Configuring the Evolving Role of eWOM on the Consumers Information Adoption
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Materials and Methods
4. Results
4.1. Model Estimation Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)
4.1.1. Data Cleansing
4.1.2. Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (EFA/CFA)
4.2.3. Path Analysis Outcomes
5. Discussion
6. Conclusion
6.1. Implications
6.2. Theoretical and Practical Contribution
6.3. Future Research Directions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Bronner, F.; De Hoog, R. Consumer-generated versus marketer-generated websites in consumer decision making. Int. J. Mark. Res. 2010, 52, 231–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keisidou, E.; Sarigiannidis, L.; Maditinos, D. Consumer characteristics and their effect on accepting online shopping, in the context of different product types. Int. J. Bus. Sci. Appl. Manag. (IJBSAM) 2011, 6, 31–51. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, M.; Youn, S. Electronic word of mouth (eWOM): How eWOM platforms influence consumer product judgement. Int. J. Adv. 2009, 28, 473–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lopez, M.; Sicilia, M. eWOM as source of influence: The impact of participation in eWOM and perceived source trustworthiness on decision making. J. Interact. Advert. 2014, 14, 86–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lever, M.W.; Mulvey, M.S.; Elliot, S. From Hashtags to Shopping Bags: Measuring the Rise of eWOM through Social Media and its Impact on Travelers’ Shopping Patterns. In Proceedings of the International Arctic Change 2017 Conference, Quebec City, QC, Canada, 11–15 December 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Mahmood, S.; Khwaja, M.G.; Jusoh, A. Electronic word of mouth on social media websites: Role of social capital theory, self-determination theory, and altruism. Int. J. Space Based Situated Comput. 2019, 9, 74–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bilal, M.; Jianqiu, Z.; Akram, U.; Tanveer, Y.; Sohaib, M.; Raza, M.A.A. The Role of Motivational Factors for Determining Attitude Towards eWOM in Social Media Context. Int. J. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 2020, 16, 73–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, Y.; Kim, H.J. Positive and negative eWOM motivations and hotel customers’ eWOM behavior: Does personality matter? Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 75, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khwaja, M.G.; Jusoh, A.; Nor, K.M. Does online social presence lead to purchase intentions? Int. J. Econ. Policy Emerg. Econ. 2019, 12, 198–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roy, G.; Datta, B.; Mukherjee, S.; Basu, R. Effect of eWOM stimuli and eWOM response on perceived service quality and online recommendation. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2020, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prantl, D.; Micik, M. Analysis of the significance of eWOM on social media for companies. Eco. Manag. 2019, 22, 182–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, T.; Abound Omran, B.; Cobanoglu, C. Generation Y’s positive and negative eWOM: Use of social media and mobile technology. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 29, 732–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erkan, I.; Evans, C. The influence of eWOM in social media on consumers’ purchase intentions: An extended approach to information adoption. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 61, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, T.Y.; Lin, C.A. Predicting the effects of eWOM and online brand messaging: Source trust, bandwagon effect and innovation adoption factors. Telemat. Inform. 2017, 34, 470–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matute, J.; Polo-Redondo, Y.; Utrillas, A. The influence of EWOM characteristics on online repurchase intention: Mediating roles of trust and perceived usefulness. Online Inf. Rev. 2016, 40, 1090–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, Y.; Kim, J. Influence of Cultural Orientations on Electronic Word-of-Mouth (eWOM) in Social Media. J. Intercult. Commun. Res. 2019, 48, 292–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fatma, M.; Ruiz, A.P.; Khan, I.; Rahman, Z. The effect of CSR engagement on eWOM on social media. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2020, 28, 941–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gurney, L.; Eveland, J.J.; Guzman, I.R. “What you say, I buy!” Information Diagnosticity and the Impact of Electronic Word-of-Mouth (eWOM) Consumer Reviews on Purchase Intention. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Computers and People Research Conference, Nashville, TN, USA, 20–22 June 2019; pp. 183–189. [Google Scholar]
