Electronic Word of Mouth within Social Networking Sites:
The role of self-construal
Introduction
The growth of social networking sites (SNS) such as Facebook and Twitter has resulted in
significant changes to information distribution which leads to research questions about how
these platforms influence the perceptions and behaviour of consumers (Trusov et al., 2010;
Angelis, et al. 2012). These platforms provide new means for individuals and groups to
present themselves in a novel environment in which multiple audiences or social spheres
become part of daily life. Overall there are estimated 4.3 billion network users to date with
almost a billion users on Facebook, the leading social networking site (Facebook Stats, 2012).
Within these platforms, consumers are able to share their opinions on, and experiences
with, products and services which is commonly referred as electronic Word of Mouth
(eWOM) communication (Dellarocas, 2003; Godes & Mayzlin, 2004; Hennig-Thurau, et al.,
2004;). eWOM within SNS can diffuse with great speed which creates great impacts on firm
strategies as well as consumer purchase behaviour (Dellarocas, 2003; Zhu & Zhang, 2010;
Zhang & Chen, 2012). This paper looks at the role of self-construal in understanding how
consumers engage with and use SNS.
Self-construal
Self-construal represents individual sense of self in relation to other consumers and how
consumers identify themselves is a significant individual factor predicting eWOM behaviour.
(Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2002; Chung & Darke, 2006). Two types of self-construal have been
associated to profound processes and social judgements: the independent and the
interdependent self-construal (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). The independent self-construal is
linked with the concerns to distinguish from other as they mainly view themselves as an
independent individual whereas try to follow their own goals of expressing their identity
unrelated to any social context (Trafimov, Trianis & Goto, 1991; Markus & Kitayama, 1991).
In contrast, consumers with an interdependent self-construal are more concerned about the
social group they belong to or the one they want to belong to. Since this original
conceptualisation, scholars differentiated two forms of interdependent self. The first is defined
as relational self-construal where individuals are mainly defining themselves by their roles in
interpersonal relationships (Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Cross & Morris, 2003). The second is
called the collective self-construal which is more similar to the original concept of an
interdependent self-construal, where individuals define themselves as a social group they
belong to instead of an individual (Brewer & Gardner, 1996).
Consumer’s with independent self-construal’s act with the goal to satisfy their need of
self-presentation whereas interdependent self-construal is linked with the goal to satisfy the
need of social belonging (relational self-construal) and the need for collective self-esteem
(collective self-construal), which agrees with existing literature (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2002;
Chung & Darke, 2006; Gangadharbatla, 2008; Nadkarnis & Hofmann, 2012, Seidman, 2012).
self-construal
interdependent
independent
self-presentation
relational
sense of belonging
collective
collective self-esteem
Figure 1 – based on Markus & Kitayama (1991) and Brewer & Gardner (1996)
(1)
Self-construal categorisation and eWOM
The independent self-construal is mainly related with the goal of self-presentation which is
often interchangeably referred as impression management or self-enhancement. (Fiske, 2001;
Goffmann, 1959; Brown & Gallagher, 1992). Goffmann (1959) describes the person
managing these impressions as an actor who plays in a theatre scene in front of a chosen
audience. Studies (Schlenker, 1990) found that consumers with high self-esteem are more
likely to express themselves. In contradiction Sedikides and Gregg (2008) found out that
enhancement of oneself can be obtained in people with low self-esteem as well in people with
high self-esteem although their strategies are different. People with low self-esteem are
mainly using direct strategies e.g. they are using their expertise to promote themselves as in
contrast people with low self-esteem are more likely to use indirect strategies e.g. comment in
a negative way on other peoples suggestions (Kunda, 1999). Building on this study, it can be
argued that consumers engage in positive as well as negative eWOM to enhance the desired
status. Furthermore Angelis et al. (2012) noted that whether consumers with the goal of selfpresentation engage within positive or negative eWOM depends on the stage where eWOM
occurs (generation of eWOM and the transmission of eWOM). There is initial evidence that
people generate product experiences with the goal of self-presentation (Sengupta, Dahl &
Gorn, 2002; Chung & Darke, 2006) which suggests that people are more likely to provide
eWOM, especially when consumers identify and actually own the described product (Chung
& Darke, 2006, Belk 1988).
