Research on Influencing Factors of Advertisements Sharing Behavior of Users on WeChat Moments in China

LIAO Bingyi, LI Yanran, LIU Shiyun

Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication ›› 2021, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (2) : 118-140.

PDF(1605 KB)
PDF(1605 KB)
Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication ›› 2021, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (2) : 118-140.
Advertisement Research

Research on Influencing Factors of Advertisements Sharing Behavior of Users on WeChat Moments in China

Author information +
History +

Abstract

Internet provides a new channel for people to share information with their friends, includingadvertisements. However, it is not obvious why people share advertisements to their acquaintances online, and what factors play a critical role in affecting advertisements sharing behavior. To find out the answer to the questions, this study uses social capital theory and social cognition theory, and selects the personal motivation dimension, advertising content dimension and advertising source dimension to explore the influencing factors of advertisements sharing behavior among WeChat Moments users. By analyzing the data from the questionnaire survey, we find that knowledge self-efficacy has significant influence on advertisements sharing behavior. Perceived advertisements quality also influence advertisements sharing behavior. The trust among members, the authority of advertising sources and the credibility of media are all the important factors influencing advertisements sharing behavior.

Key words

WeChat moments / social network / internet users / advertisements sharing / influencing factors

Cite this article

Download Citations
LIAO Bingyi , LI Yanran , LIU Shiyun. Research on Influencing Factors of Advertisements Sharing Behavior of Users on WeChat Moments in China[J]. Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication. 2021, 43(2): 118-140

