Journal of Business Research 59 (2006) 449 – 456

eWOM: The impact of customer-to-customer online know-how

exchange on customer value and loyalty
Thomas W. Gruen a,*, Talai Osmonbekov b, Andrew J. Czaplewski a
a
University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, USA
b
University of Southern Mississippi, USA

Received 31 July 2005; accepted 20 October 2005

Abstract

This paper investigates the effects of a specific form of electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) communication, customer-to-customer know-how
exchange, on customer perceptions of value and customer loyalty intentions. In addition, the paper explores the antecedents of customer-to-
customer know-how exchange overlooked in prior research: motivation, opportunity, and ability. The survey results from 616 participants of an
online forum suggest that customer know-how exchange impacts customer perceptions of product value and likelihood to recommend the product,
but does not influence customer repurchase intentions. Interestingly, opportunity did not impact know-how exchange, whereas motivation and
ability did have a significant effect. Implications for managers and future research directions are discussed.
D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: eWOM; Know-how exchange; Motivation; Opportunity; Ability; Customer value; Internet survey; Customer-to-customer; C2C

1. Introduction tion for customers (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004). Similar to

The importance of word-of-mouth communication (WOM)
has long been a topic of considerable importance to marketing
researchers and practitioners for a number of reasons. WOM
has been shown to have a significant impact on consumer
choice (Katz and Lazarfeld, 1955; Engel et al., 1969; Arndt,
1967; Richins, 1983), as well as post-purchase product
perceptions (Bone, 1995). Importantly, WOM has been shown
in situations to be more effective than the traditional marketing
tools of personal selling and various types of advertising (Katz
and Lazarfeld, 1955; Engel et al., 1969). Interest in WOM
communication has been revitalized in marketing practice
through its proposed role in fashion and other ‘‘epidemics’’
(Gladwell, 2002), as well as through its role in virtual
communities (Hagel and Armstrong, 1997).
More specifically, the Internet has emerged as a source and
an outlet for electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) communica-
* Corresponding author. Graduate School of Business and Administration,
University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, Dwire Hall, 1430 Austin Bluffs
Parkway, Colorado Springs, CO 80918, USA. Tel.: +1 719 262 3335; fax: +1
719 262 3494.
E-mail address: tgruen@uccs.edu (T.W. Gruen).
0148-2963/$ - see front matter D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.10.004
WOM, research has shown that eWOM may have higher
credibility, empathy and relevance to customers than marketer-
created sources of information on the Web (Bickart and
Schindler, 2001). Researchers recognize that by participating
in eWOM, customers derive both social and economic value
(Balasubramanian and Mahajan, 2001) and therefore may have
different motivations in using or generating eWOM (Hennig-
Thurau et al., 2004). However, little is known on the impact of
eWOM on customer economic value perceptions (benefits –
costs) and customer loyalty intentions.
It is the purpose of this paper to contribute to the existing
knowledge in this area in two primary ways. First, we explore
the impact of eWOM on customer economic value perceptions
and loyalty intentions. We examine economic value as it
accrues to the brand owner (as opposed to the firm that hosts
the eWOM venue), and loyalty as measured by repurchase
intentions and recommendations. Recognizing that marketers
seek to directly influence the value of the firm’s offering
received by the customer as well as the customer’s ongoing
loyalty, in this paper we examine the way and the degree to
which those customers that engage in eWOM contribute
additional value and additional influence on loyalty intentions.
Second, focusing on a specific form of eWOM, customer-to-
450 T.W. Gruen et al. / Journal of Business Research 59 (2006) 449 – 456
customer (C2C) know-how exchange (von Hippel, 1988), we
examine the eWOM phenomenon from a novel perspective of
motivation, opportunity and ability (MOA) theory. The notions
of opportunity and ability to engage in eWOM may be
particularly relevant in the online environment as it requires
additional skills and conditions that are not a factor in
traditional WOM. In order to examine these areas, we first
delineate some critical concepts of WOM and their develop-
ment in previous research, as well as recent research in eWOM.
The earliest research (Katz and Lazarfeld, 1955) found that
WOM is more effective in influencing consumer purchase than
advertising or personal selling. Consequent research corrobo-
rated their findings across various products and services (Engel
et al., 1969) as well as distinguishing between effects of
positive versus negative WOM (Arndt, 1967; Richins, 1983).
Further, Brown and Reingen (1987) explored the differences of
WOM effects originating from Fweak ties_ versus Fstrong ties_.
Drawing on Granovetter’s (1973) theory on interpersonal
connections being Fstrong_ and Fweak_ based on importance,
frequency of contact and social relation, they found that
informational WOM comes primarily from Fweak ties_ and
most influential WOM originates from Fstrong ties_. Addition-
ally, Duhan et al. (1997) found that consumers choose weak-tie
sources when instrumental cues are important to them and they
have higher levels of subjective knowledge. Richins and Root-
Shaffer (1988) link both enduring and situational involvement
as well as opinion leadership to product news WOM, advice
WOM and personal experience WOM. On the outcome side,
Bone (1995) finds that WOM can influence immediate and
delayed product judgments and that the effect is stronger when
the consumer faces an ambiguous experience and WOM source
is perceived to be from an expert.
Recent studies have examined WOM on the Internet. For
instance, Bickart and Schindler’s (2001) findings suggest that
product information on online forums has greater credibility,
relevance and more likely to evoke empathy with consumers
than information on marketer-designed websites. Hennig-
Thurau et al. (2004) delve into various factors that motivate
Motivation
to engage in
C2C H4a
exchanges
Ability C2C Know-
to engage in H4b how Exchange
C2C
exchanges
H4c
Opportunity
to engage in
C2C
exchanges
Fig. 1. Overall model of customer-to-customer know-how exchange.
consumers to engage in online WOM and participate in online
forums. They found that eWOM participants exhibit a similar
set of motivations as participants of traditional WOM. Such
findings suggest that WOM mechanisms act in the same
manner on the Internet; in other words eWOM effects on
consumers may be very similar to WOM effects. However, just
