The Influence of the Big Five Personality Traits and Propensity to Trust on Online Review Behaviors: The Moderating Role of Gender
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (1)
- Conceptualizing online review use and online review writing as two overarching eWoM constructs and systematically developing scales to measure them;
- (2)
- Understanding the impacts of personality characteristics, including the Big Five factors and propensity to trust, on online review use and writing;
- (3)
- Understanding the moderating role of gender in the relationships between personality characteristics and online review use and writing.
2. Background
2.1. Using and Writing Online Reviews
2.2. Personality Traits
2.3. Propensity to Trust
2.4. Gender
3. Hypotheses’ Development
3.1. Using Online Reviews (H1–H5)
3.1.1. Propensity to Trust
3.1.2. Extraversion
3.1.3. Openness to Experience
3.1.4. Conscientiousness
3.1.5. Neuroticism
3.2. Writing Online Reviews (H6–H10)
3.2.1. Extraversion
3.2.2. Openness to Experience
3.2.3. Conscientiousness
3.2.4. Neuroticism
3.2.5. Agreeableness
3.3. Moderating Effects of Gender
3.3.1. Using Online Reviews (H11a–H11e)
3.3.1.1. Gender × Propensity to Trust
3.3.1.2. Gender × Extraversion
3.3.1.3. Gender × Openness
3.3.1.4. Gender × Conscientiousness
3.3.1.5. Gender × Neuroticism
3.3.2. Writing Online Reviews (H12a–H12e)
3.3.2.1. Gender × Extraversion
3.3.2.2. Gender × Openness
3.3.2.3. Gender × Conscientiousness
3.3.2.4. Gender × Neuroticism
3.3.2.5. Gender × Agreeableness
4. Method
4.1. Instrument Development
4.2. Data Collection (Main Study)
5. Analysis and Results
5.1. Measurement Validity and Reliability
5.2. Hypothesis Testing
6. Theoretical Contributions
7. Practical Implications
8. Limitations and Future Research
9. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Measures, Loadings, and Psychometric Characteristics
Constructs | Items | References |
---|---|---|
Online Review Use | ORU1: When deciding on purchasing different products, I ________ use online reviews. (Never/Always) ORU2: When deciding on which restaurant to go to, I _______ use online reviews. (Never/Always) ORU3: When deciding on which hotel to stay at, I _______ use online reviews. (Never/Always) ORU4: When deciding on which places to visit, I _______ use online reviews. (Never/Always) | New items (developed for this study) |
Online Review Writing | ORW1: I ______ post online reviews about my restaurant experiences. (Never/Very frequently) ORW2: I ______ post online reviews about my hotel experiences after I stay at a hotel. (Never/Very frequently) ORW3: I ________ post online reviews about different products that I buy. (Never/Very frequently) ORW4: I ________ post online reviews about different places that I visit. (Never/Very frequently) | New items (developed for this study) |
Trust Propensity | TRU1: It is generally easy for me to trust a person/thing. (Strongly disagree/Strongly agree) TRU2: My tendency to trust a person/thing is high. (Strongly disagree/Strongly agree) TRU3: I tend to trust a person/thing, even though I have little knowledge of it. (Strongly disagree/Strongly agree) TRU4: Trusting someone or something is not difficult. (Strongly disagree/Strongly agree) | Lee and Turban [172] |
Personality Traits | I see myself as someone who (Strongly disagree/Strongly agree) NEU1: ----- Worries a lot. NEU2: ----- Gets nervous easily. NEU3: ----- Remains calm in tense situations. (R) EXT1: ----- Is talkative. EXT2: ----- Is outgoing, sociable. EXT3: ----- Is reserved, quiet. (R) OPE1: ----- Is original, comes up with new ideas. OPE2: ----- Values artistic, aesthetic experiences. OPE3: ----- Has an active imagination. AGR1: ----- Is sometimes rude to others. (R) AGR2: ----- Has a forgiving nature. AGR3: ----- Is considerate and kind to almost everyone. CON1: ----- Does a thorough job. CON2: ----- Tends to be lazy. (R) CON3: ----- Does things efficiently. | Lang et al. [173] |
Latent Construct | Item | Components | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ||
Online Review Use | ORU1 | 0.000 | 0.064 | 0.772 | −0.019 | 0.078 | 0.072 | 0.084 | 0.057 |
ORU2 | 0.004 | 0.198 | 0.810 | 0.040 | −0.009 | 0.025 | −0.015 | 0.000 | |
ORU3 | −0.020 | 0.096 | 0.811 | 0.007 | −0.008 | 0.037 | 0.094 | 0.046 | |
ORU4 | 0.006 | 0.148 | 0.866 | 0.047 | 0.014 | 0.008 | 0.030 | 0.022 | |
Online Review Writing | ORW1 | 0.016 | 0.896 | 0.165 | 0.099 | −0.041 | 0.001 | 0.004 | −0.008 |
ORW2 | 0.011 | 0.888 | 0.136 | 0.077 | −0.071 | 0.063 | 0.034 | 0.013 | |
ORW3 | −0.002 | 0.849 | 0.102 | 0.046 | 0.009 | 0.061 | 0.068 | 0.022 | |
ORW4 | 0.030 | 0.901 | 0.140 | 0.144 | −0.053 | 0.051 | 0.009 | 0.022 | |
Trust Propensity | TRU1 | 0.909 | 0.016 | −0.011 | 0.117 | −0.080 | 0.014 | 0.135 | 0.025 |
TRU2 | 0.931 | 0.045 | −0.006 | 0.106 | −0.077 | 0.002 | 0.128 | 0.027 | |
TRU3 | 0.895 | 0.041 | 0.001 | 0.057 | −0.025 | −0.013 | 0.059 | −0.017 | |
TRU4 | 0.758 | −0.056 | −0.002 | 0.116 | −0.216 | −0.046 | 0.176 | −0.050 | |
Neuroticism | NEU1 | −0.125 | −0.051 | 0.045 | −0.096 | 0.900 | 0.035 | −0.075 | −0.036 |
NEU2 | −0.104 | −0.055 | 0.060 | −0.184 | 0.899 | 0.013 | −0.077 | −0.057 | |
NEU3 | 0.121 | 0.037 | 0.018 | 0.075 | −0.740 | 0.166 | 0.078 | 0.187 | |
Extraversion | EXT1 | 0.141 | 0.101 | 0.051 | 0.877 | −0.045 | 0.155 | 0.029 | 0.022 |
EXT2 | 0.181 | 0.173 | 0.051 | 0.852 | −0.197 | 0.131 | 0.076 | 0.055 | |
EXT3 | −0.069 | −0.093 | 0.020 | −0.879 | 0.135 | 0.015 | −0.021 | 0.028 | |
Openness | OPE1 | 0.025 | 0.126 | 0.021 | 0.135 | −0.162 | 0.772 | 0.007 | 0.203 |
OPE2 | 0.001 | 0.067 | 0.097 | 0.006 | 0.018 | 0.833 | 0.088 | 0.013 | |
OPE3 | −0.057 | −0.024 | 0.016 | 0.099 | 0.016 | 0.838 | 0.058 | 0.017 | |
Agreeableness | AGR1 | −0.066 | −0.022 | −0.056 | −0.058 | 0.117 | 0.123 | −0.741 | −0.169 |
AGR2 | 0.284 | 0.060 | 0.072 | −0.008 | −0.107 | 0.190 | 0.698 | −0.068 | |
AGR3 | 0.184 | 0.038 | 0.090 | 0.066 | −0.009 | 0.173 | 0.778 | 0.248 | |