- Khwaja, M.G.; Mahmood, S.; Zaman, U. Examining the Effects of eWOM, Trust Inclination, and Information Adoption on Purchase Intentions in an Accelerated Digital Marketing Context. Information 2020, 11, 478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bashir, S.; Khwaja, M.G.; Rashid, Y.; Turi, J.A.; Waheed, T. Green Brand Benefits and Brand Outcomes: The Mediating Role of Green Brand Image. SAGE Open 2020, 10, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ananda, A.S.; Hernandez-Garcia, Á.; Acquila-Natale, E.; Lamberti, L. What makes fashion consumers “click”? Generation of eWoM engagement in social media. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2019, 31, 398–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suwandee, S.; Surachartkumtonkun, J.; Lertwannawit, A. EWOM firestorm: Young consumers and online community. Young Consum. 2019, 21, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bashir, S.; Khwaja, M.G.; Mahmood, A.; Turi, J.A.; Latif, K.F. Refining e-shoppers’ perceived risks: Development and validation of new measurement scale. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 58, 102285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, M.C.; Prayag, G.; Fieger, P.; Dyason, D. Beyond panic buying: Consumption displacement and COVID-19. J. Serv. Manag. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laato, S.; Islam, A.N.; Farooq, A.; Dhir, A. Unusual purchasing behavior during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic: The stimulus-organism-response approach. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 57, 102224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Maghrabi, T.; Dennis, C.; Halliday, S.V.; BinAli, A. Determinants of customer continuance intention of online shopping. Int. J. Bus. Sci. Appl. Manag. 2011, 6, 41–66. [Google Scholar]
- Bernon, M.; Bastl, M.; Zhang, W.; Johnson, M. Product recalls: The effects of industry, recall strategy and hazard, on shareholder wealth. Int. J. Bus. Sci. Appl. Manag. 2018, 13, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
- Le-Hoang, P.V. The effects of Electronic Word of Mouth (eWOM) on the adoption of consumer eWOM information. Indep. J. Manag. Prod. 2020, 6, 1760–1777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hussain, S.; Guangju, W.; Jafar, R.M.S.; Ilyas, Z.; Mustafa, G.; Yang, J. Consumers’ online information adoption behavior: Motives and antecedents of electronic word of mouth communications. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 80, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khwaja, M.G.; Jusoh, A.; Nor, K.M.; Mahmood, S. Determining the role of Quality Management Practices on Organizational Performance using Balanced Scorecard Approach with the moderating effects of Culture: An Empirical Investigation. In Proceedings of the Gsom Emerging Markets Conference, St. Petersburg, Russia, 4–6 October 2018; pp. 237–239. [Google Scholar]
- Bashir, S.; Khwaja, M.G.; Turi, J.A.; Toheed, H. Extension of planned behavioral theory to consumer behaviors in green hotel. Heliyon 2019, 5, 29–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Danniswara, R.; Sandhyaduhita, P.; Munajat, Q. The impact of EWOM referral, celebrity endorsement, and information quality on purchase decision: A case of Instagram. In Global Branding: Breakthroughs in Research and Practice; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2020; pp. 882–905. [Google Scholar]
- Evgeniy, Y.; Lee, K.; Roh, T.W. The Effect of eWOM on Purchase Intention for Korean-brand Cars in Russia: The Mediating Role of Brand Image and Perceived Quality. J. Korea Trade 2019, 23, 102–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tien, D.H.; Rivas, A.A.A.; Liao, Y.K. Examining the influence of customer-to-customer electronic word-of-mouth on purchase intention in social networking sites. Asia Pac. Manag. Rev. 2019, 24, 238–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bashir, S.; Khwaja, M.G. Pakistani Hotels Industry: A New Paradigm to Investigate Visitors Decision-Making Process. Asia Proc. Soc. Sci. 2018, 2, 219–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Statista. eCommerce. Available online: https://www.statista.com/outlook/243/294/ecommerce/pakistan#market-age (accessed on 30 September 2020).
- Zeb, Y. Pakistan’s Ecommerce Market Is over Rs.50 Billion. Research Snipers. Available online: https://www.researchsnipers.com/pakistans-ecommerce-market-is-over-rs-50-billion/ (accessed on 30 September 2020).
