Electronic word of mouth (eWOM) communication, such as the online hotel review, is receiving increasing attention from marketing managers in the hotel industry, primarily because consumers are making considerable use of online forums and often do not book without seeking online advice on restaurants, tourist destinations, or hotels. This study of a convenience sample of 781 travelers in Las Vegas found three chief motivating factors for consumers to seek eWOM, namely, convenience and quality, risk reduction, and social reassurance. The analysis found distinct differences between the sexes regarding their motivating factors, and levels of expertise also influenced consumers’ motivations to read online reviews. Women, for instance, are more likely to read reviews for the purpose of convenience and quality and for risk reduction. Men’s use of the online reviews depended on their level of expertise.
AlbaJ.HutchinsonW.1987. Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research31:411-54.
3.
ÁlvarezL. S.MartínA. M. D.CasiellesR. V.2007. Relationship marketing and information and communication technologies: Analysis of retail travel agencies. Journal of Travel Research45 (4): 453.
4.
BansalH. S.TaylorS. F.JamesY. S.2005. “Migrating” to new service providers: Toward a unifying framework of consumers’ switching behaviors. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science33 (1): 96-115.
5.
BansalH. S.VoyerP.2000. Word-of-mouth processes within a services purchase decision context. Journal of Service Research3 (2): 166-77.
6.
BettmanJ. R.ParkC. W.1980. Effects of prior knowledge and experience and phase of the choice process on consumer decision processes: A protocol analysis. Journal of Consumer Research7 (3): 234-48.
7.
BlochP.SherrellD.RidgwayN.1986. Consumer search: An extended framework. Journal of Consumer Research13 (1): 119-26.
BrucksM.1985. The effects of product class knowledge on information search behavior. Journal of Consumer Research12 (1): 1-16.
10.
CheungC. M. K.LeeM. K. O.RabjohnN.2008. The impact of electronic word-of-mouth: The adoption of online opinions in online customer communities. Internet Research18 (3): 229-47.
11.
ChevalierJ. A.MayzlinD.2006. The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book reviews. Journal of Marketing Research43 (9): 9.
12.
CunninghamS. M.1967. The major dimensions of perceived risk. In Risk taking and information handling in consumer behavior, ed. CoxD. F., 82-108. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
13.
GarbarinoE.StrahilevitzM.2004. Gender differences in the perceived risk of buying online and the effects of receiving a site recommendation. Journal of Business Research57: 768-75.
14.
GillyM.GrahamJ.WolfinbargerM.YaleL.1998. A dyadic study of interpersonal information search. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science26 (2): 83-100.
15.
GodesD.MayzlinD.2004. Using online conversations to study word-of-mouth communication. Marketing Science23 (4): 545-60.
16.
GoldsmithR. E.HorowitzD.2006. Measuring motivations for online opinion seeking. Journal of Interactive Advertising6 (2): 1-16.
17.
GruenT. W.OsmonbekovT.CzaplewskiA. J.2006. eWOM: The impact of customer-to-customer online know-how exchange on customer value and loyalty. Journal of Business Research59 (4): 449-56.
18.
GuttelingJ. M.WiegmanO.1993. Gender-specific reactions to environmental hazards in the Netherlands. Sex Roles28:433-47.
19.
Hennig-ThurauF.GwinnerK. P.WalshG.GremlerD. D.2004. Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the Internet?Journal of Interactive Marketing18 (1): 38-52.
20.
Hennig-ThurauT.WalshG.2003. Electronic word-of-mouth: Motives for and consequences of reading customer articulations on the Internet. International Journal of Electronic Commerce8:51-74.
21.
JohnsonE. J.RussoJ. E.1984. Product familiarity and learning new information. Journal of Consumer Research11:542-50.
22.
KatzD.1960. The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly24 (2): 163-204.
23.
KempfD.PalanK.2006. The effects of gender and argument strength on the processing of word-of-mouth communication. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Studies10 (1): 1-18.
