Search for publications, researchers, or questions or Discover by subject

Joinarea
for free Log in

See all See all See all

Download citation Share Download full-text PDF
3 Citations 45 References 2 Figures

The Impact of Positive and Negative Word of Mouth on Brand

Choice
Articlewith6,244 Reads
Cite this publication

1st Robert East

21.5 Kingston University London

Abstract
We present evidence from 13 studies on the relative impact of positive and negative word of mouth (PWOM and NWOM) on brand decisions. Contrary to
common expectation, our Lndings indicate that, on average, the impacts of PWOM and NWOM are much the same but we Lnd wide variation by
category. We do not Lnd that impact is related to the relative rarity of PWOM and NWOM. We do Lnd that when PWOM has high inMuence in a category,
NWOM also has high inMuence. However, our measure of impact might be improved. We argue that, when account is taken of the prior probability of
brand selection in categories with many brands, NWOM may have less impact on brand choice than PWOM.

Discover the world's research

13+ million members
100+ million publications
700k+ research projects

Join for free

2 Figures

Full-text (PDF)

Available from: Robert East

Download full-text PDF

Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 25 (2008) 215224

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

 Intern. J. of Research in Marketing
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / i j r e s m a r

Measuring the impact of positive and negative word of mouth on brand

purchase probability
Robert East a,, Kathy Hammond b,1, Wendy Lomax c,2
a
Kingston Business School, Kingston, KT2 7LB, UK
b
Duke Corporate Education, 165 Fleet St, London, EC4A 2DY, UK
c
Kingston Business School, Kingston, KT2 7LB, UK

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Using two methods, three measures, and data covering a large number of categories, we present ndin
First received in February 22, 2008 and was the respondent-assessed impact of positive and negative word of mouth (PWOM, NWOM) on brand pur
under review for 5 months probability.
For familiar brands, we nd that:
Keywords:
1. The impact of PWOM is generally greater than NWOM. The pre-WOM probability of purchase
Word of mouth
to be below 0.5, which gives more latitude for PWOM to increase purchase probability than for NWO
Impact
Brand commitment reduce it.
Familiarity 2. The impact of both PWOM and NWOM is strongly related to the pre-WOM probability of pur
NPS the strength of expression of the WOM, and whether the WOM is about the respondent's preferred b
3. PWOM and NWOM appear to be similar forms of advice-giving behavior, except for their op
effects on choice.
4. Respondents resist NWOM on brands they are very likely to choose, and resist PWOM on b
they are very unlikely to choose.
In the Discussion section, we show how our methods could be used to construct a word-of-mouth m
2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights res

1. Introduction accurate measurements in this eld. Below, we review this meas

1.1. Dening the eld
Word of mouth (WOM) is informal advice passed between
consumers. It is usually interactive, swift, and lacking in commercial
bias. WOM is a powerful inuence on consumer behavior. Keaveney
(1995) noted that 50% of service provider replacements were found in
this way. WOM may be positive (PWOM), encouraging brand choice,
or negative (NWOM), discouraging brand choice.
Brand purchase probability will be affected by the relative inci-
dence of PWOM and NWOM about the brand and also by the relative
impact of instances of PWOM and NWOM. Here, we are concerned
with the impact of PWOM compared with NWOM. There is little
evidence on this matter, which may relate to the difculty of making
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 20 8547 2000x65563.
E-mail addresses: R.East@kingston.ac.uk (R. East), Kathy.Hammond@dukece.com
(K. Hammond), W.Lomax@kingston.ac.uk (W. Lomax).
1
Tel.: +44 20 7936 6140.
2
Tel.: +44 20 8547 7464.
ment problem.
WOM can affect the adoption of new categories and the choi
brands in mature categories. In product adoption research, inte
falls on the few initial users of products whose advice to non-u
may decide the success or failure of a new product. In ma
categories, which are our research focus, changes occur main
switching between brands and interest falls on users of the cate
who may be a majority of the population when categories such as
phones and restaurants are studied. Among users of ma
categories, WOM acts within a framework of acquired consu
beliefs, preferences, habits, and commercial inuences that
constrain or assist response to the advice.
Research on the role of WOM in brand switching is required
three reasons. First, WOM is often the major reason for brand ch
but we do not yet understand how PWOM and NWOM contribu
this inuence. Second, some groups are more responsive to WOM
others, and we show how segments with different probabilitie
purchase will respond differently to PWOM and NWOM. T
Reichheld's (2003) Net Promoter Score has performed poorly
predictor of brand/company performance. Our work provides s
explanation for this failure, and our methods may be used to deve
better WOM metric.

