2016
DOI: 10.1123/jsm.2015-0332
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Determinants of Word-of-Mouth Influence in Sport Viewership

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to identify key characteristics of word-of-mouth (WOM) communication and examine their impact on sport consumers’ perceived influence in sport viewership. Through an extensive literature review, we identified the characteristics of the message sender (i.e., expertise and trustworthiness) and the message (i.e., richness of message content and strength of message delivery) as determinants of perceived influence of WOM. We also examined the moderating effects of homophily (interperso… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
30
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
2
30
0
Order By: Relevance
“…After viewing the influencer's profile, participants indicated their intentions to purchase any product the influencer‐endorsed (“The likelihood that I would purchase a product he recommends is low/high”; “My willingness to purchase a product he recommends is low/high,” from 1 = low to 7 = high; adapted from Wilcox, Kim, & Sen, 2009; order of items randomized), answers of which were averaged to form a purchase intentions index ( r = .95). Participants then completed a 5‐item trustworthiness scale (from 1 = untrustworthy/insincere/unreliable/undependable/dishonest to 7 = trustworthy/sincere/reliable/dependable/honest; adapted from Asada & Ko, 2016; order of items randomized; α = .97). Participants also responded to the same manipulation questions ( α = .87), demographic questions (e.g., gender), and hypothesis probe (no one guessed the true purpose) used in Study 1.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After viewing the influencer's profile, participants indicated their intentions to purchase any product the influencer‐endorsed (“The likelihood that I would purchase a product he recommends is low/high”; “My willingness to purchase a product he recommends is low/high,” from 1 = low to 7 = high; adapted from Wilcox, Kim, & Sen, 2009; order of items randomized), answers of which were averaged to form a purchase intentions index ( r = .95). Participants then completed a 5‐item trustworthiness scale (from 1 = untrustworthy/insincere/unreliable/undependable/dishonest to 7 = trustworthy/sincere/reliable/dependable/honest; adapted from Asada & Ko, 2016; order of items randomized; α = .97). Participants also responded to the same manipulation questions ( α = .87), demographic questions (e.g., gender), and hypothesis probe (no one guessed the true purpose) used in Study 1.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The moderators asked the participants about their actual esports weekly gameplay time to divide them into high frequency and low frequency groups. To determine clear differences between the two groups, one-third of the cases around the median were excluded [28]. For the six antecedents and esports gameplay intention, seven variables with 23 items were adopted from the ESC model's scale [3]: Hedonic motivation (3 items); habit (4 items); price value (3 items); effort expectancy (4 items); social influence (3 items); flow (3 items), and gameplay intention (3 items).…”
Section: Instrumentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The initial usable data were collected from 875 participants whose demographics were as follows: 66.2% men (n = 579), 33.8% women (n = 296); 68.8% ages 18-38 (n = 602), 22.2% ages 39-49 (n = 194); 28% household income of $4000-$69,999 (n = 245), 23.2% income of $70,000-$99,999 (n = 203). To create two groups by esports gameplay hours per week, one-third of the cases around the median were excluded [28]. The median time of weekly esports gameplay was five hours, so that 262 cases, approximately one-third of the initial 875, were excluded around the five-hour samples.…”
Section: Participantsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, if the median of esports gameplay hours was 9 h per week, 10 h may not significantly differ from 8 h. Also, 10 h may be significantly different from 30 h, even though those are supposed to be the same value. As one solution, some separation between the two groups can be created by deleting some responses around the median (Asada and Ko, 2016). If the proper general frequency can be identified, conducting K-means clustering may also be another solution to clustering similar data points and discover underlying patterns.…”
Section: Limitations and Suggestions For Future Studymentioning
confidence: 99%