References

[1]
A·班杜拉(2003). 《自我效能:控制的实施》(缪小春等译). 上海: 华东师范大学出版社.
[2]
崔珍(2016). 《微信朋友圈的自我呈现:“社交货币”理论的视角》.南昌大学新闻与传播学院硕士论文.南昌.
[3]
丁水平, 林杰(2020). 社会化媒体环境下消费者持续信息共享意愿影响因素实证研究——基于信息搜寻和信息分享的同步视角. 《情报科学》,(4),133-141.
[4]
李永宁, 吴晔, 杨濮宇, 张伦(2019). 内容为王:社交短视频平台的知识传播机制研究. 《新闻与写作》,(6),23-32.
[5]
盛东方, 孙建军(2016). 国外虚拟社区环境下知识分享行为影响因素研究综述. 《情报科学》, 34(9),166-172.
[6]
腾讯(2020). 2019微信数据报告.检索于 https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/vmhoiRzpBs7-JK_x2a7gZw.
[7]
谭春辉, 王一君(2020). 微信朋友圈信息分享行为影响因素分析. 《现代情报》,(2),84-95+102.
[8]
汤胤, 徐永欢, 张萱(2016). 基于社会认知理论的社交媒体用户转发行为研究. 《图书馆工作与研究》,(6),68-76.
[9]
王少剑, 汪玥琦(2015). 社会化媒体内容分享意愿的影响因素研究——以微博用户转发行为为例. 《西安电子科技大学学报(社会科学版)》,(1),24.
[10]
武欣, 吴志明, 张德(2005). 组织公民行为研究的新视角. 《心理科学进展》,(2),211-218.
[11]
王曰芬, 贾新露, 李冬琼(2017). 微信学术信息共享意图影响因素研究. 《图书与情报》,(3),9-18.
[12]
伍翎瑄(2015). 微信朋友圈的自我呈现及其策略的影响因素. 《科技传播》,(6),104.
[13]
徐光, 张雪, 李志刚, 田也壮(2016). 基于虚拟社区感知与社区参与动机影响的社会资本与组织公民行为关系研究. 《管理评论》,(7),213-225.
[14]
徐颖, 郭雯君, 张梦柳(2018). 企业微博内容呈现特性对信息渗透度的作用机理研究——基于情绪认知理论的研究. 《图书情报工作》,(21),96-104.
[15]
左文明, 王旭, 樊偿(2014). 社会化电子商务环境下基于社会资本的网络口碑与购买意愿关系. 《南开管理评论》,(4),140-150+160.
[16]
中关村互动营销实验室(2020). 《2019中国互联网广告发展报告》完整版.检索于 https://www.imz-lab.com/article.html?id=13.
[17]
中国互联网络信息中心CNNIC(2019). 第43次中国互联网络发展状况统计报告.检索于 http://www.cnnic.net.cn/hlwfzyj/hlwxzbg/hlwtjbg/201902/P020190318523029756345.pdf.
[18]
中国互联网络信息中心CNNIC(2020). 第45次中国互联网络发展状况统计报告.检索于 http://www.cnnic.net.cn/hlwfzyj/hlwxzbg/hlwtjbg/202004/P020200428596599037028.pdf.
[19]
A.Bandura.(1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency, American Psychologist, 37(2), 122-147.
[20]
Bandura.(1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vista(Ed.), Six theories of child development:Annals of child development (Vol. 6). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
[21]
Andrews D., Preece J., & Turoff M.(2002). Aconceptualframework for demographic groups resistant to on-line community interaction. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6(3), 9-24.
[22]
Aral S., Dellarocas C., & Godes D.(2013). Introduction to the special issue-social media and business transformation: aframework for research. Information Systems Research, 24(1), 3-13.
Social media are fundamentally changing the way we communicate, collaborate, consume, and create. They represent one of the most transformative impacts of information technology on business, both within and outside firm boundaries. This special issue was designed to stimulate innovative investigations of the relationship between social media and business transformation. In this paper we outline a broad research agenda for understanding the relationships among social media, business, and society. We place the papers comprising the special issue within this research framework and identify areas where further research is needed. We hope that the flexible framework we outline will help guide future research and develop a cumulative research tradition in this area.
[23]
Bailey J. E., & Pearson S.W.(1983). Development of a tool for measuring and analyzing computer user satisfaction. Management Science, 29(5), 530-545.
This paper reports on a technique for measuring and analyzing computer user satisfaction. Starting with the literature and using the critical incident interview technique, 39 factors affecting satisfaction were identified. Adapting the semantic differential scaling technique, a questionnaire for measuring satisfaction was then created. Finally, the instrument was pilot tested to prove its validity and reliability. The results of this effort and suggested uses of the questionnaire are reported here.
[24]
Bansal H.S., & Voyer P.A.(2000). Word-of-mouth processes within a services purchase decision context. Journal of Service Research, 3(2), 166-177.
This article investigates the processes of word of mouth (WOM) within a services purchase decision context. The authors argue that to understand these processes, researchers must examine the role of interpersonal influences in the traditional WOM models based within the noninterpersonal paradigm. As a result of the current investigation, three distinct relations emerge: first, the effect of the noninterpersonal forces (receiver’s expertise, receiver’s perceived risk, and sender’s expertise) on the influence of WOM on service purchase decisions; second, the effect of the interpersonal forces (ties strength and how actively WOM is sought) on the influence of WOM on service purchase decisions; and third, the effects of noninterpersonal forces on interpersonal forces. Managerial implications and avenues for future research are addressed.
[25]
Bartol K.M., Srivastava A.(2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: the role of organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership andOrganizational Studies, 9(1), 64.
[26]
Bonner B.L., Baumann M.R., Lehn A.K., Pierce D.M., & Wheeler E.C.(2006). Modeling collective choice:decision making on complex intellectivetasks. European journal of social psychology, 36(5), 617-633.
[27]
Brown J., Broderick A.J., & Lee N.(2007). Word of mouth communication within online communities: conceptualizing the online social network. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21(3), 2-20.
[28]
Chai S., & Kim M.(2010). What makes bloggers share knowledge? An investigation on the role of trust, International Journal of Information Management, 30(5), 408-415.
[29]
Chen C.W., Chang M.L., Tseng C.P., Chen B.C., & Chang Y.Y.C. (2012). Retracted: critical human factor evaluation of knowledge sharing intention in Taiwanese enterprises. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 23(2), 95-106.
[30]
Coleman J.S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge,US: Harvard University Press.
[31]
Compeau D., & Higgins C.(1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189-211.
