We’re not so different: Collectivism increases perceived homophily, trust, and seeking user-generated product information

Leonhardt, James M.; Pezzuti, Todd; Namkoong, Jae-Eun

doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.03.017

Cited by 41 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, regardless of whether consumers are higher or lower in collectivism, our results suggest that consumers are more likely to share product-related information when they perceive other social media users as similar to themselves. This finding is aligned with previous word-of-mouth research which suggests that consumers are generally more likely to engage in word-of-mouth among similar others (Leonhardt et al, 2020; Moore & Lafreniere, 2020; Packard et al, 2016). Managers should, therefore, consider ways to heighten homophily among their online customer base.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Cultural factors are also thought to influence eWOM. For instance, consumer engagement in eWOM has been found to vary across countries (e.g., Lam et al, 2009; Leonhardt et al, 2020; Lin & Kalwani, 2018; Tang, 2017). Less research, however, has focused on specific dimensions of culture that may explain why consumers in some countries are more likely to create and share eWOM.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sharing product-related information on social networking sites differs from rating and reviewing products online, because it involves sharing information with interconnected members of one’s online social network (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). Previous research suggests that social groups comprised of collectivistic consumers tend to exhibit shared beliefs, values, and social norms (i.e., they tend to be higher in homophily; (Leonhardt et al, 2020; Triandis et al, 1988). In addition, prior research suggests that homophily is positively related to the extent that consumers share product-related information (Moore & Lafreniere, 2020; Packard et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

How collectivistic values affect online word-of-mouth

Pezzuti

Leonhardt

2020

International Journal of Market Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research uncovers a social factor that helps to explain how a consumer’s cultural orientation affects the extent to which they engage in online word-of-mouth (eWOM). The first study aggregates archival data from 52 countries and finds a positive relationship between collectivism and the extent that consumers share product-related information on social networking sites; however, collectivism is not found to relate to the extent that consumers rate and review products online. A second study examines why collectivism is positively associated with sharing product-related information on social networking sites. Collectivism is measured at the individual level among consumers in two culturally distinct countries—India and the United States. The results demonstrate that a collectivistic orientation is positively associated with similarity among members of one’s online social network (i.e., homophily) and that homophily is positively associated with sharing product-related information on social networking sites. In an increasingly global online marketplace, these findings provide needed guidance on how culture affects eWOM.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How collectivistic values affect online word-of-mouth

Pezzuti

Leonhardt

2020

International Journal of Market Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is by no means limited to the often discussed case of political homophily [140]. For example, empirical social media studies identified weightbased homophily [141], journalistic homophily [142], homophily in rumor sharing [143], higher perceived homophily by users from collectivistic cultures [144], perceived homophily driving consumer purchase intentions [145] and credibility of information [146], homophilic effects in consumerwebsite relationships [147], homophily as factor for vlogger popularity [148], ideological hashtag homophily in marketing campaigns [149] and even homophily related to music preferences [150]. Apart from that, it is known in social psychology that "ingroups are seen as more variable than outgroups" [151] (especially in individualistic cultures).…”

Section: Near-term Guidelines For Risks Ia and Ib Rda •mentioning

confidence: 99%

Transdisciplinary AI Observatory—Retrospective Analyses and Future-Oriented Contradistinctions

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the last years, artificial intelligence (AI) safety gained international recognition in the light of heterogeneous safety-critical and ethical issues that risk overshadowing the broad beneficial impacts of AI. In this context, the implementation of AI observatory endeavors represents one key research direction. This paper motivates the need for an inherently transdisciplinary AI observatory approach integrating diverse retrospective and counterfactual views. We delineate aims and limitations while providing hands-on-advice utilizing concrete practical examples. Distinguishing between unintentionally and intentionally triggered AI risks with diverse socio-psycho-technological impacts, we exemplify a retrospective descriptive analysis followed by a retrospective counterfactual risk analysis. Building on these AI observatory tools, we present near-term transdisciplinary guidelines for AI safety. As further contribution, we discuss differentiated and tailored long-term directions through the lens of two disparate modern AI safety paradigms. For simplicity, we refer to these two different paradigms with the terms artificial stupidity (AS) and eternal creativity (EC) respectively. While both AS and EC acknowledge the need for a hybrid cognitive-affective approach to AI safety and overlap with regard to many short-term considerations, they differ fundamentally in the nature of multiple envisaged long-term solution patterns. By compiling relevant underlying contradistinctions, we aim to provide future-oriented incentives for constructive dialectics in practical and theoretical AI safety research.

show abstract

“…The assessment of homophily in the offline environment is based on cues such as gender, age, social and professional status and ethnicity, but in an online environment, these cues may be filtered out by the WOM participants and the demographic information might be either missing, camouflaged or even intentionally falsified (Brown et al, 2007). For example, in a cross-cultural study, Leonhardt et al (2020) found that consumers in collectivist cultures discount differences (e.g., differences in lifestyle or personality) between themselves and other social media users, which fosters a sense of similarity with others (i.e., perceived homophily). In fact, in an online environment, homophily is mostly about similarity between (a) pair of individuals in terms of their shared group interests and group mindset and (b) between an individual and the website typically not associated with offline homophily (Brown et al, 2007).…”

Section: Homophily and Online Homophilymentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating the Effectiveness of Received Offline Word of Mouth: Role of Acquired and Ascribed Homophily

Chawdhary

2021

FIIB Business Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research examines how similarities in educational and ethnic backgrounds (status homophily), between word of mouth (WOM) participants, influences the effectiveness of received offline WOM on the recipient’s behavioural intentions. The educational similarity between individuals is conceptualized as acquired homophily, whereas ethnic similarity is defined as ascribed homophily. This study employs scenario-based experiments, and the results suggest that positive and negative WOM received from homophilous sources is more effective in influencing the recipient’s purchase and WOM re-transmission intentions than recommendations received from heterophilous sources. This research expands the literature about offline WOM and the multidimensional status-homophily construct by providing insights on the differential influence of positive and negative recommendations received from WOM sources similar or dissimilar to the WOM recipients in terms of their educational and ethnic backgrounds. This is important from both the theoretical and practitioner perspective as the recent focus of scholarly research is on understanding the relationship between online homophily and e-WOM at the expense of offline WOM-homophily relationship.

show abstract

We’re not so different: Collectivism increases perceived homophily, trust, and seeking user-generated product information

Cited by 41 publications

References 47 publications

How collectivistic values affect online word-of-mouth

How collectivistic values affect online word-of-mouth

Transdisciplinary AI Observatory—Retrospective Analyses and Future-Oriented Contradistinctions

Investigating the Effectiveness of Received Offline Word of Mouth: Role of Acquired and Ascribed Homophily

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About