like in the physical world, any economic leverage of eWOM
may elude marketers as customers learn how to separate social
value received by interaction with other customers from
economic transactions with a company (Balasubramanian and
Mahajan, 2001). In the next section we explore the impact of
eWOM on perceived value of the firm’s offering and customer
loyalty intentions in order to attempt to gauge the effects of
eWOM.
2. Conceptual framework
As an overview of the model, we propose that the perceived
utilitarian value individuals receive and their subsequent
loyalty intentions can be influenced by C2C know-how
exchange. In addition to motivation, an individual’s opportu-
nity and ability to engage in C2C know-how exchange are
hypothesized to facilitate C2C exchange (see Fig. 1).
2.1. Customer-to-customer know-how exchange
eWOM can take a variety of forms, and thus can result in
various forms of value to the participants. eWOM participants
may derive economic, utilitarian, or social value (Balasubra-
manian and Mahajan, 2001; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004). One
example of eWOM that primarily results in generation of
utilitarian value is know-how exchange. Know-how is defined
as the accumulated practical skill or expertise that allows one to
do something smoothly or efficiently (von Hippel, 1988).
Know-how is a type of knowledge that is tacit, complex, and
difficult to codify. It enhances an individual’s or an organiza-
tion’s potential to effectively and efficiently complete tasks,
and has been viewed as a source of sustainable advantage
Loyalty
Intentions
H2
-Repurchase
-Word of
Mouth
H1 H3
Overall Value
of the Firm’s
Offering
 T.W. Gruen et al. / Journal of Business Research 59 (2006) 449 – 456
(Dyer and Nobeoka, 2000). In general, C2C know-how
exchange is viewed as the interactions among individuals that
serve as an information source that enhances competency and
knowledge. Individuals may be involved in such exchange to
acquire ‘‘the skills necessary to better understand, use, operate,
modify and/or repair a product’’ (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004, p.
43). Thus, some participants in know-how exchange are
gaining direct utilitarian value. Others may derive hedonic
value such as self-enhancement from participation as one feels
good about helping other users to solve problems or answer
questions about a product’s use (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004).
Know-how exchange has been studied in the innovation
literature and deemed to be an important facilitator of standard
setting and innovation (von Hippel, 1988) as well as for the
diffusion of innovations (Rogers, 1983). Know-how exchange
could also be viewed as the activation of Fweak ties_ as the
professionals that are involved in the exchange are generally
not personally close to each other (Brown and Reingen, 1987).
This view of ‘‘weak ties’’ may be especially true in the eWOM
scenario, as it generally encompasses geographically and
culturally dispersed customers. Consistent with WOM litera-
ture, we explore know-how exchange as an important and
reliable source of information for customers in their decision
process. Our operationalization of the C2C know-how ex-
change construct reflects such conceptualization.
2.2. Outcomes of C2C know-how exchange
2.2.1. Overall value of the firm’s offering
Marketing as a discipline has embraced as a core concept
the notion of value (Vargo and Lusch, 2004), which is
generally viewed as the perception of benefits received by
the customer from the offering provided by the firm in relation
to the cost or sacrifice made to obtain those benefits (Zeithaml,
1988). The foundation for any ongoing buyer –seller relation-
ship is the ability of the supplying firm to deliver fundamental
value to the customer (Parasuraman et al., 1991). It is the
primary job of the marketer to provide value to the customer,
and organizations manipulate the marketing mix to enhance the
value of their offering to their targeted segment. Fig. 1 shows
that C2C know-how exchange can provide an additional source
of perceived benefits to the participating customer and unlock
the value that customers may overlook without know-how
exchange. For example, in an Internet discussion forum formed
around a product (e.g. SPSS software package), eWOM occurs
in the form of suggestions among users on how to best tap the
features of the software, or through exchange of questions and
answers that provide users a means to gain additional benefits
from the product that may not have been realized without the
C2C exchange. The resulting increase in competency about the
product impacts the perceived utilitarian value of the product to
the customer. Additionally, the eWOM information may be
viewed as more credible, relevant and emphatic than market-
ing-provided sources of information (Bickart and Schindler,
2001). As noted earlier, eWOM may be considered primarily as
an activation of weak ties in order to obtain information on
specific features of a product. The interest of the participants in
451
such instrumental evaluative cues increases the likelihood of
activation of Fweak ties_, including eWOM (Duhan et al.,
1997), and may impact customer perceptions of the product
(Bone, 1995). Thus we offer the following hypothesis:
H1. C2C know-how exchange positively impacts the custo-
mer’s perceived overall value of the firm’s offering.
2.2.2. C2C know-how exchange and loyalty intentions
Relationship managers are interested in the loyalty
intentions of customers who have been successfully attracted
to the firm’s offering (Bhattacharya, 1998; Sheth and
Parvatiyar, 1995). We restrict our examination of loyalty
intentions to include the repurchase of the firm’s offering and
WOM as an outcome (Richins, 1983) of the C2C know-how
exchange. We consider positive WOM as expressed in
customers’ willingness to recommend the product to others.
An individual’s intention for repeat purchase is the plan of
the customer to repurchase or upgrade a product. The
rationale for the proposed direct effect of know-how
exchange on loyalty intentions is supported by the norm of
reciprocity (von Hippel, 1988), where obligations among
parties in the know-how exchange are formed to reciprocate
value received. These obligations suggest that there is a cost
to leaving the organization, which includes the loss of
important relationships built through informal know-how
trading (Cohen, 1992). Burnham et al. (2003) classify such
costs as a specific type of switching cost termed ‘‘personal
relationship loss costs’’. Customers engaged in C2C know-
how exchange may develop affective bonds with other
customers, which in turn may influence their loyalty
intentions toward the venue hosting the exchange, as well
as to the product involved, by association. Based on the
above discussion, we hypothesize:
H2. C2C know-how exchange positively impacts the custo-
mer’s loyalty intentions.
2.2.3. Overall value of the firm’s offering and loyalty intentions