0167-8116/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2008.04.001
216 R. East et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 25 (2008) 215224
1.2. Difcultly in studying word of mouth
Although consumers often attribute their brand choice to WOM, it
is difcult to observe cases where advice affects brand choice since
WOM about a specic category is relatively uncommon and any effect
is often delayed. When evidence is scarce, too much weight may be
given to the limited research that is available. One solitary eld study
by Arndt (1967) is often cited. Arndt found that NWOM had twice as
much impact on purchase as PWOM. However, he studied only one
brand, and systematic research should be based on all the brands in a
category and should include a range of categories. In addition,
although the category was familiar, Arndt used a new brand about
which there could be few established beliefs. Without direct evidence
of WOM effect, inferences have been made from experimental work
on the impact of positive and negative information. It is well
established that negative information usually has more impact on
judgment than positive information (Skowronski & Carlston, 1989) but
this nding may not extend to the relative impact of PWOM and
NWOM on brand choice in familiar categories.
Although there is little evidence, it appears that marketers believe
that NWOM has more impact than PWOM. For example, Assael (2004)
states, Negative word of mouth is more inuential than positive word
of mouth (though this claim may conate relative incidence and
relative impact). Conventions in media publicity also support the idea
that negative information is more potent. According to the Kroloff
(1988) principle, negative copy is four times as persuasive as positive
copy.
When direct observation is not feasible, we have to gather
evidence on the relative impact of PWOM and NWOM using indirect
methods. One method is to measure Internet postings about brands
and their subsequent sales performance (e.g., Godes & Mayzlin,
2004). A problem with this method is that there may be little
correspondence between the content of consumer-generated media
and face-to-face advice. One is not necessarily typical of the other,
and the large amount of face-to-face advice is likely to be the
dominant inuence on consumption. Keller and Fay (2006) found
that 8% of advice was Web mediated, 70% was face-to-face, and 19%
was by telephone. For this reason, we did not specically explore
the effect of Internet advice, though growth of Internet use is likely to
make this an increasingly important form of WOM. A second method
is to use laboratory experiments to investigate the response to
information on familiar brands. Other techniques that may be used
include role-play experiments and surveys. These methods also
present problems. Role-play may not typify naturally occurring
behavior, and the measures of PWOM and NWOM in surveys may be
subject to different degrees of bias that will distort the estimation of
their relative impact.
Since no single method can provide conclusive evidence, we adopt
a three-pronged approach designed to build a persuasive argument
about the relative impact of PWOM and NWOM. First, using both role-
play experiments and surveys, we nd that PWOM usually has
somewhat more effect than NWOM. This nding is similar to
experimental evidence that positive and negative information have
much the same impact on attitudes when the brands are familiar
(Ahluwalia, Burnkrant, & Unnava, 2000; Ahluwalia, 2002). Second, we
describe how the pre-WOM probability of purchase (hereafter
referred to as PPP) and other variables contribute to the impact of
WOM. We show that this evidence suggests that PWOM and NWOM
are closely similar behaviors, making it less likely that measures of the
two are subject to strongly differential bias. Third, we explain why
PWOM could have more effect than NWOM if the pre-WOM
probability of purchase (PPP) is less than 0.5, and we nd that this is
so.
The organization of the paper follows this three-pronged approach.
The empirical work is preceded by reviews of relevant research and
followed by a discussion of ndings.
2. Previous research
2.1. Rarity and room for change
Fiske (1980) observed that negative information is usually rar
than positive information and argued that this made negati
information more useful (or diagnostic) than positive informatio
because the latter could often be presumed. For example, eviden
that a brand is unreliable is more useful than evidence that the bran
is reliable because reliability may be assumed as the default conditio
for modern products. Under these circumstances, we would expe
negative information to have more effect on judgment. Studies ha
supported this negativity effect (e.g., Anderson, 1965; Chevalier
Mayzlin 2003; Fiske, 1980; Mizerski, 1982; Mittal, Ross, & Baldasar
1998).
Fiske's explanation may be expressed in terms of the gap betwe
the position implied by the message and the position held by th
receiver. Information that restates what the receiver believes m
increase certainty but is unlikely to change other aspects of
receiver's judgment. In contrast, information that differs from th
receiver's position may change their judgment. In most circumstance
the greater amount of positive information on everyday matte
ensures that the position of most receivers is positive so there will b
more impact from negative informat ion when it is receive
Exceptionally, when the receiver's expectation is negative and th
information received is positive, there could be a positivity effect
Fiske's work was extended in the accessibilitydiagnosticity (A
theory of judgmental response (Feldman & Lynch, 1988; Lync
Marmorstein, & Weigold, 1988). These researchers also suggest th
negative information is more useful, or diagnostic, by virtue of
rarity. According to the AD theory, people use diagnostic informatio
in preference to more accessible information when both are availab
so that negative information should normally have dominance.
There are other explanations for the larger impact of negati
information. One of these is that the rarity of negative informatio
makes it surprising and, thus, draws more attention (Berlyne, 1954).
second is the effect of attribution (Laczniak, DeCarlo, & Ramaswam
2001; Mizerski, 1982). For example, a positive Web comment may b
discounted because of suspicion that it is arranged. Research on th
negativity effect is reviewed in detail by Skowronski and Carlsto
(1989).
Psychological studies typically measure the way attitude
changed by advice. In research on the purchase of brands, it is mo
relevant to measure the change in the probability of purchase broug
about by advice. Accordingly, we measure the impact of WOM o
choice as a shift in the stated probability of purchase, from PPP to pos
WOM. If the PPP is below 0.5, there is more room for change
response to PWOM than in response to NWOM. For example, if the PP
is 0.4, PWOM can have a maximum effect of 0.6 (up to unity), where
NWOM has a maximum effect of 0.4 (down to zero).
2.2. Contrary responses to advice
In the preceding section, we assumed that PWOM makes a receiv
more positive and that NWOM makes a receiver more negative abo
the object of advice. However, Laczniak et al. (2001) found that peop
sometimes reacted against advice and became even more committed
a brand that was subject to negative comment. This contrary response
advice has also been observed by Wilson and Peterson (1989) and
Fitzsimons and Lehmann (2004). Such contrary responses may
explained by reactance theory (Brehm, 1966 ). In Brehm's accou
reactance is a state of arousal that motivates the maintenance of se
determination when it is under threat. Reactance can even occur wh
people are directed to do things that they want to do.
Reactance effects can be strong in experimental work. In Fitzsimo
and Lehmann's study, the recommendation of an unattractive optio
 R. East et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 25 (2008) 215224
shifted preference toward the attractive alternative choice while
recommendation of an attractive option reduced the preference for
this option. Thus, a bizarre feature of Fitzsimons and Lehmann's study
was that an attractive option was chosen more often when it was the
subject of negative advice than when it was the subject of positive
advice, making the advice counterproductive.
Contrary responses may be increased by the experimental design
used to investigate them. Advice in experiments is unsolicited and this
could arouse caution among participants. In addition, when the effects
of advice are measured immediately after receiving it, there is no time
for any reactance effects to fade. In retrospective surveys, measures
are taken some time after the claimed social exchanges have occurred.
Thus, survey evidence will show the eventual effect of the advice
rather than the immediate effect. This is more appropriate because
consumers do not usually purchase immediately after receiving
advice.
There are two other processes that could produce contrary
responses. One occurs when the receiver of advice disagrees with
the values of the advisor and expects to dislike what he/she
recommends and like what he/she dismisses. A second response
relates to damning with faint praise. If a receiver expects a strong
recommendation from a communicator but receives only a lukewarm
recommendation, the object's attraction may be diminished although
the advice is still positive. We are concerned about contrary responses
because, if these are common, it is difcult to interpret ndings on the
impact of PWOM and NWOM.
2.3. Experimental studies on real brands: commitment and familiarity
Ahluwalia et al. (2000) propose that prior commitment to a brand
may prevent consumers from fully accepting useful negative informa-
tion about that brand. These researchers describe commitment as a
form of attitude strength and measure it with three items that relate
to brand retention. To measure the response to information, Ahluwalia
et al. use support arguments, counter-arguments, attitude, and
perceived diagnosticity (the subjective judgment of diagnosticity).
The rst experiment conducted by Ahluwalia et al. showed that
high-commitment participants treated written negative information
about Nike (in the form of newspaper articles) as less diagnostic than
low-commitment participants. In addition, they gave this information
less weight and mobilized a substantial number of counter-arguments
compared with low-commitment participants. These ndings were
conrmed in a second study that used a less popular brand of athletic
shoe.
In further work, Ahluwalia (2002) compared responses to written
positive and negative information on a brand when participants were
familiar or unfamiliar with the brand. When the brand was unfamiliar,
the negative information elicited more supporting arguments and was
perceived to have more diagnosticity and weight. When the brand was
familiar, there were no signicant differences in the impact of positive
and negative i nformation. Thus, Ahluwalia argues that brand
familiarity attenuates perception of the greater diagnostic value of
negative information and suggests that, under these circumstances,
positive information may be perceived to be more diagnostic than
negative information when, objectively, this is not so. This work
follows earlier work by Wilson and Peterson (1989) and Sundaram
and Webster (1999), which showed that the impact of advice was
greatly reduced when the object of the advice was familiar.
If these experimental ndings apply to WOM, we would expect
PWOM and NWOM to have similar impacts when the categories are
familiar. However, differences between the laboratory and the natural
setting may weaken inferences from one to the other and Ahluwalia
and her colleagues are careful not to claim that their ndings can be
generalized to WOM.
In social psychology, the generalization of experimental ndings to
natural settings has been a matter of concern for many years. Early
work in this eld was done by Campbell (1957) and, more recentl
Shadish, Cook, and Campbell (2002). The experimental work revie
above differs from our approach in several ways, particularly:
The short interval between exposure to the stimulus and meas
ment of the response gives no time for the impact of informatio
fade or develop. In surveys, there is usually a substantial int
between the occurrence of WOM and the measurement of any e
Ahluwalia and her colleagues use cognitive and attitudinal meas
to assess impact. We use a measure of purchase likelihood th
accurate, relates to sales gained or lost 3. Attitude measures c
show an increase even when a person was fully committe
repurchasing a brand and purchase likelihood was unchanged.
2.4. What causes WOM?
We discuss the antecedents of WOM because these cast ligh
the nature of PWOM and NWOM. Our argument is that PWOM
NWOM are similar behaviors, except for their opposed effect
brand purchase. Researchers have claimed that PWOM is base
satisfaction and NWOM on dissatisfaction (e.g., Goldenberg, L
Moldovan, & Muller, 2007; Richins, 1983), which may provide a b
for differential effects. However, Mangold, Miller, and Brock
(1999), found that the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the com
nicator and receiver are the catalysts of WOM in only 12% of c
Furthermore, PWOM and NWOM had the same triggers, w
occurred at similar frequencies. This indicates that the two form
WOM are very similar in origin. In Mangold et al.'s work, most PW
and NWOM arose as a response to the perceived need of anoth
occurred as part of a conversation.
Turning to impact, if we can show that the impacts of PWOM
NWOM rest on the same factors to the same degree, we will sup
our argument that PWOM and NWOM are similar in nature
therefore, that biases in their measurement are likely to be simil
2.5. Factors that may be associated with impact
Several factors may be associated with the impact of WOM.
1. Room for change. As we have noted, room for change in purc
probability (in the direction indicated by the WOM) is limite
the PPP, which could favor the impact of either PWOM or NW
depending on the mean value of the PPP.
2. The strength of expression of WOM. It seems likely that the stre
of expression of WOM directly affects impact. However, somet
people react against advice, and this could produce an invers
more neutral relationship between strength of expression
impact.
3. The closeness of the communicator to the receiver. Does advice fr
strong tie (a close friend or relative) have more impact than ad
from a weak tie (acquaintances and distant relatives)? Granov
(1973) argued that weak ties have more impact on the transmis
of information through a network of social groups because weak
tend to be members of more groups and can receive informatio
one group and pass it on in another. Brown and Reingen (1
studied who told whom with regard to the customers of p
teachers. Their ndings supported Granovetter's thesis (netw
effect), but they also found that receivers thought that strong
3
Purchase likelihood has a oor and ceiling, which limit change. Floor and
effects are often discussed as measurement problems. This is correct if the
does not have limits and the measure does. In this case, the limits (0, 1) are app
for both concept and measure.
218 R. East et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 25 (2008) 215224