- Hussain, S.; Ahmed, W.; Jafar, R.M.S.; Rabnawaz, A.; Yang, J. eWOM source credibility, perceived risk and food product customer’s information adoption. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 66, 96–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saleem, A.; Ellahi, A. Influence of Electronic Word of Mouth on Purchase Intention of Fashion Products on Social Networking Websites. Pak. J. Comm. Soc. Sci. 2017, 11, 597–622. [Google Scholar]
- Chu, S.C.; Kim, Y. Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites. Int. J. Advert. 2011, 30, 47–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ngarmwongnoi, C.; Oliveira, J.S.; AbedRabbo, M.; Mousavi, S. The implications of eWOM adoption on the customer journey. J. Consum. Mark. 2020, 37, 749–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, C.; Luo, X.R.; Schatzberg, L.; Sia, C.L. Impact of informational factors on online recommendation credibility: The moderating role of source credibility. Decis. Support Syst. 2013, 56, 92–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khwaja, M.G.; Jusoh, A.; Nor, K.M. Does Electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) on Social Media leads to Information Adoption? Empirical Evidence from the Emerging Markets! Int. J. Recent Technol. Eng. 2019, 8, 3281–3288. [Google Scholar]
- Yun, J.J.; Kim, D.; Yan, M.R. Open Innovation Engineering—Preliminary Study on New Entrance of Technology to Market. Electronics 2020, 9, 791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khwaja, M.G.; Mahmood, S.; Jusoh, A. Online information bombardment! How does eWOM on social media lead to consumer purchase intentions? Int. J. Grid Util. Comput. 2020, 11, 857–867. [Google Scholar]
- Hwangbo, H.; Kim, J. A text mining approach for sustainable performance in the film industry. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Melancon, J.P.; Dalakas, V. Consumer social voice in the age of social media: Segmentation profiles and relationship marketing strategies. Bus. Horiz. 2018, 61, 157–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Behrens, J. The Effects of Familiarity and Online Consumer Reviews, on Consumers’ Trust, Risk Perception, and Behavioral Intentions. Master’s Thesis, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Walsh, G.; Schaarschmidt, M.; Ivens, S. Effects of customer-based corporate reputation on perceived risk and relational outcomes: Empirical evidence from gender moderation in fashion retailing. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2017, 26, 227–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pitta, D.A.; Fowler, D. Online consumer communities and their value to new product developers. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2005, 14, 283–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gunawan, D.D.; Huarng, K.H. Viral effects of social network and media on consumers’ purchase intention. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 2237–2241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sussman, S.W.; Siegal, W.S. Informational influence in organizations: An integrated approach to knowledge adoption. Inf. Syst. Res. 2003, 14, 47–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Davis, F.D. Technology acceptance model. J. Manag. Sci. 1989, 35, 982–1003. [Google Scholar]
- Babic, A.; Sotgiu, F.; De Valck, K.; Bijmolt, T.H. 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]