It is not the primary goal of this study to enhance
understanding of the well-established linkage between the
value received by a customer and their future intentions (e.g.,
Zeithaml et al. (1996) discuss this in detail). However, the
conceptual and empirical understanding of the model is
dependent on recognizing this link. In our model, an
individual’s perception of the overall value received from
the firm’s offering will have a major bearing on the
individual’s loyalty intentions. The key issue for this study
is whether or not the overall value of the firm’s offering fully
mediates the relationship of C2C know-how exchange to
loyalty intentions, or if there is a direct effect in addition to
the increased perceived value. Therefore we offer the
following hypothesis:
H3. The higher the level of the overall value the customer
receives from the firm’s offering, the greater the level of loyalty
intentions.
452 T.W. Gruen et al. / Journal of Business Research 59 (2006) 449 – 456
2.3. Antecedents to C2C know-how exchange: MOA theory
2.3.1. MOA—defining and delineating
Originally proposed by MacInnis and Jaworski (1989),
MOA theory posits that the degree to which individuals
process information is based on three factors: motivation,
opportunity, and ability. Thus, communication effectiveness
can be proactively managed by enhancing individuals’ levels
of the MOA elements (MacInnis et al., 1991). Since C2C
know-how exchange serves as an information source, MOA
theory is applicable in this context. Motivation is commonly
viewed as a force that directs individuals toward goals
(MacInnis and Jaworski, 1989; Hoyer and MacInnis, 1997).
Based on MOA theory, motivation incorporates readiness,
willingness, interest, and desire to engage in information
processing (MacInnis et al., 1991). Extending this to our
context, motivation is defined as a member’s desire or
readiness to engage in know-how exchange with other
members. Opportunity reflects the extent to which a
situation is conducive to achieving a desired outcome
(MacInnis and Jaworski, 1989) or the lack of impediments
for achieving a desired outcome (MacInnis et al., 1991). One
of the primary advantages of eWOM is the notion of
‘‘constant’’ opportunity to interact with others, regardless of
time or place. Thus, on the Internet, opportunity is assumed
to be generally available, and the focus becomes the
restrictions an individual faces (e.g., time, connection
availability, organizational policies) on participating in the
know-how exchange.
Ability is the extent to which consumers have the
necessary resources (e.g., knowledge, intelligence, money)
to make an outcome happen (Hoyer and MacInnis, 1997).
In MOA theory, ability has been conceptualized as the
consumers’ skills or proficiencies (MacInnis et al., 1991).
We emphasize this definition of ability as it restricts the
phenomenon to that of competency in the process driving
know-how exchanges, as opposed to competency in the
content of the know-how that is being exchanged. Extend-
ing the original definition to our context, we define ability
as the member’s skills or proficiencies to engage in know-
how exchanges with other members. Individuals with high
levels of ability would possess the relevant knowledge
structures to engage in C2C know-how exchanges. Without
the necessary skills, even a motivated individual is not
likely to engage in C2C know-how exchanges. In summary,
we propose the three component MOA model to be a robust
explanation of the likely success of individuals to engage in
C2C know-how exchanges. Therefore we present the
following hypotheses:
H4a. The higher the level of the member’s motivation, the
higher the level of C2C know-how exchange.
H4b. The higher the level of the member’s opportunity, the
higher the level of C2C know-how exchange.
H4c. The higher the level of the member’s ability, the higher
the level of C2C know-how exchange.
3. Methodology
3.1. Research design and sample
The context for the study was the Internet user forum of a
popular software product (henceforth, the Forum). The Forum
is a website for users of an application software product used in
video editing, where users exchange know-how through
threaded discussions. The Forum is formed and run indepen-
dently from the corporation that produces the software. Due to
the nature of their field, all of approximately 5000 registered
(but non-dues-paying) members of the Forum use the Internet.
To obtain responses, the Forum’s sponsor placed a pop-up
invitation to respond to an online survey. Respondents were
offered a summary of the results as an incentive for responding.
This resulted in more than 200 completed responses. While we
expected a natural bias (i.e., those more committed to the
Forum would also be the ones more likely to complete the
questionnaire), we were concerned that the initial method for
collecting data could amplify this. Thus, the sponsors sent a
single-wave e-mail invitation to all members, resulting in 450
additional responses, for a total sample of 659. We eliminated
incomplete or duplicate responses to arrive at 616, more than
12% of the population. Our response rate is similar response
rates that are being reported elsewhere (e.g. www.harrisinter-
active.com). As a check for consistency between the two waves
and a check for non-response bias, independent sample t-tests
comparing the two waves showed that there were neither
statistical nor practically significant differences between the
two groups of respondents.
3.2. Scale development and pretest
Using the construct definitions, the background and
suggestions for measuring MOA by MacInnis et al. (1991),
and following the recommended scale purification steps by
Churchill (1979), new composite measures were developed to
measure motivation, opportunity, and ability. Motivation,
ability, C2C know-how exchange, and overall value, were
multi-item reflective scales, and each of these scales contained
six items. We used a single item to measure purchase loyalty
intentions, and two items to measure word-of-mouth loyalty
intentions. The opportunity construct was operationalized as
the barriers that prevent members from participating in the
community. An examination of the four decision rules for
determining whether a construct is formative or reflective
offered by Jarvis et al. (2003), clearly indicates that the
measurement model for opportunity should be treated as
formative. The latent construct, opportunity, cannot be viewed
as ‘‘causing’’ the measures, but rather the indicators as a group
forms the meaning of the construct. The nature of independent
constraints where an individual may have a single major
constraint (e.g., connection speed), but little or none on other
items (e.g., organizational policies), suggests that the indicators
could correlate, but this is not a necessary requirement for
evaluating the validity of the construct measures (Fornell and
Bookstein, 1982).
 T.W. Gruen et al. / Journal of Business Research 59 (2006) 449 – 456 453