had more immediate impact (local effect). In this research, we test
the local effect.
4. Whether WOM is solicited or not. East, Hammond, Lomax, &
Robinson (2005) studied the relative impact of solicited and
unsolicited WOM. They found that the impact ratio of solicited to
unsolicited WOM was approximately 1.5 to 1 for both PWOM and
NWOM. Bansal and Voyer (2000) also claimed that solicited WOM
has more impact, but neither of these studies took the effect of
other variables into account. It is possible that other variables, such
as the closeness of the communicator or the room for change, are
related to whether or not the advice is solicited. This could occur if
people ask for advice more often from those they are close to or
when there is more scope for change. The separate effects of these
variables can be established by using multiple regression analysis.
5. Whether the WOM is about the receiver's main brand. WOM about
the main brand may have a different effect than WOM about other
brands when factors such as PPP are controlled. We would expect
PWOM to be more acceptable and NWOM to be less acceptable
when it is about the main brand.
6. How much WOM the respondent reported giving on the category that
was studied. Here, although we had no prior evidence, it seemed
useful to know how those who give WOM are affected by the
receipt of PWOM and NWOM.
7. Age, gender and category. We tested the contribution of these
variables.
We did not directly measure the receiver's need for advice, which
would probably make a very substantial contribution to impact; our
view here was that this relationship would be close to tautological and
not very informative. We did not ask the receiver to assess the
communicator's satisfaction or dissatisfaction, which requires infer-
ence about the communicator's state of mind. To some extent, the
communicator's feelings will affect the strength of expression of
WOM, which can be directly assessed by the respondent. In addition,
we did not measure the receiver's stated brand commitment but
inferred this from the PPP.
3. Research questions
In summary, the questions that we raise are:
RQ1. Which has the most impact on brand choice, PWOM or NWOM?
RQ2. How do the variables identied above affect the impact of
PWOM and NWOM?
RQ3. Do the same variables explain the impact of PWOM and NWO
to the same degree?
RQ4. How do the mean impacts of PWOM and NWOM relate to t
PPP?
RQ5. Does brand commitment reduce the impact of PWOM an
NWOM?
4. Research
4.1. Preliminary role-play experiments
4.1.1. Methods
The preliminary role-play experiments were conducted from 200
to 2005 using eight surveys, seven in the UK and one in France. No
users of the category were excluded. All surveys were one-wave. N
incentives were used. All but one of the surveys covered tw
categories, and some categories were covered more than once. W
present each category in a survey as a separate study, giving a total
15 studies. The methods of questionnaire distribution are shown
Table 1 together with the sample sizes and response rates (column 1
The main method of distribution was house-to-house delivery, wi
return by pre-paid mail. In each survey, the investigator delivered
several middle-income suburban districts. A letter requesting he
accompanied the questionnaire. In some cases, the investigator spo
to the householder, which may have raised the response rate. The
were 1905 respondents in total. The questionnaires carried a range
questions, but only two were relevant to the role-play stud
Respondents were asked to state how they would respond if th
received symmetrically phrased positive and negative advice from
friend. The response was registered on a 7-point scale, and th
questions and scales are illustrated in Appendix A.
4.1.2. Findings
Table 1 shows the ndings from the 15 studies on the effect
positive and negative advice. Mean responses for PWOM and NWO
are shown in columns 3 and 4, and the data are ordered by column
In answer to RQ1, we nd that the impact of the positive and negati
advice is similar but that PWOM has slightly more effect, which, wi
the large amount of data available, is signicant (p b 0.001, one-taile
Wilcoxon exact test). To check the inuence of response rate, w
correlated the response rates with the scores in columns 3 and
These correlations were not signicant (p = 0.81; p = 0.93).

