Next Article in Journal
Unlock Happy Interactions: Voice Assistants Enable Autonomy and Timeliness
Previous Article in Journal
Interplay between Platform Providers and Complementors via Affordance, Autonomy, and Super-Modularity: The Empirical Investigation of the Korean Digital Industry
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Motivations toward Electronic Word-of-Mouth Sending Behavior Regarding Restaurant Experiences in the Millennial Generation

by
Giovanny Haro-Sosa
1,*,
Beatriz Moliner-Velázquez
2,
Irene Gil-Saura
2 and
Maria Fuentes-Blasco
3
1
Gastronomy Career, Faculty of Public Health, Escuela Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo (ESPOCH), Riobamba 060104, Ecuador
2
Department of Marketing, Faculty of Economics, University of Valencia, 46022 Valencia, Spain
3
Department of Business Administration and Marketing, Faculty of Business, Pablo de Olavide University, 41013 Sevilla, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2024, 19(2), 993-1012; https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer19020052
Submission received: 20 March 2024 / Revised: 19 April 2024 / Accepted: 22 April 2024 / Published: 27 April 2024

Abstract

:
A growing body of the literature on the study of online reviews presents interesting research opportunities, especially in services highly frequented by young consumer segments, such as restaurants. In this context, the present study examines the restaurant electronic word-of-mouth (EWOM) behavior of Millennial consumers by addressing both review queries before the purchase decision and writing and sending after the purchase. Based on the theory of reasoned action, a double objective is pursued. On the one hand, the influence of motivations related to extroversion, social benefits, and altruism on EWOM sending behavior is analyzed. On the other hand, the moderating role of EWOM consultation in these relationships is studied. Using a sample of 341 Millennials from Ecuador, a structural model is constructed that confirms the contribution of two types of motivations in sending EWOM: those of extroversion and those of social benefits. The results also reveal the moderating role of EWOM consultation alone in the effects of extraversion and altruism motivations. Managerial implications for restaurants derived from this study include improvements in the design of digital communication strategies tailored to Millennial customers based on their motivations.

1. Introduction

In the digital era, a new generation has emerged that communicates and makes purchasing decisions that are very different from the rest of the population: Millennials [1]. Born between the years 1980 and 2000, these individuals have grown up immersed in technology and social networks, thus shaping their way of interacting with the world and affecting their consumption habits [2,3]. This generation plays a crucial role in the expression of emotions and opinions related to the acquisition of products and services through websites and social networks, giving rise to the phenomenon of electronic word-of-mouth (hereinafter EWOM) [4]. This term covers the digital dissemination of experiences, recommendations, and comments from users that greatly influence the purchasing decisions of other consumers [5].
In the current context, gastronomic experiences for Millennials stand out for their significant influence on society [6]. Millennials’ relationship with technology and social networks has transformed the way they experience and share their culinary experiences [7]. Their penchant for using digital platforms to express emotions, recommend places, and comment on their eating experiences has reshaped the conventional dynamics of the restaurant sector [8]. The search for authentic and distinctive experiences characterizes the consumption choices of Millennials, a trend that is especially relevant in the Ecuadorian gastronomic field [9]. For this generation, food transcends its nutritional function and is an expression of identity and a tool for socialization [10]. The connection between culinary experiences and social media plays a crucial role, as sharing images and reviews of food has become a common form of expression and social connection [11].
These changes have deeply affected the restaurant sector, transforming the way Millennial customers enjoy and share their dining experiences [12]. Adapting to these new forms of communication represents a challenge for restaurants since this generation actively shares their culinary opinions on digital platforms, influencing other potential diners [13,14]. A positive presence on social networks has become essential for reputation and success in the current market, being a key aspect for connection with the virtual community and differentiation in the competitive gastronomic world [15,16,17]. This change in digital dynamics requires restaurants to adapt and take advantage of these opportunities to build strong, long-lasting relationships with their customers.
In this context, this research focuses on analyzing the motivations that drive Millennials to express themselves on various platforms about their experiences in restaurants. Despite recent studies on EWOM behavior in the restaurant sector [18,19,20,21,22,23], no studies have explored the relationship between different types of motivations toward the diffusion of EWOM and the behavior of sharing experiences through online platforms [24]. Most research in this field has addressed motivations and their moderating effects in isolation. For example, in Anastasiei and Dospinescu’s [25] work, the relationships between personality traits and motivations to spread EWOM on social networks are analyzed, but their effect on this behavior is not studied. Ruiz-Equihua et al. [26] investigate the moderating role of brand familiarity and culture on behaviors linked to online reviews in the hospitality sector without addressing the effect of motivations. This has created a gap in the comprehensive understanding of how motivations influence EWOM sending behavior. Therefore, the need arises to deepen the understanding of this relationship in order to establish how they affect the diffusion of EWOM.
The central objective of this research is to explore the relationship between motivations toward sending EWOM, specifically in the dimensions of extroversion [27], social benefits [28], altruism derating role of EWOM consultation behavior to determine if it significantly affects the relationship between these motivations and the diffusion of EWOM among the Millennial generation in the restaurant context [29]. Although there are studies that address the antecedents of EWOM queries [30,31] and their effects on purchase intentions [32], there is no empirical evidence on the moderating effect that these consultations may have prior to the purchase decision.
The geographical context for analyzing these relationships is Ecuador, a developing country with cultural, economic, technological, and social particularities that are especially different from developed countries [33]. Empirical studies on EWOM behavior applied to this population are scarce [30,34]. Therefore, it is necessary to improve knowledge of this type of behavior in this country and deepen future research into the differences with respect to other cultures.
The novelty of this study lies in two areas: the variables related to the EWOM behavior under study and the geographical and generational context of application. Regarding the first, this work offers a detailed focus on the relationship between motivations for sharing EWOM and their behavior on digital platforms, as well as exploring the role of EWOM consultation as a moderator in these relationships. Regarding the second, it provides empirical evidence on Millennial consumers in Ecuador, a generational cohort scarcely investigated in the academic literature on EWOM behavior. The results of this research will contribute to a more complete understanding of the influence of Millennials on the dissemination of opinions online, which will provide valuable information to improve marketing and communication strategies in the Ecuadorian restaurant sector.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Motivations toward EWOM Sending Behavior

EWOM sending behavior has attracted increasing interest in current academic research [35,36]. Several studies have explored the motivations underlying word-of-mouth EWOM sending behavior [37]. Among others, Llorens-Marin et al. [38] recognize altruism as a key motivator to create and send EWOM. Shen et al. [39] and Cheung and Lee Mr [40] highlight the role of different motives in positive and negative EWOM, identifying the former with confirmation seeking, expression of positive feelings, and negative experiences as significant motivators. From the sender’s perspective, Yap et al. [41] investigate the relationship between individual motivations and the EWOM message, concluding that positive and negative message characteristics are linked to different motivations to engage in EWOM.
In this context, the communication established between consumers who share EWOM can be based on the theory of reasoned action (hereinafter TRA). This theory, proposed by Ajzen and Fishbein [42], postulates that an individual’s intention prior to a behavior is determined by their attitude and subjective norm [43,44]. This approach implies that people are fundamentally rational and systematically make decisions using available information [45].
Attitude is formed through the evaluation of the credibility and relevance of online comments, as well as the perceived usefulness of this information in their purchasing decisions [46]. Subjective norm refers to the consumer’s perception of perceived social pressure to follow other users’ online recommendations or comments [47,48]. This norm influences their willingness to follow or ignore EWOM information in their purchasing decisions [49]. Therefore, according to the TRA, the combination of attitudes toward EWOM and subjective norms influences consumers’ intentions toward EWOM communication behavior [50]. This intention translates into specific behaviors, such as sharing online comments, following recommendations from other users, or making purchasing decisions based on EWOM queries [51]. With all, it is key to consider the behavior of writing and/or sending EWOM to understand how these specific antecedents influence the post-purchase experience.
EWOM writing and sending behavior plays a significant role in facilitating the dissemination of post-purchase experiences by posting reviews, comments, photos, and videos on various digital channels [52]. This phenomenon goes beyond the simple sharing or contribution of product experiences by consumers, as it also allows them to reach global audiences with similar interests, eliminating geographical and temporal restrictions [53,54]. This is because consumers have the convenience of sharing their shopping experiences and thoughts at the time and place that is most convenient for them [55]. Ease of access and sharing perceptions highlight the importance of understanding motivations to write EWOM, especially in the context of restaurants and among the Millennial generation [56,57,58].
Furthermore, managers are aware that they can gain a more profound comprehension of their customers’ perceptions and behaviors through the underlying motives behind their EWOM contributions [5]. The analysis of these motivations in the context of the Millennial generation provides key insights into preferences for writing EWOM [3]. Among them, the search for social recognition, the need to express opinions, or the desire to help other consumers exert a substantial influence on EWOM submission behavior [59]. In the literature, three types of motivations have been identified that are key in the diffusion of EWOM: extroversion motivations [25], social benefit motivations [60], and altruism motivations [61]. This tripartite focus on motivations seeks to offer a comprehensive understanding of how and why consumers engage in EWOM sending behavior.
Extraversion motivations are supported by the notion that extraverted people tend to participate more actively in online interactions [27]. This characteristic is reflected in an individual’s tendency toward active participation in social interactions [62,63]. In digital environments, extroverts tend to be more active and participatory in seeking attention and social connection in online activities (e.g., discussion forums) [64,65], showing a greater propensity to form friendships and share personal information on social networks [66].
Motivations related to social benefits are based on the idea that online interactions offer social rewards, such as recognition and approval, which can motivate individuals to share their experiences [28]. Since people seek to satisfy their innate drive to be part of social groups and be valued by them [67,68], these social rewards are closely linked to the fundamental need for belonging and social recognition [69]. In this sense, the digital environment provides a unique opportunity to receive and grant social recognition and approval [70], being a powerful stimulus to share experiences, receive positive comments and reactions from others [71], and contribute to a sense of connection and belonging without any monetary factor [72].
Finally, altruistic motivations reflect the intention to help other consumers make decisions based on information from others [73]. These motivations, driven by concern for the well-being of others and enjoyment of helping others [74], play a significant role in EWOM communication [75], especially in the context of social media. Various works reveal that altruism affects the EWOM intention [38,76]. Some works have also highlighted that the altruistic approach to EWOM behavior can be an effective alternative to monetary incentives [61] and impact consumer behavior [77]. This research could support the idea that altruistic motivations can influence Millennials’ decision-making related to restaurant choices and their EWOM sending behavior, as they promote a culture of mutual help and collaboration in the purchasing process.

