The impact of online consumer reviews factors

on the Dutch consumer buying decision.

Author: Melle Schepers

University of Twente
P.O. Box 217, 7500AE Enschede
The Netherlands

ABSTRACT

Since the fast and still increasingly adoption of buying products or services online, online consumer reviews have
become increasingly more important. The online consumer review involves positive or negative statements made
by consumers and experts about a product or service. This consumer-created information is helpful for decision-
making on purchases because it provides consumers with indirect experiences. This paper is concerned with
identifying five relevant factors of online reviews that have an impact on the consumer buying decision. A pilot
questionnaire has been conducted and it’s practical applicability has been tested among 244 Dutch respondents. It
proves that in fact the five factors of online reviews have an impact on the consumer buying decision. Finally some
practical valuable feedback for future research and practical contribution has been made.

Supervisors: Dr. P. Bliek, ir. J.W.L. van Benthem

Keywords
Online consumer reviews, eWOM, OCR, consumer buying decision,

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy
otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.

5th IBA Bachelor Thesis Conference, July 2nd, 2015, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Copyright 2015, University of Twente, The Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social sciences.
1. INTRODUCTION relevant factors of online consumer reviews that might have an
The rise of new media channels and consumer communication impact on this buying decision, (2) developing a pilot
platforms during the last years has offered new possibilities for questionnaire which investigates the influence and the
electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) communication. The magnitude of these different factors, and finally to (3) test the
number of consumers, who use Web 2.0 tools (such as social pilot questionnaire practicability and provide some valuable
media and online review platforms) to exchange product feedback for future research and practical contribution.
information and communicate their opinion about products and This paper consists of three parts. The first part of this paper
services, is growing tremendously fast. This new form of word- will give an overview of the existing literature that will give an
of-mouth (WOM) communication contributes to the rising understanding of the factors of online consumer reviews and the
development of a new era of consumer empowerment. It consumer buying decision. Furthermore we introduce our
enables consumers to easily share and exchange knowledge, conceptual research model based on the “integrative framework
information and experiences with like-minded individuals of the impact of eWOM communication” by Cheung and
worldwide (Olsen, Trimi, & Lee, 2012). Thadani (2012). In the second part, we introduce our pilot
The electronic word-of-mouth has recently attracted the questionnaire and the empirical research is done based on 244
attention among marketing professionals. Traditionally, respondents. Finally this paper ends with a conclusion and
consumers’ expectations about products or services were discussion where we provide some valuable contribution for
formed in two ways: by either traditional marketing efforts or practical use and future research.
word- of-mouth communication. It has been demonstrated by
several studies that WOM communication is more credible and
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
trustworthy than traditional marketing efforts (Christodoulides, The literature review is focuses on providing an overview of the
Michaelidou & Argyriou, 2012; de Matos & Rossi, 2008). This current literature about the relevant factors of online consumer
reviews. To understand these relevant factors first the basic
also counts for eWOM, which is perceived as more credible,
relevant, and having a higher degree of empathy knowledge about WOM, eWOM, OCR and the consumer
(Christodoulides, Michaelidou & Argyriou, 2012; Bickart & buying decision are explained. The author did the research
Schindler, 2001). based on keywords including “WOM”, “word-of-mouth”,
“electronic word-of-mouth”, “eWOM”, “online consumer
Recent social consumer research reports have shown that when review”, “OCR”, “online reviews”, “factors online reviews”
making buying decisions, Internet users trust online reviews and “consumer buying decision” on different scientific search
posted by unknown consumers more than they trust traditional engines such as Google Scholar, Library & archive University
media (DiMauro, Bulmer, 2014). In addition, user-generated Twente, Web of Science, ScienceResearch and Scopus. Also
content (UGC) in the form of online consumer reviews was the snowball method was been applied to retrieve new relevant
found to significantly influence consumer purchasing decisions articles from the founded relevant literature.
(Chang, Cheung, Lai, 2005). 91% of respondents mentioned
that they consult online reviews, blogs, and other user- 2.1 Word-of-mouth
generated content before purchasing a new product or service, Word-of-mouth communications have received a lot of
46% of which are then influenced in the way they to purchase. attention from both practitioners and academics for years. Since
his phenomenon of “online orientation” will bring new the early 1960’s, it has been demonstrated by researchers that
challenges for businesses. The reputation of a product, service personal conversations and information exchange of
or company is no longer defined by what they report or how information among acquaintances not only influence
they say they stand for. Instead, they are increasingly defined consumers’ choices and buying decisions (Arndt, 1967) but also
by the shared opinions and experiences of social connected shape consumers expectations (Zeithaml & Bitner, 1996), pre-
consumers. use attitudes and post-usage perceptions of a product or service
(Burzynski & Bayer, 1977). According to Godes and Mayzlin
A lot of research has been done to eWOM in a business
(2004), Maxham and Netemeyer (2002) the word-of-mouth
perspective; the influence of social media to corporate
communication is one of the most influential resources of the
reputation (Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy, Silvestre, 2011),
transmission of information. According to Arndt (1976), word-
how to deal with reputation threats in social media and the
of-mouth communication can be defined as “Oral, person to
influence of social media in marketing (Kim, Ko, 2012). Also
person communication between a receiver and a communicator
there is a lot of research done in the field of online reviews: Do
whom the receiver perceives as non-commercial, regarding a
consumers use them? (Chatterjee, 2001) What is the impact of
brand, a product or a service”.
reviews on (forecasting) sales (Hu, Liu, Jie, Zhang, 2008) and
what is the impact on product attitude? (Park, Lee, & Han, 2.2 Electronic word-of-mouth
2007). The Internet has enabled new forms of communication
However, in current research on online reviews, many are platforms that further empower both providers and consumers,
concerned about the impact of online reviews on product sales allowing a basis for the sharing of information and opinions
as well as the effectiveness of online reviews. Studies of the both from Business to Consumer, and from Consumer to
impact on consumer buying decisions are rare. Some of them, Consumer. Electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) communication
regarded online reviews as a single element to discuss their refers to “any positive or negative statement made by potential,
impact on the purchase decision instead of all relevant factors actual, or former customers about a product or service, which is
of online reviews on the consumer’s buying decision. This made available to a multitude of people and institutions via the
missing element in the existing literature is leading us to the Internet” (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004). eWOM communication
following research question: can take place in different settings. Consumers can post their
information and opinions on weblogs (e.g. iphoneclub.nl),
“What are the relevant factors in online reviews that have an
social network sites (e.g. Facebook.com, Twitter.com), review
impact on the consumer buying decision?”
websites (e.g. kieskeurig.nl, trustpilot.com, besteproduct.nl) and
The objective of this paper is therefore to (1) get a general sometimes directly on the seller or manufacture his website.
insight into the consumer buying decision and to identify the
While the eWOM has most of it’s characteristics in common after you have decided to buy a new phone, you may search for
with traditional WOM communication, in several dimensions it information about different features, technical options and
differs from the traditional WOM communication. First of all, usability in daily use. They’re two main aspects in the search of
compared the eWOM with the traditional WOM, the eWOM information. First of all, consumers search for information that
has the features of spreading information, fast and large volume might solve the problem in their own memories. If there is not
of information, instantly ready to receive, anonymous and enough information to make the decision, they will look for
transcend space and time (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004). additional information in an external search. This external
eWOM communications involve the exchanges of information search may involve comparing available brands and prices,
in asynchronous mode to multiple receivers. (Hung, Li, 2004). looking for offers, communicating with colleagues and friends
It is not needed that information needs to be exchange at the offline or on social media and for this study the most important
same time when all communicators are physically present aspect: reading reviews online. Individual personal contacts are
(Karakaya, Barnes, 2010). For example; online users can write mostly viewed as the most credible sources of information
comments that others can read later. In traditional WOM, because the consumer trusts them. And as mentioned before,
information is mostly exchanged in dialogs and private one on recent studies have shown that internet users trust online
one sessions. According to Blodgett, Granbois, & Walters reviews posted by unknown consumers more than they trust
(1993), traditional WOM about a negative experience reaches traditional printed media. Also with the possibilities of the
an average of nine people, while the eWOM can reaches Internet, consumers are having increasingly access to relevant
thousands of people (Senecal & Nantel, 2004). Second, eWOM product information due the greater quantities of information.
communication is more accessible and permanent. Much of the However, studies have shown that if consumers are overloaded
textual information presented on the Internet is archived, and is with too much information, they make poorer choices. So
