, 60(3), 103777. ISSN 0930-5181.
36. Hussain, S. et al., 2023. Fear of missing out and compulsive buying behavior: The moderating role of mindfulness. In: Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 2023, 75, 103512. ISSN 0969-6989.
37. Idrawati, Y. P. C. P. and Mathaiyah, S., 2023. eWOM via the TikTok application and its influence on the purchase intention of somethinc products. In: Asia Pacific Management Review. 2023, 28(2), 174-184. ISSN 0954-2957.
38. Ismagilova, E., et al., 2020. The effect of electronic word of mouth communications on intention to buy: a meta-analysis. In: Information Systems Frontiers. 2020, 22, 1203-1226. ISSN 1387-3326.
39. Ismagilova, E., Dwivedi, Y. K. and Rana, N., 2021. The use of elaboration likelihood model in eWOM research: Literature review and weight-analysis. In: Dennehy, D. et al.: Responsible AI and analytics for an ethical and inclusive digitized society. Springer, 2021, pp. 506-516. ISSN 0302-9743. Available at: <https://doi.org/1007/978-3-030-85447-8_41>
40. Ismagilova, E. et al., 2017. Electronic word of moth (eWOM) in the marketing context. A state of art analysis and future directions. Springer Cham, 2017. ISBN 978-3-319-52458-0. Available at: <https://doi.org/1007/978-3-319-52459-7>
41. Joshi, M. C. et al., 2022. The impact of social media on skin care: A narrative review. In: Lviv Clinical Bulletin. 2022, 85-96. ISSN 2306-4269. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.25040/lkv2022.01-02.085>
42. Kai, Y. at al., 2021. Social learning? Conformity? Or comparison? An empirical study on the impact of peer effects on Chinese seniors’ intention to purchase travel insurance. In: Tourism Management Perspectives. 2021, 38, 100809. ISSN 2211-9744.
43. Kelman, H., 2006. Interests, relationships, identities: Three central issues for individuals and groups in negotiating their social environment. In: Annual Review Psychology. 2006, 57, 1-26. ISSN 1545-2085.
44. Kim, S. et al., 2018. The influence of eWOM communications: An application of online social network framework. In: Computers in Human Behavior. 2018, 80, 243-254. ISSN 0747-5632.
45. Kinasih, V. T. T. et al., 2023. The influence of brand image, celbrity endorser, and onlie customer review on purchasing decision on skintific beauty products with fear of missing out FOMO as madiating role. In: Journal Ekonomi. 2023, ISSN 2252-5564.
46. Kočišová, L. et al., 2023. The role of marketing metrics in social media: A comprehensive analysis. In: Marketing Science & Inspirations. 2023, 18(2), 40-49. ISSN 1338-7944. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.46286/msi.2023.18.2.4>
47. Krah, B. A. and Miklošík, A., 2022. Creating communities: A way of entering foreign markets in 2022. Marketing Science & Inspirations. 2022, 17(1), 38-50. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.46286/msi.2022.17.1.4>
48. Ladhari, R. and Michaud, M., 2015. eWOM effects on hotel booking intentions, attitudes, trust and website perceptions. In: International Journal of Hospitality Management. 2015, 46, 36-45. ISSN 0278-4319.
49. Laursen, B. and Veenstra, R., 2021. Toward understanding the functions of peer influence: A summary and synthesis of recent empirical research. In: Journal of Research on Adolescence. 2021, 31(4), 889-907. ISSN 1050-8392.
50. Le, T. D, Robinson, L. and Dobele, A. R., 2022. eWOM processing from receiver perspective: Conceptualising the relationships. In: International journal of consumer studies. 2022, 36(4), 440-454. ISSN 1470-6423.
51. Lee, J. and Hong, I. B., 2016. Predicting positive user responses to social media advertising: The roles of emotional appeal, informativeness, and creativity. In: International Journal of Information Management. 2016, 36(3), 360-373. ISSN 0268-4012.
52. Lee, J. E. at al., 2019. Understanding purchase intention of university students towards skin care products. In: PSU Research Review. 2019, 3(3), 161-178. ISSN 2399-1747.
53. Lee, M. K. O. and Cheung, C. M. K., 2012. What drives consumers to spread electronic word of mouth in online. In: Decision Support Systems. 2012, 53(1), 218-225. ISSN 0167-9236.
54. Lee, S. H. at al., 2010. The role of network centrality in the flow of consumer influence. In: Journal of Consumer Psychology. 2010, 20(1), 66-77. ISSN 1057-7408.
55. Levy, S. and Gvili, Y., 2015. How credible is e-word of mouth across digital-marketing: channels? The roles of social capital, information richness, and interactivity. In: Journal of Advertising Research. 2015, 55(1), 95-109. ISSN 0021-8499.