Conscientiousness | CON1 | −0.044 | 0.020 | 0.018 | −0.002 | −0.104 | 0.091 | 0.213 | 0.849 |
CON3 | 0.017 | 0.015 | 0.098 | 0.030 | −0.140 | 0.100 | 0.086 | 0.864 |
Construct | CA | CR | AVE | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Online Review Use (1) | 0.846 | 0.855 | 0.665 | 0.815 | |||||||
Online Review Writing (2) | 0.923 | 0.942 | 0.781 | 0.307 *** | 0.884 | ||||||
Trust Propensity (3) | 0.918 | 0.934 | 0.767 | 0.002 | 0.049 | 0.876 | |||||
Neuroticism (4) | 0.852 | 0.903 | 0.722 | 0.035 | −0.113 *** | −0.261*** | 0.850 | ||||
Extraversion (5) | 0.887 | 0.927 | 0.756 | 0.078 * | 0.249 *** | 0.267*** | −0.302 *** | 0.869 | |||
Openness (6) | 0.784 | 0.855 | 0.664 | 0.113 *** | 0.135 *** | 0.007 | −0.104 ** | 0.204 *** | 0.815 | ||
Agreeableness (7) | 0.665 | 0.727 | 0.547 | 0.156 *** | 0.109 *** | 0.361*** | 0.235 *** | 0.156 *** | 0.170 *** | 0.740 | |
Conscientiousness (8) | 0.749 | 0.912 | 0.734 | 0.112 *** | 0.061 | 0.019 | 0.242 *** | 0.074 * | 0.211 *** | 0.319 *** | 0.857 |
References
- Chevalier, J.A.; Mayzlin, D. The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book reviews. J. Mark. Res. 2006, 43, 345–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clemons, E.K.; Gao, G.; Hitt, L.M. When online reviews meet hyper differentiation: A study of the craft beer industry. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2006, 23, 149–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, K.; Yoon, S.; Choi, Y.K. The effects of eWOM volume and valence on product sales—An empirical examination of the movie industry. Int. J. Advert. 2018, 38, 471–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhat, N.Y. The influence of Electronic word of mouth (Ewom) on Consumers Purchase Intention: A review and analysis of the existing literature. IOSR J. Eng. 2020, 10, 27–36. [Google Scholar]
- Fink, L.; Rosenfeld, L.; Ravid, G. Longer online reviews are not necessarily better. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2018, 39, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, P.; Wang, X.; Li, X.; Cotte, J. When Novices Have More Influence than Experts: Empirical Evidence from Online Peer Reviews. Adv. Consum. Res. 2018, 46, 719–721. [Google Scholar]
- Cui, G.; Lui, H.-K.; Guo, X. The effect of online consumer reviews on new product sales. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2012, 17, 39–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mathwick, C.; Mosteller, J. Online Reviewer Engagement: A Typology Based on Reviewer Motivations. J. Serv. Res. 2016, 20, 204–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Westbrook, R.A. Product/Consumption-Based Affective Responses and Postpurchase Processes. J. Mark. Res. 1987, 24, 258–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hennig-Thurau, T.; Gwinner, K.P.; Walsh, G.; Gremler, D.D. Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the Internet? J. Interact. Mark. 2004, 18, 38–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosario, A.B.; Sotgiu, F.; De Valck, K.; Bijmol, T.H.A. The Effect of Electronic Word of Mouth on Sales: A Meta-Analytic Review of Platform, Product, and Metric Factors. J. Mark. Res. 2016, 53, 297–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wasko, M.M.; Faraj, S. Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Q. 2005, 29, 35–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Filieri, R.; McLeay, F. E-WOM and accommodation: An analysis of the factors that influence travelers’ adoption of information from online reviews. J. Travel Res. 2013, 53, 44–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manner, C.; Lane, W. Who posts online customer reviews? The role of sociodemographics and personality traits. J. Consum. Satisf. Dissatisfaction Complain. Behav. 2017, 30, 23–32. [Google Scholar]
- Manner, C.; Lane, W. Personality Traits as Predictors of Online Customer Review Motivations. J. Soc. Media Soc. 2018, 7, 184–210. [Google Scholar]
- Tata, S.V.; Prashar, S.; Parsad, C. Intention to write reviews: Influence of personality traits, attitude and motivational factors. J. Syst. Inf. Technol. 2021, 23, 218–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moiescu, O.I.; Dan, I.; Gica, O.-A. An examination of personality traits as predictors of electronic word-of-mouth diffusion in social networking sites. J. Consum. Behav. 2022, 21, 450–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Samarraie, H.; Eldenfria, A.; Dawoud, H. The impact of personality traits on users’ information-seeking behavior. Inf. Process. Manag. 2017, 53, 237–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, T.-K.; Lee, N.-H.; Chao, C.-M. The Moderating Effects of Young Adults’ Personality Traits on Social Media Immersion. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 554106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Camilleri, A.R. Who doesn’t read online consumer reviews, and why? Personal. Individ. Differ. 2021, 179, 110954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dixit, S.; Badgaiyan, A.J.; Khare, A. An integrated model for predicting consumer’s intention to write online reviews. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 46, 112–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jadin, T.; Gnambs, T.; Batinic, B. Personality traits and knowledge sharing in online communities. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2013, 29, 210–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barnes, R.; Mahar, D.; Wong, I.; Rune, K. A Neurotic Extrovert Who is Open to New Experiences? Understanding How Personality Traits May Impact the Commenting Behaviors of Online News Readers. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 2017, 61, 557–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, M. Assessing Two Dimensions of Interpersonal Trust: Other-Focused Trust and Propensity to Trust. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 654735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shaheen, M.; Zeba, F.; Chatterjee, N.; Krishnankutty, R. Engaging customers through credible and useful reviews: The role of online trust. Young Consum. 2020, 21, 137–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, S.H.; Lougheed, E. Frazzled by Facebook? An exploratory study of gender differences in social network communication among undergraduate men and women. Coll. Stud. J. 2012, 46, 88–98. [Google Scholar]