Table 1
Respondent judgments of inuence on brand preference

Category (methoda, sample size, response rate) Number available for analysis Judged impact (17)

Positive Nega
1 2 3 4
Cell phone airtime (DP, 170, 48%) 81 2.38 2.69
ISP (DP, 170, 48%) 73 2.45 2.53
Cell phone airtime (DP, 302, 39%) 113 3.73 3.21
ISP (DP, 302, 39%) 93 3.74 3.26
School (DS, (865, 14%) 122 4.31 3.48
Grocery store (France) (DP, 300, 59%) 173 4.45 3.98
Fashion store (France) (DP, 300, 59%) 173 4.57 4.32
Educ. institution (DPB, 665, 34%) 64 4.64 4.44
Cell phone airtime (DPB, 665, 34%) 190 4.74 4.97
Cell phone airtime (DP, 43%) 165 4.88 4.84
Credit card (DP, 400, 43%) 140 4.90 5.10
Optician (DPB, 665, 34%) 150 5.07 5.35
Optician (DP +DI, 280, 63%) 87 5.07 5.13
Coffee house (DP, 400, 43%) 104 5.14 5.00
Restaurant (DP+ DI, 280, 63%) 177 5.25 3.84

Means (unweighted) 127 4.35 4.14

a
Methods of gathering data: DP is drop-off with free post back; DS is via schools; DPB is distribution by paperboys; DI is face-to-face distribution and collection by inter
 R. East et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 25 (2008) 215224

4.2. Retrospective surveys
4.2.1. Methods
We surveyed the recalled impact of PWOM and NWOM on brand
purchase using 11 new surveys conducted from 2005 to 2007. Five of
the surveys covered one category, and seven covered two categories.
We report this research as 19 separate studies. The methods of
questionnaire distribution are shown in Table 2, together with the
sample sizes and response rates (column 1). All studies were one-
wave, and no incentives were used. In 16 studies, questionnaires were
delivered by hand to middle-income homes in urban areas near to
London in the UK. The investigator collected the completed ques-
tionnaire by arrangement (usually two days later), or pre-paid mail
was used for return. In three of these studies, supplementary data
collection was made via intercept or friends. In one study, members of
the public were approached in a coffee shop (luxury brands). The
study of luxury leather goods was conducted by distributing
questionnaires to customers of two stores in Lebanon. The study of
Iranian restaurants was restricted to Iranians living in the London
area, and distribution was via friends. The Lebanese study on luxury
leather goods and the hair colorant study (conducted in Japan) were
restricted to women. In total, we gathered data from 2544 respon-
dents, but, since only a portion of these had received PWOM or NWOM
on the focal category, analyses were conducted on smaller numbers.
The questionnaires covered a range of issues, and the relevant
questions are shown for one category in Appendix B. In all cases,
respondents were asked if they had received positive and negative
advice in the last six months on any brand in a specied category. If
advice had been received, respondents were asked to state whether
the last instance of PWOM/NWOM had affected their brand choice (or
had affected their prospective brand choice when delayed purchase
was likely). This measure allowed us to compare the proportion of
respondents who claimed to have been affected by PWOM with the
proportion of respondents who claimed to have been affected by
NWOM.
In each of these studies, we used the Juster scale (show
Appendix B) to measure the probability of purchase before and
receiving WOM (Juster, 1966). The Juster scale measures probabili
10% intervals, and Wright and MacRae (2007) have shown th
tracks objective measures quite closely.
Other questions allowed us to e stabli sh: (1) h ow stro
expressed the advice was, (2) whether the communicator was c
to or distant from the receiver, (3) whether the advice was abou
main brand, (4) whether the advice was sought or not, and (5)
much advice on the category was given by the respondent. We
noted age and gender.
4.2.2. Findings
Table 2 shows the results. Column 1 shows the category, met
sample size, and response rate. Columns 2 and 3 show the numbe
respondents who report having received PWOM and NWOM. Colum
and 5 show the percentages of these respondents claiming that the
instances of PWOM and NWOM had affected their decision (the stu
are ordered by column 4). Columns 6 and 7 are the PPPs for PWOM
NWOM, and columns 8 and 9 are the mean shifts in the probabili
purchase produced by the last instances of PWOM and NWOM.
The data at the base of columns 4 and 5 show the mean impac
PWOM and NWOM. Overall, 64% claimed that PWOM, and
claimed that NWOM, affected their decisions. A Wilcoxon test on
individual data forming these percentages is signicant (p b 0
one-tailed exact test), and the difference between the study m
(columns 4 and 5 of Table 2) also reaches signicance (p = 0.014,
tailed exact test). Based on these results, PWOM is more inue
than NWOM. When impact is measured as the shift in purc
probability, we see that PWOM produces a mean shift of 0.20 and
NWOM produces a shift of 0.11, making PWOM 76% more inue
than NWOM. When absolute numbers are tested, PWOM
signicantly more impact than NWOM in the pooled data (p b 0
one-tailed exact test) as well as across studies when columns 8 a
are compared (p = 0.028, one-tailed exact test). Thus, using

Table 2
The impact of PWOM and NWOM on brand choice probability

Category (method, sample size, usable Number in sample Percent claiming Probability of purchase % Shift in probab
response rate) receiving effect on decision of purchase

PWOM NWOM PWOM NWOM Prior to PWOM Prior to NWOM PWOM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Supermarket (DP +DF, 300, 31%) 42 35 33 54 0.43 0.39 0.16
Cell phone airtime (2007) (DC, 300, 64%) 55 50 42 40 0.40 0.41 0.16
Cell phone handset (2007) (DC, 300, 64%) 71 64 45 39 0.50 0.42 0.08
Current bank account (DC, 250, 65%) 113 89 56 45 0.40 0.47 0.28
Camera (DP, 300, 34%) 71 52 59 48 0.45 0.38 0.01
Computer (DC, 220, 80%) 106 71 60 68 0.53 0.49 0.20
Cell phone airtime (2005) (DC, 250, 86%) 149 152 61 53 0.32 0.41 0.19
Main credit card (DC, 250, 65%) 83 70 63 50 0.37 0.48 0.28
Luxury brands (CS, 115, 87%) 72 36 64 44 0.38 0.20 0.12
Leather goods, Lebanon (DS, 235, 74%) 166 159 65 34 0.48 0.46 0.23
Camera (DP, 300, 27%) 43 18 65 44 0.53 0.34 0.17
Holiday destination (2006) (DP, 300, 27%) 56 34 66 62 0.48 0.42 0.18
Coffee shop (DC, 220, 80%) 92 68 67 43 0.54 0.42 0.19
Holiday destination (2007) (DP, 300, 34%) 88 54 67 69 0.41 0.38 0.06
Cell phone handset (2005) (DC, 250, 86%) 157 155 70 35 0.39 0.36 0.20
Restaurant, favorite (DP+ DF, 300, 31%) 67 37 72 86 0.35 0.59 0.39
Restaurant, ethnic (DP +DI, 300, 30%) 75 43 73 86 0.36 0.41 0.34
Hair colorant (DC, 222, 77%) 45 18 78 39 0.51 0.28 0.19
Restaurant, Iranian (DF, 200, 45%) 79 58 86 43 0.44 0.22 0.31