56. Li, C., 2013. Persuasive messages on information system acceptance: A theoretical extension of elaboration likelihood model and social influence theory. In: Computer in human behavior. 2013, 29(1), 264-275. ISSN 0747-5632.
57. Li, K. et al., 2020. Exploring the influence of online reviews and motivating factors on sales: A meta-analytic study and the moderating role of product category. In: Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 2020, 55, 102107. ISSN 0969-6989.
58. Luo, C. and al., 2014. The effects of individualism–collectivism cultural orientation oneWOM information. In: International Journal of Information Management. 2014, 34(4), 446-456. ISSN 0268-4012.
59. Maheshwari, S., 2019. When is a star not always star? When it´s an online review? 2019. [online]. [cit. 2024-01-05]. Available at: <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/28/business/online-reviews-fake.html>
60. Mehrabian, A. and Stefl, C. A., 1995. Basic temperament components of loneliness, shyness, and conformity. In: Social Behavior and Personality. 1995, 23(3), 253-264. ISSN 0301-2212.
61. Miremadi, A. and Haghayegh, M., 2022. The competitive advantage of EWOM in digital marketing. In: European Journal of Business and Management Research. 2022, 7(2), 258-269. ISSN 2507-1076.
62. Neumann, D., 2020. Fear of missing out. The international encyclopedia of media psychology. John Wiley & Sons, 2020, 1-9. ISBN 9781119011071.
63. Ngarmwongnoi, C. at al., 2020. The implications of eWOM adoption on the consumer journay. In: Journal of Consumer Marketing. 2020, 37(7), 749-759. ISSN 0736-3761.
64. Nieto-Garcia, M., Munoz-Gallego, P. and González-Benito, O., 2017. Tourists’ willingness to pay for an accommodation: The effect ofeWOM and internal reference price. In: International Journal of Hospitality Management. 2017, 62, 66-77. ISSN 0278-4319.
65. O’Reilly, K. et al., 2016. Extending our understanding of eWOM impact: The role of source credibility and message relevance. In: Journal of internet commerce. 2016, 15(2), 77-96. ISSN 1533-2861.
66. Ohanian, R., 1990. Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. In: Journal of Advertising. 1990, 19(3), 39-52. ISSN 0091-3367.
67. Onofrei, G. et al., 2022. Social media interactions, purchase intention, and behavioural engagement: The mediating role of source and content factors. In: Journal of Business Research. 2022, 142, 100-112. ISSN 0148-2963.
68. O’Reilly, C. and Chatman, J., 1986. Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. In: Journal of Applied Psychology. 1986, 71(3), 493. ISSN 0021-9010.
69. Park, D. H. and Kim, S., 2008. The effects of consumer knowledge on message processing of electronic word-of-mouth via online consumer reviews. In: Electronic Commerce Research and Applications. 2008, 7(4), 399-410. ISSN 1567-4223.
70. Park, H. H. and Jeon, J. O., 2018. The impact of mixed eWOM sequence on brand attitude change: Cross-cultural differences. In: International Marketing Review. 2018, 35(3). ISSN 0265-1335.
71. Petty, R., 1986. The elaboration likellihood model of persuasion. In: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 1986, 19, 124-206. ISSN 0065-2601.
72. Petty, R. E. and Brinol, P., 2013. The elaboration likelihood model. In: Dillard, J. P, and Shen, L., The SAGE handbook of persuasion. 2013, p. 240. ISBN 9781847875143.
73. Petty, R. E. et al., 1983. Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement. In: Journal of Consumer Research. 1983, 134-146. ISSN 0093-5301.
74. Petty, R. E. and Cacioppo, J. T., 1981. Attitude and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown, 1981. ISBN 0-697-06551-0.
75. Pihlaja, J. et al., 2017. From electronic WOM to social eWOM: Bridging the trust deficit. In: Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. 2017, 25(4), 340-356. ISSN 1069-6679.
76. Przybylski, A. K. et al., 2013. Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. In: Computers in Human Behavior. 2013, 29(4), 1841-1848. ISSN 0747-5632.
77. Putri, L. and Wandobori, H., 2016. Factors influencing cosmetics purchase intention in indonesia based on online review. In: International Conference on Ethics of Business, Economics, and Social Science. 2016, pp. 255-263. ISSN 2528-617X.
78. Rahi, S., 2017. Research design and methods: A systematic review of research paradigms, sampling issues and instruments development. In: International Journal of Economics and Management Sciences. ISSN 3046-9279. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.4172/2162-6359.1000403>
