Persuaded by Electronic Word of Mouth (eWOM): Network Coproduction Model on Chinese Social-Ecommerce App

  • Haoning XueEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11588)


In the era of Web 2.0 with prominent feature of user-generated content, the phenomenon of coproduction prevails in inter-consumer communication as well – consumers produce contents about product experience and evaluations to share and to support each other, rather than being passively influenced by marketers or key opinion leaders. The Little Red Book (LRB), a social-ecommerce unicorn in China, encourages users to share experience and opinion on cosmetic products and other aspects of life, even though it is a weak-tie community without much intimacy. This research revolves around the Network Coproduction Model of electronic Word of Mouth (Kozinets et al. 2010) and tries to test if eWOM of ordinary users can influence others’ product attitude and purchase intention. Two variables of eWOM, self-disclosure and product price, are manipulated to design a 2 (self-disclosure: descriptive, evaluative) × 2 (product price: high, low) factorial experiment. The researcher conducts an electronic experiment and a follow-up survey (N = 210) with 8 LRB prototype posts. The result indicates that LRB users mostly identity LRB as a supportive and honest community, even though they are not particularly active or involved here; product attitude and purchase intention are highly correlated; descriptive self-disclosure is more effective in persuading consumers than evaluative one is, and the combination of descriptive self-disclosure and high-cost product yields the most positive product attitude.


Computer mediated communication Electronic Word of Mouth (eWOM) Self-disclosure Social strength 


  1. 1.
    Deng, I.: Chinese social commerce unicorn Xiaohongshu raises US$300 million from investors led by Alibaba 1 June 2018.
  2. 2.
    Schivinski, B., Dabrowski, D.: The effect of social media communication on consumer perceptions of brands. J. Marketing Commun. 22(2), 189–214 (2014). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wang, X., Yu, C., Wei, Y.: Social media peer communication and impacts on purchase intentions: a consumer socialization framework. J. Interact. Mark. 26(4), 198–208 (2012). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ardiansyah, Y., Harrigan, P., Soutar, G.N., Daly, T.M.: Antecedents to consumer peer communication through social advertising: a self-disclosure theory perspective. J. Interact. Adv. 18(1), 55–71 (2018). Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I.: Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1975)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Granovetter, M.S.: The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 78(6), 1360–1380 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brown, J.J., Reingen, P.H.: Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior. J. Consum. Res. 14(3), 350–362 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huszti, É., Dávid, B., Vajda, K.: Strong tie, weak tie and in-betweens: a continuous measure of tie strength based on contact diary datasets. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 79, 38–61 (2013). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Xu, X.: Assessing source credibility on social media – an electronic word-of-mouth communication perspective. Dissertation Abstracts International 76(11) (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kozinets, R.V., Valck, K.D., Wojnicki, A.C., Wilner, S.J.: Networked narratives: understanding word-of-mouth marketing in online communities. J. Market. 74(2), 71–89 (2010). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schram, W. (ed.): The Process And Effects of Mass Communication. University of Illinois Press, Champaign (1954)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pedersen, S.T., Razmerita, L., Colleoni, E.: Electronic word-of-mouth communication and consumer behaviour - an exploratory study of danish social media communication influence. LSP J. 5(1), 112–131 (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Samutachak, B., Li, D.: The effects of centrality and prominence of nodes in the online social network on word of mouth behaviors. J. Acad. Bus. Econ. 12(2), 125–148 (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Derlega, V.J., Metts, S., Petronio, S., Margulis, S.T.: Self-Disclosure. Sage, Newbury Park (1993)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Laurent, G., Kapferer, J.: Measuring consumer involvement profiles. J. Mark. Res. 49, 41–53 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jain, S.P., Posavac, S.S.: Prepurchase attribute verifiability, source credibility, and persuasion. J. Consum. Psychol. 11(3), 169–180 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weinberger, M.G., Dillon, W.R.: The effects of unfavorable product rating information. In: Olson, J. (ed.) Proceedings of the Association for Consumer Research. Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor (1980)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jungho, B., Byung-Do, K.: Is the electronic word of mouth effect always positive on the movie? Acad. Mark. Stud. J. 17(1), 61–78 (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morton, T.L.: Intimacy and reciprocity in exchange: a comparison of spouses and strangers. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 36, 72–81 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chu, S.-C., Kim, Y.: Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites. Int. J. Advertising 30(1), 47–75 (2011). Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yi-Wen, F., Yi-Feng, M., Yu-Hsien, F., Ruei-Yun, L.: Establishing the adoption of electronic word-of-mouth through consumers’ perceived credibility. Int. Bus. Res. 6(3), 58–65 (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.City University of Hong KongKowloon TongHong Kong

Personalised recommendations