therefore available for an indefinite period of time (Lee et al. , improving the quality of information may help consumers in the
2008). Through the possibility’s of the search machines, people decision process to make better purchase decisions. How
also can easily find the particular information that there are consumers use and process the information obtained in online
looking for. Third, eWOM communication is far more reviews depends on the features of the information itself. In this
measurable then traditional WOM (Lee et al. , 2008). The study we look at different relevant factors of online reviews.
quantity, persistence and the presentation format have made The third stage, evaluation of alternatives, occurs when the
them more observable. According to Chatterjee (2001), eWOM buyer is evaluating the products. He establishes criteria for
communcation is far more voluminous in quantity compared to comparing the possible alternatives products. These criteria are
WOM communication in the offline world. Analyzing the the features or characteristics that the buyer wants (or does not
characteristics, for a large number of eWOM messages, such as want). The buyer also assigns a certain level of importance to
the style of the message, number of (sentimental) words used, each criterion that results in that fact that some features are
the position of the messages and the like, is far more easily. A more important than others. Both, the criteria and the level of
final key difference is that the ability to judge the sender and his importance are used to make a ranking of the possible products.
message on factors such as credibility is being recurred by the By framing the alternatives, marketers can influence the
electronic nature of eWOM in most of it’s settings. consumers’ evaluation. Framing can make certain aspects of the
product more important and can facilitate its recall from
2.3 Consumer buying decision memory. For example, by emphasizing no-sugar in soft drinks,
The consumer buying decision represents a process of five marketers can encourage the consumer to consider this
stages (problem identification, information search, evaluation of particular aspect to be important. Framing affects the consumer
alternatives, purchase, post-purchase evaluation) that the buying decision of inexperienced buyers more then those of
purchaser will go trough before he makes the purchase decision experienced buyers. When the evaluation of alternatives
(Dibb, S., Simkin, L., Pride, W.P. and Ferrell). Although a contains one or more products, the consumer is ready to move
detailed understanding of these stages is needed, a number of to the purchase stage. This fourth stage, where the consumer
general observations are also relevant. First, the actual act of chooses which product to buy, is mainly the outcome of the
purchasing is only one stage in this process, the process begins evaluation of alternatives. Although some other factors such as
several stages before the purchase itself. Second, not all the product availability and the closeness of alternative store
decision processes lead to a purchase, at different stages in the have an impact too. During this stage the buying also picks a
process the consumer can drop out. Finally, consumer decisions seller from where the product will be purchased. Finally the
do not always include all the fives stages of the decision purchase (decision) is made. The final fifth stage is the post-
process. purchase evaluation. After the purchase has taken place, the
buyer starts evaluating the product to check whether its actual
The first stage, problem recognition, occurs when a buyer performance meets his expectations. Most of the criteria used in
becomes aware that there is a difference between a actual the evaluating of alternatives stage are revisited during this
condition and a desired state. For example, a student who needs stage. The outcome will determine whether the consumer is
to keep a record of colleges and appointments. At the end of the satisfied or dissatisfied and this will influence future behavior.
year, when the old diary is finished, he recognizes that a The level of satisfaction a consumer experiences will determine
difference exist between the actual condition (an out of date whether they make a complaint, communicate with other
diary) and the desired state (a current diary). Therefore he possible buyers or purchase the product again.
makes the decision to buy a new one. Sometimes a person has a
problem or need but is unaware of it. For example: some 2.4 Online consumer review
consumers are concerned about their weight but may not aware The online consumer review (OCR), one type of eWOM,
that there is a low-calorie or low-sugar option of their product involves positive or negative statements made by consumers
available. Marketers use advertising, packaging and promotions and experts about a product or service. This consumer-created
help trigger such need recognition. After recognizing the information is helpful for decision- making on purchases
problem or need, the consumer searches for information about because it provides consumers with indirect experiences (Park,
the product that will solve his problem or satisfaction. This Lee, Han, 2007). An online consumer review as a route for
second stage is called the “Information search”. For example, social influence plays two roles (informant and recommender)
(Park, Lee, Han, 2007). As an informant role, the online of the product. The more reviews there are, the more important
consumer review delivers additional user-oriented information. and popular a product is. It is likely to lead consumers to
As a recommender role, it provides a negative or positive signal rationalize their buying decision by “Many other people also
of the product its popularity (Park, Lee, Han, 2007). bought the product” (Park, Lee, Han, 2007). Also a high
Due to it’s information asymmetry setting, the online consumer volume of reviews leads to more (useful) information used for
review is enormous important in the e-commerce context. This making the judgement whether to buy because there is a greater
due the fact that the online retailer has a lot more information likelihood that consumers will find the type of information they
about the product than the consumer has (Chukova, Christozov, are seeking for. Accordingly, we hypothesise as follow:
Mateev, 1999). Compared to traditional shopping, online H2: The quantity of online consumer reviews has a significant
consumers can’t use all of their senses (e.g. touching, feeling, effect on the consumer buying decision.
trying, smelling) to evaluate the product when they are buying
online (Park, Lee, & Han, 2007). This forces the consumer to
make a buying decision based on the information the retailer 2.5.3 Valence
provides on his website or elsewhere. Online consumer reviews Valence refers to the way an online review is framed (e.g.
provide these information-seeking consumers with indirect negatively framed or positively framed). A positively framed
product experiences. Since the fast and still increasingly online review will highlights the strengths of a product or
adoption of buying products or services online, online consumer service and encourage other consumers to buy a product or
reviews have become increasingly more important. service whether negative online reviews reveals the weaknesses
and negative features of a product or service and thus
2.5 Online consumer reviews factors. discourages people to adopt hem (Lee, Youn, 2009).
With respect to the online consumer review, the “integrative Accordingly this leads to the hypothesis:
framework of the impact of eWOM communication” by
Cheung and Thadani (2012) seems to be relevant and the most H3: The valence of online consumer reviews has a significant
helpful to explain the different factors of online consumer effect on the consumer buying decision.
reviews that have an impact on the buying decision. The
underlying assumption of this theoretical framework is that
social communication is “the process by which an individual
2.5.4 Timeliness
The timeliness concerns whether the messages are current, up-
(the communicator) transmits stimuli (usually verbal symbols)
to-date and timely. Products appearance change according to
to modify the behaviour of other individuals (communicates)”
feedback of consumers, due technical progress and new
(Hovland, 1948). The integrative framework provides a
techniques. According to Madu and Madu (2002) a website
systematic overview of elements influencing eWOM and its
cannot deliver expected information to the users if the website
outcome. It is composed of four major elements: receiver,
is not up to date and updated consistently. Also when online
stimuli, communicator, and the response.
reviews are not recent, consumer may think that the information
The receiver is the individual who responds to the message. The
is out-of-date and therefore unreliable for making buying
actual impact of the message may vary from person to person
since none of each receiver is the same. The stimulus refers to decisions (McKinney, Yoon, Zahedi, 2002). Hence the
the transmitted message by the communicator and has an following hypothesis is formulated:
impact on the response. The framework identifies argument H4: The timeliness of online consumer reviews has a
quality, volume, valence and timeliness as important stimuli significant effect on the consumer buying decision.
(factors) that are associated with the response. The
communicator refers to the person who transmits the message
and the source credibility of the communicator seems to be the 2.5.5 Source credibility
most important factor. Source credibility refers to “a message receiver's perception of
the credibility of a message source, reflecting nothing about the
message itself” (Chaicken, 1980). Unknown individuals usually
2.5.1 Argument quality share their experiences and opinions outside their personal
Argument quality refers to “the strength or plausibility of social network with a large en geographically dispersed group
persuasive argumentation” (Eagly, Chaicken, 1993). The of strangers. Therefore Park, Lee & Han (2007) argued that it
quality of each online consumer review is different because may have less credibility than traditional messages and also that
each review is based on the consumers’ subjective feeling. receivers may have difficulties in determining the source
According to Park, Lee & Han (2007) the quality of online credibility of the messages. This is leading to our last
consumer reviews is an important element that affects the hypothesis:
consumer cognitive information processing. High quality H5: The source credibility of online consumer reviews has a
reviews are more logical and persuasive. According to the significant effect on the consumer buying decision.
perceived quality theory, the more an online review appears to
be detailed and complete, accurate, based on facts, and relevant
to consumer needs, the more consumers will find such
information to be helpful in deciding whether to buy the item.
This leads to our following hypothesis:
H1: The quality of online consumer reviews has a significant
effect on the consumer buying decision.

