The summary of the hypotheses to be examined as argued in the literature review are proposed as the following: Hypothesis 1a: Perceived informativeness is higher for consumers with high level of expertise when provided with reviews framed as attribute centric than reviews framed as benefit centric. (Cognitive fit hypothesis) Hypothesis 1b: Perceived informativeness is higher for consumers with low level of expertise when provided with reviews framed as benefit centric than reviews framed as attribute centric (Cognitive fit hypothesis) Hypothesis 2a: For consumers with high expertise reviews framed as attribute-centric have a stronger effect on the purchase intention than reviews framed as benefit centric. Hypothesis 2b: For consumers with low expertise reviews framed as benefit-centric have a stronger effect on the purchase intention than reviews framed as attribute centric. Hypothesis 3a: In the high involvement condition, the impact of attribute centric reviews on purchase intention is greater than the impact of benefit centric reviews Hypothesis 3b: In the low involvement condition, the impact of benefit centric reviews on purchase intention is greater than the impact of attribute centric reviews Hypothesis 3c: In the high involvement condition, the impact of attribute centric reviews on attitude towards the product is greater than the impact of benefit centric reviews. Hypothesis 3d: In the low involvement condition, the impact of benefit centric reviews on attitude towards the product is greater than the impact of attribute centric reviews Hypothesis 4a: Attribute centric reviews will lower the effect of perceived risk in the high involvement situation than benefit centric reviews
Education Level School graduate 9 6,1% University graduate 64 43,2% Master 70 47,3% Ph.D. 3 2% Not Applicable 2 1,4% Nationality Dutch 25 16,9% German 5 3,4% Greek 95 64,2% Italian 14 9,5% Spanish 2 1,4% Other 6 4,1% Not Applicable 1 0,7% Age 18-30 122 82,4% 31-50 22 14,9% Over 51 2 1,4% Not Applicable 2 1,4% Monthly Income (in euros) <500 26 17,6% 501-1000 79 53,4% 1001-1500 11 7,4% 1501-2000 12 8,1% 2001-2500 6 4,1% >2501 7 4,7% Not Applicable 7 4,7% Descriptive statistics The following table demonstrates the means, standard deviation and variance of the moderator variable consumer’s expertise, the control variables, and all the dependent variables. Table 2: Descriptive statistics Mean Std. Deviation Variance
Moderator: Consumer’s expertise 4.41 1.41 1.99 Control: Review’s Positiveness 6.10 0.95 0.99 General Credibility towards e-WOM 4.97 1.19 1.41 Susceptibility towards e-WOM 4.90 1.27 1.61 Dependent: Informativeness 4.36 1.41 2.00 Purchase intention 4.01 1.63 2.67 Attitude towards the product 4.82 1.26 1.61 Perceived risk 3.90 1.58 2.51 The following histograms aim at showing the normal distribution among the observations. Figures 7-15: Histograms indicating the normal distribution
TypeofReview * Expertise 1 574.956 0.000 Error 144 R Squared = ,807 (Adjusted R Squared = ,803) According to table 5, the main effect of type of review on informativeness is F (1,144) =0.041, p=0.839. Also, the main effect of expertise on informativeness is non-significant, F (1,144) =0.001, p=0.970. On the other hand there is a significant interaction effect between type of review and expertise, F (1,144) =574.956, p<0.001. More specifically, in the attribute-centric reviews condition, novices scored M=2.087 on informativeness, while experts scored M=5.740. In the benefit-centric condition, novices scored M=5.714 while experts scored M=2.050 Simple effects tests revealed that experts score higher on informativeness when provided with attribute centric-reviews than benefit-centric reviews, F (1,144) =269.470, p<0.001, while novices score higher when provided with benefit-centric reviews rather than attribute centric reviews, F (1,144) =307.929, p<0.001. Hence hypothesis 1a and 1b are supported. Table 6: Univariate tests for informativeness Attribute vs Benefit df F Sig. Attribute-centric Contrast 1 269.470 0.000 Error 144 Benefit-centric Contrast 1 307.929 0.000 Error 144 5.1.2 Purchase Intention Table 7: Descriptive statistics of purchase intention