Findings from existing literature have emphasized that consumers do not only share
their experiences as a result of their own self, they are as well influenced by those with whom
they interact (Arndt, 1967; King & Summers, 1970; Kiecker & Cowles, 2006). People have a
desire to be loved and socially accepted which is defined as “need to belong” (Baumeister and
Leary 1995; Leary, Kelly, and Schreindorfer 2001; Gangadharbatla, 2008). In relation to this
idea of conformity Schlosser (2005) found out that consumers adjust their post in an online
consumer opinion platform after they viewed already existing posts but display a tendency to
differentiation if they see themselves as an expert.(see also Chung and Darke, 2006). Experts
often post more negative opinions to express their expertise. Consumers also like to disagree
and express their own choice as they want to distinguish themselves (Snyder & Fromkin
1980; Tian, Kelly & McKenzie, 2001; Berger & Heath, 2007). In comparison, in a different
study by McAllister and Studlar (1991) they stated that individuals are more likely to adopt
the opinion of the majority which is referred as the bandwagon effect (Moe & Schweidel,
2011). This influence takes place when a person adapts the behaviour, believes and attitudes
from others within a group where they want to belong (Asch, 1 956; Deutsch & Gerard, 1955;
Leenders, 2002; Trusov et al., 2010).Consumers also experience a normative conflict within
social groups as a result of the conformity need as sometimes the choice of the group is
different from the best choice felt by one. In this situation the person may overcome the need
to conform and behave unselfishly for the best of the group which then refers to collective
self-esteem (Hornsey 2006, Sridhar & Srinivasan, 2012). The sense of collective self-esteem
is also commonly referred as collectivism or as a collective motivation with the intention to
increase the welfare of a group where the consumer wants to belong to (Batson, 1994). In
other words, consumers with a collective motivation are contributing their knowledge for the
benefit of the whole group instead of personal benefits (Cheung & Lee, 2012). However,
when consumers identify with a specific group, their self-construal derives from the group
they belong to. They then represent themselves as a group instead of an individual consumer
(Lakhani and Von Hippel, 2003). Members have the feeling that the other’s need, will be
pleased through the consumer’s contribution (McMilan & Chavis, 1986). Lakhani and Von
Hippel (2003) found electronic network members shared knowledge because they thought that
this kind of sharing behavior was in the best interest of their community. In terms of eWOM
transmission this results in a high dependence on the norms of the group. In most groups
(2)
knowledge exchange is more than wanted as the whole group profits from it. This could be a
major advantage of eWOM in comparison to paid advertisement as in closed group; spam is
banned and would decrease the collective self-esteem (Schlenker & Weingold, 1989; Crocker
& Luhtanen, 1990). Group norms and accountability are seen as a major influence in eWOM
generation as well transmission. As individuals with collective self-esteem behave in favour
of the group, they only share products or services which are relevant to their group and
comply with the group norms. Lakhani and Von Hippel (2003) argue that a specific interest
all members share is essential to the group. Therefore, the content which is transmitted via
eWOM is very limited.
Discussion and Further Research
This research will use the role of self-construal to further investigate the nature of
communication within SNS from a marketing perspective. In order to justify the importance
of these characteristics, prior research within the marketing literature will be briefly
discussed.
Existing literature can be obtained within three different research streams: the virtual
community stream (Balasubramanian & Mahajan, 2001); the eWOM stream (Hennig-Thurau
et al., 2004; Cheung & Lee, 2012); and the psychology stream within SNS (Seidman, 2012;
Nadkarnis & Hofmann, 2012). Virtual communities’ literature suggests that the main
incentives to engage in online platforms are personal, social and cultural. Findings from
existing eWOM literature found that the most important drivers are (egoism, collectivism and
altruism). The studies in the area of psychology found similar characteristics to engage within
SNS (self-presentation, need to belong): Therefore it can be assumed, that the concept of selfconstrual within SNS has a major impact on eWOM behaviour as well. It
However, the characteristics of SNS lead to another suggestion: As in comparison to
blogs or forums; within SNS, consumers know to which audience they are talking to and from
whom they receive information (Zhao, Grasmuck & Martin, 2008). Family members,
neighbours, colleagues and other different offline acquaintances known as “anchored
relationships” (Zhao, Grasmuck & Martin, 2008) are mostly members within a consumer’s
SNS as well. This results in an unwanted co-presence of anchored relationships as well as
people belonging to different groups.