2.2. The Millennial Generation and Their Behavior of Sending EWOM Regarding Restaurants

The Millennial generation stands out for its affinity and familiarity with technology, its participation in social networks, and its influence on consumer formation trends [78,79,80]. They represent a significant proportion of the world’s population and are considered a driving force in the global economy [81]. In the geographical context of Ecuador, Millennials are also a significant part of the active and consumer population [82] influencing market trends and commercial strategies in various sectors, including the gastronomic sector [83]. Its influence in various areas, such as consumption, technology, and culture, has been widely recognized [84].
Millennials’ consumption patterns notably differ from other generations [85,86]. They are active consumers not only in the digital space but also in the gastronomy and restaurant fields [87]. For example, when it comes to the world of food, Millennials tend to look for convenience and social experiences when choosing restaurants and bars [88]. Furthermore, their interest in the quality of food, service, and atmosphere creates new demands and expectations for the food service industry [89,90].
In this context, the Millennial generation plays a crucial role in the dissemination of opinions and experiences related to food products and services [91]. Their influence in the restaurant industry is undeniable, as they are considered the most powerful cohort in the entertainment sector [85,92]. Their constant use of mobile devices and social networks to search for, reserve, and recommend restaurants reflects their importance as a source of information for other consumers [50]. Additionally, Millennials have proven to be frequent consumers of dining establishments, opting for culinary experiences outside the home more regularly than other generations [8]. This poses a challenge for establishments in terms of capturing and retaining their attention, as they value the experience accompanied by technology and expect a gastronomic offer that adapts to their preferences [93]. In this context, online reviews and recommendations play a decisive role in influencing both the choice of the restaurant and the decision regarding the selection of dishes or table reservation [94,95,96], making the Millennial generation a significant force in the field of writing and sending EWOM in the gastronomic sector.
In the academic literature, there is growing interest in understanding the behaviors and preferences of Millennials in various contexts [97,98], including the field of gastronomy [3]. However, there are still gaps in understanding how these unique characteristics of Millennials impact their consumption decisions and how companies can adapt their strategies to meet their specific needs [91]. Therefore, further exploring this generation and its relationship with the food service industry is essential to address these gaps and provide valuable information for companies in the sector.

3. Proposed Model and Hypothesis Formulation

With the aim of understanding how motivations toward EWOM delivery influence the behavior of the Millennial generation in the context of restaurant experiences, a relationship model is proposed that shows the direct effect of three types of motivations (extroversion, social benefits, and altruism) on EWOM sending behavior and the moderating effect of EWOM consultation behavior (Figure 1).
One of the most relevant contributions in the literature on the motivations that drive the creation and sending of EWOM was developed by Yen and Tang [56]. In their study, they define extroversion motivation as the act of writing online comments with the purpose of expressing both positive and negative emotions in relation to the service or product received [99]. Extroversion, referring to the expression of positive emotions, makes extroverted individuals share their experiences in a more effusive and participatory way [100]. In contrast, in the case of negative emotions, extraversion could manifest itself in more direct and forceful expressions when communicating discontent [27]. Furthermore, according to Serra-Cantallops et al. [101], the expression of positive experiences plays an essential role in the motivation to post EWOM, especially in the restaurant context [102]. Therefore, it is assumed that the motivation of extroversion will stimulate the behavior of spreading EWOM, raising the first research hypothesis (Figure 1).
H1: 
Extraversion motivation positively influences EWOM sending behavior.
The search for social benefits motivates individuals to participate in virtual platforms by sending EWOM [27], since it allows them to satisfy the desire to establish connections with friends on social networks and interact in activities supported by others [103]. This involvement in online communication is intrinsically related to actions such as receiving, commenting, liking, or disseminating relevant information about a product or service to the network of contacts [104]. Previous research has demonstrated the association between the search for social benefits and participation in digital platforms [105,106,107], as well as the connection between this motivation and the strengthening of social relationships [28,108,109]. Therefore, social benefits are expected to influence EWOM sending behavior, increasing participation and the dissemination of opinions about products or services in digital environments. Thus, the second hypothesis is formulated (Figure 1).
H2: 
Social benefit motivation positively influences EWOM sending behavior.
The motivation of altruism, focused on helping other consumers make purchasing decisions, has been identified as a key factor in the diffusion of EWOM. According to Shiau and Chan [110], this motivation drives individuals to share information with the aim of benefiting others. Therefore, altruism can lead to the action of sharing experiences to positively influence other consumers [38,76,111]. Additional research supports the relevance of altruism in the specific context of restaurant websites [112], where consumers share their experiences with the purpose of influencing the purchasing decisions of others [102,113]. Therefore, it is assumed that altruism motivation could significantly influence the sending of EWOM, formulating the third hypothesis (Figure 1):
H3: 
Altruism motivation positively influences EWOM sending behavior.
In addition to the direct effects of these motivations, it is considered that EWOM sending behavior may also depend on the consumer’s previous consultation behavior before the experience. In this context, the study of EWOM behavior can be approached from the point of view of the receiving consumer, who consults online comments, and from the point of view of the sending consumer, who writes and posts online comments [114]. Various works suggest that consultation behavior and dissemination behavior may be closely related [115,116,117]. Based on these works, it is expected that EWOM querying can exert some influence on EWOM submission behavior.
The influence of EWOM consultation on consumers’ decision-making process has received considerable attention in the academic literature. EWOM consultation, understood as the act of searching and reviewing online opinions and reviews before making a purchase, is postulated to be a key behavior that can shape consumer perceptions and attitudes [118]. This behavior is framed in the search for information as a strategy to reduce uncertainty and improve decision making [119]. In this line, several studies support that consumers who consult EWOM on several platforms tend to adjust their purchase decisions based on the opinions of other users [74,120].
EWOM consultation can exert a substantial influence on both consumers’ motivations for writing EWOM and their subsequent EWOM sending behavior [121,122]. This phenomenon suggests that the process of searching and reviewing online messages impacts not only the decision to write reviews but also the likelihood of sharing them with other users [123]. In the context of restaurants, Millennial customers who consult EWOM search for relevant information, such as the quality of service, atmosphere, and prices of the restaurant, which helps them make selection decisions [124]. Therefore, these queries would affect their intentions to visit one establishment or another [102].
The study of these consultations has been addressed in some works analyzing their motivations and their relationship with attitudes [31]. However, there is no empirical evidence on how these queries can influence EWOM diffusion behavior. In view of previous studies, it is assumed that the effects of consumers’ motivations toward sending EWOM will vary depending on the EWOM queries they have made before the purchase decision. Therefore, it is expected that these queries will play a moderating role in the relationship between motivations and EWOM sending behavior, raising the final research hypothesis (Figure 1):
H4: 
EWOM querying behavior positively moderates the motivational effect of (H4a) extraversion, (H4b) social benefits, and (H4c) altruism on EWOM sending behavior.

4. Methodology

4.1. Measure Instrument

To verify the proposed theoretical model, an empirical investigation was carried out by implementing a structured questionnaire aimed at consumers belonging to the Millennial generation. In Ecuador, as in other countries, Millennials make up a large proportion of the active and consumer population. According to the National Institute of Statistics and Censuses [125], approximately 23.2% of the Ecuadorian population is within the Millennial generation, aged between 22 and 36 years. Furthermore, internet penetration and the use of social networks among Ecuadorian Millennials is significant, with more than 80% of Ecuadorians between 18 and 34 years old regularly using social networks [34,126,127,128].
The instrument included measures of different constructs adapted from scales previously tested in the literature. Specifically, Yen and Tang’s [56] proposal was used to measure the motivations for sending EWOM, reflecting the dimensions of extraversion (6 items), social benefits (4 items), and altruism (5 items). The behavior of sending EWOM was measured through three indicators adapted from Gvili and Levy’s [129] proposal. Additionally, an item adapted from Lee and Kim [130] was included as a measure of EWOM consultation (“I consult online opinions and comments that people write when they visit a restaurant”). All items were measured using a 7-point Likert scale (where 1 indicates “strongly disagree” and 7 indicates “strongly agree”). Finally, regarding the two control variables, gender was coded as male (1) and female (2), while age was recorded as a continuous variable measured in years.