- Park, J.; Yoon, Y.; Lee, B. The Effect of Gender and Product Categories on Consumer Online Information Search. Adv. Consum. Res. 2009, 36, 362–366. [Google Scholar]
- Kotler, P.; Keller, K.L. Marketing Management, 12th ed.; Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Moe, W.W.; Trusov, M. The value of social dynamics in online product ratings forums. J. Mark. Res. 2011, 48, 444–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- You, Y.; Vadakkepatt, G.G.; Joshi, A.M. A meta-analysis of electronic word-of-mouth elasticity. J. Mark. 2015, 79, 19–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, S.; Nicolau, J.L. Asymmetric effects of online consumer reviews. Ann. Tour. Res. 2015, 50, 67–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hicks, A.; Comp, S.; Horovitz, J.; Hovarter, M.; Miki, M.; Bevan, J.L. Why people use Yelp.com: An exploration of uses and gratifications. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2012, 28, 2274–2279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kotler, P.; Kartajaya, H.; Setiawan, I. Marketing 4.0: Moving from Traditional to Digital; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Gong, W.; Li, X. Engaging fans on microblog: The synthetic influence of parasocial interaction and source characteristics on celebrity endorsement. Psychol. Mark. 2017, 34, 720–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiao, D.; Lee, S.-Y.; Whinston, A.; Wei, Q. Financial Incentives Dampen Altruism in Online Prosocial Contributions: A Study of Online Reviews. Inf. Syst. Res. 2020, 31, 1361–1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shelly, B.; Narang, R. Effects of gender and stress on altruism. Int. J. Indian Psychol. 2018, 6, 2–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peters, K.; Chen, Y.; Kaplan, A.M.; Ognibeni, B.; Pauwels, K. Social media metrics: A framework and guidelines for managing social media. J. Interact. Mark. 2013, 27, 281–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McGraw, A.P.; Warren, C.; Kan, C. Humorous complaining. J. Consum. Res. 2015, 41, 1153–1171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, E.T.; Simester, D.I. Reviews without a purchase: Low ratings, loyal customers, and deception. J. Mark. Res. 2014, 51, 249–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCrae, R.R.; Costa, T. Personality in Adulthood: A Five-Factor Theory Perspective, 2nd ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Zha, X.; Zhang, J.; Yan, Y.; Xiao, Z. User perceptions of e-quality of and affinity with virtual communities: The effect of individual differences. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 38, 185–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryan, T.; Xenos, S. Who uses Facebook? An investigation into the relationship between the Big Five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and Facebook usage. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2011, 27, 1658–1664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rolland, J.-P. The cross-cultural generalizability of the five-factor model of personality. In The Five-Factor Model of Personality across Cultures; McCrae, R.R., Allik, J., Eds.; Kluwer Academic: New York, NY, USA, 2002; pp. 7–28. [Google Scholar]
- Eysenck, H.J. The Biological Basis of Personality; Thomas: Springfield, IL, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]
- Bajcar, B.; Babiak, J. Neuroticism and cyberchondria: The mediating role of intolerance of uncertainty and defensive pessimism. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2020, 162, 110006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamburger, Y.A.; Ben-Artzi, E. The relationship between extraversion and neuroticism and the different uses of the Internet. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2000, 16, 441–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adamopoulos, P.; Ghose, A.; Todri, V. The impact of user personality traits on word of mouth: Text-mining social media platforms. Inf. Syst. Res. 2018, 29, 612–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halder, S.R.; Roy, A.; Chakraborty, P.K. The Influence of Personality Traits on Information Seeking Behaviour of Students. Malays. J. Libr. Inf. Sci. 2010, 15, 41–53. [Google Scholar]
- Jani, D.; Han, H. Personality, satisfaction, image, ambience, and loyalty: Testing their relationships in the hotel industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 37, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Picazo-Vela, S.; Chou, S.Y.; Melcher, A.J.; Pearson, J.M. Why provide an online review? An extended theory of planned behavior and the role of Big-Five personality traits. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2010, 26, 685–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anastasiei, B.; Dospinescu, N. A model of the relationships between the Big Five personality traits and the motivations to deliver word-of-mouth online. Psihologija 2018, 51, 215–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, X. An Empirical Analysis of Factors Influencing the Credibility of Online Word-of-Mouth. Financ. Trade Res. 2007, 5, 19. [Google Scholar]