Within SNS users try to present a “consistent, singular identity” which is difficult to
achieve. In the role of self-construal it affects the independent as well as the interdependent.
The main influence of self-presentation, sense of belonging or the collective self-esteem is the
audience. Self-presentation or self-enhancement is only possible if an individual focuses on
one single entity which is not very common (Trusov et al., 2010; Marder, Joinson & Shankar,
2012). The sense of belonging and the collective self-esteem are dependent on the group they
want to belong to, but in most cases, different groups within SNS have different group norms
or expectations which are more confusing than valuable for an individual. Goffman (1959)
suggested using audience segregation to avoid multiple social spheres which is nearly
impossible to accomplish.
This not only influences what people share, it also affects if people share at all. In the
context of self-construal this is a critical point to understand the contextual nature of
communication and further to get a better understanding of how eWOM is generated or
transmitted within these novel multi way platforms. Therefore this study contributes to
marketing literature by identifying the influence and importance of a person’s self-construal
to generate or transmit eWOM within SNS.
(3)
References
Angelis, M. , Bonezzi, A., Peluso, A., Rucker, D., Costabile, M. (2012). On Braggarts and
Gossips : A Self- Enhancement Account of Word-of-Mouth Generation and
Transmission. Journal of Marketing Research, XLIX(August), pp.551-563.
Arndt, J. (1967). Role of Product-Related Conversations in the Diffusion of a New
Product. Journal of Marketing Research, 4 (August), 291–95.
Asch, Solomon E. (1956). Studies of Independence and Conformity: A Minority of One
Against a Unanimous Majority. Psychological Monographs, 70 (416).
Bagozzi, R.P. & Dholakia, U.M., (2002). Intentional social action in virtual communities.
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16(2), pp.2–21.
Balasubramanian, S., & Mahajan, V. (2001). The Economic Leverage of the Virtual
Community. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 5(Spring), 103–138.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–
529.
Belk, Russell W (1988). Possessions and the Extended Self. Journal of Consumer Research,
15 (2), 139-68.
Berger, J. & C. Heath (2007). Where Consumers Diverge from Others: IdentitySignaling and Product Domains. Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (2), 121-34.
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this ‘‘We’’? Levels of collective identity and
self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83–93.
Brown, J.D., & Gallagher, F.M. (1992). Coming to terms with failure: Private selfenhancement and public self-effacement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
28, 3–22.
Cheung, C.M.K. & Lee, M.K.O. (2012). What drives consumers to spread electronic word of
mouth in online consumer-opinion platforms. Decision Support Systems, 53(1),
pp.218–225.
Chung, C.M.Y. & Darke, P.R., (2006). The consumer as advocate: Self-relevance, culture,
and word-of-mouth. Marketing Letters, 17(4), pp.269–279.
Crocker, J. &R. Luhtanen (1990). Collective Self-Esteem and Ingroup Bias. Journal of
Psychology, 58, 60-67.
Dellarocas, C. (2003). The Digitization of Word of Mouth: Promise and Challenges of
Online Feedback Mechanisms. Management Science, 49 (October), 1407–1424.
Deutsch, M. & H. Gerard (1955). A Study of Normative and Informational
Social Influences upon Individual Judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 51 (November), 624–36.
(4)
Facebook Stats (2012).Facebook Statistics [ONLINE]. http://www.checkfacebook.com/
[last accessed 1st December, 2012)
Fiske, S. T. (2001). Five Core Social Motives, Plus or Minus Five. Motivated Social
Perception: The Ontario Symposium, vol.9, S. Spencer, S. Fein, M. Zanna and J.
Olsen, eds., Psychology Press.
Gangadharbatla, H (2008). Facebook Me: Collective Self-Esteem, Need to Belong, and
Internet Self- Efficacy as Predictors of the Igeneration’s Attitudes toward Social
Networking Sites. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 8, 2: 5–15.