3.3. Measurement analysis, scale refinement, and validation
The 24 items that measured motivation, ability, C2C know-
how exchange, and value of the firm’s offering were examined
using a principal components analysis with a varimax rotation.
For motivation, all six items loaded adequately on the expected
factor. For ability, two of the six items had lower than
acceptable loadings and were eliminated from further analysis.
The factor analysis generated two distinct factors for the scale
of C2C know-how exchange, as well as for the scale measuring
the value of the firm’s offering. For C2C know-how exchange,
four of the six items produced one factor that focused on the
forum itself, while the remaining two items specifically
addressed the inputs (i.e., postings) of the individual to the
forum, and formed a second factor. Thus we used only the
intended four-item factor in further analysis. For the six items
measuring overall product value, four of the items loaded on a
factor that reflected the perceived overall return and value of
the software product to the individual. The final two items
loaded on a second factor that reflected the individual’s overall
capability in using the software. Examining this second factor,
we determined that it did not reflect the construct, and thus
used only the four-item factor in the model analysis.
We ran a confirmatory factor analysis on the remaining 18
items. The results showed that three of the items used to
measure motivation were cross loading onto the C2C know-
how exchange factor. In order to assure discriminant validity of
the measures, these three items were not used in the final
analysis (See Table 1 for final items). The final confirmatory
factor analysis showed adequate fit (chi-square with 84
df = 478; CFI = 0.927, AGFI = 0.856, RMR = 0.062) with each
item loading heavily on its expected factor and no substantial
cross-loadings. Table 1 lists the final 23 items used in the
analysis and reports the factor loadings from the 15 remaining
items examined in the confirmatory factor analysis, as well as
the reliability estimates for all multi-item reflective scales.
Opportunity was measured as a formative scale. For
opportunity, a single item represented each of the five identified
restrictions, and the total opportunity restriction ‘‘score’’ for
each individual was calculated using the mean of the five items
(each item was weighted equally). Loyalty intentions could be
considered a second-order factor that is reflected by both
repurchase and WOM, but the initial correlation analysis
indicated that the effect of C2C exchange might differ from
word-of-mouth as opposed to future product purchase inten-
tions. Thus, rather than creating a single score for the future
intentions construct, the single item used to measure purchase
intentions was separated from the two word-of-mouth intentions
items, as shown in Fig. 2. The two word-of-mouth items were
averaged to form a single composite score for each respondent.
3.4. Testing of the hypothesized model
For the structural model estimation, a single scale score
represented each of the four constructs measured using
reflective scales. To create this score, responses for each item
for the respective scale were averaged to create a single
composite score for each respondent. This approach is similar
to that commonly used in previous marketing studies (see
MacKenzie et al., 1998; Gruen et al., 2000; Perdue and
Summers, 1991). The means, standard deviations, and correla-
tions among the measures are reported in Table 2. The
hypothesized structural model was estimated using Amos 4.0
(Arbuckle and Wothke, 1999).