4.2. Sampling and Data Collection

For data collection, a target group was selected consisting of individuals between 20 and 40 years of age with experience reading online reviews and comments as well as visiting restaurants in Ecuador. Non-probabilistic convenience sampling was chosen, which has been used in similar research due to its ability to easily access the population of interest, in this case, Millennial consumers [11,77,131,132,133]. Participants were invited to voluntarily complete an online questionnaire. Online surveys are effective as they offer the ability to effectively intercept the target audience and explore a specific phenomenon [134]. This study targeted a sample size of 160 respondents, which is equivalent to 10 times the number of variables observed and is suitable for structural equation modeling (SEM) [135]. The survey was distributed for three weeks through the three most used social networks in Ecuador: Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp [136]. This distribution approach allowed us to obtain a diverse sample (Table 1). In total, 341 valid and complete responses were collected, with 142 coming from men and 199 from women. Over 65% of the respondents were single, with an average age of 28.2 years. The majority indicated a monthly income of less than USD 400.
Once the field work was completed, two sample t-tests were applied to check if there were significant differences in the mean of the constructs between the group of respondents who answered the questionnaire upon receipt (Nearly = 247) and the group who answered after receiving a reminder (Nlate = 94). The results were not significant (the highest t-statistic (df = 339) = 0.634 with an associated p-value = 0.526), indicating the absence of non-response bias [137].

4.3. Data Analysis

To assess the theoretical causal relationships proposed, the PLS-SEM technique was used, which is appropriate for predictive applications [138], as is our objective. Specifically, we aim to predict the behavior of sending EWOM based on the motivations for writing EWOM. Furthermore, it is proposed to verify the moderation of consulting EWOM behavior in the effect of motivations on sending behavior, following the two-stage methodology proposed by Becker et al. [139].
SmartPLS 4.0.9.6 software was used in this process, using a bootstrap resampling procedure with 5000 randomly generated subsamples to test the proposed hypotheses [140]. All constructs were treated as reflective, allowing for a thorough evaluation of the relationships between the variables [141].

5. Results

In the first stage, the measurement model was analyzed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the scales. Based on the results, an item was eliminated from the EWOM sending behavior scale due to a lack of factor loading to its latent construct (SB-EWOM1: I share with my friends on social networks comments about products or services after using or purchasing them). Reliability was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability coefficients. As shown in Table 2, both measures yielded values greater than 0.70 on all scales, which is indicative of adequate reliability for use in this study [142].
Regarding the convergent validity of the constructs, the average extracted variance calculation was used [143]. The results obtained revealed that all constructs reached the minimum recommended value of 0.50, which indicates the existence of satisfactory convergent validity. Furthermore, it is important to highlight that the factor loadings associated with each item also met the minimum value of 0.7 and presented a significance level of 99%. These results support the convergent validity of the constructs evaluated in the present study (Table 2).
The verification of discriminant validity was carried out using the criterion proposed by Fornell and Larcker [144] and the heterotrait/monotrait ratio (HTMT) [145]. In the first case, the results in Table 3 indicate that all correlations between the latent constructs (values below the diagonal) are less than the square root of the value of the average variance extracted (AVE) of each construct (values on the diagonal).
Furthermore, all the HTMT ratios shown in Table 4 are below the recommended threshold of 0.9 recommended by Henseler et al. [145]. These findings confirm the discriminant validity of the measurement scales used in this study, indicating that the constructs evaluated in the research are different from each other and do not present a significant overlap in terms of content.
Several analyses were performed to check the potential common bias issues. First, as shown in Table 3, the highest linear correlation between each pair of latent constructs is 0.803 (AM-EM). This value is lower than 0.9, indicating the absence of multicollinearity [146]. In addition, the variance inflation factors corroborated these results, as none of them exceeded the established upper limit of 3.3 [147]: VIFEM = 3.168; VIFSBM = 1.995; VIFAM = 3.184; VIFCB-EWOM = 1.206; VIFGENDER = 1.040; VIFAGE = 1.026.

Hypothesis Contrast of the Theoretical Model

After validating the measurement scales, two nested models were estimated to verify the hypotheses, considering both the direct effects and the moderating effect. Specifically, to evaluate the moderating role of EWOM consultation behavior on the motivations of extroversion, social benefits, and altruism, a product focus process was carried out. According to Fassott et al. [148], this approach is an appropriate methodology to evaluate the moderating role of a variable in a structural model, which involves comparing the estimates of a model without the interaction with another that incorporates it.
The first step consisted of estimating the causal model, considering only the control variables: gender and age (Model 1, Table 5). Subsequently, the estimation was performed by adding the direct effects of the three motivations (independent variables) and the EWOM consultation on the behavior of sending the EWOM (dependent variable). The results of this estimation, reflected in Model 2 of Table 5, indicate that extroversion motivation (β = 0.49 ***; t-Stat = 6.68) and the motivation for social benefits (β = 0.21 ***; t-Stat = 3.23) have a significant and positive impact on the sending EWOM behavior. However, in this model, altruism motivation presents a practically null direct effect (β = −0.08; t-Stat = 0.99). To avoid bias when estimating the moderating effect, at this stage, the direct effect of the moderating variable on the dependent variable was estimated. This estimate indicates that EWOM consultation behavior has a positive and significant impact on EWOM sending behavior (β = 0.14 ***; t-Stat = 2.72).
In the last stage, the interaction effect of EWOM consultation behavior was incorporated into the relationships between the three motivations (extroversion, social benefits, and altruism) on EWOM sending behavior (model 3, Table 5). The results show that extroversion (β = 0.52 ***; t-Stat = 6.75) and social benefit motivations (β = 0.21 ***; t-Stat = 3.20) have a positive and significant influence on EWOM sending behavior; thus, hypotheses H1 and H2 could be accepted. On the other hand, altruism motivation exerts a negative influence on EWOM sending behavior (β = −0.11 *; t-Stat = 1.41), indicating that H3 should be rejected. This result confirms that altruism motivation and sending behavior have a negative causal relationship; that is, the higher the Millennial consumer’s altruism, the lower the EWOM sending behavior Regarding the goodness of fit, the SRMR index (0.05) is lower than 0.08 and the Normed Fixed Index (0.856) is close to the value of 0.9, indicating an adequate model fit estimation [149].
Regarding the moderating role of EWOM consultation behavior, the results reveal that the relationships between extroversion (β = 0.15 ***; t-Stat = 1.94) and altruism motivations are significantly enhanced (β = −0.16 ***; t-Stat = 1.93); therefore, hypotheses H4a and H4c could be accepted. However, social benefit motivation, under the moderation of EWOM querying, does not appear to have a significant influence (β = −0.06; t-Stat = 0.961). Figure 2 graphically shows the significant interaction between EWOM consultation behavior and altruism motivations; when EWOM query behavior increases, the effect of extraversion motivation on EWOM sending behavior increases considerably. However, given this increase in EWOM consultation behavior, the effect of altruism motivation considerably decreases EWOM sending behavior.
Finally, the specific contribution of the interaction term is reflected in the size of the effect by the increase in the determination coefficient. R2:f2 = (0.424 − 0.411)/(1 − 0.424) = 0.022 [150].

6. Discussion and Conclusions

This study contributes significantly to the understanding of the behavior of the Ecuadorian Millennial consumer in relation to their EWOM sending behavior regarding restaurants. It specifically addresses the effect of motivations and the moderating role of review consultations prior to the purchase decision.
Regarding the motivations for sending EWOM, in general, our findings support previous research that highlights the importance of considering them when explaining this behavior. However, the effects of the three motivations analyzed (extroversion, social benefits, and altruism) are different.
Extraversion motivation is directly related to the need to express feelings, whether positive or negative [27]. This finding is reinforced in our study through the observation of how Millennial consumers use online platforms as a means to express their emotions [91]. Furthermore, the influence of extraversion on EWOM sending behavior is supported by previous research indicating that extroverts are more likely to actively participate in online interactions [108].
Benefit motivation has also been previously associated with purchasing decision-making [95,151]. Our results reveal that this type of motivation, coupled with extraversion motivation, is another important antecedent of EWOM sending behavior. This effect supports the idea that the social benefits perceived by Millennial consumers encourage them to share their experiences online, as highlighted in other previous studies [28,74,108].
Regarding the motivation of altruism, the results confirm that this motivation does not exert a positive influence on the EWOM sending behavior of the Millennial generation in Ecuador, but rather a negative influence. This discrepancy could be attributed to the complexity of online interactions and the changing nature of social dynamics in digital environments [85]. Previous research suggests that altruistic motivations may be offset by other factors, such as the fear of receiving negative reviews or the desire to preserve one’s online reputation [152]. Furthermore, cultural context and social expectations can play a crucial role in how altruistic behaviors are perceived and practiced online [153]. This negative relationship between altruism and EWOM sending behavior is in accordance with a study by Li et al. [154], which suggests that other factors or motivations could have a more pronounced impact on sharing restaurant experiences online. Therefore, although altruism may be an underlying motivation for some online actions, its impact on restaurant EWOM sending behavior among Ecuadorian Millennials could be mediated by a number of contextual and psychosocial factors that require further exploration in future research.
In addition to the effects of motivations, our research offers an interesting perspective on how EWOM query behavior moderates the relationships between motivations and EWOM sending behavior of the Millennial generation, as different moderation patterns were observed.
On the one hand, it was found that EWOM consultation acts as a moderator in the relationship between extraversion motivation and EWOM consultation. That is, when consumers consult EWOM before choosing a restaurant, their extraversion increases the propensity to submit online reviews about their experience. This result suggests an amplification of the effect of consulting online reviews on extraverted individuals, which promotes greater emotional expression in their online comments [27]. Furthermore, EWOM consultation was also identified as moderating the relationship between altruism motivation and EWOM sending behavior [73]. This finding indicates that Millennials’ inquiry behavior regarding restaurants enhances the effect that their altruism has on sending EWOM, showing more intention to provide useful information online to help other consumers. However, no significant moderation of EWOM consultation was observed in the relationship between social benefit seeking and EWOM sending behavior. This suggests that consulting reviews do not alter the motivation for social benefits when sharing experiences online, which is in line with previous research, such as that carried out by Cheung and Lee [74]. These results highlight the complexity of the interaction between Millennial consumers’ consulting behavior and EWOM sending behavior.