- Bhandari, M.; Rodgers, S. What does the brand say? Effects of brand feedback to negative eWOM on brand trust and purchase intentions. Int. J. Advert. 2018, 37, 125–141. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F., Jr.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Lowry, P.B.; Gaskin, J. Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling (SEM) for building and testing behavioral causal theory: When to choose it and how to use it. IEEE Trans. Prof. Comm. 2014, 57, 123–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaman, U.; Jabbar, Z.; Nawaz, S.; Abbas, M. Understanding the soft side of software projects: An empirical study on the interactive effects of social skills and political skills on complexity–performance relationship. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2019, 37, 444–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaman, U.; Nawaz, S.; Tariq, S.; Humayoun, A.A. Linking transformational leadership and “multi-dimensions” of project success: Moderating effects of project flexibility and project visibility using PLS-SEM. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2019, 13, 103–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaman, U. Examining the effect of xenophobia on “transnational” mega construction project (MCP) success: Moderating role of transformational leadership and high-performance work (HPW) practices. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2020, 27, 1119–1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yun, J.J.; Cooke, P.; Park, J. Evolution and variety in complex geographies and enterprise policies. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2017, 25, 729–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ismagilova, E.; Slade, E.L.; Rana, N.P.; Dwivedi, Y.K. The effect of electronic word of mouth communications on intention to buy: A meta-analysis. Inf. Syst. Front. 2020, 22, 1203–1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yun, J.J.; Won, D.; Park, K. Entrepreneurial cyclical dynamics of open innovation. J. Evol. Econ. 2018, 28, 1151–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaman, U.; Nadeem, R.D.; Nawaz, S. Cross-country evidence on project portfolio success in the Asia-Pacific region: Role of CEO transformational leadership, portfolio governance and strategic innovation orientation. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2020, 7, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Items | Category | Frequency | Percentage |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Female | 207 | 59.8% |
Male | 139 | 40.2% | |
Age | Below 18 years | 12 | 3.5% |
18–23 years | 278 | 80.3% | |
24–29 years | 39 | 11.3% | |
30–35 years | 14 | 4.0% | |
36 years and above | 3 | 0.9% | |
Internet usage frequency | At least one time in a day | 320 | 92.5% |
At least one time in two days | 24 | 6.9% | |
At least one time in a week | 2 | 0.6% | |
Internet shopping frequency | Less than one time in every 180 days | 18 | 5.2% |
At least one time in every 180 days | 73 | 21.1% | |
At least one time in every 90 days | 84 | 24.3% | |
At least one time in every 30 days | 137 | 39.6% | |
At least one time in a week | 34 | 9.8% |
Variables | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | SD | Skewness | Kurtosis | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Statistic | Statistic | Statistic | Statistic | Statistic | SE | Statistic | SE | |
PvdRisk | 1.00 | 5.00 | 2.6942 | 0.64096 | −0.007 | 0.131 | −0.452 | 0.261 |
Trust | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.2965 | 0.68395 | −0.402 | 0.131 | 0.169 | 0.261 |
InfUse | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.6899 | 0.62933 | −0.729 | 0.131 | 1.471 | 0.261 |
Objctvty | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.2353 | 1.36284 | −0.371 | 0.131 | −1.126 | 0.261 |
Exprtnes | 1.00 | 5.00 | 2.2179 | 0.91688 | −0.125 | 0.131 | −1.218 | 0.261 |
Homo | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.7544 | 0.57019 | −0.662 | 0.131 | 1.309 | 0.261 |
AQ | 1.00 | 5.00 | 2.1383 | 0.50870 | −0.155 | 0.131 | −0.137 | 0.261 |
TrtWorth | 1.00 | 5.00 | 2.2072 | 0.72919 | 0.711 | 0.131 | 0.423 | 0.261 |
InfoAdp | 1.00 | 5.00 | 3.4301 | 0.47721 | −0.683 | 0.131 | 1.542 | 0.261 |
Constructs and Items | Ρ | λ | α | C.R | AVE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Expertness | |||||