Table 1
Final measurement items
Construct and reliability
Motivation a = 0.767
Ability a = 0.837
Opportunity (formative measure)
Customer-to-customer know-how
exchange a = 0.864
Overall value a = 0.916
Loyalty intentions: purchase
Loyalty intentions: word-of-mouth
Item (measured on 7-pt scales, strongly disagree – strongly agree) Loading
The topics of discussion in the forum are generally relevant to me. 0.658
I am always interested in the issues being discussed on the forum. 0.743
Being on the forum energizes me. 0.777
I generally find it easy to exchange ideas with other Internet forum participants. 0.770
I can communicate clearly on Internet user forums. .0775
I am generally good at navigating within the forum. 0.753
I consider myself very skilled in using the forum. 0.701
In general, I find that I just don’t have enough time to spend on the forum. NA
My organization has a policy that restricts my Internet access for uses such as the forum.
My organization frowns upon participation in Internet-based forums.
I am often frustrated by the downtime of the forum.
If my Internet connection was faster, I would use the forum more frequently.
Overall, the Forum is an important source of information for me. 0.833
I find the interaction among forum users enhances my knowledge. 0.847
I can depend on the forum to provide answers to my questions. 0.783
In general, the ideas suggested on the forum are reliable. 0.679
The [product name withheld] software offers a good value for the purchase price. 0.886
Overall, the [product name withheld] software provides a good return on my investment of time. 0.855
Overall, the [product name withheld] software provides a good return on the cost of the product. 0.937
[Product name withheld] does a good job of meeting my application needs. 0.740
Regarding your future purchases (or purchase recommendations) in this product category,
what is the likelihood that you will upgrade to the next version of [product name withheld]?
I would recommend [product name withheld] to others in my firm.
I would recommend other [brand name withheld] products to other potential users in my firm.
454 T.W. Gruen et al. / Journal of Business Research 59 (2006) 449 – 456

Loyalty
Motivation Intentions
to engage in -Repurchase
C2C .529
NS
exchanges

.498

Loyalty
Ability C2C Know- Intentions
.327 .087
to engage in how Exchange -Word of
C2C Mouth
exchanges
NS .276

Overall Value .495

Opportunity of the Firm’s
to engage in Offering
C2C
exchanges

Fig. 2. Results of the empirical study.