7. Implications

7.1. Theoretical Implications

From a theoretical perspective, this work contributes significantly to the existing literature by addressing a research gap identified in previous studies. While the literature in this field has focused on offering partial results on motivations [25] and some moderating effects [26], our work offers a more comprehensive approach to better understand how motivations influence EWOM sending behavior and how this influence is moderated by EWOM queries. Regarding motivations, it has improved our understanding of the motivations that drive Millennials to share their restaurant experiences online, integrating the theory of reasoned action (TRA) [42] in the analysis of the relationship between these motivations and the behavior of sending EWOM. Regarding moderation, there is no previous evidence on the effect of EWOM queries on EWOM sending behavior. In this issue, this work adds value to the field by exploring how EWOM consultation moderates these relationships, expanding our understanding of the underlying mechanisms that influence online experience-sharing behavior. In summary, the results obtained allow us to advance scientific research by providing a more complete view of the influence that psychological and social factors of Millennial consumers have on their motivations and online behaviors related to restaurants.

7.2. Managerial Implications

This research also contributes to practice management in the restaurant sector, aimed at the Millennial generation as a target audience. The results have revealed the importance that EWOM behavior has in the design and/or adaptation of strategies related to the virtual interactions of consumers and between consumers. Therefore, it is recommended to take advantage of the power of online reviews to increase the effectiveness of digital marketing strategies. To this end, it is recommended that those responsible for the management of digital marketing strategies have an in-depth understanding of what drives consumers to share their experiences online, particularly those related to extroversion and social benefits. Managers can use this knowledge to design communication strategies that highlight the relevance of sharing experiences and emotions online. This could help improve the customer experience, build brand loyalty, and increase their engagement in promoting the restaurant.
Although it has been proven that motivations related to extroversion and social benefits impact the submission of reviews, restaurants’ communication actions aimed at Millennials should include stimuli of a social and emotional nature to encourage consumers to send EWOM. For example, messages could be used to reinforce sending behavior with expressions and slang typical of Millennials; the advantages of sharing experiences with other consumers, such as emotional release, a sense of belonging to the group, etc., could be made clear; incentives could be offered for leaving reviews and comments online (discounts or point accumulation); and authentic and attractive content could be created for these consumers or in collaboration with local influencers with whom they feel identified. These types of actions could facilitate and motivate Millennials to express their experiences and strengthen their participation in social networks. This would allow us to develop an effective strategy to increase the online visibility and credibility of the establishment in the restaurant industry in Ecuador.