2.5.2 Volume
The volume of online consumer reviews of a product represents
the product’s popularity because it is related to the sales volume
2.6 Research model time spending online, amount of yearly purchases online, type
Based on the factors derived from the “integrative framework of of products buying online) and rating scale questions (impact of
the impact of eWOM communication” a conceptual research the relevant review factors on the buying decision).
model was built. The model represents the starting point for our 3.2 Measurements and Methods
questionnaire. It assumed that all factors have an impact on the To operationalize all suggested relevant factors in online
consumers buying decision. reviews a Likert response scale with a 5-point format has been
applied ranging from “not influenced” to “strongly influenced”.
Quality   Indicators, adapted from existing scales derived from previous
studies, have measured each factor. To minimize the impact of
order bias, the sequence of the items per factor were
Volume   randomized.

Buying   The impact of quality was measured on a subscale involving

Valence   decision   five items (objectivity of reviews, understandability of reviews,
credibility of reviews, clearness of reviews, sufficient reasons
Timeliness   supporting the opinions) adapter from Park, Lee, Han (2007).
The impact of volume was measured on a subscale involving
two items (number of reviews and the quantity of information
Source  
credibility   in reviews) adapter from Park, Lee, Han (2007).
The impact of valence was measured on a subscale involving
Figure 1: Conceptual research model two items (overall tendency of evaluation, evaluation
suggestion) adapter from Christodoulides, Michaelidou,
3. METHODOLOGY Argyriou (2012). The impact of source credibility was
In this research, an extensively literature research and the data measured on a subscale involving three items (reviewers’
from an pilot questionnaire must provide an answer to the credibility, reviewers’ reliability, reviewers’ expertise) adapter
research question “What are the relevant factors in online from Cheung, Lee, Rabjohn (2008). And finally, based on a
reviews that have an impact on the consumer buying subscale involving three items (latest degree of information,
decision?”. First attention is drawn to the sample and data recency of reviews, degree of timeliness of reviews,
collection of this research. Secondly, the measurements and continuously updated) adapter from McKinney, Yoon, Zahedi
methods are explained before the data analysis was conducted. (2002), the impact of timeliness was measured.
Finally, the results of the questionnaire will be presented in the 3.3 Data Analysis
next chapter.
Before analyzing the data of the questionnaire, the collected
3.1 Sample and Data collection data in Qualtrics was exported to an IBM SPSS format. First the
Data was collected during a period seven days beginning June invalid data, due not completed questionnaires, were identified
2015. This short period of time is related to the limited and removed from the database. To provide a clear overview of
timeframe. The given questionnaire, conducted in the online the demographic aspects, the daily time spending online, the
research tool Qualtrics, has been distributed by different media amount products buying online and the type of products buying
platforms such as, Facebook, Twitter, Whatsapp and send by e- online, frequency tables about the questions in the general
mail to contacts of the researcher and to the newsletter introduction of the questionnaire were created. Second the
subscribers of Carnavalskleding.nl (which is a online store respondents who never used an online review were eliminated
owned by the author of this study). The respondents were able from the sample because they did not participate in Part 2 of the
to decide if they would participate in the questionnaire or not. question. The results this, and the result of removing invalid
As reward for completing the questionnaire, the newsletter data lead to a total sample of 175 useful respondents. An
subscribers of Carnavalskleding.nl were provided with a 10% exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was run to identify the
discount on their next purchase on Carnavalskleding.nl to amount of latent factors. Thus, the estimate factors which
stimulate the number of respondents in a short period of time influence the response on the observed variables with the goal
and due the fact that they have no connection with the author. to summarize underlying correlational structures for our dataset
Finally, a number of 244 respondents were identified. The (Gorsuch, 1997). Subsequently, the number of factors of our
respondents provided a representative profile of men en women data set (the factors of online reviews that influence the buying
in the Netherlands all begin comfortable with spending time and process) has been identified and also each factor’s underlying
buying products online. Based on the distribution channel and set of variables. Based on the Kayser-Meyer Olkin (KMO) and
respondents, a convenience sample was used. the Bartlett’s test, the validity of the model has been tested
(Barlett, 1950; Kaiser, 1970). The KMO value should be at least
The questionnaire consisted out of three parts: 0.5 to be appropriate and the Barlett’s test should be significant
Part (1) the general introduction to identify general at the 0.05 level. This means that correlation matrix is not an
characteristics which contains questions with regards to the identity matrix and indicates the null hypothesis is rejected. The
demographic aspects, the daily time spending online, the Cronbach’s alpha test was applied to indicate the reliability of
amount and products of buying online. the extracted factors (Cronbach, 1951). The internal consistency
Part (2) the question if the participant ever used online reviews of each factor is acceptable when Cronbach’s Alpha is above
in their buying decision. If the answer on this question was yes, 0.7. This indicated that the items are correlated to each other
several questions about the impact of relevant factors of online and that they measure the same factor. By analyzing the factor
reviews on the buying decision were asked. Part (3) a general loadings the consistency of each factor structure has been
thank you page and if the participant was a subscriber of the examined. Therefore the variables need to have a factor loading
mailing list of carnavalskleding.nl, a discount code was given. of >0.5 for the factor they allowed (Hair, Anderson, Tatham,
Questions in the questionnaire were formatted as dichotomous Black, 1999).
questions (e.g. gender), multiple-choice questions (e.g. age,
4. RESULTS Anderson, Tatham, Black, 1999). Based on these above results
This section presents the result of the questionnaire addressing of the EFA analysis that indicates that all five factors have an
the research question. The aim of this study was to identify impact on the consumer buying decision, all our five
which factors, derived from the literature resulting in the pilot hypotheses could be accepted. (see appendix 7.3)
questionnaire, are practical applicable and which consumer
characteristics have an influence on these factors.
4.1 General descriptive Frequency Percentage
The first part of the questionnaire contains the general
descriptive data for the research that provides some valuable Gender
information about the sample. As mentioned before, a total of Male 102 50%
244 respondents have been participated and with the
Female 102 50%
elimination of the respondents who did not complete the
questionnaire (40 respondents), we have a total sample of 204
respondents. The distribution of gender was exactly balanced, Age
as 50% are male and 50% female. 65,7% of the respondents is
30 years or younger and most of them are between 20-30 years < 20 year 36 17,6%
old (48%). When analyzing the online usage, 29,4% spent less 21 – 30 year 98 48%
then one hour a day online, 37,7% spent between one and two
31 – 40 year 17 8,3%
hour and 32,8% spent more than two hour online. 111 of our
respondents answered that they mostly buy clothes online. This 41 – 50 year 25 12,3%
results in the fact that this result is consistent for more then 50% > 51 year 28 13,7%
of our questionnaire sample. Everyone purchased one or more
items online, with most of them even buy more then ten items
yearly. Out of all our respondents, only 14,2% never used an Daily time spending online
online review (29 respondents). So for our factor analysis, we < 10 min 1 0,5%
have a total sample of 175 useful respondents (see table 1 &
appendix 7.2). 10 – 30 min 17 8,3%
30 – 60 min 42 20,6%
4.2 Factor analysis
To study the existence of similarities of online review factors 1 – 2 hour 77 37,7%
between what suggested by the literature and how it’s in reality, > 3 hour 67 32,8%
a factor analysis was conducted. The factor analysis was
performed two times because the first time one of the items was
removed due the low factor loading. Therefore the analysis has Yearly amount of purchases
been repeated without that item to check if the factor loading online
differs. The item that has been removed was “The evaluation 0 purchase 0 0%
compared to similar alternatives” with a factor loading of only
0.452. 1 – 2 purchases 13 6,4%
As a first result of the EFA analysis, the KMO test has a value 3 – 4 purchases 23 11,3%
of 0,799 that is higher than the needed 0.5 and can be classified 5 – 10 purchases 76 37,3%
as meritorious. The Barlett’s test shows that it was significant
> 10 purchase 92 45,1%
(0,000, appendix 7.3). This is leading to the validity of the
factorial analysis model (Bartlett, 1954; Kaiser, 1970) and
allows proceeding running factor analysis. A varimax rotation Sort of purchase
was used on factors with eigenvalues above 1.0, resulting in
minimizing the number of items having high loadings on a Clothes 111 54,4%
particular factor. As a result, five factors were recognized and Grocery 2 1%
accounts for 71.793% of the variance.
Electronics 35 17,2%
Factor 1: Quality
Games 7 3,4%
Objectivity of online reviews, understandability of online
reviews, credibility of online reviews, clearness of online Vacations 15 7,4%
reviews, sufficient reasons supporting the opinions. Other 34 16,7%
Factor 2: Source credibility
Reviewer’s credibility, reviewers’ reliability and reviewers’
expertise. Use of online review
Factor 3: Timeliness Yes 175 85,8%
Latest degree of information in online reviews, recency of
online reviews, degree of timeliness of online reviews No 29 14,2%
Factor 4: Valence
A positive online review, a negative online review
N=204
Factor 5: Volume
The amount of online reviews, quantity of information in online Table 1: Frequencies table of general data
reviews.
The consistency of all factor structure is validated as each item
has a factor loading of >0.5 to the factor it is related to (Hair,
 4.4.1.4 Yearly amount of purchases online
4.3 Influence of each factor And again, no significant difference between the yearly
purchases online of the respondents and the factors were found.
In order to overview the magnitude of the factors that influence
The closest to significant factors was quality (sig. 0,158) with
the consumer buying process, the table below (table 2) was
the lowest mean in the 3-4 purchases group (3,6286) and the
conducted. The factor means represents the mean of the
highest in the 1-2 purchases group (4,0800).
measured items that belongs to the factor.
As one can see the factor valence has the biggest impact with a 4.4.1.5 Sort of purchase
mean of 4,0457 with a minimum of two (that indicates that this Between sort of purchase and the quality of reviews, a
factors had an influence on every respondent) and a maximum significant difference was found (sig 0.039). Grocery shows the
of five. On the other hand, the factor volume has the fewest lowest mean (2,700) while vacations scores the highest
influence with a mean of 3,2971. (4,1000).

Mean SD Minimum Maximum 5. CONCLUSION, DISCUSSION AND

Factors LIMITATIONS
The aim of this paper was to highlight the importance of the
Quality 3,8926 0,66532 1,40 5
online consumer review for organizations as well as to test the
Volume 3,2971 0,76395 1 5 conducted pilot questionnaire investigation the different factors
Valence 4,0457 0,65712 2 5 of online reviews influences the consumer buying decision. It
contributes to the existing literature by identifying and
Timeliness 3,7181 0,69427 1 5 determining the magnitude of the different factors on the
Source 3,6571 0,78656 1 5 consumer decision process and by making valuable suggestions
credibility on how the pilot questionnaire should be constructed and can be
improved in order to support future studies.
Table 2: Influence of each factor

The Internet and the possibilities of Web 2.0 have a huge

4.4 Consumer characteristics analysis impact on the eWOM communication between consumers.
As the final step in our analysis, the influence of the different Today’s consumers share there their information and opinions
consumer characteristics that might have an impact on the about products and services and due the facts that most of this
factors were analyzed due the authors personal interest and to information is archived, it is available for everyone for an
give a better practically recommendation. The output of these indefinite period of time. The OCR, one type of eWOM,
analyses is presented in Appendix 7.5 and a summary of the involves positive or negative statements made by consumers
most important findings is given below. and experts about a product or service. It also provides
consumers with indirect experience. In online shopping the
4.4.1.1 Gender consumer cannot use all of their senses (e.g. smelling, touching,
Significant difference between men and women were found in trying, testing). Therefore, it helps Internet consumers to make
the mean scores on the factors quality (sig. 0,011) and source buying decisions based on the information which is provided in
credibility (sig. 0,001). Man shown a higher mean than women online reviews. The literature review shows that they’re a
in the factor quality (4,0207 vs. 3,7659) and also in source several factors of online reviews that might play a role in the
credibility (3,8582 vs. 3,4583). So consumer buying decision. Based on this, the five most
both factors have a bigger influence on the buying decision of important factors have been tested with a pilot questionnaire on
men, then women. Although not absolute significant (sig. the Dutch Internet consumer. While analyzing this
0,051), it’s worth to mention that Valence has a bigger questionnaire, it was found that the suggested factors quality,
influence on the women’s’ (4,1420) buying decision then men’s volume, valence, source credibility and timeliness have indeed
(3,9483). an impact on the consumer buying decision. Thus all five
4.4.1.2 Age hypotheses can be accepted. Our findings are consistent with
No significant difference between the age group of the the suggested framework by Cheung and Thadani (2012). The
respondents and the factors were found. The closest to factor that has the highest influence was the valence of reviews,
significant factors were timeliness (sig 0,122) with a difference while the volume of reviews has the lowest impact on the
in means between the groups 21 – 30 year old (3.6124) and 51> consumer buying decision. Furthermore, some differences in
years old (4,0128), and valence (sig. 0,103) were the biggest the amount of influence were found based on the consumer
difference in means was found between the groups <20 years characteristics. For example, men were more influenced by the
old (3,8333) and 31 – 40 years old (4,3333). factor quality and source credibility than women. A full
overview of these findings can be found in appendix 7.5.
4.4.1.3 Daily time spending online The result of this survey also shows organizations that a huge
No significant difference between the online experience of the amount (85,8%) of Dutch online consumers make use of online
respondents and the factors were found. The closest to reviews in their purchase decision. It also shows that there is a
significant factors were quality (sig. 0,198) and valence (sig. difference in the influence of each factor. By effectively using
0,171). The factor quality shows the lowest mean for the group online reviews, organization can have an influence on the
10-30 (3,6333) and the highest for the group >3 hours (4,0172). buying decision of consumers. For example, organizations can
For the factor valence the highest mean was measured in the reward satisfied consumers who write a positive review with
group 30-60min (4,2286) while the lowest mean was found in high quality because these have the most influence on other
the group 10-30min (3,6111). consumers. For another example: organizations who only sell
products for either men or woman can highlight specific factors
that have the biggest influence on the buying decision of either
gender. Our study shows that there is a difference between the Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information
factors that influence the buying decision based on the processing and the use of source versus message cues
consumer characteristic. in persuasion, Journal of Personality and Social
There are a few limitation of this study that will be explained to Psychology, 39(5), 752–766.
stimulate and improve future research in this research area. Chang, M.K., Cheung, W., & Lai, V.S. (2005), Literature
First of all, the sampling method of the distributed derived reference models for the adoption of online
questionnaire can be identified as a limitation. Due the limited shopping, Information Management, 42, 543–559.
time, the questionnaire was distributed to friends, acquaintance Chatterjee, P. (2001) Online Reviews – Do consumers use
and customers of the researcher. There were no random them? ACR 2001 Proceedings, eds. M. C. Gilly and J.
samplings, which resulted in a sample where the majority of the Myers-Levy, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer
respondents were between 21 and 30 years and all have the Research, 129-134.
Dutch nationality. Also, the considerable low sample size
prohibited a good generalization of the founded results for an Cheung, M., Luo, C., Sia, C., Chen, H. (2009). Credibility of
entire population which is significantly lower then the total electronic word-of-mouth: informational and