The final model overall fit was excellent (chi-square = 23.92,
7 df; p = 0.01; NFI = 0.98, CFI = 0.98), and the results of the
analysis are shown in Table 3. The percentage of the variance
explained for the endogenous variables is 52% of C2C know-
how exchange, 8% of overall value, 28% of word-of-mouth
intentions, and 25% of future purchase intentions. In the final
model, Hypothesis 1 proposed a positive effect of C2C know-
how exchange on the overall value, and this hypothesis was
supported. For loyalty intentions, C2C know-how exchange
had a significant effect on word-of-mouth but not on future
purchase intentions, thus providing partial support for Hypoth-
esis 2. The effect of overall value of the firm’s offering on
loyalty intentions was strong as expected, providing support for
Hypothesis 3, and the standardized direct effect was almost
equal to both word-of-mouth and future purchase intentions.
Only two of the three MOA elements, motivation and ability
had significant ( p < 0.05) effects on C2C know-how exchange,
thus providing support for Hypotheses 4a and 4c.
4. Discussion
4.1. Theoretical and managerial implications
The major contribution of this study is to explore impact
that C2C know-how exchange has on customer perceived value
and loyalty intentions. The study found that C2C know-how
exchange affects managerially relevant outcomes, namely the
value of the firm’s offering and the customers’ future
intentions. As a second contribution, we also sought to find a
theoretical and practical explanation that would assist research-
ers and managers as they seek to understand and manage the
exchange of know-how among customers. The proposed
antecedents combined to explain a large portion of the variance
of C2C know-how exchange. Overall, the results provide
evidence that the MOA theory offers a valid approach to
providing theoretical and managerial insight to the phenome-
non of C2C know-how exchanges as a specific type of eWOM.
4.2. C2C know-how exchange, overall value of the firm’s
offering, and loyalty intentions
4.2.1. C2C know-how exchange, overall value, and loyalty
intentions
The study found that the C2C exchange activities had
significant effects on the overall value of the firm’s offering.
Consistent with previous research on eWOM (Bickart and
Schindler, 2001), we find that eWOM communication is
perceived to be a reliable source of information by customers.
Importantly, our findings provide empirical evidence of a direct
benefit of eWOM for a company, overlooked in previous

Table 2
Means, standard deviations, and correlations
Mean Standard deviation 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Motivation 5.20 1.06
2. Opportunity 5.93 0.85 0.035
3. Ability 5.98 0.88 0.396** 0.248**
4. C2C know-how exchange 5.84 0.95 0.658** 0.164** 0.537**
5. Overall value 5.85 1.11 0.203** 0.159** 0.286** 0.276**
6. Loyalty intentions: word-of-mouth 6.44 0.91 0.142* 0.074 0.177** 0.235** 0.518**
7. Loyalty intentions: purchase 6.24 1.21 0.159** 0.045** 0.163** 0.169** 0.498** 0.642**
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
N = 616.
 T.W. Gruen et al. / Journal of Business Research 59 (2006) 449 – 456
Table 3
Estimation of final model
Hypothesis From
H1 C2C know-how exchange
H2a C2C know-how exchange
H2b C2C know-how exchange
H3a Overall value
H3b Overall value
H4a Motivation
H4b Ability
H4c Opportunity
Squared multiple correlations for:
C2C know-how exchange
Overall value
Loyalty/product
Loyalty/word-of-mouth
Model fit:
Chi-square = 23.293; df = 7 ( p = 0.001); NFI = 0.978, CFI = 0.984
N = 616
research (Balasubramanian and Mahajan, 2001), beyond the
intrinsic value derived by customers participating in eWOM
(Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004). The findings suggest that eWOM
communication impacts the perceived overall value of the
firm’s offering in a significant manner. Moreover, we found
that C2C know-how exchange had a direct relationship with
loyalty intentions, as well as an indirect relationship that was
mediated through overall value of the firm’s offering. While
considerable previous research has verified the direct relation-
ship between overall value received from an organization’s
services and the likelihood of repeat business (e.g., Sheth and
Parvatiyar, 1999; Zeithaml et al., 1996; Brady and Robertson,
2001), this research extends the understanding of this
relationship. Our research provides evidence that the percep-
tion of value from the firm’s offering is also impacted by the
value received through interactions with other customers of the
organization. In our study, the effect of C2C exchange on
future purchase intention is completely mediated by overall
value of the firm’s offering.
4.3. MOA and C2C know-how exchange
While motivation and ability perform as expected, the effect
of opportunity on C2C know-how exchange was not signifi-
cant. The lack of a significant effect for opportunity probably
reflects the nature of the context where the ‘‘opportunity’’ to
participate in C2C exchange is ongoing. We also ran into a
measurement issue similar to that encountered by McAlexander
et al. (2002) in that many respondents had ‘‘pegged the scale’’
providing limited variance in the opportunity measures. To
further examine this, we followed a similar approach used by
McAlexander et al. (2002), and ran the analysis using the 30%
(n = 184) of the respondents with the lowest composite
opportunity scores (mean = 4.90, std. dev. = 0.78). The results
of the analysis for this group did show a significant ( p < 0.05)
positive effect of opportunity on C2C know-how exchange.
455
To Standardized estimate t-value
Overall value 0.276 7.109
Loyalty/word-of-mouth 0.087 2.642
Loyalty/product NS
Loyalty/word-of-mouth 0.495 11.473
Loyalty/product 0.498 14.245
C2C know-how exchange 0.529 17.443
C2C know-how exchange 0.327 10.806
C2C know-how exchange NS
SMC
0.524
0.076
0.248
0.276
However, the standardized effect on C2C exchange was
relatively small (0.10), compared with the standardized effect
of motivation (0.49) and ability (0.42). Thus, it appears that
opportunity plays a minor role in the Internet context, and it
also points to the possibility that once a minimum threshold
level of opportunity is provided, increasing levels of opportu-
nity no longer have an impact on C2C exchange.
4.4. Limitations and future research
There are several limitations of this research that should be
noted. Measures of behavioral constructs such as motivation,
ability, opportunity and C2C know-how exchange used in the
empirical study were limited since only a portion of the total
number of items selected from pretesting were used for
estimating the final model. Another limitation with this
research is that it represents a cross-sectional snapshot of a
point in time, while the phenomenon builds over time. This
reduces the ability to make definitive causal statements about
the findings since they are iterative in nature. A longitudinal
study that examines the relationship over time to understand
how C2C know-how exchange might change is called for as a
next step. However, the objective of the research was to
demonstrate that the phenomenon in question does occur and
how it can work. Finally, the focus of the study was to examine
impact of C2C exchange on the perceived value and loyalty
intentions. However, other factors should be considered, for
instance the perceived benefits. The inclusion of other factors
in the model may potentially diminish the overall impact of the
C2C know-how exchange on the perceived value. Future
research should address the limitations of this study and
explore in depth other factors affecting perceived value in order
to reveal the calibrated role that C2C know-how exchange
plays in impacting the perceived value of the firm’s offering.
For instance, complexity of a product may play a moderating
role in such relationship, as the more complex is the product,
456 T.W. Gruen et al. / Journal of Business Research 59 (2006) 449 – 456
the more additional value customers may derive from C2C
know-how exchanges.
Acknowledgments
Web survey programming was done by Amanda Besemer