8. Limitations and Future Research Lines

To advance this line of research, the following methodological and conceptual improvements are proposed: regarding the sampling method, although convenience sampling has advantages, such as accessibility to participants, it can also present limitations in terms of representativeness since the sample could be biased toward certain groups or profiles of people. Regarding the scales, the exclusive use of Likert-type scales with seven anchor points to collect data could be another limitation of this study. Although these scales are useful for obtaining information about participants’ intentions and perceptions, no empirical verification was performed to determine whether the responses accurately reflected the actual actions and behaviors of individuals in everyday life. This raises the possibility of a gap between what people state they would do and what they actually do in practice, which could influence the interpretation of the results and limit their generalizability.
The data collection process was conducted using a non-probability convenience sampling method and online questionnaire, which implies that the selection of participants was not random and the number of possible respondents could not be controlled. This limitation may compromise the representativeness of the sample. Although a reminder of the questionnaire was sent to potential participants after 10 days to mitigate some non-response bias, it is important to keep this limitation in mind when interpreting the study findings.
The present investigation is also limited by the lack of population-level data. To address this limitation, future research could focus on collecting population-level data to allow direct comparison with the sample. In addition, exploring alternative sampling methodologies that improve the representativeness of the sample could strengthen the external validity of the study and provide a more robust understanding of the results.
This study focused specifically on the Millennial generation in the context of restaurants in Ecuador, which limits its generalization to other generations or geographic regions. In this question, future research could explore the relationships addressed in different demographic groups. It would be interesting to compare the differences in EWOM sharing motivations and behavior between different generations, such as Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Z, in the restaurant context. One could also analyze how EWOM sharing motivations and behavior vary in different cultural and geographical contexts, as social expectations and norms can greatly influence this behavior.
To improve the estimation of EWOM sending behavior, other antecedents are proposed that may contribute to the remaining variance. On the one hand, since consumer satisfaction is the most shared antecedent in the literature [155], it would be interesting to add its effect on EWOM behavior from the technologies approach [156], analyzing the possible influence of the restaurant’s ICT (Information and Communication Technology) setup on customer satisfaction. On the other hand, there is empirical evidence in the restaurant context confirming that perceived quality [22] and customer value [157] have a significant influence on EWOM sending behavior. Therefore, investigating antecedents such as perceived quality or perceived value would help to establish to what degree it improves the explanation for this EWOM behavior.
The effect of other moderating variables could also be addressed. For example, how the quality of food and service in restaurants influences consumers’ EWOM motivations and behaviors, considering specific factors such as taste, presentation, and customer service, could be analyzed. Similarly, it would be of interest to study how different incentive strategies, such as discounts, gifts, or exclusive memberships, may affect EWOM sharing motivations and behavior in the restaurant context.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.H.-S. and B.M.-V.; methodology, G.H.-S. and M.F.-B.; validation, M.F.-B., B.M.-V. and I.G.-S.; formal analysis, G.H.-S., M.F.-B. and B.M.-V.; investigation, G.H.-S. and B.M.-V.; data curation, G.H.-S. and M.F.-B.; writing—original draft preparation, G.H.-S.; writing—review and editing, B.M.-V., M.F.-B. and I.G.-S.; visualization, G.H.-S., M.F.-B., I.G.-S. and B.M.-V.; supervision, B.M.-V., M.F.-B. and I.G.-S.; project administration, I.G.-S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research has been developed within the framework of the project Grant PID2020-112660RB-I00 funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and the consolidated research group AICO/2021/144/GVA funded by the Conselleria d’Innovacio, Universitats, Ciencia i Societat Digital of the Generalitat Valenciana.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study is exempt from ethical approval according to the guidelines established by the MINISTRY OF PUBLIC HEALTH of Ecuador, in AGREEMENT No. 00005—2022. The guidelines can be found in the following link: https://www.salud.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/A.M.-00005-2022-JUL-29.-QUINTO-SUPLEMENTO-NO.-118-SUSTITUTORIO-4889_compressed.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2024).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The dataset that supports the findings of this study is available from the corresponding author on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Rey-Ares, L.; Fernández-López, S.; Castro-González, S.; Rodeiro-Pazos, D. Does self-control constitute a driver of millennials’ financial behaviors and attitudes? J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 2021, 93, 101702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Llopis-Amorós, M.P.; Gil-Saura, I.; Ruiz-Molina, M.E.; Fuentes-Blasco, M. Social media communications and festival brand equity: Millennials vs Centennials. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2019, 40, 134–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Namin, A.; Ratchford, B.T.; Saint Clair, J.K.; Bui, M.; Hamilton, M.L. Dine-in or take-out: Modeling millennials’ cooking motivation and choice. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 53, 101981. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969698919303121 (accessed on 20 March 2024). [CrossRef]
  4. Fine, M.B.; Gironda, J.; Petrescu, M. Prosumer motivations for electronic word-of-mouth communication behaviors. J. Hosp. Tour. Technol. 2017, 8, 280–295. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/prosumer-motivations-electronic-word-mouth/docview/1935421222/se-2?accountid=14777 (accessed on 5 August 2023). [CrossRef]
  5. Akdim, K. The influence of eWOM. Analyzing its characteristics and consequences, and future research lines. Span. J. Mark. ESIC 2021, 25, 239–259. [Google Scholar]
  6. Kou, I.E. Book review: Millennials, generation Z and the future of tourism. J. Tour. Futures 2023, 9, 438–439. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/book-review-millennials-generation-z-future/docview/2864473689/se-2?accountid=14777 (accessed on 13 February 2024). [CrossRef]
  7. Li, J.; Haq, J.U.; Hussain, S. Millennials’ online perceptions: The role of cultural characteristics in creating e-loyalty. Aslib J. Inf. Manag. 2022, 74, 1031–1047. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/millennials-online-perceptions-role-cultural/docview/2718747423/se-2?accountid=14777 (accessed on 21 February 2024). [CrossRef]
  8. Koufie, G.; Kesa, H. Millennials motivation for sharing restaurant dining experiences on social media. Afr. J. Hosp. Tour. Leis. 2020, 9, 1–25. [Google Scholar]
  9. Dixit, S.K.; Prayag, G. Gastronomic tourism experiences and experiential marketing. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2022, 47, 217–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Latifah, A.H.; Setyowardhani, H. Factors influencing the intensity of using digital social networks among indonesian millennial tourists. Int. J. Bus. Soc. 2020, 21, 1139–1152. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/factors-influencing-intensity-using-digital/docview/2521669967/se-2?accountid=14777 (accessed on 13 February 2024). [CrossRef]
  11. Pauliene, R.; Sedneva, K. The Influence of Recommendations in Social Media on Purchase Intentions of Generations Y and Z. Organ. Mark. Emerg. Econ. 2019, 10, 227–256. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/influence-recommendations-social-media-on/docview/2549095544/se-2?accountid=14777 (accessed on 13 February 2024). [CrossRef]
  12. Ha, L.T.T.; Vo, T.T. Motivations of guests contributing sWOM on social media: A case in Vietnam. J. Asian Bus. Econ. Stud. 2022, 29, 146–162. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/motivations-guests-contributing-swom-on-social/docview/2716510981/se-2?accountid=14777 (accessed on 5 August 2023).
  13. Ghiselli, R.; Ma, J. Restaurant social media usage in China: A study of industry practices and consumer preferences. Dr John Bowen DSB, editor. Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes 2015, 7, 251–265. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/restaurant-social-media-usage-china/docview/1685173879/se-2?accountid=14777 (accessed on 5 August 2023).
  14. Bangsawan, S.; Marquette, C.J.; Mahrinasari, M.S. Consumer restaurant experience, electronic word of mouth and purchase intention in the Indonesian restaurant industry. J. Glob. Bus. Adv. 2017, 10, 613–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sabermajidi, N.; Valaei, N.; Balaji, M.S.; Goh, S.K. Measuring brand-related content in social media: A socialization theory perspective. Inf. Technol. People 2020, 33, 1281–1302. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/measuring-brand-related-content-social-media/docview/2533902334/se-2?accountid=14777 (accessed on 5 August 2023). [CrossRef]
  16. Okumus, B.; Ali, F.; Bilgihan, A.; Ozturk, A.B. Psychological factors influencing customers’ acceptance of smartphone diet apps when ordering food at restaurants. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 72, 67–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. de Lima, M.M.; Mainardes, E.; Cavalcanti, A.L. Influence of social media on restaurant consumers: A case study of Crab island restaurant. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 2019, 22, 413–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jin-Young, K.; Hwang, J. Who is an evangelist? Food tourists’ positive and negative eWOM behavior. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 34, 555–577. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/who-is-evangelist-food-tourists-positive-negative/docview/2652817501/se-2?accountid=14777 (accessed on 11 December 2023).
  19. Ma, F.; DiPietro, R.B.; Li, J.; Harris, K.J. Memorable dining experiences amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2023, 35, 871–892. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/memorable-dining-experiences-amidst-covid-19/docview/2773692949/se-2?accountid=14777 (accessed on 8 August 2023). [CrossRef]
  20. Line, N.D.; Hanks, L.; Dogru, T. A reconsideration of the EWOM construct in restaurant research: What are we really measuring? Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 32, 3479–3500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Haro-Sosa, G.L.; Moliner-Velázquez, B.; Gil-Saura, I. Motivaciones, compromiso y adopción del e-WOM en restaurantes. Estud. Gerenciales 2022, 38, 17–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Uslu, A. The relationship of service quality dimensions of restaurant enterprises with satisfaction, behavioural intention, eWOM, and the moderating effect of atmosphere. Tour. Manag. Stud. 2020, 16, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Haro-Sosa, G.; Moliner-Velázquez, B.; Gil-Saura, I.; Fuentes-Blasco, M. Influence of Electronic Word-Of-Mouth on Restaurant Choice Decisions: Does It Depend on Gender in the Millennial Generation? J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2024, 19, 615–632. Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/0718-1876/19/1/33 (accessed on 8 April 2024). [CrossRef]
