Imported or locally made products? Building customers’ resilience to negative word of mouth (NWOM) about locally made products: Mediation of message quality in Tanzania

Figures & data

Table 1. Demographic characteristics

Items	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Age groups
18–38	30	14.9
39–59	68	33.8
60+	103	51.3
Total	201	100
Level of Education
Secondary level	73	36.3
Collage level	128	63.7
Total	201	100
Nature of the job
Self-employment	34	16.9
Employed in private firms	53	26.3
Government employment	114	56.8
Total	201	100

Table 2. Central tendencies

Construct	Items	Mean	Standard deviation
EXP	EXP1: Sources are experienced	3.2876	0.7464
	EXP2: Sources are knowledgeable	4.6354	0.6543
	EXP3: Sources are qualified	2.9765	0.7583
	EXP4: Sources are skilled	4.6457	0.8453
	EXP5: Sources provide a great deal of information	3.6473	0.4637
TRS	TRS1: Sources are honest	3.7468	0.6646
	TRS2: Sources are reliable	2.3255	0.1644
	TRS3: Sources are sincere	3.6475	0.2282
	TRS4: Sources are trustworthy	4.5635	0.7573
	TRS5: Sources provide original information	2.5645	0.3436
HOM	HOM1: I spend free time with the sender	3.5634	0.4232
	HOM2: I have a similar outlook on life with the sender	3.6973	0.3421
	HOM3: I share common interests with the sender	2.9573	0.2203
	HOM4: I have similar likes and dislikes with the sender	3.6584	0.4563
	HOM5: I have a close social relationship with the sender	4.1832	0.6437
MES	MES1: The message is informative	3.6583	0.4473
	MES2: The message is reliable	4.9674	0.9574
	MES3: The message is clear	2.5684	0.3763
	MES4: The message is specific	4.6537	0.7473
	MES5: The message is elaborate	3.6584	0.7958
	MES6: The message is explicit	2.6475	0.2647
	MES7: The message is intense	3.6473	0.5584
	MES8: The message is reinforcing	2.5638	0.2373
RES	RES1: If the sender gives messages I don’t like, I give another chance.	4.4654	0.8474
	RES2: I will disregard any negative information	4.9754	0.9837
	RES3: I will forgive when messages make mistakes.	4.4654	0.7674

Table 3. The goodness of fit index

The Goodness of Fit Index	Recommended Value	Actual Value	Comment
GFI	Close to 1	0.965	Good
AGFI	Close to 1	0.952	Good
TLI	Close to 1	0.954	Good
CFI	Close to 1	0.962	Good
x^2/df	1 ≤ x^2/df ≤ 3	1.987	Good
RMSEA	0 ≤ RMSEA ≤ 0.1	0.082	Good

Table 4. Measurement model assessment

Construct	Items	Cronbach’s alpha	MSV	Item Loadings	AVE	CR
EXP	EXP1	0.876	0.152	0.787	0.606	0.885
	EXP2			0.788
	EXP3			0.774
	EXP4			0.698
	EXP5			0.847
TRS	TRS1	0.889	0.168	0.734	0.621	0.891
	TRS2			0.787
	TRS3			0.777
	TRS4			0.789
	TRS5			0.849
HOM	HOM1	0.916	0.109	0.823	0.694	0.918
	HOM2			0.899
	HOM3			0.687
	HOM4			0.785
	HOM5			0.946
MES	MES1	0.949	0.168	0.786	0.715	0.952
	MES2			0.887
	MES3			0.686
	MES4			0.875
	MES5			0.865
	MES6			0.872
	MES7			0.976
	MES8			0.786
RES	RES1	0.911	0.152	0.845	0.786	0.917
	RES2			0.955
	RES3			0.856

Table 5. Discriminant validity

Construct	CR	AVE	MSV	EXP	TRS	HOM	MES	RES
EXP	0.885	0.606	0.152	0.779
TRS	0.891	0.621	0.168	0.320	0.788
HOM	0.918	0.694	0.109	0.270	0.240	0.833
MES	0.952	0.715	0.168	0.210	0.410	0.190	0.846
RES	0.917	0.786	0.152	0.390	0.370	0.330	0.110	0.887

Table 6. Regression analysis output

Hypotheses	Variables			Estimate	S.E.	C.R.	P	Decision
H1	EXP	→	MES	.567	.213	2.662	.004	Supported
H2	HOM	→	MES	.463	.162	2.858	.001	Supported
H3	TRS	→	MES	.733	.085	8.623	***	Supported
H4	MES	→	RES	.641	.271	2.365	.009	Supported

***implies p-value is < 0.001

Table 7. SOBEL test output for expertise

Mediation Path	Coefficient	Sobel Test Statistics
Expertise → Resilience	0.9347	5.3342**
Expertise → Message quality	0.7530	18.4236**
Message quality → Resilience	0.3332	3.7563**
Expertise → Message quality → Resilience	0.0535	1.0031*

**p-value < 0.001

*p-value < 0.05

Table 8. SOBEL test output for homophily

Mediation Path	Coefficient	Sobel Test Statistics
Homophily → Resilience	0.7548	4.3431**
Homophily → Message quality	0.4431	14.6573**
Message quality → Resilience	0.2212	5.7583**
Homophily → Message quality → Resilience	0.0543	1.0119*

**p-value < 0.001

*p-value < 0.05

Table 9. SOBEL test output for trustworthiness

Mediation Path	Coefficient	Sobel Test Statistics
Trustworthiness → Resilience	0.6576	5.7462**
Trustworthiness → Message quality	0.5374	19.4352**
Message quality → Resilience	0.3364	4.6273**
Trustworthiness → Message quality → Resilience	0.0023	1.0051*

**p-value < 0.001

*p-value < 0.05