and Kathleen Chan at Emory University. Thanks to the
Strategic Account Managers Association (SAMA), Creative
Cow Network, and Adobe Corporation for their assistance and
cooperation. We also acknowledge the helpful insights of Ajay
Kohli, John Summers, Pam Ellen, and Lois Mohr on previous
drafts. We would like to thank the editor and two anonymous
reviewers for their generous and insightful guidance.
References
Arbuckle James, Wothke Werner. Amos Users Guide (Version 4.0). Chicago,
Ill.: Smallwaters Corp./SPSS. 1999.
Arndt Johan. Role of product-related conversations in the diffusion of a new
product. J Mark Res 1967;4:291 – 5 [August].
Balasubramanian Sridhar, Mahajan Vijay. The economic leverage of the virtual
community. Int J Electron Commer 2001;5(3):103 – 38.
Bhattacharya CB. When customers are members: customer retention in paid
membership contexts. J Acad Mark Sci 1998;26 – 1:31 – 45.
Bickart Barbara, Schindler Robert M. Internet forums as influential sources of
consumer information. J Interact Market 2001;15(3):31 – 40.
Bone Paula F. Word-of-mouth effects on short-term and long-term product
judgments. J Bus Res 1995;32:213 – 23.
Brady Michael K, Robertson Christopher J. Searching for a consensus on the
antecedent role of service quality and satisfaction: an exploratory cross-
national study. J Bus Res 2001;51 – 1:53.
Brown Jacqueline J, Reingen Peter H. Social ties and word-of-mouth referral
behavior. J Consum Res 1987;14:350 – 62 [December].
Burnham Thomas A, Frels Judy K, Mahajan Vijay. Consumer switching costs:
a typology, antecedents, and consequences. J Acad Mark Sci 2003;31(2):
109 – 26.
Churchill Jr Gilbert A. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
constructs. J Mark Res 1979;16:64 – 73 [February].
Cohen Aaron. Antecedents of organizational commitment across occupational
groups: a meta-analysis. J Organ Behav 1992;13 – 6:539 – 59.
Duhan Dale F, Johnson Scott D, Wilcox James B, Harrell Gilbert D. Influences
on consumer use of word-of-mouth recommendation sources. J Acad Mark
Sci 1997;25(4):283 – 95.
Dyer Jeffrey H, Nobeoka Kentaro. Creating and managing a high-performance
knowledge-sharing network: the Toyota case. Strateg Manage J 2000;21:
345 – 67.
Engel James E, Blackwell Roger D, Kegerreis Robert J. How information is
used to adopt an innovation. J Advert Res 1969;9:3 – 8 [December].
Fornell Claes, Bookstein Fred L. Two structural equation models: LISREL
and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. J Mark Res 1982;19 – 4:
440 – 53.
Gladwell Malcom. The tipping point: how little things can make a big
difference. New York’ Little, Brown and Co.; 2002.
Granovetter Mark S. The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol 1973;78(6):
1360 – 80.
Gruen Thomas W, Summers John O, Acito Frank. Relationship marketing
activities, commitment, and membership behaviors in professional associa-
tions. J Mark 2000;64:34 – 49 [July].
Hagel J, Armstrong AG. Net gain: expanding markets through virtual
communities. Boston, MA’ Harvard Business School Press; 1997.
Hennig-Thurau Thorsten, Gwinner Kevin P, Walsh Gianfranco, Gremler
Dwayne D. Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms:
what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the Internet? J Interact
Market 2004;18(1):38 – 52.
Hoyer Wayne D, MacInnis Deborah. Consumer behavior. Boston’ Houghton
Mifflin; 1997.
Jarvis Cheryl, MacKenzie Scott, Podsakoff Philip. A critical review of
construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing
and consumer research. J Consum Res 2003;30(2):199 – 218.
Katz Elihu, Lazarfeld Paul F. Personal influence. Glencoe, IL’ Free Press; 1955.
MacInnis Deborah J, Jaworski Bernard J. Information processing from
advertisements: toward an integrative framework. J Mark 1989;53:1 – 23
[October].
MacInnis Deborah J, Moorman Christine, Jaworski Bernard J. Enhancing and
measuring consumers’ motivation, opportunity, and ability to process brand
information from ads. J Mark 1991;55:32 – 53 [October].
MacKenzie Scott, Podsakoff Philip, Ahearne Michael. Some possible ante-
cedents and consequences of in-role and extra-role salesperson perfor-
mance. J Mark 1998;62:87 – 98 [July].
McAlexander James H, Schouten John W, Koenig Harold F. Building brand
community. J Mark 2002;66:38 – 54 [January].
Parasuraman A, Berry Leonard L, Zeithaml Valarie A. Understanding customer
expectations of service. Sloan Manage Rev 1991;32(3):39 – 49.
Perdue Barbara C, Summers John O. Purchasing agents’ use of negotiation
strategies. J Mark Res 1991;28(2):175 – 89.
Richins Marsha L, Root-Shaffer Teri. The role of involvement and opinion
leadership in consumer word-of-mouth: an implicit model made explicit.
Adv Consum Res 1988;15:32 – 6.
Richins Marsha L. Negative word-of-mouth by dissatisfied consumers: a pilot
study. J Mark 1983;47:68 – 78 [Winter].
Rogers Everett M. Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY’ Free Press; 1983.
Sheth Jagdish, Parvatiyar Atul. Handbook of relationship marketing. Thousand
Oaks, Ca’ Sage Publications; 1999.
Sheth Jagdish, Parvatiyar Atul. Relationship marketing in consumer markets:
antecedents and consequences. J Acad Mark Sci 1995;23(4):255 – 71.
Vargo Steve, Lusch Robert. Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. J
Mark 2004;68:1 – 17 [January].
von Hippel Eric. The sources of innovation. New York’ Oxford University
Press; 1988.
Zeithaml Valarie A, Berry Leonard L, Parasuraman A. The behavioral
consequences of service quality. J Mark 1996;60(2):31 – 47.
Zeithaml Valarie A. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a
means – end model and synthesis of evidence. J Mark 1988;52:2 – 22 [July].