  24. Calder, B.J.; Malthouse, E.C.; Schaedel, U. An Experimental Study of the Relationship between Online Engagement and Advertising Effectiveness. J. Interact. Mark. 2009, 23, 321–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Anastasiei, B.; Dospinescu, N. A model of the relationships between the Big Five personality traits and the motivations to deliver word-of-mouth online. Psihologija 2018, 51, 215–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ruiz-Equihua, D.; Romero, J.; Casaló, L.V. Better the devil you know? The moderating role of brand familiarity and indulgence vs. restraint cultural dimension on eWOM influence in the hospitality industry. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2020, 29, 310–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hennig-Thurau, T.; Gwinner, K.; Walsh, G.; Gremler, D. Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the Internet? J. Interact. Mark. 2004, 18, 38–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Daugherty, T.; Eastin, M.; Bright, L. Exploring Consumer Motivations for Creating User-Generated Content. J. Interact. Advert. 2008, 8, 16–25. Available online: http://www.jiad.org/ (accessed on 20 April 2024). [CrossRef]
  29. Kim, H.; Jang, S.C. Restaurant-visit intention: Do anthropomorphic cues, brand awareness and subjective social class interact? Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 34, 2359–2378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mendoza-Moreira, M.; Moliner-Velázquez, B. Efectos de las consultas boca a boca en redes sociales en la compra de cosméticos en Ecuador. Estud. Gerenciales 2022, 38, 358–369. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/efectos-de-las-consultas-boca-en-redes-sociales/docview/2718386686/se-2?accountid=14777 (accessed on 23 January 2024). [CrossRef]
  31. Moliner-Velázquez, B.; Fuentes-Blasco, M.; Gil-Saura, I. Motivations and attitudes towards consulting eWOM when booking accommodation. Serv. Bus. 2023, 17, 557–578. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/motivations-attitudes-towards-consulting-ewom/docview/2822890366/se-2?accountid=14777 (accessed on 19 November 2023). [CrossRef]
  32. Bulut, Z.A.; Karabulut, A.N. Examining the role of two aspects of eWOM in online repurchase intention: An integrated trust–loyalty perspective. J. Consum. Behav. 2018, 17, 407–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Toscanini, M.; Lapo-Maza, M.; Bustamante, M.A. Dollarization in Ecuador: A review of macroeconomic results in the last two decades. Inf. Tecnológica 2020, 31, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Velásquez, A.; Carrión, G.; Yaguache, J. Use the Internet and Facebook in ecuadorian teenagers. In Proceedings of the 2016 11th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI), Gran Canaria, Spain, 15–18 June 2016; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  35. Babić Rosario, A.; de Valck, K.; Sotgiu, F. Conceptualizing the electronic word-of-mouth process: What we know and need to know about eWOM creation, exposure, and evaluation. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2020, 48, 422–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Donthu, N.; Kumar, S.; Pandey, N.; Pandey, N.; Mishra, A. Mapping the electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) research: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 135, 758–773. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296321004951 (accessed on 4 October 2023). [CrossRef]
  37. 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. In Research Anthology on Social Media Advertising and Building Consumer Relationships; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2022; pp. 283–303. [Google Scholar]
  38. Llorens-Marin, M.; Hernandez, A.; Puelles-Gallo, M. Altruism in eWOM: Propensity to Write Reviews on Hotel Experience. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2023, 18, 2238–2256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Shen, W.; Cai, J.; Li, L. Electronic word-of-mouth in China: A motivational analysis. In Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on E-Business and E-Government, ICEE2011, Shanghai, China, 6–8 May 2011; pp. 1263–1268. [Google Scholar]
  40. Cheung, C.M.K.; Lee Mr, Z.W.Y. An Examination into the Determinants of Positive and Negative Electronic Word-of-Mouth Communication. Int. Conf. Electron. Bus. 2011, 55, 182–189. [Google Scholar]
  41. Yap, K.B.; Soetarto, B.; Sweeney, J.C. The Relationship between Electronic Word-Of-Mouth Motivations and Message Characteristics: The Sender’s Perspective. Australas. Mark. J. 2013, 21, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychol. Bull. 1977, 84, 888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. King, G.W. An analysis of attitudinal and normative variables as predictors of intentions and behavior. Speech Monogr. 1975, 42, 237–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Li, S.; Liu, F. Investigating the dynamic mechanism of user willingness to actively publish travel-related Electronic Word-of-Mouth (eWOM) on tourism platforms. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0285773. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/investigating-dynamic-mechanism-user-willingness/docview/2872149260/se-2?accountid=14777 (accessed on 13 February 2024). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Power, D.J.; Cyphert, D.; Roth, R.M. Analytics, bias, and evidence: The quest for rational decision making. J. Decis. Syst. 2019, 28, 120–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zohora, F.T.; Choudhury, N.; Sakib, N. Analysis of Factors Influencing E-WOM Credibility. Int. J. Mark. Bus. Commun. 2017, 6, 8. Available online: http://www.publishingindia.com (accessed on 20 April 2024).
  47. Tarkiainen, A.; Sundqvist, S. Subjective norms, attitudes and intentions of Finnish consumers in buying organic food. Br. Food J. 2005, 107, 808–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Attitudes and the Attitude-Behavior Relation: Reasoned and Automatic Processes. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 2000, 11, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rahaman, A.; Kamrul Hassan, H.M.; Asheq, A.A.; Anwarul Islam, K.M. The interplay between eWOM information and purchase intention on social media: Through the lens of IAM and TAM theory. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0272926. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/interplay-between-ewom-information-purchase/docview/2710947798/se-2?accountid=14777 (accessed on 27 March 2024). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Abedi, E.; Ghorbanzadeh, D.; Rahehagh, A. Influence of eWOM information on consumers’ behavioral intentions in mobile social networks: Evidence of Iran. J. Adv. Manag. Res. 2020, 17, 84–109. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/influence-ewom-information-on-consumers/docview/2533874633/se-2?accountid=14777 (accessed on 13 February 2024). [CrossRef]
  51. Huang, H.C.; Chen, L.Y.; Su, Y.T. Exploration of the Influence of Online Reviews on Consumers’ Purchase Intention. Int. J. Adv. Stud. Comput. Sci. Eng. 2020, 9, 1–9. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/exploration-influence-online-reviews-on-consumers/docview/2547656642/se-2?accountid=14777 (accessed on 13 February 2024).
  52. Alhidari, A.; Iyer, P.; Paswan, A. Personal level antecedents of eWOM and purchase intention, on social networking sites. J. Cust. Behav. 2015, 14, 107–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Farzin, M.; Fattahi, M. eWOM through social networking sites and impact on purchase intention and brand image in Iran. J. Adv. Manag. Res. 2018, 15, 161–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Douglas, S.P.; Nijssen, E.J. Consumer World-Mindedness. In Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Son-Cong Bui, S.C.B.; Son-Cong Bui, Y.C.C. Generating positive online word of mouth via brand image and trust: The moderation role of perceived privacy. J. Bus. Adm. 2022, 47, 29–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Yen, C.L.A.; Tang, C.H.H. Hotel attribute performance, eWOM motivations, and media choice. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 46, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Burkov, I.; Gorgadze, A.; Trabskaia, I. Satisfaction dimensions influencing consumers’ behavioral intentions through structural topic modeling analysis of restaurant reviews. Consum. Behav. Tour. Hosp. 2023, 18, 200–214. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/satisfaction-dimensions-influencing-consumers/docview/2842548907/se-2?accountid=14777 (accessed on 15 April 2024). [CrossRef]
  58. Ruiz-Equihua, D.; Casaló, L.V.; Romero, J. How old is your soul? Differences in the impact of eWOM on Generation X and millennials. J. Hosp. Tour. Insights 2022, 5, 553–566. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/how-old-is-your-soul-differences-impact-ewom-on/docview/2681389494/se-2?accountid=14777 (accessed on 1 April 2024). [CrossRef]
  59. Bigné, E.; Ruiz, C.; Andreu, L.; Hernandez, B. The role of social motivations, ability, and opportunity in online know-how exchanges: Evidence from the airline services industry. Serv. Bus. 2015, 9, 209–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Wang, Y. Understanding How Chinese Consumers Engage in Electronic Word-of-Mouth Communication (eWOM) on Social Media: A Comparison Study Between Opinion Leaders and Non-Opinion Leaders. Int. J. Cyber Behav. Psychol. Learn. 2020, 10, 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Killian, M.; Fahy, J.; O’Loughlin, D. The Case for Altruism in eWoM Motivations. In Making a Difference Through Marketing: A Quest for Diverse Perspectives; Plewa, C., Conduit, J., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2016; pp. 129–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kumari, V.; Ffytche, D.H.; Williams, S.C.R.; Gray, J.A. Personality Predicts Brain Responses to Cognitive Demands. J. Neurosci. 2004, 24, 10636. Available online: http://www.jneurosci.org/content/24/47/10636.abstract (accessed on 7 March 2024). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Eysenck, H.J. General features of the model. In A Model for Personality; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1981; pp. 1–37. [Google Scholar]
  64. Amichai-Hamburger, Y.; Wainapel, G.; Fox, S. “On the Internet No One Knows I’m an Introvert”: Extroversion, Neuroticism, and Internet Interaction. CyberPsychology Behav. 2002, 5, 125–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Bowden-Green, T.; Hinds, J.; Joinson, A. How is extraversion related to social media use? A literature review. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2020, 164, 110040. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886920302294 (accessed on 7 March 2024). [CrossRef]
  66. Nowland, R.; Necka, E.A.; Cacioppo, J.T. Loneliness and Social Internet Use: Pathways to Reconnection in a Digital World? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2017, 13, 70–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Lavigne, G.L.; Vallerand, R.J.; Crevier-Braud, L. The Fundamental Need to Belong: On the Distinction Between Growth and Deficit-Reduction Orientations. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2011, 37, 1185–1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Lemay, E.P., Jr.; Spongberg, K. Perceiving and Wanting to Be Valued by Others: Implications for Cognition, Motivation, and Behavior in Romantic Relationships. J. Pers. 2015, 83, 464–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Allen, K.A.; Kern, M.L.; Rozek, C.S.; McInerney, D.M.; Slavich, G.M. Belonging: A review of conceptual issues, an integrative framework, and directions for future research. Aust. J. Psychol. 2021, 73, 87–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Odoom, R.; Boateng, H.; Asante, B.O. An empirical investigation of perceived relational benefits and brand engagement in restaurant services. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 29, 2767–2784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hoisl, B.; Aigner, W.; Miksch, S. Social Rewarding in Wiki Systems—Motivating the Community. In Online Communities and Social Computing; Schuler, D., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; pp. 362–371. [Google Scholar]
  72. Sun, Y.; Dong, X.; McIntyre, S. Motivation of User-Generated Content: Social Connectedness Moderates the Effects of Monetary Rewards. Mark. Sci. 2017, 36, 329–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Sundaram, D.S.; Mitra, K.; Webster, C. Word-of-mouth communications: A motivational analysis. ACR N. Am. Adv. 1998, 25, 527. [Google Scholar]
  74. Cheung, C.; Lee, M. What drives consumers to spread electronic word of mouth in online consumer-opinion platforms. Decis. Support Syst. 2012, 53, 218–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Reimer, T.; Benkenstein, M. Altruistic eWOM marketing: More than an alternative to monetary incentives. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 31, 323–333. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969698916300030 (accessed on 7 March 2024). [CrossRef]
