The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Measuring Motivations for Online Opinion Seeking
Abstract
Online interpersonal influence or electronic word-of-mouth (“eWOM”) is an important aspect of ecommerce. Consumers give and seek opinions online in much the same way as they do offline, thereby affecting the sales of many goods and services. To further the understanding of eWOM, the present study used data from a survey of 309 consumers to develop a 32-item self-report scale measuring consumer motivations for online opinion seeking. This study revealed eight distinct factors. Consumers seek the opinions of others online to reduce their risk, because others do it, to secure lower prices, to get information easily, by accident (unplanned), because it is cool, because they are stimulated by off-line inputs such as TV, and to get pre-purchase information. A second study using data from 109 consumers showed that: (1) the scales measuring these motivations are free from social desirability response bias and acquiescence, (2) other consumers’ information is more important than advertising, and (3) consumers are likely to continue to seek WOM online, thereby confirming its importance in ecommerce.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3151312 · Cited by 109,314
Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378101800104 · Cited by 109,190
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1002/dir.10073 · Cited by 5,916 · cited 2×
“Of especial importance to our study, Hennig-Thurau et al. (2004) sought to delineate the motives of consumers who share their opinions online.”
BackgroundMethodThe Service Encounter: Diagnosing Favorable and Unfavorable Incidents
Bitner, M. J., Booms, B. H., & Tetreault, M. S. (1990) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.2307/1252174 · Cited by 4,860
Using Online Conversations to Study Word-of-Mouth Communication
Godes, D., & Mayzlin, D. (2004) · Marketing Science · doi:10.1287/mksc.1040.0071 · Cited by 2,601
Cited by
Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites
Chu, S.-C., & Kim, Y. (2011) · International Journal of Advertising · doi:10.2501/ija-30-1-047-075 · Cited by 2,053
Twitter power: Tweets as electronic word of mouth
Jansen, B. J., Zhang, M., Sobel, K., & Chowdury, A. (2009) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21149 · Cited by 1,642
Introducing COBRAs: Exploring motivations for brand-related social media use
Muntinga, D. G., Moorman, M., & Smit, E. G. (2011) · International Journal of Advertising · doi:10.2501/ija-30-1-013-046 · Cited by 1,468
Cheung, C. M. K., Lee, M. K. O., & Rabjohn, N. (2008) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/10662240810883290 · Cited by 1,364
What We Know and Don't Know about Online Word-of-Mouth: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature
King, R. A., Racherla, P., & Bush, V. D. (2014) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2014.02.001 · Cited by 1,017
Metadata
- Authors
- Goldsmith, R. E., & Horowitz, D.
- Venue
- Journal of Interactive Advertising
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2006-03
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 2-14
- ISSN
- 1525-2019 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2081309545
- Cited by
- 727
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 16.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Measuring Motivations for Online Opinion Seeking. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/15252019.2006.10722114
- The paper
- Goldsmith, R. E., & Horowitz, D. (2006). Measuring Motivations for Online Opinion Seeking. Journal of Interactive Advertising. https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2006.10722114
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.