This paper discusses the role of individuals’ beliefs about their abilities to competently use computers (computer self-efficacy) in the determination of computer use. A survey of Canadian managers and professionals was conducted to develop and validate a measure of computer self-efficacy and to assess both its impacts and antecedents. Computer self-efficacy was found to exert a significant influence on individuals’ expectations of the outcomes of using computers, their emotional reactions to computers (affect and anxiety), as well as their actual computer use. An individual’s self-efficacy and outcome expectations were found to be positively influenced by the encouragement of others in their work group, as well as others’ use of computers. Thus, self-efficacy represents an important individual trait, which moderates organizational influences (such as encouragement and support) on an individual’s decision to use computers. Understanding self-efficacy, then, is important to the successful implementation of systems in organizations. The existence of a reliable and valid measure of self-efficacy makes assessment possible and should have implications for organizational support, training, and implementation.
[32]
Davenport T.H. & Prusak L.(1998). Working knowledge :how organization manage what they know. Boston, US: Harvard Business School Press.
[33]
Evans L. (2010). Social media marketing: strategies for engaging in Face-book, Twitter and other social media.Retrieved from http://lib.myilibrary.com?ID=269209.
[34]
Gaber H.R. & Wright L.T. (2014). Fast-food advertising in social media.A case study on Facebook in Egypt. Journal of Business &RetailManagementResearch, 9(1), 52.
[35]
Hair J.F., Anderson R.E., Tatham R.L., & Black W.C.(1995). Multivariate data analysis. New Jersey,US:PrenticeHall.
[36]
Hsu M.H., & Chiu C.M. (2004). Predicting electronic service continuance with a decomposed theory of planned behavior. Behaviour& Information Technology, 23(5), 359-373.
[37]
Hsu M.H., Ju T. L., Yen C.H., & Chang C.M. (2007). Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual communities: The relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(2), 153-169.
[38]
Kankanhalli A., Tan B., & Wei K. (2005). Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 113-143.
Organizations are attempting to leverage their knowledge resources by employing knowledge management (KM) systems, a key form of which are electronic knowledge repositories (EKRs). A large number of KM initiatives fail due to the reluctance of employees to share knowledge through these systems. Motivated by such concerns, this study formulates and tests a theoretical model to explain EKR usage by knowledge contributors. The model employs social exchange theory to identify cost and benefit factors affecting EKR usage, and social capital theory to account for the moderating influence of contextual factors. The model is validated through a large-scale survey of public sector organizations. The results reveal that knowledge self-efficacy and enjoyment in helping others significantly impact EKR usage by knowledge contributors. Contextual factors (generalized trust, pro-sharing norms, and identification) moderate the impact of codification effort, reciprocity, and organizational reward on EKR usage, respectively. It can be seen that extrinsic benefits (reciprocity and organizational reward) impact EKR usage contingent on particular contextual factors whereas the effects of intrinsic benefits (knowledge self-efficacy and enjoyment in helping others) on EKR usage are not moderated by contextual factors. The loss of knowledge power and image do not appear to impact EKR usage by knowledge contributors. Besides contributing to theory building in KM, the results of this study inform KM practice.
[39]
Klaus Wertenbroch & Ravi Dhar.(2012). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian Goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(7), 66-71.
[40]
Lazega E., & Burt R.S. (1995). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Revue Française de Sociologie, 36(4), 779.
[41]
Li Hairong, Terry Daugherty & Frank Biocca. (2002). Impact of 3-D advertising on product knowledge, brand attitude,and purchase intention: the mediating role of presence. Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 43-57.
[42]
López M., Sicilia M., & Verlegh P. W. J.(2017). “Click like if you like it”: the effect of directional posts on social network sites. Online Information Review, 41(5), 672-690.
Social network sites (SNSs) are an important part of consumers’ everyday lives, and have been recognized as a useful marketing channel. However, little is known about how brands should communicate in order to be more effective and maximize the diffusion of electronic word of mouth (eWOM) in these platforms. The purpose of this paper is to explore the effect of directional posts on consumers depending on previous diffusion of the post and consumers’ connectivity.
[43]
Luarn P., & Lin H.H. (2005). Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use mobile banking. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(6), 873-891.
[44]
Ma M., & Agarwal R. (2007). Through a glass darkly: information technology design,identity verification, and knowledge contribution in online communities. Information Systems Research. 18 (1), 42-67.
A variety of information technology (IT) artifacts, such as those supporting reputation management and digital archives of past interactions, are commonly deployed to support online communities. Despite their ubiquity, theoretical and empirical research investigating the impact of such IT-based features on online community communication and interaction is limited. Drawing on the social psychology literature, we describe an identity-based view to understand how the use of IT-based features in online communities is associated with online knowledge contribution. Specifically, the use of four categories of IT artifacts—those supporting virtual co-presence, persistent labeling, self-presentation, and deep profiling—is proposed to enhance perceived identity verification, which thereafter promotes satisfaction and knowledge contribution. To test the theoretical model, we surveyed more than 650 members of two online communities. In addition to the positive effects of community IT artifacts on perceived identity verification, we also find that perceived identity verification is strongly linked to member satisfaction and knowledge contribution. This paper offers a new perspective on the mechanisms through which IT features facilitate computer-mediated knowledge sharing, and it yields important implications for the design of the supporting IT infrastructure.