  76. Puspitasari, F.I.; Soebandhi, S.; Subagyo, D.H.; Nugroho, A. Altruism and Egoism in e-WOM: The moderating effect of Facebook perceived ease of use. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Seminar on Application for Technology of Information and Communication (iSemantic), Semarang, Indonesia, 21–22 September 2019; pp. 536–541. [Google Scholar]
  77. Kumar, A.; Pandey, M. Social Media and Impact of Altruistic Motivation, Egoistic Motivation, Subjective Norms, and EWOM toward Green Consumption Behavior: An Empirical Investigation. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4222. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/social-media-impact-altruistic-motivation/docview/2785240469/se-2?accountid=14777 (accessed on 16 February 2024). [CrossRef]
  78. Milkman, R. A New Political Generation: Millennials and the Post-2008 Wave of Protest. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2017, 82, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Gonzalez, P.A.; Alvarado, C.A.C.; Mosquera, G.A.P. Las redes sociales como factor de decisión: Millennials frente a la generación X. Rev. Econ. Política 2018, 27, 9–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Anaya-Sánchez, R.; Castro-Bonaño, J.M.; González-Badía, E. Millennial Consumer Preferences in Social Commerce Web Design. Rev. Bras. Gestão Negócios 2020, 22, 123–139. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/millennial-consumer-preferences-social-commerce/docview/2345781494/se-2?accountid=14777 (accessed on 13 February 2024). [CrossRef]
  81. Kim, D.Y.; Park, S. Rethinking millennials: How are they shaping the tourism industry? Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2020, 25, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Coba, G. Primicias. 2022. Millennials, la Generación Que Más Compra en Línea en Ecuador. 2022. Available online: https://www.primicias.ec/noticias/economia/millennials-compras-digitales-ecuador-comercio/ (accessed on 14 February 2024).
  83. Ntobela, T.S.; Mbukanma, I. Exploring the Impact of Sensory Marketing on Impulsive Buying Behaviour of Millennials in Mthatha, Eastern Cape, South Africa. Acad. J. Interdiscip. Stud. 2023, 12, 192–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Williams, D.L.; Crittenden, V.L.; Keo, T.; Mccarty, P. The use of social media: An exploratory study of usage among digital natives. J. Public Aff. 2012, 12, 127–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Yang, F.X. Effects of Restaurant Satisfaction and Knowledge Sharing Motivation on eWOM Intentions: The Moderating Role of Technology Acceptance Factors. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2017, 41, 93. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/effects-restaurant-satisfaction-knowledge-sharing/docview/1851661254/se-2?accountid=14777 (accessed on 19 November 2023). [CrossRef]
  86. Kellershohn, J.; Walley, K.; Vriesekoop, F. An international study of fast-food dining perceptions: Millennial parents, non-millennial parents, and peer judgement during fast-food family dining. Int. J. Cult. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2021, 15, 598–614. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/international-study-fast-food-dining-perceptions/docview/2585705623/se-2?accountid=14777 (accessed on 11 December 2023). [CrossRef]
  87. Reisenwitz, T.; Fowler, J. Information Sources and the Tourism Decision-making Process: An Examination of Generation X and Generation Y Consumers. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2019, 20, 097215091984893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Barska, A. Millennial consumers in the convenience food market. Management 2018, 22, 251–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Frederick, D.P. Millennials Purchase Intention based on Food Vlogger Reviews—A Micro Study at Palghar District, Maharashtra. Srusti Manag. Rev. 2022, 15, 94–105. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/millennials-purchase-intention-based-on-food/docview/2728520519/se-2?accountid=14777 (accessed on 2 October 2023).
  90. Harrington, R.J.; Ottenbacher, M.C.; Staggs, A.; Powell, F.A. Generation Y Consumers: Key Restaurant Attributes Affecting Positive and Negative Experiences. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2012, 36, 431. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/generation-y-consumers-key-restaurant-attributes/docview/1082363814/se-2?accountid=14777 (accessed on 14 December 2023). [CrossRef]
  91. Okumus, B.; Ozturk, A.B. The impact of perceived stress on US millennials’ external and emotional eating behavior. Br. Food J. 2021, 123, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Jang, D. Effects of Word-of-Mouth Communication on Purchasing Decisions in Restaurants: A Path Analytic Study. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences 2008. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/effects-word-mouth-communication-on-purchasing/docview/621720890/se-2?accountid=14777 (accessed on 16 March 2024).
  93. Yangklun, S.; Ketkaew, T.; Wongwandee, S.; Phacharoen, S.; Dansiri, W. Factors of Micro Influencers Affecting Purchase Decision of Millennial Consumers via Electronic Word-of-Mouth. UBRU Int. J. Ubon Ratchathani Rajabhat Univ. 2022, 2, 15–24. [Google Scholar]
  94. Liu, P.; Tse, E.C.Y. Exploring factors on customers’ restaurant choice: An analysis of restaurant attributes. Br. Food J. 2018, 120, 2289–2303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Maziriri, E.T.; Rukuni, T.F.; Chuchu, T. Factors influencing food consumption satisfaction and purchase decisions of restaurant consumers. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2021, 8, 1968731. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/factors-influencing-food-consumption-satisfaction/docview/2614934627/se-2?accountid=14777 (accessed on 19 November 2023). [CrossRef]
  96. Zhang, Z.; Wang, X.; Wu, R. Is the devil in the details? Construal-level effects on perceived usefulness of online reviews for experience services. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2021, 46, 101033. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1567422321000053 (accessed on 25 September 2023). [CrossRef]
  97. Prasad, S.; Garg, A.; Prasad, S. Purchase decision of generation Y in an online environment. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2019, 37, 372–385. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/purchase-decision-generation-y-online-environment/docview/2225870617/se-2?accountid=14777 (accessed on 13 February 2024). [CrossRef]
  98. Ruangkanjanases, A.; Jeebjong, P.; Sonata, N.; Sanny, L. E-WOM and Its Impacts on Purchasing Behavior: A Comparative Study between Thai and Indonesian Millennials. Int. J. Electron. Commer. Stud. 2021, 12, 65–83. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/e-wom-impacts-on-purchasing-behavior-comparative/docview/2551715584/se-2?accountid=14777 (accessed on 13 February 2024). [CrossRef]
  99. Hennig-Thurau, T.; Walsh, G. Electronic word-of-mouth: Motives for and consequences of reading customer articulations on the internet. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2003, 8, 51–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Cheung, M.; Luo, C.; Sia, C.; Chen, H. Credibility of electronic word-of-mouth: Informational and normative determinants of on-line consumer recommendations. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2009, 13, 9–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Serra-Cantallops, A.; Ramon-Cardona, J.; Salvi, F. The impact of positive emotional experiences on eWOM generation and loyalty. Span. J. Mark. ESIC 2018, 22, 142–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Jeong, E.; Jang, S. Restaurant experiences triggering positive electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) motivations. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2011, 30, 356–366. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278431910000988 (accessed on 30 September 2023). [CrossRef]
  103. Reichelt, J.; Sievert, J.; Jacob, F. How credibility affects eWOM reading: The influences of expertise, trustworthiness, and similarity on utilitarian and social functions. J. Mark. Commun. 2014, 20, 65–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Dhaoui, C.; Webster, C.M. Brand and consumer engagement behaviors on Facebook brand pages: Let’s have a (positive) conversation. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2021, 38, 155–175. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167811620300562 (accessed on 17 February 2024). [CrossRef]
  105. Bronner, F.; de Hoog, R. Vacationers and eWOM: Who posts, and why, where, and what? J. Travel Res. 2011, 50, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. 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]
  107. Cheung, C.M.K.; Thadani, D.R. The impact of electronic word-of-mouth communication: A literature analysis and integrative model. Decis. Support Syst. 2012, 54, 461–470. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167923612001911 (accessed on 8 December 2023). [CrossRef]
  108. Luo, Q.; Zhong, D. Using social network analysis to explain communication characteristics of travel-related electronic word-of-mouth on social networking sites. Tour. Manag. 2015, 46, 274–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. van Doorn, J.; Lemon, K.N.; Mittal, V.; Nass, S.; Pick, D.; Pirner, P.; Verhoef, P.C. Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions. J. Serv. Res. 2010, 13, 253–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Shiau, W.L.; Chau, P.Y.K. Does altruism matter on online group buying? Perspectives from egotistic and altruistic motivation. Inf. Technol. People 2015, 28, 677–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Engel, J.F.; Blackwell, R.D.; Miniard, P.W. Consumer Behavior; Dryden Press: Hinsdale, IL, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  112. Hanks, L.; Line, N.; Dogru, T.; Lu, L. Saving Local Restaurants: The Impact of Altruism, Self-Enhancement, and Affiliation on Restaurant Customers’ EWOM Behavior. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2022, 48, 301–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. 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]
  114. Kanje, P.; Charles, G.; Tumsifu, E.; Mossberg, L.; Andersson, T. Customer engagement and eWOM in tourism. J. Hosp. Tour. Insights 2020, 3, 273–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Litvin, S.W.; Goldsmith, R.E.; Pan, B. A retrospective view of electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and tourism management. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 30, 313–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Chan, Y.Y.Y.; Ngai, E.W.T. Conceptualising electronic word of mouth activity. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2011, 29, 488–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Rossmann, A.; Ranjan, K.R.; Sugathan, P. Drivers of user engagement in eWoM communication. J. Serv. Mark. 2016, 30, 541–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Huete-Alcocer, N. A literature review of word of mouth and electronic word of mouth: Implications for consumer behavior. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 271126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Park, C.; Wang, Y.; Yao, Y.; Kang, Y. Factors Influencing eWOM Effects: Using Experience, Credibility, and Susceptibility. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Humanit. 2011, 1, 74–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Sen, S.; Lerman, D. Why are you telling me this? An examination into negative consumer reviews on the Web. J. Interact. Mark. 2007, 21, 76–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Cheung, C.M.K.; Lee, M.K.O.; Rabjohn, N. The impact of electronic word-of-mouth: The adoption of online opinions in online customer communities. Internet Res. 2008, 18, 229–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Santo, P.E.; Marques, A.M.A. Determinants of the online purchase intention: Hedonic motivations, prices, information and trust. Balt. J. Manag. 2022, 17, 56–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Tata, S.V.; Prashar, S.; Parsad, C. Intention to write reviews: Influence of personality traits, attitude and motivational factors. J. Syst. Inf. Technol. 2021, 23, 218–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. McCall, M.; Bruneau, C.L. Value, Quality, and Price Knowledge as Predictors of Restaurant Price Sensitivity. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 2010, 13, 304–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos Hablando de Millennials. I.N.E.C. Recuperado de. 2017. Available online: http://www.ecuadorencifras.gob.ec/documentos/web-inec/Inforgrafias-INEC/2017/millenials.pdf (accessed on 6 March 2024).