potential market of consumers who buy online and use online normative determinants of on-line consumer
reviews. recommendations, International Journal of Electronic
Commerce, 13(4), 9–38.
A second limitation can found be found in the fact that factors
of online consumer reviews are solely based on the finding of Cheung. C.M.K., Lee, M.K.O., & Rabjohn, N. (2008). The
the literature review. Other factors of online consumer reviews impact of electronic word-of-mouth: the adoption of
that might have an influence on the consumer decision have not online opinions in online customer communities,
been tested, for example sidedness that contains the ratio of Internet Research, 18(3), 229–247.
positive/negative message (Cheung, Luo, Sia, Chen, 2009). Christodoulides, G., Michaelidou, N., & Argyriou, E. (2012).
Also there are other consumer characteristics that haven’t been Cross-national differences in e-WOM influence.
tested but might have an impact on the buying decision too (e.g. European Journal of Marketing, 46(11), 1689-1707.
lifestyle, prior knowledge, brand attitude, motivation).
Chukova, S., Christozov, D., & Mateev, P. (2009). Chapter 11.
Since our questionnaire was limited to identify and determining Informing processes, risks, evaluation oft he risk of
the magnitude of the factors of online reviews that influence the misinforming. In T. G. Gill & E. Cohen (Eds.),
consumer buying decision, it did not consider which stage of Foundations of informing science: 1999-2008 (pp.
the buying process was in influences the most. It also did not 323-356). Santa Rosa, CA: Informing Science Press.
consider from which platform reviews were consulted and
de Matos, C. A., & Rossi, C. A. V. (2008). Word-of-mouth
which platform (Park, Lee, 2009) have the most influence.
communications in marketing: A meta-analytic
Furthermore the questionnaire was limited to participants who review of the antecedents and moderators. Journal of
used an online review in their purchase decision. Therefore it the Academy of Marketing Science, 1-19.
fails to discover why consumers do not use online reviews. DiMauro V., & Bulmer D, 2014, The Social Consumer Study,
Despite this small amount of participants that not uses online The Society for New Communications Research.
reviews (14,2%), the motives of them could be interesting for From: http://www.slideshare.net/dbulmer/the-social-
practical use or future research. consumer-study-091414-2.
Therefore future research should: Eagly, A.H., Chaiken, & S. (1993) The Psychology of Attitudes,
1. Be focused on a larger scale with a random sample of Ft. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
participants to achieve a better generalizability.
2. Expanded with more consumer characteristics that might Godes, D. & Mayzlin, D. (2004). Using Online Conversations
have an impact on the buying decision. to Study Word of Mouth Communication. Marketing
3. Identify from which platform reviews are consulted and Science 23(4), 545–560.
which platform has the most influence. Gorsuch, R. (1997) ‘Exploratory factor analysis: its role in item
4. Analyze in which stage of the consumer buying process the analysis’, Journal of Personality, Assessment, 68(3),
online review is the most useful and where it has the most 532–560.
influence.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., and Black, W. (1999).
5. Find out the motives of participant that not used online
Multivariate analysis, Pearson Education.
reviews.
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
6. REFERENCES Interactive Marketing, 18(1), 38-52.
Arndt, Johan (1967, August). Role of product-related
conversations in the diffusion of a new product. Hovland, C.L. (1948). Social communication, Proceedings of
Journal of Marketing Research, 4, 291−295. the American Philosophical Society, 92(5), 371–375.

Bickart, B., & Schindler, R. M. (2001). Internet forums as Hu, N., Liu, L., & Zhang, J. (2008). Do Online Reviews Affect
influential sources of consumer information. Journal Product Sales? The Role of Reviewer Characteristics
of Interactive Marketing, 15(3), 31-40. and Temporal Effects. Information Technology &
Management, 9(3), 201-21.
Burzynski, Michael H., & Bayer, Dewey J. (1977). The effect
of positive and negative prior information on motion Hung, K.H., & Li, S.Y. (2007). The influence of eWOM on
picture appreciation. Journal of Social Psychology, virtual consumer communities: social capital,
101, 215−218. consumer learning, and behavioral outcomes, Journal
of Advertising Research, 47(4), 485–495.
Karakaya, F., & Barnes, N.G. (2010). Impact of online reviews
of customer care experience on brand or company
selection, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27(5),
447–457.
Kietzmann, J.H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I.P., & Silvestre,
B.S. (2011). Social media? Get serious!
Understanding the functional building blocks of
social media, Business Horizons, 54, 241-251.
Lee, J., Park, D.-H., & Han, I. (2008). The effect of negative
online consumer reviews onproduct attitude: An
information processing view. Electronic Commerce
Research & Applications, 7(3), 341-352.
Lee, M., Youn, S. (2009) Electronic word of mouth (eWOM):
how eWOM platforms influence consumer product
judgement, International Journal of Advertising: The
Quarterly Review of Marketing Communications,
28(3) 473–499.
Olson, D. L., Trimi, S., & Lee, S. M. (2012). Co-innovation:
convergenomics, collaboration, and co-creation for
organizational values. Management Decision, 50(5),
817–831.
Maxham, J.G., & Netemeyer R.G. (2002). Modeling Customer
Perceptions of Complaint Handling Over Time: The
Effects of Perceived Justice on Satisfaction and
Intent. Journal of Retailing, 78(4), 239–252.
McKinney, V., Yoon, K., & Zahedi, F.M. (2002). The
measurement of web-customer satisfaction: an
expectation and disconfirmation approach,
Information Systems Research, 13(3), 296–315.
Newell, S. J., & Goldsmith, R. E. (1997). The development of a
scale to measure perceived corporate credibility.
Journal of Business Research, 52, 235–247.
Park, C., & Lee, T. (2009). Information direction, website
reputation and eWOM effect: a moderating role of
product type, Journal of Business Research, 62(1),
61–67.
Park, D., 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.
Senecal, S., & Nantel, J. (2004). The influence of online
product recommendations on consumers’ online
choices. Journal of Retailing, 80(2), 159-169.
Zeithaml, Valarie A., & Bitner, Mari Jo (1996). Services
marketing. New York: McGrawHill.
7. APPENDIX

