The impact of word of mouth (WOM) on consumer actions is more pronounced now than ever due to technology. Modern advancements have made engaging in WOM and contributing to viral marketing very commonplace. This notion can be troubling for firms, as consumers can say anything about any firm with virtually no chance of repercussions. Therefore, it is important to study the flow of WOM to help firms design strategies to influence its transmission. This study compares the impact of WOM sender expertise and valence of the WOM message on consumer likelihood to contribute to viral marketing by retransmitting messages to others. Results of our study find that messages from experts and non-experts are equally influential when the valence is positive (PWOM), but messages from experts are more influential than those from non-experts when the valence is negative (NWOM). Explanations for this result are given, as are contributions to both theory and practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AhluwaliaR. (2002) How prevalent is the negativity effect in consumer environments?Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 2, pp. 270–279.
2.
AndersenK., & ClevengerT. (1963) A summary of experimental research in ethos.Communications Monographs, 30, 2, pp. 59–78.
3.
AndersonE.W. (1998) Customer satisfaction and word of mouth.Journal of Service Research, 1, 1, pp. 5–17.
4.
ArndtJ. (1967) Role of product-related conversations in the diffusion of a new product.Journal of Marketing Research, 4, 3, pp. 291–295.
5.
BansalH.S., & VoyerEA. (2000) Word-of-mouth processes within a services purchase decision context.Journal of Service Research, 3, 2, pp. 166–177.
6.
BoneP. F. (1995) Word-of-mouth effects on short-term and long-term product judgmentsJournal of Business Research, 32, 3, pp 213–223.
7.
BreazealeM. (2009) Word of mouseInternational Journal of Market Research, 51, 3, pp 297–318.
8.
BronnerF., & de HoogR. (2010) Consumer-generated versus marketer-generated websites in consumer decision makingInternational Journal of Market Research, 52, 2, pp 231–248.
9.
BrownJ. J., & ReingenP. H. (1987) Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behaviorJournal of Consumer Research, 14, 3, pp 350–362.
10.
BuhrmesterM., KwangT., & GoslingS. D. (2011) Amazon's Mechanical Turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 1, pp 3–5.
CharlettD., GarlandR., & MarrN. (1995) How damaging is negative word of mouth?Marketing Bulletin, 6, 1, pp 42–50.
13.
ChevalierJ. A., & MayzlinD. (2003) The effect of word of mouth on sales: online book reviews Unpublished manuscript
14.
ChristiansenT., & TaxS. S. (2000) Measuring word of mouth: the questions of who and when?Journal of Marketing Communications, 6, 3, pp 185–199.
15.
DholakiaR. R., & SternthalB. (1977) Highly credible sources: persuasive facilitators or persuasive liabilities?Journal of Consumer Research, 3, 4, pp 223–232.
16.
EastR., & HammondK. (2005) The impact of positive and negative word of mouth on brand choice Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy (ANZMAC) Conference, 5-7 December
17.
EastR., HammondK., & LomaxW. (2008) Measuring the impact of positive and negative word of mouth on brand purchase probabilityInternational Journal of Research in Marketing, 25, 3, pp 215–224.
18.
FeldmanJ. M., & LynchJ. G. (1988) Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behaviorJournal of Applied Psychology, 73, 3, pp 421–435.
19.
FolkesV. S., & PatrickV. M. (2003) The positivity effect in perceptions of services: seen one, seen them all?Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 1, pp 125–137.
20.
FrenzenJ., & NakamotoK. (1993) Structure, cooperation, and the flow of market informationJournal of Consumer Research, 20, 3, pp 360–375.
21.
GilbertD. T., & MaloneP. S. (1995) The correspondence biasPsychological Bulletin, 117, 1, pp 21–38.
22.
GillyM. C., GrahamJ. L., WolfinbargerM. F., & YaleL. J. (1998) A dyadic study of interpersonal information searchJournal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26, 2, pp 83–100.
23.
GodesD., & MayzlinD. (2004) Using online conversations to study word-of-mouth communicationMarketing Science, 23, 4, pp 545–560.
24.
GodesD., & MayzlinD. (2009) Firm-created word-of-mouth communication: evidence from a field test MarketingScience, 28, 4, pp 721–739.
HenricksM. (1998) Spread the wordEntrepreneur, 26, 2, pp 120–125.
27.
HerrP. M., KardesF. R., & KimJ. (1991) Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute information on persuasion: an accessibility-diagnosticity perspectiveJournal of Consumer Research, 17, 4, pp 454–462.
28.
LaczniakR. N., DeCarloT. E., & RamaswamiS. N. (2001) Consumers' responses to negative word-of-mouth communication: an attribution theory perspectiveJournal of Consumer Psychology, 11, 1, pp 57–73.
29.
LeeJ. A. (2000) Adapting Triandis's model of subjective culture and social behavior relations to consumer behaviorJournal of Consumer Psychology, 9, 2, pp 117–126.
30.
Leonard-BartonD. (1985) Experts as negative opinion leaders in the diffusion of a technological innovationJournal of Consumer Research, 11, 4, pp 914–926.
31.
LutzR. J. (1975) Changing brand attitudes through modification of cognitive structureJournal of Consumer Research, 1, 4, pp 49–59.
32.
MainK. J., DahlD. W., & DarkeP. R. (2007) Deliberative and automatic bases of suspicion: empirical evidence of the sinister attribution errorJournal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 1, pp 59–69.
33.
MarneyJ. (1995) Selling in tonguesMarketing Magazine, 100, 38, p 14
34.
McGuireW. J. (1969) The nature of attitudes and attitude changeThe Handbook of Social Psychology, 3, pp 136–314.
35.
MidgleyD. (1977) Innovations and New Product MarketingNew York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc
36.
RichinsM. L. (1983) Negative word-of-mouth by dissatisfied consumers: a pilot studyJournal of Marketing, 47, 1, pp 68–78.
37.
RichinsM. L. (1984) Word-of-mouth communication as negative information In KinnearT. C. (ed) Advances in Consumer Research, 11Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, pp 697–702
38.
RyuG., & HanJ. K. (2009) Word-of-mouth transmission in settings with multiple opinions: the impact of other opinions on WOM likelihood and valenceJournal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 3, pp 403–415.
39.
SamsonA. (2006) Understanding the buzz that matters: negative vs positive word of mouthInternational Journal of Market Research, 48, 6, pp 647–657.
40.
SamsonA. (2010) Product usage and firm-generated word of mouthInternational Journal of Market Research, 52, 4, pp 459–482.
41.
SilvermanG. (1997) Harvesting the power of word of mouthPotentials in Marketing, 30, 9, pp 14–16.
42.
StephenA. T., & LehmannD. R. (2009) Why do people transmit word-of-mouth? The effects of recipient and relationship characteristics on transmission behaviors Unpublished manuscript
43.
SundaramD., & WebsterC. (1999) The role of brand familiarity on the impact of word-of-mouth communication on brand evaluationsAdvances in Consumer Research, 26, pp 664–670
44.
TesserA., & RosenS. (1975) The reluctance to transmit bad news Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 8, pp 193–232
45.
Van WallendaelL. R., & GuignardY. (1992) Diagnosticity, confidence, and the need for informationJournal of Behavioral Decision Making, 5, 1, pp 25–37.
46.
WickenG., & AsquithR. (2008) Turning the amplification up to 11International Journal of Market Research, 50, 6, pp 777–795.
47.
WrightP. (1974) The harassed decision maker: time pressures, distractions, and the use of evidenceJournal of Applied Psychology, 59, 5, pp 555–561.