Totals 1630 1263

Means (weighted) 64 48 0.43 0.40 0.20

Methods of gathering data: DP is drop-off with free post back; DF is distribution via friends; DC is drop drop-off and collect; CS is distribution and collection in coffee sh
distribution in stores; DI is face-to-face distribution and collection by intercept.
220 R. East et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 25 (2008) 215224

Table 3 was sought. The rst was signicant (p b .001), but the second did n
Variables related to impact (NWOM impact treated as positive) reach signicance (p = 0.067). Here, again, it appears that the simp
Variable PWOM (N =1108) NWOM (N =903) association depends in part on other variables since sought advice d
not have a signicantly greater effect than unsought advice in th
Beta S.E. t Sig. Beta S.E. t Sig
regression analysis. The last variable was the amount of WOM give
PPP 0.43 .024 15.7 b .001 0.37 .022 12.0 b .001
Strength of expression of WOM 0.22 .070 8.3 b .001 0.22 .065 7.3 b .001 This is signicant in the case of NWOM, which means that those wh
WOM about main brand 0.16 .130 5.8 b .001 0.21 .164 6.6 b .001 give more NWOM are more responsive to NWOM received 5.
Closeness of communicator 0.10 .120 3.8 b .001 0.06 .121 1.9 0.058 We turn now to whether PWOM and NWOM are determined
Whether advice was sought 0.06 .127 2.2 0.028 0.04 .140 1.4 0.167 the same variables to the same degree (RQ3). Table 3 shows that th
Amount of PWOM/NWOM 0.04 .025 1.5 0.130 0.08 .022 2.8 0.005
given
beta coefcients are similar except for whether the WOM was abo
Adjusted R2 0.23 0.21 the main brand, where a reverse in sign is seen. This was expect
since it relates to the direction of effect of PWOM and NWOM. PWO
goes with brand commitment but NWOM has an uphill ta
dissuading a committed respondent. The correlation between th
two columns of beta weights in Table 3 (using absolute numbers)
measures of impact, we get the same answer to RQ1: overall, PWOM 0.96 (p = 0.003), showing a high degree of symmetry.
has more impact than NWOM. RQ4 was about the relationship of the PPP to the mean impact
We also conducted a check on the level of contrary responses PWOM and NWOM. Table 4 shows the relevant data and Fig.
(where PWOM produces a negative shift or NWOM produces a presents these data in a more accessible form. For both PWOM an
positive shift). Four percent of the responses to PWOM were negative, NWOM, we see a relatively straight section on each plot that th
and 7% of the responses to NWOM were positive. We did not nd that deects toward the x-axis. These deections can be attributed to th
the omission or reversal of contrary responses increased the R 2 in later effect of brand commitment and show how this factor constrai
regression analyses, and we used all responses as given. impact.
RQ2 concerned the contribution of different variables to impact. We can compare the overall impacts under these conditions
Step 1 was to use all the variables in an ordinal regression analysis to summing the scores on the y-axis for each point on the x-axis. Th
predict the impact of WOM, measured as a shift in purchase gives PWOM a score of 1.94 compared with 1.56 for NWOM. So, PWO
probability4 . This produced a Cox and Snell R 2 of 0.30 for PWOM remains 24% more inuential when the effect of the distribution of th
and 0.28 for NWOM. Most of the category dummies made a signicant PPP is removed. Without removing the effect of the PPP distributio
contribution, and the categories that related to the impact of PWOM PWOM is 76% more inuential than NWOM, indicating that abo
also related to the impact of NWOM (the correlation between two-thirds of the greater impact of PWOM can be related to th
coefcients for the categories was 0.63, p = 0.005). Age and gender greater room for change created by the distribution of the PPPs.
were not signicant in the regression analysis, and we do not further The plots in Fig. 1 provide a partial answer to RQ5 about the w
consider these factors further. brand commitment reduces the impact of PWOM and NWOM. We ca
Step 2 was to assess the effect on impact of the six variables estimate this effect numerically by imposing regression lines on th
remaining after excluding age, gender, and categories. For this, we last seven points of the PWOM plot and the rst seven points of th
used OLS regression. Initially, we included response rate in the NWOM plot, and extending these over the areas of deection. Witho
analyses to check its effect but it was found to be insignicant and was the deection, the score for PWOM would be 2.41 (24% more) and th
removed. Table 3 is based on only 14 of the 19 studies because data score for NWOM would be 1.97 (26% more). However, conning th
were missing on whether the advice was about the main brand in ve commitment effect to the relevant four points gives 44 and 46% mor
of the studies. Comparisons between the 19 and 14 studies, omitting respectively.
the advice about the main brand, indicated that the 14 studies were It is possible that the deections are related to other factors th
typical of the 19. The variables in Table 3 are arranged in order of the brand commitment. To test this, we compared the plots for hig
PWOM betas. commitment categories against those for low-commitment cat
From Table 3, we see that the PPP, indicating room for change, has gories. We reasoned that repertoire categories such as restaurants a
the greatest beta weight for both PWOM and NWOM, followed by low-commitment because a consumer can easily include a ne
strength of expression and whether the WOM was about the main restaurant in his/her repertoire. Also, dropping a restaurant
brand. These are the main contributors to impact among the variables response to NWOM is easier when there are several alternative
measured. Based on these assumptions, we grouped restaurants (three studie
The closeness of the communicator does not reach signicance for leather goods, luxury brands, holiday destinations (two studie
NWOM in the regression analysis but a simple cross-tabulation coffee shops, hair colorants and supermarkets as low commitmen
showed that shifts in the probability of purchase for PWOM and Fig. 2 shows the plots when the categories are divided in this manne
NWOM are 32 and 51% greater for close ties compared to distant ties While near-linear parts of the distribution are similar for the pl
(both signicant, p b 0.001). Thus, it appears that the stronger impact
of close ties in a cross-tabulation depends partly on interactions with
other variables, the effect of which is removed in a multiple regression
analysis. In a similar manner, we tested the simple association
between impact and whether the advice was sought/unsought.
Impacts for PWOM and NWOM were 24 and 17% greater when advice 5
Binary interaction terms combining the strength of expression, closeness o
communicator, whether the advice was about the current brand and whether
advice was sought were added to the analyses and did not show signicant
weights in the prediction of the impact of either PWOM or NWOM. Interaction t
combining other variables with PPP were tested. In the prediction of PWOM, stre
of expression and current brand interactions with PPP were signicant and raised
R2 from 0.23 to 0.26. In the prediction of NWOM, strength of expression, current b
4
Although the output measure is close to ratio-scale and OLS regression is probably closeness of the communicator and whether advice was sought were signicant
more appropriate, ordinal regression (in SPSS) has a convenient facility for creating raised the R2 from 0.21 to 0.26. This evidence shows that the impact of other varia
dummy variables (for the categories). is moderated by room for change, as would be expected.
 R. East et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 25 (2008) 215224

Table 4
Mean shift in purchase probability as a function of PPP

PPP PWOM NWOM

N Mean shift N Mean shift
0.0 137 0.26 185 0.02
0.1 132 0.24 128 0.02
0.2 203 0.29 182 0.01
0.3 241 0.28 141 0.09
0.4 167 0.25 120 0.13
0.5 258 0.19 179 0.16
0.6 159 0.18 105 0.25
0.7 124 0.12 92 0.26
0.8 116 0.06 80 0.28
0.9 57 0.02 50 0.22
1.0 64 0.06 61 0.13

Totals 1658 1.94 1323 1.56

Fig. 2. Shift in probability of purchase (impact) as a function of PPP. Categories se
into high high-commitment and low low-commitment groups.

pairs, the rest of the plot shows more deection for the high-
commitment categories.