7.1 Questionnaire

Part 1: General introduction

1. Gender
a: Men
b: Women
2. Age
a: <20
b: 21-30
c: 31-40
d: 41-50
e: 51>
3. Daily time spending online
a: < 10 min
b: 10 – 30 min
c: 30 – 60 min
d: 1 – 2 hour
e: > 3 hour
4. Yearly amount of purchases online
a: 1 - 2 purchases
b: 3 - 4 purchases
c: 5 – 10 purchase
d: > 10 purchases
5. Sort of purchases online
a: Clothes
b: Grocery
c: Electronics
d: Games
e: Vacations
f: Other…………….
Part 2: Impact of relevant factors
6. Did you ever use online reviews in your buying decision?
a: Yes
b: No
Quality
7. Objectivity of reviews
8. Understandability of reviews
9. Credibility of reviews
10. Clearness of reviews
11. Sufficient reasons supporting the opinions
Volume
12. Number of reviews
13. Quantity of information in reviews
Valance
14. Positive reviews
15. Negative reviews
16. Evaluation suggestion
Source credibility
17. Reviewers’ credibility
18. Reviewers’ reliability
19. Reviewers’ expertise
Timeliness
20. Latest degree of information
21. Recency of reviews
22. Degree of timeliness
7.2 General descriptives

Table 3: Gender

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Men 102 50,0 50,0 50,0

Women 102 50,0 50,0 100,0

Total 204 100,0 100,0

Table 4: Age

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

< 20 36 17,6 17,6 17,6

21 - 30 98 48,0 48,0 65,7

31 - 40 17 8,3 8,3 74,0

41 - 50 25 12,3 12,3 86,3

51 > 28 13,7 13,7 100,0

Total 204 100,0 100,0

Table 5: Daily time spending online

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

< 10 min 1 ,5 ,5 ,5

10 - 30 min 17 8,3 8,3 8,8

30 - 60 min 42 20,6 20,6 29,4

1 - 2 hour 77 37,7 37,7 67,2

> 3 hour 67 32,8 32,8 100,0

Total 204 100,0 100,0

Table 6: Yearly amount of purchases online

 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

1 - 2 purchases
13 6,4 6,4 6,4

3 - 4 purchases 23 11,3 11,3 17,6

5 - 10 purchases 76 37,3 37,3 54,9

> 10 purchases 92 45,1 45,1 100,0

Total 204 100,0 100,0

Table 7: Sort of purchase

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Clothes 111 54,4 54,4 54,4

Grocery 2 1,0 1,0 55,4

Electronics 35 17,2 17,2 72,5

Games 7 3,4 3,4 76,0

Vacations 15 7,4 7,4 83,3

Other 34 16,7 16,7 100,0

Total 204 100,0 100,0

Table 8: Use of online review

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Yes 175 85,8 85,8 85,8

No 29 14,2 14,2 100,0

Total 204 100,0 100,0

7.3 EFA analysis

Table 9: KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of
,799
Sampling Adequacy.

Bartlett's Test of Approx. Chi-Square 1075,105

Sphericity
df 105

Sig. ,000

Table 10: Factor loadings of EFA

Factors

1 2 3 4 5

Objectivity of
,696 ,372 ,013 ,098 -,104
reviews

Understandability
,759 ,046 ,128 ,182 ,091
of reviews

Credibility of
,807 ,247 -,027 ,097 -,012
reviews

Clearness of
,772 ,225 ,178 ,127 ,017
reviews

Sufficient reasons
supporting the ,790 ,060 -,004 ,050 ,060
opinion

Number of reviews ,152 ,113 ,209 ,003 ,718

Quantity of
information in -,087 ,005 -,071 ,059 ,813
reviews

Positive online
,120 ,107 ,087 ,879 ,029
review

Negative online
,245 ,043 ,108 ,831 ,043
review

Reviewers’
,250 ,852 ,087 ,081 ,076
credibility

Reviewers’
,224 ,818 ,134 ,071 ,118
reliability

Reviewers’
,156 ,861 ,091 ,034 -,021
expertise
Latest degree of
,127 ,070 ,803 ,124 ,061
information

Recency of reveiws -,010 ,136 ,857 ,054 ,076

Degree of
,067 ,072 ,891 ,038 -,001
timeliness

7.4 Mean online review factors

Table 11

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Quality 175 1,40 5,00 3,8926 ,66532

Volume 175 1,00 5,00 3,2971 ,76395

Valence 175 2,00 5,00 4,0457 ,65712

Source Credibility 175 1,00 5,00 3,6571 ,78656

Timeliness 175 1,00 5,00 3,7181 ,69427

Valid N (listwise) 175

7.5 Consumer characteristics

Table 12.1 Gender v.s. Factors (descriptives)

Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Quality Men 87 4,0207 ,64989 ,06968

Women 88 3,7659 ,65966 ,07032

Volume Men 87 3,3103 ,74803 ,08020

Women 88 3,2841 ,78343 ,08351

Source Credibility Men 87 3,8582 ,80315 ,08611

Women 88 3,4583 ,72064 ,07682

Timeliness Men 87 3,6705 ,70343 ,07542

Women 88 3,7652 ,68585 ,07311

Valence Men 87 3,9483 ,70725 ,07583

Women 88 4,1420 ,59185 ,06309

Table 12.2 Gender v.s. Factors (independent samples test)

Levene's Test for Equality

of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

Sig. (2- Mean

F Sig. t df tailed) Difference

Quality Equal variances

,010 ,921 2,574 173 ,011 ,25478
assumed

Equal variances not

2,574 172,998 ,011 ,25478
assumed

Volume Equal variances

,163 ,687 ,227 173 ,821 ,02625
assumed

Equal variances not

,227 172,792 ,821 ,02625
assumed

Source Equal variances

,015 ,903 3,468 173 ,001 ,39990
Credibility assumed

Equal variances not

3,466 170,568 ,001 ,39990
assumed

Timeliness Equal variances

,455 ,501 -,901 173 ,369 -,09465
assumed

Equal variances not

-,901 172,766 ,369 -,09465
assumed

Valence Equal variances -

,238 ,626 173 ,051 -,19377
assumed 1,966

Equal variances not -

167,119 ,051 -,19377
assumed 1,964

Table 12.3 Gender v.s. Factors (independent samples test)

t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference
Std. Error
Difference Lower Upper

Quality Equal variances assumed ,09900 ,05938 ,45019

Equal variances not

,09899 ,05939 ,45017
assumed

Volume Equal variances assumed ,11582 -,20234 ,25485

 Equal variances not
,11578 -,20228 ,25479
assumed

Source Equal variances assumed ,11532 ,17229 ,62752

Credibility
Equal variances not
,11539 ,17212 ,62769
assumed

Timeliness Equal variances assumed ,10502 -,30194 ,11264

Equal variances not

,10504 -,30198 ,11267
assumed

Valence Equal variances assumed ,09854 -,38827 ,00073

Equal variances not

,09864 -,38851 ,00097
assumed

Table 13.1 Age vs Factors (descriptives)

95% Confidence Interval for

Mean
Std. Std.
N Mean Deviation Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum

Quality < 20 27 3,8593 ,69018 ,13283 3,5862 4,1323 2,00

21 -
86 3,9047 ,67752 ,07306 3,7594 4,0499 1,40
30

31 -
15 3,9333 ,43205 ,11155 3,6941 4,1726 3,20
40

41 -
21 3,9905 ,76020 ,16589 3,6444 4,3365 2,80
50

51 > 26 3,7846 ,65951 ,12934 3,5182 4,0510 2,40

Total 175 3,8926 ,66532 ,05029 3,7933 3,9918 1,40

Volume < 20 27 3,3148 ,72255 ,13905 3,0290 3,6006 2,00

21 -
86 3,3023 ,69570 ,07502 3,1532 3,4515 1,00
30

31 -
15 3,3667 ,76687 ,19801 2,9420 3,7913 2,00
40

41 -
21 3,1667 1,02875 ,22449 2,6984 3,6349 1,00
50

51 > 26 3,3269 ,82392 ,16158 2,9941 3,6597 1,00

 Total 175 3,2971 ,76395 ,05775 3,1832 3,4111 1,00

Source < 20 27 3,8765 ,64150 ,12346 3,6228 4,1303 2,00

Credibility
21 -
86 3,5891 ,78661 ,08482 3,4205 3,7578 1,00
30

31 -
15 3,3778 1,02250 ,26401 2,8115 3,9440 1,00
40

41 -
21 3,6667 ,86281 ,18828 3,2739 4,0594 1,67
50

51 > 26 3,8077 ,67444 ,13227 3,5353 4,0801 3,00

Total 175 3,6571 ,78656 ,05946 3,5398 3,7745 1,00

Timeliness < 20 27 3,8025 ,64886 ,12487 3,5458 4,0591 2,00

21 -
86 3,6124 ,68191 ,07353 3,4662 3,7586 1,67
30

31 -
15 3,6444 ,68390 ,17658 3,2657 4,0232 2,67
40

41 -
21 3,7302 ,93464 ,20395 3,3047 4,1556 1,00
50

51 > 26 4,0128 ,48516 ,09515 3,8169 4,2088 3,00

Total 175 3,7181 ,69427 ,05248 3,6145 3,8217 1,00

Valence < 20 27 3,8333 ,75955 ,14618 3,5329 4,1338 2,00

21 -
86 4,0291 ,59088 ,06372 3,9024 4,1558 2,00
30

31 -
15 4,3333 ,52327 ,13511 4,0436 4,6231 3,50
40

41 -
21 4,2381 ,68226 ,14888 3,9275 4,5487 3,00
50

51 > 26 4,0000 ,74833 ,14676 3,6977 4,3023 3,00

Total 175 4,0457 ,65712 ,04967 3,9477 4,1438 2,00

Table 13.2 Age vs Factors (test of Homogeneity of Variances)

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

Quality 1,532 4 170 ,195

Volume ,781 4 170 ,539

Source Credibility ,985 4 170 ,417

Timeliness 2,578 4 170 ,039

Valence 2,659 4 170 ,035

Table 13.3 Age vs Factors (ANOVA)

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Quality Between Groups ,572 4 ,143 ,318 ,866

Within Groups 76,449 170 ,450

Total 77,020 174

Volume Between Groups ,464 4 ,116 ,195 ,941

Within Groups 101,085 170 ,595

Total 101,549 174

Source Credibility Between Groups 3,459 4 ,865 1,411 ,232

Within Groups 104,192 170 ,613

Total 107,651 174

Timeliness Between Groups 3,496 4 ,874 1,848 ,122

Within Groups 80,375 170 ,473

Total 83,870 174

Valence Between Groups 3,314 4 ,829 1,961 ,103

Within Groups 71,820 170 ,422

Total 75,134 174

Table 14.1 Daily time spending online vs. factors (descriptives)

95% Confidence Interval for

Mean
Std. Std.
N Mean Deviation Error Lower Bound Upper Bound

Quality < 10 min 1 3,0000 . . . .

10 - 30
12 3,6333 ,45793 ,13219 3,3424 3,9243
min

30 - 60
35 3,8286 ,82767 ,13990 3,5443 4,1129
min

1 - 2 hour 69 3,8783 ,70228 ,08454 3,7096 4,0470

 > 3 hour 58 4,0172 ,51678 ,06786 3,8814 4,1531

Total 175 3,8926 ,66532 ,05029 3,7933 3,9918

Volume < 10 min 1 3,0000 . . . .

10 - 30
12 3,5417 ,65569 ,18928 3,1251 3,9583
min

30 - 60
35 3,2143 ,84266 ,14244 2,9248 3,5038
min

1 - 2 hour 69 3,2319 ,77450 ,09324 3,0458 3,4179

> 3 hour 58 3,3793 ,72735 ,09551 3,1881 3,5706

Total 175 3,2971 ,76395 ,05775 3,1832 3,4111

Source < 10 min 1 3,3333 . . . .

Credibility 10 - 30
12 3,6111 ,54742 ,15803 3,2633 3,9589
min

30 - 60
35 3,6095 ,85362 ,14429 3,3163 3,9028
min

1 - 2 hour 69 3,7101 ,73189 ,08811 3,5343 3,8860

> 3 hour 58 3,6379 ,86582 ,11369 3,4103 3,8656

Total 175 3,6571 ,78656 ,05946 3,5398 3,7745

Timeliness < 10 min 1 4,0000 . . . .

10 - 30
12 3,6111 ,80193 ,23150 3,1016 4,1206
min

30 - 60
35 3,7905 ,64719 ,10940 3,5682 4,0128
min

1 - 2 hour 69 3,7246 ,76687 ,09232 3,5404 3,9089

> 3 hour 58 3,6839 ,62258 ,08175 3,5202 3,8476

Total 175 3,7181 ,69427 ,05248 3,6145 3,8217

Valence < 10 min 1 4,0000 . . . .

10 - 30
12 3,7083 ,58225 ,16808 3,3384 4,0783
min

30 - 60
35 4,2286 ,62241 ,10521 4,0148 4,4424
min

1 - 2 hour 69 3,9928 ,70446 ,08481 3,8235 4,1620

> 3 hour 58 4,0690 ,61735 ,08106 3,9066 4,2313

Total 175 4,0457 ,65712 ,04967 3,9477 4,1438

Table 14.2 Daily time spending online vs. factors (test of Homogeneity of Variances)

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

Quality 3,106a 3 170 ,028

Volume ,409b 3 170 ,747

Source Credibility 1,179c 3 170 ,319

Timeliness 1,168d 3 170 ,324

Valence ,177e 3 170 ,912

Table 14.3 Daily time spending online vs. factors (ANOVA)

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Quality Between Groups 2,662 4 ,666 1,522 ,198

Within Groups 74,358 170 ,437

Total 77,020 174

Volume Between Groups 1,732 4 ,433 ,737 ,568

Within Groups 99,817 170 ,587

Total 101,549 174

Source Credibility Between Groups ,425 4 ,106 ,168 ,954

Within Groups 107,226 170 ,631

Total 107,651 174

Timeliness Between Groups ,471 4 ,118 ,240 ,915

Within Groups 83,400 170 ,491

Total 83,870 174

Valence Between Groups 2,763 4 ,691 1,623 ,171

Within Groups 72,371 170 ,426

Total 75,134 174

Table 15.1 Yearly purchases online vs. factors (descriptives)

 95% Confidence Interval for
Mean
Std. Std.
N Mean Deviation Error Lower Bound Upper Bound

Quality 1 - 2 purchases 10 4,0800 ,75542 ,23889 3,5396 4,6204

3 - 4 purchases 21 3,6286 ,59088 ,12894 3,3596 3,8975

5 - 10
62 3,8581 ,69034 ,08767 3,6828 4,0334
purchases

> 10 purchases 82 3,9634 ,64339 ,07105 3,8220 4,1048

Total 175 3,8926 ,66532 ,05029 3,7933 3,9918

Volume 1 - 2 purchases 10 3,3500 ,57975 ,18333 2,9353 3,7647

3 - 4 purchases 21 3,4524 ,56800 ,12395 3,1938 3,7109

5 - 10
62 3,1935 ,73749 ,09366 3,0063 3,3808
purchases

> 10 purchases 82 3,3293 ,84335 ,09313 3,1440 3,5146

Total 175 3,2971 ,76395 ,05775 3,1832 3,4111

Source 1 - 2 purchases 10 3,8667 ,65168 ,20608 3,4005 4,3329

Credibility
3 - 4 purchases 21 3,5714 ,69236 ,15109 3,2563 3,8866

5 - 10
62 3,6559 ,80970 ,10283 3,4503 3,8615
purchases

> 10 purchases 82 3,6545 ,81388 ,08988 3,4756 3,8333

Total 175 3,6571 ,78656 ,05946 3,5398 3,7745

Timeliness 1 - 2 purchases 10 3,8667 ,52587 ,16630 3,4905 4,2429

3 - 4 purchases 21 3,6984 ,56671 ,12367 3,4404 3,9564

5 - 10
62 3,7151 ,77963 ,09901 3,5171 3,9130
purchases

> 10 purchases 82 3,7073 ,68170 ,07528 3,5575 3,8571

Total 175 3,7181 ,69427 ,05248 3,6145 3,8217

Valence 1 - 2 purchases 10 4,3500 ,70907 ,22423 3,8428 4,8572

3 - 4 purchases 21 4,0000 ,44721 ,09759 3,7964 4,2036

5 - 10
62 3,9677 ,71787 ,09117 3,7854 4,1500
purchases

> 10 purchases 82 4,0793 ,64535 ,07127 3,9375 4,2211

Total 175 4,0457 ,65712 ,04967 3,9477 4,1438

Table 15.2 Yearly purchases online vs. factors (test of Homogeneity of Variances)

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

Quality ,251 3 171 ,860

Volume ,779 3 171 ,507

Source Credibility ,293 3 171 ,831

Timeliness ,783 3 171 ,505

Valence 1,789 3 171 ,151

Table 15.3 Yearly purchases online vs. factors (ANOVA)

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Quality Between Groups 2,300 3 ,767 1,755 ,158

Within Groups 74,720 171 ,437

Total 77,020 174

Volume Between Groups 1,284 3 ,428 ,730 ,535

Within Groups 100,265 171 ,586

Total 101,549 174

Source Credibility Between Groups ,594 3 ,198 ,316 ,814

Within Groups 107,057 171 ,626

Total 107,651 174

Timeliness Between Groups ,239 3 ,080 ,163 ,921

Within Groups 83,632 171 ,489

Total 83,870 174

Valence Between Groups 1,439 3 ,480 1,113 ,345

Within Groups 73,695 171 ,431

Total 75,134 174

Table 16.1 Sort of purchase vs. factors (descriptives)

Std. Std. 95% Confidence Interval

N Mean Deviation Error for Mean Minimum
 Lower Upper
Bound Bound

Quality Clothes 94 3,8106 ,68052 ,07019 3,6713 3,9500 1,40

Grocery 2 2,7000 ,42426 ,30000 -1,1119 6,5119 2,40

Electronics 32 4,0688 ,66159 ,11695 3,8302 4,3073 2,40

Games 6 3,9000 ,61644 ,25166 3,2531 4,5469 3,40

Vacations 12 4,1000 ,56889 ,16422 3,7385 4,4615 3,20

Other 29 3,9586 ,58646 ,10890 3,7355 4,1817 2,80

Total 175 3,8926 ,66532 ,05029 3,7933 3,9918 1,40

Volume Clothes 94 3,2447 ,77162 ,07959 3,0866 3,4027 1,00

Grocery 2 3,0000 ,00000 ,00000 3,0000 3,0000 3,00

Electronics 32 3,3906 ,70407 ,12446 3,1368 3,6445 2,00

Games 6 3,3333 ,87560 ,35746 2,4145 4,2522 2,00

Vacations 12 3,6667 ,71774 ,20719 3,2106 4,1227 2,00

Other 29 3,2241 ,81926 ,15213 2,9125 3,5358 1,00

Total 175 3,2971 ,76395 ,05775 3,1832 3,4111 1,00

Source Clothes 94 3,5816 ,77742 ,08019 3,4223 3,7408 1,00

Credibility
Grocery 2 3,3333 ,94281 ,66667 -5,1375 11,8041 2,67

Electronics 32 3,7292 ,80517 ,14234 3,4389 4,0195 1,00

Games 6 3,7778 ,40369 ,16480 3,3541 4,2014 3,33

Vacations 12 4,0278 ,70293 ,20292 3,5812 4,4744 3,00

Other 29 3,6667 ,87741 ,16293 3,3329 4,0004 1,00

Total 175 3,6571 ,78656 ,05946 3,5398 3,7745 1,00

Timeliness Clothes 94 3,7128 ,65144 ,06719 3,5793 3,8462 2,00

Grocery 2 4,0000 ,00000 ,00000 4,0000 4,0000 4,00

Electronics 32 3,7917 ,61493 ,10870 3,5700 4,0134 2,00

Games 6 3,7222 ,44305 ,18088 3,2573 4,1872 3,00

Vacations 12 3,8889 ,97787 ,28229 3,2676 4,5102 2,00

Other 29 3,5632 ,84093 ,15616 3,2433 3,8831 1,00

Total 175 3,7181 ,69427 ,05248 3,6145 3,8217 1,00

Valence Clothes 94 4,0106 ,66792 ,06889 3,8738 4,1474 2,00

Grocery 2 3,0000 ,00000 ,00000 3,0000 3,0000 3,00

 Electronics 32 4,2031 ,65819 ,11635 3,9658 4,4404 3,00

Games 6 3,9167 ,58452 ,23863 3,3032 4,5301 3,50

Vacations 12 3,9583 ,78214 ,22578 3,4614 4,4553 2,50

Other 29 4,1207 ,54536 ,10127 3,9132 4,3281 3,00

Total 175 4,0457 ,65712 ,04967 3,9477 4,1438 2,00

Table 16.2 Sort of purchase vs. factors (test of Homogeneity of Variances)

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

Quality ,295 5 169 ,915

Volume ,858 5 169 ,511

Source Credibility ,617 5 169 ,687

Timeliness 1,451 5 169 ,209

Valence ,852 5 169 ,515

Table 16.3 Sort of purchase vs. factors (ANOVA)

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Quality Between Groups 5,112 5 1,022 2,403 ,039

Within Groups 71,908 169 ,425

Total 77,020 174

Volume Between Groups 2,516 5 ,503 ,859 ,510

Within Groups 99,033 169 ,586

Total 101,549 174

Source Credibility Between Groups 2,651 5 ,530 ,853 ,514

Within Groups 105,000 169 ,621

Total 107,651 174

Timeliness Between Groups 1,381 5 ,276 ,566 ,726

Within Groups 82,490 169 ,488

Total 83,870 174

Valence Between Groups 3,450 5 ,690 1,627 ,155

Within Groups 71,684 169 ,424

Total 75,134 174