79. Rao, K. S. at al., 2021. Examining eWOM-purchase intention link in Facebook brand fan pages: Trust beliefs, value co-creation and brand image as mediators. In: IIMB Management Review. 2021, 33(4), 309-321. ISSN 0970-3896.
80. Sparks, B. A, and Browning, V., 2011. The impact of online reviews on hotel booking intentions and perception of trust. In: Tourisme Management. 2011, 32(6), 1310-1323. ISSN 0261-5177.
81. Srivastava, V. and Kalro, A. D., 2019. Enhancing the helpfulness of online consumer reviews: the role latent (content) factors. In: Journal of interactional Marketing. 2019, 48, 33-50. ISSN 1094-9968.
82. Steffes, E., and Burgee, L., 2009. Social ties and online word of mouth. In: Internet Research. 2009, 19(1), 42-59. ISSN 1066-2243.
83. Sue, V. M. and Ritter, L. A., 2012. Conducting online surveys. SAGE Publications, 2012. ISBN 9781412992251.
84. Sukumaran, A., Vezich, S., McHugh, M. and Nass, C., 2011. Normative influences on thoughtful online participation. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. New York, 2011, pp. 3401-3410.
85. Tapanainen, T. et al., 2021. Impacts of online word-of-mouth and personalities on intention to choose. In: Computers in Human Behavior. 2021, 116, 106656. ISSN 0747-5632.
86. Taylor, C. R., 2018. The new era of electronic word of mouth (eWOM): Be more chill over rules the critics. In: International Journal of Advertising. 2018, 37(6), 849-851. ISSN 0265-0487.
87. Tsao, W. C. et al., 2015. Compliance with eWOM: The influence of hotel reviews on booking intention from the perspective of consumer conformity. In: International Journal of Hospitality Management. 2015, 46, 99-111. ISSN 0278-4319.
88. Varma, D. et al., 2023b. Understanding the impact of eWOM communication through the lens ofinformation adoption model: A meta-analytic structural equation modeling perspective. In: Computers in Human Behavior. 2023, 143, 107710. ISSN 0747-5632.
89. Varma, D. et al., 2023a. A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of eWOM credibility: Investigation of moderating role of culture and platform type. In: Journal of Business Research. 2023, 154, 113292. ISSN 0148-2963.
90. Varma, S. and Yadav, N., 2021. Past, present, and future of electronic word of mouth (EWOM). In: Journal of interactive marketing. 2021, 53, 111-128. ISSN 1094-9968.
91. Vermeulen, I. E. and Seegers, D., 2009. Tried and tested: the impact of online hotelreviews on consumer consideration. In: Tourisme Management. 2009, 30(1), 123-127. ISSN 0261-5177.
92. Wang, X. et al., 2012. Social media peer communication and impacts on purchase intentions: A consumer socialization framework. In: Journal of Interactive Marketing. 2012, 26(4), 198-208. ISSN 1094-9968.
93. Wang, J. J. et al., 2018. Understanding the effects of eWOM social ties on purchase intentions: A moderated mediation investigation. In: Electronic Commerce Research and Applications. 2018, 28, 54-62. ISSN 1567-4223.
94. Wijenayake, S. et al., 2020. Impact of contextual and personal determinants on online social conformity. In: Computers in Human Behavior. 28, 106302. ISSN 0747-5632.
95. Ye, Q. et al., 2011. The influence of user-generated content on traveler behavior: an empirical investigation on the effects of eword- of-mouth to hotel online bookings. In: Computers in Human Behavior. 2011, 27(2), 634-639. ISSN 0747-5632.
96. Zhang, K. Z. et al., 2014. Examining the influence of online reviews on consumers’ decision-making: A heuristic–systematic model. In: Decision Support Systems. 2014, 67, 78-89. ISSN 0167-9236.
97. Zhao, K., Stylianou, A. C. and Zheng. Y., 2018. Sources and impacts of social influence from online anonymous user reviews. In: Information & Management. 2018, 55(1), 16-30. ISSN 0930-5181.
98. Zhao, M. and Xie, J., 2010. Effects of social and temporal distance on consumers’responses to peer recommendations. In: Journal of Marketing Research. 2010, 48(3). ISSN 0022-2437.
99. Zheng, L., 2021. The classification of online consumer reviews: A systematic literature review and integrative framework. In: Journal of Business Research. 2021, 135, 226-251. ISSN 0148-2963.
100. Zhu, H. et al., 2014. To switch or not to switch: Understanding social influence in online choices. In: American Behavioral Scientist. 2014, 58(10), 2257–2266. ISSN 1552-3381.
101. Zhu, R. et al., 2009. The effect of conformity tendency on pedestrians’ road-crossing intentions in China: An application of the theory of planned behavior. In: Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2009, 41(3), 491-497. ISSN 0001-4575.

