Causal Relationship between Electronic Word of Mouth and Purchase Intention of Consumers in Thailand

Main Article Content

Kittinart Nunthong


This empirical research aims 1) to investigate the antecedents of electronics word-of-mouth (eWOM) of consumers in Thailand 2) to analyze confirmatory factors of electronic word-of-mouth affecting purchase intention of consumers in Thailand and 3) to study antecedents of electronics word-of-mouth affecting purchase intention of consumers in Thailand. This research used mixed method and content analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data. The results were consistent with the literature review. In the quantitative research, the structural model results indicated model fit with the empirical data. Volume was positively affected purchase intention. Volume and argument quality positively affected purchase intention via information usefulness and eWOM. Valence and source credibility positively affected purchase intention via eWOM credibility and eWOM. The eWOM antecedents explained purchase intention 74% at significant level .05

Article Details

Research Articles


Abedi, E., Ghorbanzadeh, D., & Rahehagh, A. (2020). Influence of eWOM information on consumers’

behavioral intentions in mobile social networks: Evidence of Iran. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 17(1), 84-109.

Abramyk, H. (2020). Top 10 review websites to get more customer reviews on (2020). Retrieved June 1, 2023, from

American Psychological Association. (2021). APA dictionary of psychology. Retrieved June 2, 2023, from

Anastasiei, B., & Dospinescu, N. (2019). Electronic word-of-mouth for online retailers: Predictors of

volume and valence. Sustainability, 11(3), 1-19.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 50(2), 179-211.

Awad, N. F., & Ragowsky, A. (2008). Establishing trust in electronic commerce through online word of

mouth: An examination across genders. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(4), 101–121.

Beneke, J., de Sousa, S., Mbuyu, M., & Wickham, B. (2016). The effect of negative online customer

reviews on brand equity and purchase intention of consumer electronics in South Africa. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 26(2), 1-31.

Bhattacherjee, A., & Sanford, C. (2006). Influence processes for information technology acceptance:

An elaboration likelihood model. MIS Quarterly, 30(4), 805-825.

Bilal, M., Jianqiu, Z., Dukhaykh, S., Fan, M., & Trunk, A. (2021). Understanding the effects of eWOM antecedents on online purchase intention in China. Information, 12(5), 192.

Blazevic, V., Hammedi, W., Garnefeld, I., Rust, R. T., Keiningham, T., Andreassen, T. W., Donthu, N., & Carl, W. (2013). Beyond traditional word‐of‐mouth: An expanded model of customer‐driven influence. Journal of Service Management, 24(3), 294-313.

Bobkowski, P. S. (2015). Sharing the news: Effects of informational utility and opinion leadership on

online news sharing. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92(2), 320-345.

Borghi, M., & Mariani, M. (2021). Service robots in online reviews: An empirical study of online robotic

discourse. Annals of Tourism Research, 87, 1-9.

Cheung, C. M., Lee, M. K., & Rabjohn, N. (2008). The impact of electronic word‐of‐mouth: The adoption of

online opinions in online customer communities. Internet Research, 18(3), 229-247.

Cheung, C. M. Y., Sia, C. L., & Kuan, K. K. Y. (2012). Is this review believable? A study of factors

affecting the credibility of online consumer reviews from an ELM perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(8), 618-635.

Cheung, C. M. K., & Thadani, D. R. (2012). The impact of electronic word-of-mouth communication:

A literature analysis and integrative model. Decision Support System, 54(1), 461-470.

Cyr, D., Head, M., Lim, E., & Stibe, A. (2018). Using the elaboration likelihood model to examine

online persuasion through website design. Information & Management, 55(7), 807-821.

Erkan, I., & Evans, C. (2016). The influence of eWOM in social media on consumers’ purchase

intentions: An extended approach to information adoption. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 47-55.

Fang, Y. H. (2014). Beyond the credibility of electronic word of mouth: Exploring eWOM adoption

on social networking sites from affective and curiosity perspectives. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 18(3), 67-102.

Filieri, R. (2016). What makes an online consumer review trustworthy? Annals of Tourism Research,

, 46-64.

Ghosh, A., Varshney, S., & Venugopal, P. (2014). Social media WOM: Definition, consequences and

inter-relationships. Management and Labour Studies, 39(3), 293-308.

Hajli, N. (2020). The impact of positive valence and negative valence on social commerce purchase intention. Information Technology & People, 33(2), 774-791.

Hameedunissa, M., Nisha, A. R., & Sundary, T. (2021). Buyer behavioural impact of electronic word of mouth among youngsters towards smart watches in chennai city. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 12(10), 5723-5726.

Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2003). Electronic word-of- mouth:

Motives for and consequences of reading customer articulations on the Internet.

International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 4(8), 51-74.

Heryana, D. K., & Yasa, N. N. K. (2020). Effect of electronic word of mouth on repurchase intention

mediated by brand attitude. International Research Journal of Management, IT & Social Sciences, 7(2), 9-20.

Hong, S., & Pittman, M. (2020). eWOM anatomy of online product reviews: Interaction effects of review number, valence, and star ratings on perceived credibility. International Journal of

Advertising, 39(7), 892-920.

Hsieh, J. K., & Li, Y. J. (2020). Will you ever trust the review website again? The importance of source

credibility. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 24(2), 255-275.

Hui, T. X. (2017). The effect of source credibility on consumers’ purchase intention in Malaysia

online community. Journal of Arts & Social Sciences, 1(1), 12– 20.