- Forman, C.; Ghose, A.; Wiesenfeld, B. Examining the Relationship between Reviews and Sales: The Role of Reviewer Identity Disclosure in Electronic Markets. Inf. Syst. Res. 2008, 19, 291–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colquitt, J.A.; Scott, B.A.; LePine, J.A. Trust, Trustworthiness, and Trust Propensity: A Meta-Analytic Test of Their Unique Relationships with Risk Taking and Job Performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007, 92, 909–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weber, J.M.; Malhotra, D.; Murnighan, J.K. Normal acts of irrational trust: Motivated attributions and the trust development process. Res. Organ. Behav. 2004, 26, 75–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alarcon, G.M.; Lyons, J.B.; Christensen, J.C.; Klosterman, S.L.; Bowers, M.A.; Ryan, T.J.; Jessup, S.A. The effect of propensity to trust and perceptions of trustworthiness on trust behaviors in dyads. Behav. Res. Methods 2018, 50, 1906–1920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeffane, R. Gender, individualism–collectivism and individuals’ propensity to trust: A comparative exploratory study. J. Manag. Organ. 2017, 26, 445–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beldad, A.; De Jong, M.; Steehouder, M. How shall I trust the faceless and the intangible? A literature review on the antecedents of online trust. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2010, 26, 857–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mayer, R.C.; Davis, J.H.; Schoorman, F.D. An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 709–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dumrongsiri, A. Impact of Electronic Word-of-Mouth to Consumer Adoption Process in the Online Discussion Forum: A Simulation Study. Int. J. Inf. Commun. Eng. 2010, 4, 480–489. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, X.; Wu, Y.; Li, Y. The Tendency of Trust in A Distrustful Environment: The Mediation Role of Contextual Perceptions in eWOM. J. Mark. Dev. Compet. 2019, 13, 45–63. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, Q. Should I trust him? The effects of reviewer profile characteristics on eWOM credibility. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 33, 136–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Juniadi, J.; Chih, W.; Ortiz, J. Antecedents of Information Seeking and Sharing on Social Networking Sites: An Empirical Study of Facebook Users. Int. J. Commun. 2020, 14, 5705–5728. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, P.; McCarthy, B. Beyond Positive and Negative eWOM: The Role of Trust Propensity and Individuation in Shaping Consumers’ Perception of Brand Image. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Adm. 2023, 24, 387–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eagly, A.H.; Wood, W. Social role theory. In Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology; Van Lange, P.A.M., Kruglanski, A.W., Higgins, E.T., Eds.; Sage Publications Ltd.: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 458–476. [Google Scholar]
- Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G. Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behaviour. MIS Q. 2000, 24, 115–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richard, M.-O.; Chebat, A.-C.; Yang, Z.; Putrevu, S. A proposed model of online consumer behavior: Assessing the role of gender. J. Bus. Res. 2010, 63, 926–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, E.K.K.; Mattila, A.; Baloglu, S. Effects of Gender and Expertise on Consumers’ Motivation to Read Online Hotel Reviews. Cornell Hosp. Rev. 2011, 52, 399–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chent, Y.; Yan, X.; Fan, W.; Gordon, M. The joint moderating role of trust propensity and gender on consumers’ online shopping behavior. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 43, 272–283. [Google Scholar]
- Mladenovic, D.; Krajina, A.; Milojevic, I. Motives for writing online reviews in post-vacation phase. Int. J. Cult. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2019, 13, 244–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, J.H.; Ramirez, R.; Gregg, D.G.; Scott, J.E.; Lee, K.-H. Influencing Knowledge Sharing on Social Media: A Gender Perspective. Asia Pac. J. Inf. Syst. 2020, 30, 513–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teo, T.S.H.; Liu, J. Consumer trust in e-commerce in the United States, Singapore, and China. Omega 2007, 35, 22–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, L.C.; Chang, W.P.; Chang, H.H. Consumer attitudes toward blogger’s sponsored recommendations and purchase intention: The effect of sponsorship type, product type, and brand awareness. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 34, 258–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barrick, M.R.; Mount, M.K. The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Pers. Psychol. 1991, 44, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, K.; Mcelroy, J.C. The Influence of Personality on Facebook Usage, Wall Postings, and Regret. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2012, 28, 267–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gil de Zúñiga, H.; Diehl, T.; Huber, B.; Liu, J. Personality Traits and Social Media Use in 20 Countries: How Personality Relates to Frequency of Social Media Use, Social Media News Use, and Social Media Use for Social Interaction. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 2017, 20, 540–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rollero, C.; Daniele, A.; Tartaglia, S. Do men post and women view? The role of gender, personality and emotions in online social activity. Cyberpsychol. J. Psychosoc. Res. Cyberspace 2019, 13, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costa, P.T.; McCrae, R.R. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual; Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.: Odessa, FL, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Butt, S.; Phillips, J.G. Personality and self-reported mobile phone use. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2008, 24, 346–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Correa, T.; Hinsley, A.W.; de Zúñiga, H.G. Who interacts on the web? The intersection of users’ personality and social media use. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2010, 26, 247–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsao, W.C. Big five personality traits as predictors of Internet. Int. J. Manag. 2013, 30, 374–386. [Google Scholar]
