Investigating Electronic Word-of-Mouth Effects on Online Discussion Forums: The Role of Perceived Positive Electronic Word-of-Mouth Review Credibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electronic word of mouth (eWOM) has been an important factor influencing consumer purchase decisions. Using the ABC model of attitude, this study proposes a model to explain how eWOM affects online discussion forums. Specifically, we propose that platform (Web site reputation and source credibility) and customer (obtaining buying-related information and social orientation through information) factors influence purchase intentions via perceived positive eWOM review credibility, as well as product and Web site attitudes in an online community context. A total of 353 online discussion forum users in an online community (Fashion Guide) in Taiwan were recruited, and structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the research hypotheses. The results indicate that Web site reputation, source credibility, obtaining buying-related information, and social orientation through information positively influence perceived positive eWOM review credibility. In turn, perceived positive eWOM review credibility directly influences purchase intentions and also indirectly influences purchase intentions via product and Web site attitudes. Finally, we discuss the theoretical and managerial implications of the findings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".