5. Discussion
5.1. Main ndings
We examined the relative impact of PWOM and NWOM on
reported brand purchase probability. We used two methods of
investigation, employed three measures of impact in total, and
gathered data across a range of categories. Overall, PWOM had more
impact on brand purchase probability than NWOM. This nding is
similar to the ndings from experiments. We have also shown that the
same determinants govern the impact of PWOM and NWOM, with
closely similar weights. This nding suggests that these two forms of
WOM are similar behaviors and, thus, that they are likely to have
similar measurement biases.
We provided an explanation for the greater effect of PWOM. We
found that the prior probability of purchase (PPP) tends to be below
0.5, leaving more room for change in response to PWOM than NWOM.
We also found that room for change is related to impact. We can thus
employ Fiske's gap explanation to explain why, in this case, there is a
positivity effect, with PWOM having more impact than NWOM. This
account differs from that of Ahluwalia (2002), who argued that
negative information was more diagnostic, but that brand familiarity
attenuated the perception of this diagnostic value. By interpreting
diagnosticity as the gap between receiver position and message, we
found that NWOM is less diagnostic than PWOM with regard to brand
choice.
5.2. Other ndings
Our work also shows the effect of other factors on the impa
PWOM and NWOM. The strength of expression of WOM has a st
effect on both PWOM and NWOM. If the WOM is about the recei
main brand, it has a positive effect when it is PWOM and a neg
effect when it is NWOM.
We found that the impact of PWOM and NWOM from close
was more signicant in a cross-tabulation than in the mul
regression analysis. This suggests that part of the effect of close
(e.g., as observed by Brown & Reingen, 1987) comes from associ
variables. Similarly, we found that advice that was sought tende
have more effect than unsought advice in a cross-tabulation.
nding was signicant for PWOM but not for NWOM, but the e
was signicant for neither PWOM nor NWOM in the regres
analyses. This suggests that earlier work by East et al. (2005)
Bansal and Voyer (2000) should be treated cautiously since this w
excluded the effect of other variables. However, the simple associa
may be more relevant in practical application if associated varia
are likely to be invoked by the application.
5.3. Applications
5.3.1. Setting the record straight
It is our understanding that both academic and practiti
marketers believe that NWOM has more impact on brand purc
than PWOM. Our evidence indicates that this belief is mista
Marketers need to purge their discipline of beliefs that are little m
than hearsay, particularly when they apply to one of the m
powerful inuences on consumption. We need to have an un
standing of how PWOM and NWOM exert impact on consu
decision making if we are to conduct more focused research in
eld.

5.3.2. Predictions based on the PPP

Fig. 1. Shift in probability of purchase (impact) as a function of PPP.
Fig. 1 indicates how the effect of WOM is conditioned by the
and commitment. Other forms of communication such as advert
and direct marketing could be similarly conditioned. From the p
we see that positive messages have more impact when the PPP is
0.5 and that negative messages have more inuence in the range 0
0.9. Thus, the potential impact of WOM, and possibly other com
nication types, can be estimated from Fig. 1 if the PPP of a segmen
be assessed using purchase records or management judgment
example.
222 R. East et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 25 (2008) 215224

Table 5
Mobile phones: WOM effect: measures for 100 respondents

Brand NP Mean shiftP NP Mean shiftP NN Mean shiftN N N Mean shiftN Net effect Market share Proportionate e
Nokia 147 0.17 25 99 .08 8 17 40 0.43
Sony Ericsson 99 0.21 21 104 .07 7 14 25 0.56
Motorola 94 0.19 18 55 .06 3 15 14 1.07
Samsung 40 0.25 10 38 .03 1 9 10 0.90
Siemens 11 0.22 2 38 .05 2 0 4 0.00
Others 8 0.57 5 104 .09 9 4 7 .57

5.3.3. A metric for WOM
Our work describes a method of measuring WOM impact using the
Juster scale, while a companion paper by East, Hammond and Wright
(2007) measures the relative incidence of PWOM and NWOM. By
combining the two methods, we obtain a metric for the net effect of
PWOM and NWOM and this may be compared with alternative
metrics. The main alternative is Reichheld's (2003) Net Promoter
Score (NPS). The NPS was designed to measure the number of people
who are likely to provide positive comments about the brand
(promoters) minus those likely to give negative comments (detrac-
tors). Many rms now use this measure to assess performance. While
Reichheld showed support for the NPS in a correlational study,
subsequent tests were less encouraging. Morgan and Rego (2006)
constructed a measure similar to the NPS and found it to be less
effective at predicting company revenue. Further work by Keining-
ham, Cooil, Andreasson and Aksoy (2007), using the industries studied
by Reichheld, found again that the NPS gave a poor prediction of
performance. In another study, Keiningham, Cooil, Aksoy, Andreassen
and Weiner (2007) showed that a multiple-item measure, rather than
the single-item NPS, gave a better prediction of retention and
recommendation.
This poor performance of the NPS may be because WOM is not
related to brand performance or because Reichheld's metric fails to
accurately measure the effect of WOM. We take the latter position. We
identify four potential weaknesses in the NPS in addition to any decit
due to its single-item form. The rst weakness is the use of self-
prediction (how likely is it that you would recommend to a friend?)
since respondents cannot easily anticipate the circumstances that
would permit them to give advice about specic rms. The second
weakness is the one size ts all feature of the NPS. The measure uses
an 11-point scale to measure the likelihood of recommendation,
assigning scores of 0 to 6 to detractors and scores of 910 to promoters
(the NPS is the difference in the percentages of respondents in these
segments). This measure does not allow for variation in the impact of
PWOM and NWOM across brands in a category. Third, NWOM is not
measured in the NPS but is inferred from low PWOM. However, those
who give little PWOM may not give NWOM. Indeed, East et al. (2007)
found that those who gave less PWOM also gave less NWOM and that
most of the NWOM given was on brands other than the focal brand.
East et al. (2007) found that the incidence of NWOM was more
variable in relation to market share than PWOM. This means that
specic brands may get more NWOM than PWOM even though there
is more PWOM than NWOM in the category. This makes it important
to measure NWOM as accurately as possible. The fourth weakness is
that the NPS measures the propensity to give advice but the advice
that people claim to have received is closer to impact on brand choice.
In our procedure, the incidence and impact of received PWOM and
NWOM on all brands in the category are measured. Using the product
of incidence and impact measures, we can assess the combined effect
of PWOM and NWOM on each brand in a category. We illustrate this in
Table 5 using our own data from 2005 on cell phones in the UK. Table 5
shows the brands, the number of instances of PWOM and NWOM
about each brand, the mean impact on brand purchase probability
that each instance of PWOM/NWOM produced, and the products of
number and impact. We combine the products to get the net effect of
PWOM and NWOM, which should relate to volume gain. To assess the
proportionate effect on market share, we divide the net effect by th
market share revealed by the respondents. Table 5 indicates th
Motorola and Samsung receive more support from WOM than oth
brands but, with so few respondents, this is unlikely to be predictiv
This metric may perform better than the NPS and thus show th
WOM does predict brand performance.
6. Conclusion
We used role-play experiments and survey methods and foun
that PWOM usually had more effect than NWOM. We explained wh
this was found, adapting the explanation that is often cited in suppo
of the belief that NWOM has more impact than PWOM. We show
that the impact o f both PWOM and NWOM had the sam
determinants with closely similar beta weights, which suggests th
these two forms of WOM are similar behaviors. This makes it le
likely that our ndings are distorted by differential recall bias. In th
way, we present a persuasive case that PWOM usually has mo
impact than NWOM.
Acknowledgements
The contributions of the editor and reviewers greatly improv
this paper. Very useful advice was received from John Lynch. W
gratefully acknowledge those whose work was used in the preparatio
of this paper: Chantal Adaimy, Pavadee (Sai) Chokesirikulchai, Jea
Francois Damais, Steve Deschildres, Jo Eskell, Francesca Fanshaw
Alman Gaba, Menekse Guven, Caroline Hancock, Monika Holbrac
Onsitang Honda, Gelareh Hooshyar, Massa Iwata, Tehmina Jifri, Dil
Joseph, Laprasada (Ja) Laksanasopin, Justin Sadaghiani, Siti Salw
binte haji Saim, Kathryn Shirley, Omer Soomro, Lindsey Tregurth
Marike van Iersel, Iosif Vourvachis, and Dongjiao Xu.
Appendix A. Sample questions used in the preliminary studies
To what extent do you agree/disagree with the following? I a
looking for a new restaurant. A friend tells me that he/she has had
negative experience with a restaurant. This would stop me fro
going there
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Slightly disagree
Neither disagree nor agree
Slightly agree
Agree
Strongly agree
To what extent do you agree/disagree with the following? I a
looking for a new restaurant. A friend tells me that he/she has had
positive experience with a restaurant. This would get me to go ther
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Slightly disagree
Neither disagree nor agree
Slightly agree
Agree
Strongly agree
 R. East et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 25 (2008) 215224