  126. Codagnone, C.; Cruz, P.; Maya-Jariego, I. Digital Media, Identity and Quality of Life of a Local Ecuadorian Community in Andalusia (SE Spain). In Quality of Life in Communities of Latin Countries; Tonon, G., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 255–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Arribas-Urrutia, A.; Islas-Carmona, O.; Gutiérrez Cortés, F. From prosumers to observers: An emergent trend on the internet and among young ecuadorians. results from the world internet project study, Ecuador. Rev. Lat. Comun. Soc. 2019, 74, 969–996. [Google Scholar]
  128. Alvear, G. Digital tourism consumers an alternative for sustainability. Rev. Univ. Soc. 2017, 9, 161–164. [Google Scholar]
  129. Gvili, Y.; Levy, S. Consumer engagement with eWOM on social media: The role of social capital. Online Inf. Rev. 2018, 42, 482–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Lee, J.; Kim, Y.K. Online Reviews of Restaurants: Expectation-Confirmation Theory. J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour. 2020, 21, 582–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. DelVecchio, D. Moving beyond fit: The role of brand portfolio characteristics in consumer evaluations of brand reliability. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2000, 9, 457–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Cheah, I.; Phau, I. Attitudes towards environmentally friendly products. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2011, 29, 452–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Marshall, M.N. Sampling for qualitative research. Fam. Pract. 1996, 13, 522–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Ploll, U.; Stern, T. From diet to behaviour: Exploring environmental-and animal-conscious behaviour among Austrian vegetarians and vegans. Br. Food J. 2020, 122, 3249–3265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Bentler, P.M.; Chou, C.P. Practical Issues in Structural Modeling. Sociol. Methods Res. 1987, 16, 78–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Del Alcázar Ponce, J.P. Actualización Julio 2020—Ecuador Estado Digital—Mentinno Insights. p. 1–15. Available online: https://blog.formaciongerencial.com/actualizacion-julio-2020-ecuador-estado-digital/ (accessed on 4 February 2024).
  137. Armstrong, J.S.; Overton, T.S. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J. Mark. Res. 1977, 14, 396–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Becker, J.M.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. Estimating Moderating Effects in PLS-SEM and PLSc-SEM: Interaction Term Generation*Data Treatment. J. Appl. Struct. Equ. Model. 2018, 2, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sinkovics, R.R. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Adv. Int. Mark. 2009, 20, 277–319. [Google Scholar]
  141. Danks, N.P.; Sharma, P.N.; Sarstedt, M. Model selection uncertainty and multimodel inference in partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). J. Bus. Res. 2020, 113, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Cepeda-Carrion, G.; Cegarra-Navarro, J.G.; Jimenez-Jimenez, D. The effect of absorptive capacity on innovativeness: Context and information systems capability as catalysts. Br. J. Manag. 2012, 23, 110–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Henseler, J. Bridging Design and Behavioral Research With Variance-Based Structural Equation Modeling. J. Advert. 2017, 46, 178–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y.; Phillips, L.W. Assessing Construct Validity in Organizational Research. Adm. Sci. Q. 1991, 36, 421–458. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2393203 (accessed on 27 November 2023). [CrossRef]
  147. Kock, N.; Lynn, G.S. Lateral Collinearity and Misleading Results in Variance-Based SEM: An Illustration and Recommendations. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2012, 13, 546–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Fassott, G.; Henseler, J.; Coelho, P.S. Testing moderating effects in PLS path models with composite variables. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2016, 116, 1887–1900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Henseler, J.; Hubona, G.; Ray, P.A. Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2016, 116, 2–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  151. Hennig-Thurau, T.; Gwinner, K.P.; Gremler, D.D. Understanding Relationship Marketing Outcomes: An Integration of Relational Benefits and Relationship Quality. J. Serv. Res. 2002, 4, 230–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Magno, F.; Cassia, F.; Bonfanti, A.; Vigolo, V. The effects of altruistic and egoistic motivations on online reviews writing frequency. In Proceedings of the Excellence in Services International Conference, Paris, France, 30–31 August 2018; pp. 447–455. [Google Scholar]
  153. Schwartz, S.H. Normative Influences on Altruism. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Berkowitz, L., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1977; pp. 221–279. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065260108603585 (accessed on 8 March 2024).
  154. Li, H.; Zhang, Z.; Meng, F.; Zhang, Z. “When you write review” matters: The interactive effect of prior online reviews and review temporal distance on consumers’ restaurant evaluation. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 31, 1273–1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Liat, C.B.; Mansori, S.; Chuan, G.C.; Imrie, B.C. Hotel Service Recovery and Service Quality: Influences of Corporate Image and Generational Differences in the Relationship between Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty. J. Glob. Mark. 2017, 30, 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Moliner-Velázquez, B.; Fuentes-Blasco, M.; Gil-Saura, I. The role of ICT, eWOM and guest characteristics in loyalty. J. Hosp. Tour. Technol. 2019, 10, 153–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Wahyuningsih; Nasution, H.; Yeni, Y.H.; Roostika, R. A comparative study of generations X, Y, Z in food purchasing behavior: The relationships among customer value, satisfaction, and Ewom. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2022, 9, 2105585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Proposed theoretical model.
Figure 1. Proposed theoretical model.
Jtaer 19 00052 g001
Figure 2. Moderating effect of EWOM consultation behavior.
Figure 2. Moderating effect of EWOM consultation behavior.
Jtaer 19 00052 g002
Table 1. Sample profile.
Table 1. Sample profile.
GenderMarital Status
Male42%Single66%
Female58%Married23%
Age De facto union4%
Mean (±standard deviation)28.2 years old (±4.7)Divorced6%
Widower1%
Employment situation Monthly income
Part time employment6%less than USD 40051%
Full time employment32%USD 401–50010%
Unemployed6%USD 501–6006%
Self-employed12%USD 601–7004%
Student41%USD 701–8004%
Housewife3%USD 801–9004%
USD 901–10006%
more than USD 100015%
Table 2. Reliability and validity of measurement scales.
Table 2. Reliability and validity of measurement scales.
ConstructsIndicatorsFactor Loadings(t-Stat)
Extroversion motivation (EM)
α = 0.905
CR = 0.906
AVE = 0.779
EM1: Because I can tell my experience to others about booking a restaurant0.862 ***(42.405)
EM2: Because I can express my satisfaction for having gone to a good restaurant0.904 ***(61.148)
EM3: Because I can tell others about the success I’ve had reserving a restaurant0.904 ***(52.858)
EM4: Because I like to say that I am satisfied with the service I have received in a restaurant0.861 ***(36.745)
Social benefit motivation
(SBM)
α = 0.921
CR = 0.926
AVE = 0.809
SBM1: Because I can meet nice people0.867 ***(43.376)
SBM2: Because I think others may like my comments.0.902 ***(57.700)
SBM3: Because it’s nice to have a conversation with like-minded people. 0.914 ***(76.456)
SBM4: Because I feel identified with others who have had the same experience as me in a restaurant0.914 ***(79.014)
Altruism motivations (AM)
α = 0.902
CR = 0.904
AVE = 0.719
AM1: Because I want to prevent others from having the same negative experiences as me in a restaurant.0.848 ***(33.564)
AM2: Because I want to warn others about bad restaurants0.861 ***(41.816)
AM3: So that other people know my experience in a restaurant0.850 ***(33.127)
AM4: Because I want to give others the opportunity to make a reservation at a good restaurant0.872 ***(40.428)
AM5: Because I think good restaurants should be promoted0.805 ***(27.406)
Behavior of sending EWOM (SB-EWOM)
α = 0.776
CR = 0.776
AVE = 0.817
SB-EWOM2: When I receive new information on social networks about products or services, I forward it to other people0.902 ***(66.225)
SB-EWOM3: When I receive information on social networks about products or services, I express my opinion about them0.905 ***(67.676)
EWOM consultation behavior (CB-EWOM)CB-EWOM1: I check online opinions and comments that people write when they visit a restaurant--
Age (Control)
Gender (Control)
--
--
Note: α: Cronbach’s alpha; CR: composite reliability; AVE: average variance extracted. --: not calculable. *** p < 0.01.
Table 3. Discriminant validity (I): Fornell–Larcker criterion.
Table 3. Discriminant validity (I): Fornell–Larcker criterion.
EMSBMAMSB-EWOMCB-EWOMAgeGender
EM0.883
SBM0.6660.899
AM0.8030.6640.848
SB-EWOM0.6110.5040.5000.904
CB-EWOM0.3610.1880.3700.321---
Age0.001−0.0140.0170.0260.017---
Gender−0.016−0.027−0.0500.034−0.112−0.154---
Note: EM: extroversion motivation; SBM: social benefit motivation; AM: altruism motivation; SB-EWOM: EWOM sending behavior; CB-EWOM: EWOM consultation behavior. Diagonal values (in bold) are the square root of AVE; values below diagonal are the correlations between latent constructs. --: not calculable.
Table 4. Discriminant validity (II): heterotrait/monotrait (HTMT).
Table 4. Discriminant validity (II): heterotrait/monotrait (HTMT).
EMSBMAMSB-EWOMCB-EWOMAgeGender
EM
SBM0.727
AM0.8880.723
SB-EWOM0.7290.5930.596
CB-EWOM0.3790.1940.3890.364
Age0.0310.0260.0180.0620.017
Gender0.0170.0290.0530.0410.1120.154
Note: EM: extroversion motivation; SBM: social benefit motivation; AM: altruism motivation; SB-EWOM: EWOM sending behavior; CB-EWOM: EWOM consultation behavior.
Table 5. Estimation of casual relationships (direct effects and moderators).
Table 5. Estimation of casual relationships (direct effects and moderators).
Model 1Model 2Model 3
Direct Effectsβtβtβt
Control variables
Age → SB-EWOM0.2201.0310.0830.9470.0720.826
Gender → SB-EWOM0.1791.0250.1331.5110.1241.398
Main effects
EM → SB-EWOM 0.485 ***6.6760.516 ***6.746
SBM → SB-EWOM 0.208 ***3.2280.207 ***3.196
AM → SB-EWOM −0.0780.990−0.109 *1.409
CB-EWOM → SB-EWOM 0.142 ***2.7190.145 ***2.685
Interaction effects
EMxCB-EWOM → SB-EWOM 0.153 **1.935
SBMxCB-EWOM → SB-EWOM −0.0620.961
AMxCB-EWOM → SB-EWOM −0.162 **1.929
R2 (SB-EWOM)0.0150.4110.424
ΔR2 0.3960.013
SRMR 0.050
NFI 0.856
Note: SB-EWOM: EWOM sending behavior; EM: extroversion motivation; SBM: social benefit motivation; AM: altruism motivation; CB-EWOM: EWOM consultation behavior. * p < 0.10; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Haro-Sosa, G.; Moliner-Velázquez, B.; Gil-Saura, I.; Fuentes-Blasco, M. Motivations toward Electronic Word-of-Mouth Sending Behavior Regarding Restaurant Experiences in the Millennial Generation. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2024, 19, 993-1012. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer19020052

AMA Style

Haro-Sosa G, Moliner-Velázquez B, Gil-Saura I, Fuentes-Blasco M. Motivations toward Electronic Word-of-Mouth Sending Behavior Regarding Restaurant Experiences in the Millennial Generation. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research. 2024; 19(2):993-1012. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer19020052

Chicago/Turabian Style

Haro-Sosa, Giovanny, Beatriz Moliner-Velázquez, Irene Gil-Saura, and Maria Fuentes-Blasco. 2024. "Motivations toward Electronic Word-of-Mouth Sending Behavior Regarding Restaurant Experiences in the Millennial Generation" Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 19, no. 2: 993-1012. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer19020052

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop