SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Selçuk Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2015 / Sayı: 37

SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF ELECTRONIC WORD OF MOUTH IN ONLINE COMMUNITIES

ÇEVRİMİÇİ TOPLULUKLARDA ELEKTRONİK AĞIZDAN AĞIZA İLETİŞİMİN SOSYAL BELİRLEYİCİLERİ

Bayram Oğuz AYDIN
Pages
563–585
Publication Date
2016-06-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

İn process of study, we have identified the differentiation both determinants’ features and online communities using features.e

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Interpersonal influence and word-of-mouth (WOM) are ranked as the most important information source when a consumer is in making a purchase decision.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Social determinants are significant factors for such communication type.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:İn process of study, we have identified the differentiation both determinants’ features and online communities using features.e
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Bağ Gücü · Benzerlik · Çevrimiçi Topluluk

Abstract

Interpersonal influence and word-of-mouth (WOM) are ranked as the most important information source when a consumer is in making a purchase decision. These influences are especially important in tourism products which are intangible and difficult to evaluate prior to their consumption. With the development and diffusion of internet, interpersonal networks have gained online features. Online communities are information sources which give way to obtain and share information about products and services. Social determinants are significant factors for such communication type. In this study, we analyze the eWOM occurs in online communities and it’s social determinants. With the lights of these factors, we examine our study with domestic tourist which have visited city of Konya. The data of the study have done with 693 individuals with survey by face to face interview technique. As a result of our study, social determinants of eWOM which are tie strength/trust and homopfily have been determined. İn process of study, we have identified the differentiation both determinants’ features and online communities using features.e

Özet

Tüketiciler bir satın alma kararı vereceği zaman, kişilerarası etki ve ağızdan ağıza iletişim (WOM), en önemli bilgi kaynağı olarak ortaya çıkmaktadır. İnternetin gelişip yayılmasıyla kişiler arası ağlar çevrimiçi özellik kazanmıştır. Çevrimiçi topluluklar, ürün veya hizmetler hakkında bilgi elde etme ve paylaşmaya olanak tanıyan bir kaynak olarak görülmektedir. Sosyal belirleyiciler bu iletişim türü için önemli faktörler olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır.Bu araştırmada, çevrimiçi topluluklarda gerçekleşen elektronik ağızdan ağıza iletişim (eWOM) konusunu belirleyiciler odağında incelemek amacıyla, Konya iline ziyarette bulunan yerli turistlerin katılımıyla bir çalışma yapılmıştır. Bu çalışmanın verileri yüz yüze görüşme tekniğiyle, 693 kişi üzerinde uygulanan soru formu ile toplanmıştır. Çalışma neticesinde, eWOM belirleyicileri bağ gücü/güven ve benzerlik olarak belirlenmiştir. Çalışma sırasında belirleyicilerin bazı sosyodemografik özelliklerin yanı sıra, çevrimiçi topluluk platformu kullanım özelliklerine göre de farklılaştığı tespit edilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

AYDIN, B. O. (2016). SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF ELECTRONIC WORD OF MOUTH IN ONLINE COMMUNITIES. Selçuk Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, Sayı: 37, 563–585. https://ajindex.com/articles/99583

References (14)

  1. ARNDT, Johan (1967). “Role Of Product-Related Conversations in The Diffusion Of A New Product”.Journal of Marketing Research, 4: 291-295.
  2. BAE, Soonyong, and Taesik, Lee (2011). “Gender Differences in Consumers’ Perception of Online Consumer Reviews”. Electronic Commerce Research, 11, (2): 201-214.
  3. BEST, Samuel J. and Krueger, Brian S. (2006) “Online interactions and social capital: Distinguishing Between New and Existing Ties”. Social Science Computer Review, 24, (4): 395–410.
  4. BICKART, Barbara and Robert M. Schindler (2001). “Internet Forums as Influential Sources of Consumer Information”. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15, (3): 31- 40. BROOKS, Junior, Robert, Cecil (1957). “Word-of-Mouth’ Advertising in Selling New Products”. Journal of Marketing, 22, (2): 154-161.
  5. BROWN, Jacqueline J. and Reingen, Peter H. (1987) “Social Ties And Word-Of- Mouth Referral Behavior”. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, (3): 350–362.
  6. BOYD, Danah M. and Nicole, Ellison B. (2007). “Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship”. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, (1): 210-230.
  7. CHEN, Yubo and Xie, Jinhong (2004). “Online Consumer Review: Word-of-Mouth as A New Element of Marketing Communication Mix”. Management Science, 54, (3): 477-491.
  8. CHU, Chuan, S. and Kim, Yoojung (2011). “Determinants of Consumer Engagement in Electronic Word‑Of‑Mouth (eWOM) in Social Networking Sites”. International Journal of Advertising, 30, (1): 47–75.
  9. DELLAROCAS, Chrysanthos (2003). “The Digitization of Word-of-Mouth: Promise and Challenge of Online Feedback Mechanisms”. Management Science, 49, (10): 1407-1424.
  10. DUHAN, Dale F., Johnson, Scott D., Wilcox, James B. ve Harrell, Gilbert D. (1997). “Influences on Consumer Use of Word-of-Mouth Recommendation Sources”. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25, (4): 283-295.
  11. FABER, Ronald J., Lee, Mira and Nan, Xiaoli (2004). “Advertising and the Consumer Information Environment Online”. American Behavioral Scientist, 48, (4): 447-466.
  12. FONG, John and Burton, Suzan (2006). “Electronic Word-of-Mouth: A Comparison of Stated and Revealed Behavior on Electronic Discussion Boards”. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 6, (2),: 53-62.
  13. GILLY, Mary C, John, Graham L., Mary, F. Wolfinbarger and Laura, J. Yale (1998). “A Dyadic Study of Interpersonal Information Search”. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2, (2): 83-100.
  14. GRANITZ, Neil A. and Ward, James C. (1996), “Virtual Community: A Sociocognitive Analysis”. Advances in Con