24.
KoernigS. K.2003. E-scapes: The electronic physical environment and service tangibility. Psychology & Marketing20 (2): 151-67.
25.
LeeM.YounS.2009. Electronic word-of-mouth: How eWOM platforms influence consumer product judgment. International Journal of Advertising28 (3): 473-99.
26.
LeeC. C.HuC.2004. Analyzing hotel customers’ e-complaints from an Internet complaint forum. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing17 (2,3): 167.
27.
LinT. M. Y.LuarnP.HuangY. K.2005. Effect of Internet book reviews on purchase intention: A focus group study. Journal of Academic Librarianship31:461-68.
28.
MallalieuL.PalanK. M.2006. How good a shopper am I? Conceptualizing teenage girls’ perceived shopping competence. Academy of Marketing Science2006 (5): 1-28.
29.
Meyers-LevyJ.1989. Gender differences in interpretation: A selectivity interpretation. In Cognitive and affective responses to advertising, ed. CaferrataP.TyboutA., 219-60. Lexington, MA: Lexington.
30.
Meyers-LevyJ.MaheswaranD.1991. Exploring differences in males’ and females’ processing strategies. Journal of Consumer Research18:63-70.
31.
MottiarZ.QuinnD.2004. Couple dynamics in household tourism decision making: Women as the gatekeepers?Journal of Vacation Marketing10 (2): 149-60.
32.
O’ConnorP.2009. Pay-per-click search engine advertising: Are hotel trademarks being abused?Cornell Hospitality Quarterly50 (2): 232-44.
33.
O’ConnorP.FrewA. J.2002. The future of hotel electronic distribution: Expert and industry perspectives. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly43 (3): 33-45.
34.
PantelidisI. S.2009. Electronic meal experience: A content analysis of online restaurant comments. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly51 (4): 483-91.
35.
ParkD.KimS.2008. The effects of consumer knowledge on message processing of electronic word-of-mouth via online consumer reviews. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications7:399-410.
36.
ParkC.LeeT. M.2009. Information direction, website reputation and eWOM effect: A moderating role of product type. Journal of Business Research62:61-67.
37.
Pennington-GrayL. A.KerstetterD. L.2001. What do university-educated women want from their pleasure travel experiences?Journal of Travel Research40:49-56.
38.
PopeN. K. L.BrownM. R.ForrestE. J.1999. Risk, innovativeness, gender, and involvement factors affecting the intention to purchase sport product online. Sport Marketing Quarterly8 (2): 25-34.
39.
PunjG.StaelinR.1983. A model of consumer information search behavior for new automobiles. Journal of Consumer Research9 (4): 366-80.
40.
PutrevuS.2001. Exploring the origins and information processing differences between men and women: Implications for advertisers. Academy of Marketing Science Review10:1-14.
41.
RaghunathanR.PhamM.1999. All the negative moods are not equal: Motivational influences of anxiety and sadness on decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes79 (1): 56-77.
42.
RaoA. R.SiebenW. A.1992. The effect of prior knowledge on price acceptability and the type of information examined. Journal of Consumer Research19:256-70.
43.
SelnesF.TroyeS. V.1989. Buying expertise, information search, and problem solving. Journal of Economic Psychology10:411-28.
44.
SchiffmanL. G.1972. Perceived risk in new product trial by elderly consumers. Journal of marketing Research9 (February): 106-8.
SöderlundM.2002. Customer familiarity and its effects on satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Psychology and Marketing19 (10): 861-80.
47.
SteffesE. M.BurgeeL. E.2009. Social ties and online word of mouth. Internet Research19 (1): 42-59.
48.
SuH. J.ComerL. B.LeeS.2008. The effect of expertise on consumers’ satisfaction with the use of interactive recommendation agents. Psychology & Marketing25 (9): 859-80.
49.
TannenD.1990. You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York, NY: William Morrow.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