- Cabrera, Á.; Collins, W.C.; Salgado, J.F. Determinants of individual engagement in knowledge sharing. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2006, 17, 245–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matz, S.C. Personal echo chambers: Openness-to-experience is linked to higher levels of psychological interest diversity in large-scale behavioral data. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2021; advance online publication. [Google Scholar]
- Landers, R.N.; Lounsbery, J.W. An investigation of Big Five and narrow personality traits in relation to Internet usage. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2006, 22, 283–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molleman, E.; Nauta, A.; Jehn, K.A. Person–job fit applied to teamwork: A multilevel approach. Small Group Res. 2004, 35, 515–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, R. Gender and Emotion Stereotypes in Children’s Television. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 2017, 61, 499–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miraj, M.; Chuntian, L.; Mohd Said, R.; Osei-Bonsu, R.; Rehman, R.U. How Information-Seeking Behavior, Essential Technologies, and Resilience Enhance the Academic Performance of Students. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 651550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmed, S.; Rehman, F.; Sheikh, A. Impact of personality traits on information needs and seeking behavior of LIS students in Pakistan. Inf. Discov. Deliv. 2021, 47, 125–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El Othman, R.; El Othman, R.; Hallit, R.; Obeid, S.; Hallit, S. Personality traits, emotional intelligence and decision-making styles in Lebanese universities medical students. BMC Psychol. 2020, 8, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Uliaszek, A.A.; Zinbarg, R.E.; Mineka, S.; Craske, M.G.; Sutton, J.M.; Griffith, J.W.; Rose, R.; Waters, A.; Hammen, C. The role of neuroticism and extraversion in the stress-anxiety and stress-depression relationships. Anxiety Stress Coping 2010, 23, 363–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Eysenck, H.J. Dimensions of Personality; Transaction Publishers: New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- McCrae, R.R.; John, O.P. An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. J. Personal. 1992, 60, 175–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hirsh, J.B.; Inzlicht, M. The devil you know: Neuroticism predicts neural response to uncertainty. Psychol. Sci. 2008, 19, 962–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Amiel, T.; Sargent, S.L. Individual differences in Internet usage motives. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2004, 20, 711–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- König, T.M.; Clarke, T.B.; Hellenthal, M.; Clarke, I., III. Personality effects on WoM and eWoM susceptibility—A cross-country perspective. Int. Mark. Rev. 2022; ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar]
- McElroy, J.; Hendrickson, A.; Townsend, A.; DeMarie, S. Dispositional factors in Internet use: Personality versus cognitive style. MIS Q. 2007, 31, 809–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seidman, G. Self-presentation and belonging on Facebook: How personality influences social media use and motivations. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2013, 54, 402–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.-C.; Yang, Y.-J. Personality and intention to share knowledge: An empirical study of scientists in an R&D laboratory. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 2007, 35, 1427–1436. [Google Scholar]
- Matzler, K.; Bidmon, S.; Grabner-Kräuter, S. Individual determinants of brand affect: The role of the personality traits of extraversion and openness to experience. J. Prod. Band Manag. 2006, 15, 427–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeYoung, C.G. Cybernetic big five theory. J. Res. Personal. 2015, 56, 33–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yen, C.-L.; Tang, C.-H. Hotel attribute performance, eWOM motivations, and media choice. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 46, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thoms, P.; Moore, K.S.; Scott, K.S. The relationship between self-efficacy for participating in self-managed work groups and the big five personality dimensions. J. Organ. Behav. 1996, 17, 349–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lischka, H.M.; Dedick, Y. Extraversion and Market Mavenism Mediate the Relationship between Review Involvement and the Intention to Create Online Consumer Reviews. J. Consum. Satisf. Dissatisfaction Complain. Behav. 2017, 30, 31. [Google Scholar]
- McCrae, R.R.; Costa, J.P.T. Conceptions and Correlates of Openness to Experience. In Handbook of Personality Psychology; Hoga, R., Johnson, J., Briggs, S., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1997; pp. 825–847. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, D.; Campbell, W.K. The Big Five personality traits, Big Two metatraits and social media: A meta-analysis. J. Res. Personal. 2017, 70, 229–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matzler, K.; Renzl, B.; Müller, J.; Herting, S.; Mooradian, T.A. Personality traits and knowledge sharing. J. Econ. Psychol. 2008, 29, 301–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liao, H.; Chuang, A. A multilevel investigation of factors influencing employee service performance and customer outcomes. Acad. Manag. J. 2004, 47, 41–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wasko, M.M.; Faraj, S. It Is What One Does: Why People Participate and Help Others in Electronic Communities of Practice. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2000, 9, 155–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoo, K.H.; Gretzel, U. Influence of personality on travel-related consumer generated media creation. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2011, 27, 609–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaufman, S.B.; Quilty, L.C.; Grazioplene, R.G.; Hirsh, J.B.; Gray, J.R.; Peterson, J.B.; DeYoung, C.G. Openness to experience and intellect differentially predict creative achievement in the arts and sciences. J. Personal. 2016, 84, 248–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poddar, A.; Banerjee, S.; Sridhar, K. False advertising or slander? Using location-based tweets to assess online rating-reliability. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 99, 390–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, W.-K.; Yang, C.-Y. Internet applications use and personality. Telemat. Inform. 2014, 31, 27–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taggar, S. Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel model. Acad. Manag. J. 2002, 45, 315–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weisberg, Y.J.; Deyoung, C.G.; Hirsh, J.B. Gender Differences in Personality across the Ten Aspects of the Big Five. Front. Psychol. 2011, 2, 11757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schmitt, D.P.; Realo, A.; Voracek, M.; Allik, J. Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2008, 94, 168–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Costa, P.; Terracciano, A.; McCrae, R.R. Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 81, 322–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lundeberg, M.A.; Fox, P.W.; Punćcohaŕ, J. Highly confident but wrong: Gender differences and similarities in confidence judgments. J. Educ. Psychol. 1994, 86, 114–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oberst, U.; Renau, V.; Chamarro, A.; Carbonell, X. Gender stereotypes in Facebook profiles: Are women more female online? Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 60, 559–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berg, J.; Dickhaut, J.; McCabe, K. Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games Econ. Behav. 1995, 10, 122–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bohnet, I.; Yael, B. Institutions and Trust: Implications for Preferences, Beliefs and Behavior. Ration. Soc. 2007, 19, 99–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaudhuri, A.; Gangadharan, L. An Experimental Analysis of Trust and Trustworthiness. South. Econ. J. 2007, 73, 959–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gong, B.; Yang, C.-L. Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes: Field Experiments on the Matrilineal Mosuo and the Patriarchal Yi. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2012, 83, 59–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levin, D.; Whitener, E.; Cross, R. Perceived trustworthiness of knowledge sources: The moderating impact of relationship length. J. Appl. Psychol. 2006, 91, 1163–1171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ebstrup, J.F.; Eplov, L.F.; Pisinger, C.; Jørgensen, T. Association between the Five Factor personality traits and perceived stress: Is the effect mediated by general self-efficacy? Anxiety Stress Coping 2011, 24, 407–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Keshavarz, S.; Baharudin, R. The Moderating Role of Gender on the Relationships between Perceived Paternal Parenting Style, Locus of Control and Self-Efficacy. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 32, 63–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feingold, A. Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 1994, 116, 429–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Derks, D.; Fischer, A.H.; Bos, A.E.R. The role of emotion in computer-mediated communication: A review. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2008, 24, 766–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scher, S.J.; Osterman, N.M. Procrastination, conscientiousness, anxiety, and goals: Exploring the measurement and correlates of procrastination among school-aged children. Psychol. Sch. 2002, 39, 385–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, T.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, L.; Mu, S. Dispositional mindfulness mediates the relationship between conscientiousness and mental health-related issues in adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2022, 184, 111223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Grange, C.; Benbasat, I.; Burton-Jones, A. With a little help from my friends: Cultivating serendipity in online shopping environments. Inf. Manag. 2019, 56, 225–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruiz, S.M.; Valmas, M.M.; Sawyer, K.S. Influence of alcoholism and gender on the relationship between personality and drinking motivation. Addict. Sci. Clin. Pract. 2015, 10, A56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, D.; Bond, S.D.; Zhang, H. Anxious or Angry? Effects of Discrete Emotions on the Perceived Helpfulness of Online Reviews. MIS Q. 2014, 38, 539–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van der Rijt, J.; Van den Bossche, P.; Segers, M.S.R. Understanding informal feedback seeking in the workplace: The impact of the position in the organizational hierarchy. Eur. J. Train. Dev. 2013, 37, 72–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Lan, J.; Ju, C. Self-esteem, gender, and the relationship between extraversion and subjective well-being. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 2015, 43, 1243–1254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reis, S.M. Toward a Theory of Creativity in Diverse Creative Women. Creat. Res. J. 2010, 14, 305–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, S.S.; Wei, X. Offline versus online travel experience sharing: The national profile of China. Int. J. Cult. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2019, 13, 183–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stavrositu, C.; Sundar, S.S. Does blogging empower women? Exploring the role of agency and community. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 2012, 17, 369–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conrad, N.; Patry, M.W. Conscientiousness and Academic Performance: A Mediational Analysis. Int. J. Scholarsh. Teach. Learn. 2012, 6, n1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schippers, M. Social loafing tendencies and team performance: The compensating effect of agreeableness and conscientiousness. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2013, 13, 62–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khalifa, A.H. What motivates consumers to communicate eWOM: Evidence from Tunisian context. J. Strateg. Mark. 2022, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandura, A.; Locke, E.A. Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 87–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kling, K.C.; Hyde, J.S.; Showers, C.J.; Buswell, B.N. Gender differences in self-esteem: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 1999, 125, 470–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guadagno, R.E.; Okdie, B.M.; Eno, C.A. Who blogs? Personality predictors of blogging. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2008, 24, 1993–2004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaudhuri, A.; Sbai, E. Gender differences in trust and reciprocity in repeated gift exchange games. In Economic Psychology and Experimental Economics; Routledge: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Wood, W.; Eagly, A.H. Two traditions of research on gender identity. Sex Roles 2015, 73, 461–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eagly, A.H.; Wood, W. Universal sex differences across patriarchal cultures ≠ evolved psychological dispositions. Behav. Brain Sci. 2005, 28, 281–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muscanell, N.L.; Guadagno, R.E. Make new friends or keep the old: Gender and personality differences in social networking use. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2012, 28, 107–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Awad, N.F.; Ragowsky, A. Establishing trust in electronic commerce through online word of mouth: An examination across genders. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2008, 24, 101–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kordzadeh, N.; Warren, J. Communicating Personal Health Information in Virtual Health Communities: An Integration of Privacy Calculus Model and Affective Commitment. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2017, 18, 45–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nunnally, J. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.; Mcgraw-Hill: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Litman, L.; Robinson, J. Conducting Online Research on Amazon Mechanical Turk and Beyond; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2020; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
- Steelman, Z.R.; Hammer, B.; Limayem, M. Data Collection in the Digital Age: Innovative Alternatives to Student Samples. MIS Q. 2014, 38, 355–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.-Y.; Rui, H.; Whinston, A.B. Is best answer really the best answer? The politeness bias. MIS Q. 2019, 43, 579–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Curran, P.G. Methods for the detection of carelessly invalid responses in survey data. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2016, 66, 4–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lowry, P.B.; D’Arcy, J.; Hammer, B.; Moody, G.D. “Cargo Cult” science in traditional organization and information systems survey research: A case for using nontraditional methods of data collection, including Mechanical Turk and online panels. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2016, 25, 232–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacKenzie, S.B.; Podsakoff, P.M.; Podsakoff, N. Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: Integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Q. 2011, 35, 293–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.-Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Myers, R.H. Classical and Modern Regression with Applications; Duxbury Press: Belmont, CA, USA, 1990; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
- Teng, S.; Khong, K.W.; Goh, W.W.; Chong, A. Examining the antecedents of persuasive eWOM messages in social media. Online Inf. Rev. 2014, 38, 746–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, X.; Cheung, C.M.K.; Lee, M.K.O.; Liang, L. Building brand loyalty through user engagement in online brand communities in social networking sites. Inf. Technol. People 2015, 28, 90–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thakur, R. Customer engagement and online reviews. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 41, 48–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- King, R.A.; Racherla, P.; Bush, V.D. What we know and don’t know about online word-of-mouth: A review and synthesis of the literature. J. Interact. Mark. 2014, 28, 176–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, L.; Lu, Y.; Wang, B.; Chau, Y.K.; Zhang, L. Cultivating the sense of belonging and motivating user participation in virtual communities: A social capital perspective. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2012, 32, 574–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.-L.; Jackson, L.A.; Zhang, D.-J.; Su, Z.-Q. The relationships among the Big Five Personality factors, self-esteem, narcissism, and sensation-seeking to Chinese University students’ uses of social networking sites (SNSs). Comput. Hum. Behav. 2012, 28, 2313–2319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Shao, Z.; Li, X.; Feng, Y. Gamification and online impulse buying: The moderating effect of gender and age. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2021, 61, 102267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brandt, T.; Laiho, M. Gender and personality in transformational leadership context: An examination of leader and subordinate perspectives. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2013, 34, 44–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amichai-Hamburger, Y. Internet and personality. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2002, 18, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simoncic, T.E.; Kuhlman, K.R.; Vargas, I.; Houchins, S.; Lopez-Duran, N.L. Facebook use and depressive symptomatology: Investigating the role of neuroticism and extraversion in youth. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 40, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brutus, S.; Aguinis, H.; Wassmer, U. Self-Reported Limitations and Future Directions in Scholarly Reports: Analysis and Recommendations. J. Manag. 2012, 39, 48–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antil, J.H. Conceptualization and Operationalization of Involvement. In Advances in Consumer Research; Kinnear, T.C., Ed.; Association for Consumer Research: Provo, UT, USA, 1984; pp. 203–209. [Google Scholar]
- Lang, F.R.; John, D.; Lüdtke, O.; Schupp, J.; Wagner, G.G. Short assessment of the Big Five: Robust across survey methods except telephone interviewing. Behav. Res. Methods 2011, 43, 548–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, M.K.; Turban, E. A trust model for consumer internet shopping. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2001, 6, 75–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Component 1 (Online Review Writing) Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.846 | Component 2 (Online Review Use) Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.853 | |
---|---|---|
ORU1: When deciding on purchasing different products, I ____ use online reviews (1—never, 7—always). | 0.074 | 0.846 |
ORU2: When deciding on which restaurants to go to, I ____ use online reviews. | 0.336 | 0.705 |
ORU3: When deciding on which hotel to stay at, I ____ use online reviews. | 0.154 | 0.873 |
ORU4: When deciding on which places to visit, I ____ use online reviews. | 0.165 | 0.838 |
ORW1: I ______ post online reviews about my restaurant experiences. | 0.926 | 0.120 |
ORW2: I ______ post online reviews about my hotel experiences after I stay at a hotel. | 0.874 | 0.175 |
ORW3: I ______ post online reviews about different products that I buy. | 0.855 | 0.233 |
ORW4: I ______ post online reviews about different places that I visit. | 0.895 | 0.188 |
Step 1 (Model 1a) | Step 2 (Model 1b) | Step 3 (Model 1c) | |
---|---|---|---|
(Constant) | 5.324 *** (0.180) | 3.788 *** (0.402) | 2.860 *** (0.715) |
Gender (male = 0, female = 1) | 0.329 *** (0.084) | 0.291 *** (0.087) | 0.296 *** (0.090) |
Age | −0.008 * (0.003) | −0.009 ** (0.003) | −0.010 ** (0.003) |
Education | 0.003 (0.034) | 0.000 (0.034) | 0.009 (0.034) |
Trust Propensity (H1) | −0.001 (0.030) | 0.035 (0.055) | |
Extraversion (H2) | 0.041 (0.027) | −0.013 (0.051) | |
Openness (H3) | 0.106 ** (0.038) | 0.232 ** (0.075) | |
Conscientiousness (H4) | 0.138 ** (0.044) | 0.183 * (0.083) | |
Neuroticism (H5) | 0.021 (0.027) | 0.033 (0.053) | |
Gender × Trust Propensity (H11a) | −0.048 (0.065) | ||
Gender × Extraversion (H11b) | 0.074 (0.061) | ||
Gender × Openness (H11c) | −0.169 + (0.087) | ||
Gender × Conscientiousness (H11d) | −0.070 (0.098) | ||
Gender × Neuroticism (H11e) | −0.015 (0.062) | ||
R2 | 0.025 | 0.058 | 0.065 |
ΔR2 | 0.025 | 0.033 | 0.007 |
ΔF | 6.870 *** | 5.532 *** | 1.197 |
Step 1 (Model 2a) | Step 2 (Model 2b) | Step 3 (Model 2c) | |
---|---|---|---|
(Constant) | 2.693 *** (0.205) | 1.281 ** (0.446) | 1.355 + (0.758) |
Gender (male = 0, female = 1) | 0.018 (0.096) | −0.006 (0.096) | −0.055 (0.097) |
Age | 0.005 (0.004) | 0.002 (0.004) | 0.002 (0.004) |
Education | −0.058 (0.039) | −0.066 + (0.038) | −0.088 * (0.038) |
Extraversion (H6) | 0.195 *** (0.030) | 0.308 *** (0.055) | |
Openness (H7) | 0.115 ** (0.042) | −0.075 (0.083) | |
Conscientiousness (H8) | 0.007 (0.050) | −0.102 (0.092) | |
Neuroticism (H9) | −0.020 (0.030) | 0.044 (0.056) | |
Agreeableness (H10) | 0.043 (0.044) | 0.234 ** (0.083) | |
Gender × Extraversion (H12a) | −0.155 * (0.065) | ||
Gender × Openness (H12b) | 0.243 * (0.096) | ||
Gender × Conscientiousness (H12c) | 0.160 (0.109) | ||
Gender × Neuroticism (H12d) | −0.089 (0.066) | ||
Gender × Agreeableness (H12e) | −0.261 ** (0.098) | ||
R2 | 0.004 | 0.092 | 0.112 |
ΔR2 | 0.004 | 0.087 | 0.021 |
ΔF | 1.189 | 15.120 *** | 3.665 ** |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kordzadeh, N.; Bozan, K. The Influence of the Big Five Personality Traits and Propensity to Trust on Online Review Behaviors: The Moderating Role of Gender. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2024, 19, 1442-1470. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer19020072
Kordzadeh N, Bozan K. The Influence of the Big Five Personality Traits and Propensity to Trust on Online Review Behaviors: The Moderating Role of Gender. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research. 2024; 19(2):1442-1470. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer19020072
Chicago/Turabian StyleKordzadeh, Nima, and Karoly Bozan. 2024. "The Influence of the Big Five Personality Traits and Propensity to Trust on Online Review Behaviors: The Moderating Role of Gender" Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 19, no. 2: 1442-1470. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer19020072
APA StyleKordzadeh, N., & Bozan, K. (2024). The Influence of the Big Five Personality Traits and Propensity to Trust on Online Review Behaviors: The Moderating Role of Gender. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 19(2), 1442-1470. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer19020072