Godes, D. & Mayzlin, D. (2004). Using Online Conversations to Study Word-of-Mouth
Communication.Marketing Science, 23 (4), 545–60.
Goffman, E. (1959). Presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Hennig-Thurau, T. , Gwinner, K.P., Walsh, G.,Gremler, D.D. (2004). Electronic Word-ofMouth via Consumer-Opinion Platforms: What Motivates Consumers to Articulate
Themselves on the Internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18 (1), 38–52.
Hornsey, M. J. (2006). Ingroup Critics and Their Influence on Groups, in
Individuality and the Group: Advances in Social Identity, T. Postmes and J. Jetten,
eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 74-91.
Kiecker, P., & Cowles, D.L. (2001). Interpersonal communication and personal influence on
the Internet: A framework for examining online word-of-mouth. Journal of
Euromarketing, 11(2), 71–88.
King, C. W., Summers, J.O. (1970). Overlap of opinion leadership across consumer product
categories. Journal of Marketing Research, 7(1), 43–50.
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.
Lakhani, K.R. & E. Von Hipper (2003), “How open source software works: ‘free’ user-touser assistance”, Research Policy 32 (6) 923–943.
Leenders, R. (2002). Modeling Social Influence Through Network
Autocorrelation: Constructing the Weight Matrix. Social Networks, 24 (1), 21–48.
Marder, B., Joinson, A. & Shankar, A., (2012). Every Post You Make, Every Pic You
Take, I’ll Be Watching You: Behind Social Spheres on Facebook. 45th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, pp.859–868.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253
McAllister, I., & Studlar, D. T. (1991). Bandwagon, underdog, or projection? Opinion polls
and electoral choice in Britain, 1979-1987. Journal of Politics, 54(3), 720-741
McMillan, D. W., & D. M. Chavis. Sense of Community: A Definition and Theory.
Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 1 (1986): 6–23.
(5)
Moe, W.W. & Schweidel, D. a., (2011). Online Product Opinions: Incidence, Evaluation,
and Evolution. Marketing Science, 31(3), pp.372–386.
Nadkarni, A., & Hofmann, S. G. (2012). Why do people use Facebook? Personality and
Individual Differences, 52, 243–249.
Schlenker, B.R. (1990). Impression Management: The Self-Concept, Social Identity, and
Interpersonal Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Schlenker, B. R., & Weingold, M. F. (1989). Self-identification and accountability. In R. A.
Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp.
21–44). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sedikides, C. & Gregg, A.P. (2008). Self-Enhancement: Food for Thought. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 3(2), pp.102–116.
Seidman, G., (2012). Self-presentation and belonging on Facebook: How personality
influences social media use and motivations. Personality and Individual Differences,
54(3), pp.402–407.
Sengupta, J., Dahl, D.W., & Gorn, G.J. (2002). Misrepresentation in the consumer context.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(2), 69–79.
Snyder, C.R. and H. L. Fromkin (1980). Uniqueness: The Human Pursuit of Difference.
New York: Plenum.
Sridhar, S. & Srinivasan, R., (2012). Social Influence Effects in Online Product Ratings.
Journal of Marketing, 76(September), pp.70–88.
Tian, Kelly T. & K. McKenzie (2001). The Long-Term Predictive Validity of Consumers’
Need for Uniqueness Scale. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10 (3), 171–93.
Trafimow, D., Triandis, H. C., & Goto, S. G. (1991). Some tests of the distinction between
the private self and the collective self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
60, 649-655.
Trusov, M., Bodapati, A. & Bucklin, R.E., (2010). Determining Influential Users in
Internet Social Networks. Journal of Marketing Research, XLVII(August), pp.643
658.
Zhang, Z., Li, X. & Chen, Y. (2012). Deciphering Word-of-Mouth in Social Media : TextBased. Management Information Systems, 3(1).
Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S. & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital
empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5),
pp.1816–1836.
Zhu, F. & Zhang, X. M. (2010). Impact of Online Consumer Reviews on Sales: The
Moderating Role of Product and Consumer Characteristics. Journal of Marketing,
74(2), 133.
(6)