Appendix B

In
In this
this questionnaire,
questionnaire, we
we sometimes
sometimes ask
ask you
you to
to judge
judge the
the likelihood
likelihoodofofdoing
doingsomething
somethingfrom
from0 0toto10.10.
Please rate
Please your
rate answers
your to to
answers th
questions according to
to the
the following
followingscale:
scale:

10 Certain, practically certain (99 in 100)

9 Almost sure (9 in 10)
8 Very probable (8 in 10)
7 Probable (7 in 10)
6 Good possibility (6 in 10)
5 Fairly good possibility (5 in 10)
4 Fair possibility (4 in 10)
3 Some possibility (3 in 10)
2 Slight possibility (2 in 10)
1 Very slight possibility (1 in 10)
0 No chance, almost no chance (1 in 100)

1. Do you own a mobile phone? 11. In the last six months, how many times have
No [1] received negative advice about any mobile phone
Yes [2] handset?
2. Which make of mobile phone do you have? Write in number (0, 1, 2 e
Have no mobile phone [1] If you answered 0, then please go
Nokia [2] 12. The last time you received negative advice, di
Sony Ericsson [3] ask for advice or was it just given?
Motorola [4] Just gi
Samsung [5] Asked fo
Siemens [6] 13. What was your relationship to the person wh
Panasonic [7] gave negative advice?
NEC [8] Casual acquainta
Airtime supplier phone (O2, 3 etc) [9] More distant family, friend or collea
Other brand of mobile phone [10] Close family, close friend or collea
3. In the last six months, how many times have you 14. About which brand was the last negative adv
received positive advice about any mobile phone received? Please write in the make of mobile ph
handset? (Nokia, Sony Ericsson etc)
Write in number (0, 1, 2 etc ) 15. Did the last negative advice received affect y
If you answered 0, then please go to Q.11 handset choice or intended handset choice?
4. The last time you received positive advice, did you
ask for the advice or was it just given?
Just given [1] 16. From 0 to 10, how likely were you to choose
Asked for it [2] handset before you received the last negative
5. What was your relationship to the person who last advice? (Please see the scale above)
gave you positive advice? Write in number (0 to
Casual acquaintance [1] 17. From 0 to 10, how likely were you to choose t
More distant family, friend or colleague [2] handset after you received the last negative adv
Close family, close friend or colleague [3] (Please see the scale above)
6. About which brand was the last positive advice Write in number (0 to
received? Please write in the make of mobile phone 18. How strongly expressed was the last negativ
(Nokia, Sony Ericsson etc) advice?
7. Did the last positive advice that you received affect Hardly at all stro
your handset choice or intended handset choice? Moderately stro
No [1] Fairly stron
Yes [2] Very stron
8. From 0 to 10, how likely were you to choose the 19. In the last six months, how many times have
handset before you received the last positive given negative advice about any mobile phone h
advice? (Please see the scale above) Write in number (0, 1, 2 e
Write in number (0 to 10) If you answered 0, then please go
9. From 0 to 10, how likely were you to choose the 20. About which brand did you last give negativ
handset after you received the last possible advice? advice? Please write in the make of mobile phon
(Please see the scale above) (Nokia, Sony Ericsson etc)
Write in number (0 to 10) 21. In the last six months, how many times have
10. How strongly expressed was the last positive given positive advice about any mobile phone h
advice? Write in number (0, 1, 2 et
Hardly at all strongly [1] If you answered 0, then please g
Moderately strongly [2] 22. About which brand did you last give positive
Fairly strongly [3] advice? Please write in the make of mobile phon
Very strongly [4] (Nokia, Sony Ericsson etc)