TypeofReview *Involvement 1 0.135 0.714 Error 144 R Squared =0.019 (Adjusted R Squared = -0,002) According to table 13, the main effect of type of review on attitude towards the product in non-significant, F (1,144) = 2.117, p = 0.148. Also, the main effect of involvement on attitude towards the product is non-significant, F (1,144) = 0.324, p = 0.570. Finally the interaction effect between type of review and involvement is F (1,144) = 0.135, p =0.714. Consequently, hypothesis 3c and 3d are rejected. 5.1.4 Perceived risk Table 14: Descriptive statistics for perceived risk Attribute vs Benefit High vs Low Involvement Mean N Attribute-centric High Involvement 3,4807 40 Low Involvement 2,6869 33 Total 3,1218 73 Benefit-centric High Involvement 4,0294 34 Low Involvement 1,7805 41 Total 2,8000 75 Total High Involvement 3,7328 74 Low Involvement 2,1847 74 Total 2,9587 148 Table 14 demonstrates the descriptive statistics of perceived risk under the effects of involvement and type of review. It should be mentioned that the means of involvement differ significantly for each level of type of review. Besides, the total scores of type of review and the total scores of involvement seem to have great differences. In an effort to certify that these differences are significant the following table summarizes all the ANOVA results. Table 15: Results of two-way ANOVA on perceived risk df F Sig. TypeofReview 1 0.406 0.525 significant,
Involvement 1 29.375 0.000 TypeofReview *Involvement 1 6.718 0.011 Error 144 R Squared = 0.208 (Adjusted R Squared = 0.191) Concerning table 15, the main effect of type of review on perceived risk is F (1,144) =0.406, p =0.525. It is quite interesting the fact that the main effect of Involvement on perceived risk is significant, F (1,144) =29.375, p<0.001.Specifically, respondents in the high involvement condition gave higher scores on perceived risk than respondents in the low involvement condition (Mhigh- involvement=3.755 vs. Mlow-involvement=2.234. Moreover, there was a significant interaction effect between type of review and involvement, F (1,144) = 6.718, p<0.05. Specifically, participants who received attribute-centric reviews in the high involvement condition had lower risk perception than those who received benefit centric reviews (Mattribute-centric=3.481 vs. Mbenefit-centric=4.029). On the contrary in the low involvement condition benefit centric reviews seemed to lower the effects of risk perception (Mattribute-centric=2.687 vs. Mbenefit-centric=1.780). Simple effects revealed that the effect of attribute-centric reviews was lower on perceived risk for the high involvement condition than the effect of benefit centric reviews, F (1,144) = 3.944, p<0.05. On the other hand, the effect of benefit-centric reviews on perception of risk is lower for the low involvement condition than the effect of the benefit-centric reviews, F (1,144) =32.543, p<0.001. Hence, Hypotheses 4a and 4b are supported. Table 16: Univariate tests for perception of risk Attribute vs Benefit df F Sig. Attribute-centric Contrast 1 3.944 0.049 Error 144 Benefit-centric Contrast 1 32.543 0.000 Error 144 Results of the three way ANOVAs 5.2.1 The cognitive fit and the effect of Involvement on informativeness Table 17: Descriptive statistics of informativeness significant,
Table 22: Univariate tests on purchase intention Attribute vs Benefit High vs Low Involvement df F Sig. Attribute-centric High Involvement Contrast 1 214.100 0.000 Error 140 Low Involvement Contrast 1 81.071 0.000 Error 140 Benefit-centric High Involvement Contrast 1 203.966 0.000 Error 140 Low Involvement Contrast 1 159.390 0.000 Error 140 5.2.3 The cognitive fit and the effect of Involvement on attitude towards the product Table 23: Descriptive statistics of attitudes towards the product Attribute vs Benefit Expert vs Novices High vs Low Involvement Mean N Attribute-centric Novice High Involvement 1,9143 14 Low Involvement 2,5455 11 Total 2,1920 25 Expert High Involvement 6,2577 26 Low Involvement 5,7364 22 Total 6,0188 48 Total High Involvement 4,7375 40 Low Involvement 4,6727 33 Total 4,7082 73 Benefit-centric Novice High Involvement 6,3158 19 Low Involvement 5,9250 16 Total 6,1371 35 Expert High Involvement 1,9467 15 Low Involvement 2,9120 25 Total 2,5500 40 Total High Involvement 4,3882 34 Low Involvement 4,0878 41 Total 4,2240 75 Total Novice High Involvement 4,4485 33 Low Involvement 4,5481 27 Total 4,4933 60