Exp1 | 0.811 | 0.699 | 0.917 | 0.875 | 0.639 |
Exp2 | 0.742 | 0.807 | |||
Exp3 | 0.888 | 0.746 | |||
Exp4 | 0.833 | 0.927 | |||
Homophily | |||||
Homo1 | 0.872 | 0.840 | 0.919 | 0.919 | 0.739 |
Homo2 | 0.867 | 0.914 | |||
Homo3 | 0.847 | 0.861 | |||
Homo4 | 0.836 | 0.823 | |||
Objectivity | |||||
Obj1 | 0.991 | 0.982 | 0.950 | 0.949 | 0.862 |
Obj2 | 0.849 | 0.860 | |||
Obj3 | 0.938 | 0.939 | |||
Trustworthiness | |||||
TW1 | 0.732 | 0.804 | 0.913 | 0.917 | 0.734 |
TW2 | 0.849 | 0.853 | |||
TW3 | 0.945 | 0.903 | |||
TW4 | 0.873 | 0.864 | |||
Information Usefulness | |||||
InUse1 | 0.875 | 0.877 | 0.770 | 0.879 | 0.710 |
InUse2 | 0.907 | 0.911 | |||
InUse3 | 0.682 | 0.729 | |||
Perceived Risk | |||||
PR1 | 0.704 | 0.728 | 0.869 | 0.771 | 0.529 |
PR2 | 0.779 | 0.773 | |||
PR3 | 0.682 | 0.678 | |||
Argument Quality | |||||
AQ1 | 0.593 | 0.674 | 0.914 | 0.910 | 0.594 |
AQ2 | 0.836 | 0.853 | |||
AQ3 | 0.697 | 0.775 | |||
AQ4 | 0.692 | 0.781 | |||
AQ5 | 0.923 | 0.790 | |||
AQ6 | 0.950 | 0.827 | |||
AQ7 | 0.630 | 0.676 | |||
Trust Inclination | |||||
Trt1 | 0.704 | 0.796 | 0.873 | 0.875 | 0.701 |
Trt2 | 0.857 | 0.848 | |||
Trt3 | 0.893 | 0.865 | |||
Information Adoption | |||||
IU1 | 0.938 | 0.816 | 0.789 | 0.792 | 0.656 |
IU2 | 0.587 | 0.803 | |||
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s value = 0.874; Chi—square (df = 528) = 7997.012, P = 0.000 | |||||
Measurement model fit statistics: | |||||
a. Absolute fit indices | |||||
Chi square (χ2) = 586.114, degree of freedom (df) = 455, P = 0.000, Chi square/degree of freedom (χ2/df) = 1.288, SRMR = 0.038, AGFI = 0.888, GFI = 0.909, RMSEA = 0.029 | |||||
b. Incremental fit indices | |||||
TLI = 0.980, NFI = 0.929 and CFI = 0.983 |
Constructs | MSV | AQ. | Homo. | TW. | Exp. | Obj. | InUse. | Trt. | PR. | InAdp. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AQ. | 0.297 | 0.771 | ||||||||
Homo. | 0.344 | 0.370 | 0.860 | |||||||
TW. | 0.165 | 0.406 | 0.264 | 0.857 | ||||||
Exp. | 0.113 | 0.001 | 0.028 | 0.006 | 0.799 | |||||
Obj. | 0.113 | 0.114 | 0.139 | 0.069 | −0.336 | 0.928 | ||||
InUse. | 0.424 | 0.283 | 0.565 | 0.245 | 0.106 | 0.000 | 0.843 | |||
Trt. | 0.297 | 0.545 | 0.537 | 0.263 | 0.101 | 0.071 | 0.415 | 0.837 | ||
PR. | 0.146 | 0.379 | 0.326 | 0.382 | 0.048 | 0.220 | 0.136 | 0.322 | 0.727 | |
InAdp. | 0.424 | 0.384 | 0.586 | 0.233 | 0.158 | 0.075 | 0.651 | 0.529 | 0.266 | 0.810 |
Hypotheses | Relationships | Path Coefficients | T-Statistics | p-Values | Outcomes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1(a) | Exp → PR | 0.127 ** | 2.638 | <0.01 | Accepted |
H1(b) | TW → PR | 0.355 ** | 7.598 | <0.01 | Accepted |
H1(c) | Obj → PR | 0.234 ** | 4.807 | <0.01 | Accepted |
H1(d) | Homo → PR | 0.236 ** | 5.006 | <0.01 | Accepted |
H2 | PR → InUse | 0.164 ** | 3.086 | <0.01 | Accepted |
H3 | PR → AQ | 0.440 ** | 3.974 | <0.01 | Accepted |
H4 | AQ → TRT | 0.478 ** | 9.101 | <0.01 | Accepted |
H5 | InUse → TRT | 0.315 ** | 7.521 | <0.01 | Accepted |
H6 | TRT → InAdp | 0.592 ** | 13.626 | <0.01 | Accepted |
H7 | eWOM → InAdp | 0.588 ** | 10.621 | <0.01 | Accepted |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Khwaja, M.G.; Zaman, U. Configuring the Evolving Role of eWOM on the Consumers Information Adoption. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 125. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6040125
Khwaja MG, Zaman U. Configuring the Evolving Role of eWOM on the Consumers Information Adoption. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity. 2020; 6(4):125. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6040125
Chicago/Turabian StyleKhwaja, Muddasar Ghani, and Umer Zaman. 2020. "Configuring the Evolving Role of eWOM on the Consumers Information Adoption" Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 6, no. 4: 125. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6040125