Kľúčové slová/Key words

online review processing, social conformity, social validation, expertise, Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), Social Influence Theory (SIT)
spracovanie online recenzií, sociálna konformita, sociálna validácia, odbornosť, model pravdepodobnosti vypracovania (ELM), teória sociálneho vplyvu (SIT)

JEL klasifikácia/JEL Classification

M31

Résumé

Interakcia medzi kognitívnym procesom a sociálnou dynamikou pri formovaní individuálnej analýzy online recenzií. Časť II.
Zatiaľ čo interné faktory, ako sú recenzie a charakteristiky recenzentov, boli podrobne preskúmané, vplyv externých, najmä sociálnych faktorov na spracovanie online recenzií zostáva pomerne málo známy. Tento výskum preklenuje túto medzeru tým, že skúma, ako sociálne tlaky: sociálna konformita, sociálna validácia, ovplyvňujú spôsob, akým jednotlivci analyzujú online recenzie. Kombináciou modelu pravdepodobnosti vypracovania (ELM) a teórie sociálneho vplyvu (SIT) navrhujeme komplexný rámec na skúmanie dvoch kľúčových dimenzií: Spracovanie online recenzií a vplyv sociálnych faktorov na tento proces. Uskutočnili sme štúdiu medzi spotrebiteľmi výrobkov starostlivosti o pleť, pričom sme odhalili, že sociálna konformita, významne ovplyvňuje spoliehanie sa na periférne podnety (hodnotenia, dôveryhodnosť zdroja), avšak sociálna validácia nevykazuje významný vplyv. Okrem toho zapojením expertízy moderátora pozorujeme, že priamy vplyv sociálnych faktorov sa oslabuje. To naznačuje, že jednotlivci so silnými znalosťami daného predmetu sú pri hodnotení online recenzií menej náchylní na presvedčovaciu silu sociálnych podnetov.

Recenzované/Reviewed

27. February 2024 / 14. April 2024