[45]
McMillan D. W., & Chavis D. M. (1986). Sense of community: a definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6-23.
[46]
Mckee S. (2010). Creative B2B branding(No, Really). Oxford,UK: Goodfellow Publishers Ltd.
[47]
Munar A.M., & Jacobsen J. K. S. 2014). Motivations for sharing tourism experiences through social media. Tourismm Management, 43(4), 46-54.
[48]
Nahapiet & Ghoshal.(1998). Social capital,intellectualcapital,and the organizationaladvantage, Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266.
[49]
Oh S., & Syn S.Y.(2015). Motivations for sharing information and social support in social media: A comparative analysis of Facebook, Twitter, Delicious, YouTube, and Flickr. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(10), 2045-2060.
[50]
Park C.W., & Young S.M.(1986). Consumer response to television commercials: the impacts of involvement and background music on brand attitude formation. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(1), 11-24.
Past research has examined the effect of level of involvement (high vs. low) on subjects’ reactions to persuasive communications. The authors suggest that high involvement can be differentiated into two types (cognitive vs. affective). By manipulating involvement level and type (low involvement, cognitive involvement, affective involvement), they show that the three different forms of involvement have different effects on how brand attitudes are formed. They also examine how music, as a peripheral persuasion cue, affects the process of brand attitude formation. The results indicate that the effect of music on brand attitude depends on the type and level of involvement. Music had a facilitative effect on brand attitude for subjects in the low involvement condition and a distracting effect for those in the cognitive involvement condition; its effect for those in the affective involvement condition was not clear. Alternative explanations of these results are offered and implications for advertising research are discussed.
[51]
Petty R.E., & Cacioppo J.T. (1984). Source factors and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research, 23(11), 668.
[52]
Igbaria M., & Iivari J. (1995). The effects of self-efficacy on computer usgae. Omega, 23(6), 587-605.
[53]
Ratchford B.T.(1987). New insights about the FCB grid, Journal of Advertising Research, 27 (4), 24-38.
[54]
Ratheshwar S., & Chaiken S.(1991). Comprehension’role in persuasion: the case of its moderating effect on the persuasive impact of source cues. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(6), 52-62.
[55]
Ridings C., Gefen D., & Arinze B.(2002). Some antecedents and effects of trust in virtual communities. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3-4), 271-295.
[56]
Rindfleisch & Moorman.(2002). The acquision and utilization of information in new product alliance:A Strength-of-Ties. Perspective Journal Marketing, 65(2), 1-18.
[57]
Sedighi M., Lukosch S., Brazier F., Hamedi M., & van Beers C. (2018). Multi-level knowledge sharing: the role of perceived benefits in different visibility levels of knowledge exchange. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(6), 1264-1287.
This paper aims to explore the relationships between participants’ perceived benefits of sharing knowledge privately, within a group or with the general public within an organisational knowledge network. The quality and quantity of knowledge shared are explored in relation to the level of knowledge sharing visibility (both content and participants’ profiles).
[58]
Shen G. C.C., Chiou J.S., Hsiao C.H., Wang C.H., & Li H.N. (2016). Effective marketing communication via social networking site: The moderating role of the social tie. Journal of Business Research, 69(6), 2265-2270.
[59]
Vaughan R.(1993). How advertising work: a planning model. Journal of Advertising Research, Special Issue, 22-28.
[60]
Walker M. E., Wasserman S., & Wellman B. (1993). Statistical models for social support networks. Sociological Methods & Research, 22(1), 71-98.
[61]
Wang Y., & Fesenmaier D. R. (2004). Towards understanding members’ general participation in and active contribution to an online travel community. Tourism Management, 25(6), 709-722.
[62]
Wang R.Y., & Strong D.M. (1996). Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data consumers. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(4), 5-34.
[63]
Wasko, & Faraj.(2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 35.
[64]
Wilson E.J., & Sherrell D.L.(1993). Source effects in communication and persuasion research:A meta-analysis of effect size, Journal Academy Marketing Science, 21(Spring), 101-112.
[65]
Xu H., Oh L.B., & Teo H.H.(2009). Perceived effectiveness of text vs. multimedia location-based advertising messaging. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 7(2), 154-177.
[66]
Yu T.K., Lu L.C., & Liu T.F. (2010). Exploring factors that influence knowledge sharing behavior via weblogs. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(1), 32-41
[67]
Zeitham, V.A., & Parasuraman, A.(1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60 (2), 31-46.
[68]
Zhang L., Peng T.Q., Zhang Y.P., Wang X.H., & Zhu J.J.H.(2014). Content or context: Whichmatters more in information processingonmicroblogging sites. Computers inHuman Behavior, 31(1), 242-249.

Funding

Key Research Base of Humanities and Social Sciences of the Ministry of Education(16JJD860002)
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities(413100035)
PDF(1605 KB)

Accesses

Citation

Detail

Sections
Recommended

/