References
Ahluwalia, R. (2002, September). How prevalent is the negativity effect in consumer
environments? Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 270279.
Ahluwalia, R., Burnkrant, R. E., & Unnava, H. R. (2000, May). Consumer response to
negative publicity. Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 203214.
Anderson, N. H. (1965, July). Averaging versus adding as a stimulus combination rule in
impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 19.
Arndt, J. (1967, August). The role of product-related conversations in the diffus
new product. Journal of Marketing Research, 4, 291295.
Assael, H. (2004). Consumer behavior: A strategic approach. Boston: Houghton
Company.
Bansal, H. S., & Voyer, P. A. (2000). Word-of-mouth processes within a services p
decision context. Journal of Service Research, 2(3), 166177.
Berlyne, D. E. (1954). A theory of human curiosity. British Journal of Psychol
80191.
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic P
224 R. East et al. / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 25 (2008) 215224
Brown, J. J., & Reingen, P. H. (1987). Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior.
Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (3), 350362.
Campbell, D. T. (1957). Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings.
Psychological Bulletin, 54, 297312.
Chevalier, J. A., & Mayzlin, D. (2003). The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book
reviews. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(3), 345354.
East, R., Hammond, K., Lomax, W., & Robinson, H. (2005). What is the effect of a
recommendation? The Marketing Review, 5(2), 145157.
East, R., Hammond, K. A., & Wright, M. (2007). The relative incidence of positive and
negative word of mouth: A multi-category study. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 24(2), 175184.
Feldman, J. M., & Lynch, J. G., Jr. (1988, August). Self-generated validity and other effects
of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 73, 421435.
Fiske, S. T. (1980). Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative
and extreme behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(6), 889906.
Fitzsimons, G. J., & Lehmann, D. R. (2004). When unsolicited advice yields contrary
responses. Marketing Science, 23(1), 8295.
Godes, D., & Mayzlin, D. (2004). Using online conversations to study word of mouth
communication. Marketing Science, 23(4), 545560.
Goldenberg, J., Libai, B., Moldovan, S., & Muller, E. (2007). The NPV of bad news. Inter-
national Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(3), 186200.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6),
13601380.
Juster, F. T. (1966, September). Consumer buying intentions and purchase probability:
An experiment in survey design. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 61,
658696.
Keaveney, S. M. (1995). Customer switching behavior in service industries: An
exploratory study. Journal of Marketing, 59(2), 7182.
Keiningham, T. L., Cooil, B., Andreasson, T. W., & Aksoy, L. (2007). A longitudinal
examination of net promoter and rm revenue growth. Journal of Marketing, 71(3),
3951.
Keiningham, T. L., Cooil, B., Aksoy, L., Andreassen, T. W., & Weiner, J. (2007). The value of
different customer satisfaction and loyalty metrics in predicting customer retention,
recommendation, and share-of-wallet. Managing Service Quality, 17(4), 361384.
Keller, E., & Fay, B. (2006). Single-source WOM measurement: Bringing together sen
and receivers inputs and outputs. In W. J. Carl (Ed.), Measuring word of mouth,
(pp. 3141). Chicago: Word of Mouth Marketing Association.
Kroloff, G. (1988). At home and abroad: Weighing in, public relations journal. Octob
Laczniak, R. N., DeCarlo, T. E., & Ramaswami, S. N. (2001). Consumers' respons
negative word-of-mouth communication: An attribution theory perspective.
nal of Consumer Psychology, 11(1), 5774.
Lynch, J. G., Jr., Marmorstein, H., & Weigold, M. F. (1988, September). Choices from
including remembered brands: Use of recalled attributes and prior ov
evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 169184.
Mangold, W. G., Miller, F., & Brockway, G. R. (1999). Word-of-mouth communicati
the service marketplace. Journal of Services Marketing, 13 (1), 7389.
Mittal, V., Ross, W. T., & Baldasare, P. M. (1998, January). The asymmetric impa
negative and positive attribute-level performance on overall satisfaction
repurchase intentions. Journal of Marketing , 62, 3347.
Mizerski, R. W. (1982). An attributional explanation of the disproportionate inuen
unfavorable information. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 301310.
Morgan, N. A., & Rego, L. L. (2006). The value of different customer satisfaction
loyalty metrics in predicting business performance. Marketing Science, 2
426439.
Reichheld, F. F. (2003). The one number you need to grow. Harvard Business Review, 81
4654.
Richins, M. (1983). Negative word of mouth by dissatised customers: A pilot s
Journal of Marketing, 47(1), 6878.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. T., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experim
designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton-Mifin.
Skowronski, J. J., Ca, & rlston, D. E. (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impre
formation: A review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105(1), 131142.
Sundaram, D. S., & Webster, C. (1999). The role of brand familiarity on the impa
word-of-mouth communication on brand evaluations. Advances in Cons
Research, 26, 664670.
Wilson, W. R., & Peterson, R. A. (1989). Some limits on the potency of word-of-m
information. Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 2329.
Wright, M., & MacRae, M. (2007). Bias and variability in purchase intention sc
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35 (4), 617624.
 Citations 3 References 45

Interestingly, both studies 3nd that the wide majority of WOM activity is
positive, with a share of two thirds reported by Godes and Mayzlin (2004),
and nearly three quarters documented by Chevalier and Mayzlin (2006).
These 3ndings are in line with recent studies in the " ofKine " world (East
2005).

Did They Tell Their Friends? - Using Social Network Analysis to Detect Contagion Processes
[Show abstract]

Full-text Article Feb 2008

Christian Barrot Snke Albers

Read full-text

Who are 'innovators' and do they matter? A critical review of the evidence supporting the
targeting of 'innovative' consumers
[Show abstract]

Full-text Article Aug 2007

Heath J. McDonald Frank Alpert

Read full-text

Investigating Romanian Healthcare Consumer Behaviour in Online Communities: Qualitative

Research on Negative eWOM
[Show abstract]

Full-text Article Oct 2012

Iuliana-Raluca Gheorghe Mei-Na Liao

Read full-text

Recommendations

Discover more publications, questions and projects in Mouth

Project

Social Amplification: A Mechanism in the Diffusion of Information about Brands

Robert East
Trying to retire

View project

Project

Improving agent-based models of diffusion

Robert East Mark D. Uncles Jenni Romaniuk
View project

Project

Cannibalization
Wendy Lomax Maria Clemente Robert East
View project

Project

Brand extensions
Wendy Lomax Robert East Mark D. Uncles [...] Jos Miguel Pina
View project
Chapter

Wearout, Carryover Effects and Decay of Advertising

January 2003

Ads wear out (i.e. cease to inMuence receivers) after a number of exposures and must then be replaced. To explain wearout we need a model that describes
response to repeated exposures. The model presented in this Chapter speciLes primary responses to advertising that may be either thoughtful or automatic, and
carryover effects that induce further sales if there has been a sales effect at the... [Show full abstract]

Read more

Chapter

How do Individuals Process Advertising?

January 2003

We now examine theories that have been used to explain how people attend to and process advertising. We look Lrst at traditional sequential models such as
AIDA. These models deLne some necessary requirements for ads to work but the causal relationships that have been claimed on their behalf are often in doubt.
The ATR (awareness, trial, reinforcement) model is a better description of how... [Show full abstract]

Read more

Article

Complaining as planned behaviour

Read more

Article

Factors Associated with the Production of Word of Mouth

January 2015 International Journal of Market Research Impact Factor: 0.63

Measures of the frequency of factors associated with both positive and negative word of mouth (WOM) are obtained by survey, using a typology established by
Mangold, Miller and Brockway (1999). Preliminary and main studies are conducted, each covering four service categories. Respondents report on both giving and
receiving word of mouth. This approach allows us to address three... [Show full abstract]

Read more

Discover more
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions
from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.

This publication is from a journal that may support self archiving. Learn more

2008-2017 ResearchGate GmbH. All rights reserved. About us Help Center Careers Developers News Contact us Privacy Terms Copyright | Advertising Recruiting