7/29/2019 wm-e

1/10

Word of Mouth: Why is it so Significant?

Bodo Lang, Manukau Institute of Technology

Abstract

Word of mouth (WOM) is a concept of ever increasing importance to both marketing

academics and practitioners. Despite the interest in WOM, no research to date has

summarised the factors that contribute towards WOM's significance. Based on a synthesis of

the literature, this paper develops a conceptual framework of the factors that contribute

towards the significance of WOM. Eleven factors are identified that contribute towards

WOM's significance. The eleven factors can be summarised under two headings: WOM's

pervasiveness and persuasiveness, both of which are thought to be interdependent, rather than

independent of each other.

Introduction and Purpose

Word of Mouth (WOM) is a concept of strong interest to both marketing academics and

practitioners. From an academic perspective, WOM has attracted research attention during the

past six decades (Gruen, Osmonbekov, and Czaplewski, 2006; Knapp, 1944). Last year alone

nineteen academic articles were published with the term "Word of Mouth" in the title (see

references). Thus, WOM is an area of sustained research enquiry and the intensity appears to

be increasing. Practitioners also have a growing interest in WOM; whether it is margarine

(Elliott, 2005), hybrid cars (Guyer, 2005), music (MusicWeek, 2005), books, (Cohen, 1999),

Internet telephony (Davis, 2005), or handheld video games (Godes and Mayzlin, 2004),

marketing practitioners are increasingly shying away from traditional mass communication

tools in favour of WOM campaigns. In line with this trend, dedicated WOM agencies have

emerged that focus on generating and spreading WOM for their clients (Frost, 2005).

Furthermore, two new practitioner associations have been launched to cater exclusively for

WOM marketing practitioners (Howell, 2005).

It appears that both marketing academics as well as practitioners would benefit from a better

understanding of WOM and the reasons why it is so significant. A 'deconstruction' of the

factors that make WOM so important may allow marketing practitioners to develop more

diagnostic ways of measuring the effects of (potential) WOM campaigns. This would echo

researchers' calls for greater use of WOM in market research (Reichheld, 2003). Thus, the

overall goal of this article is to develop a parsimonious conceptual framework of the factorsthat contribute towards WOM's significance.

Word of mouth (WOM) can be described as informal communication between consumers

about goods and services without either party being formally rewarded for this

communication (Anderson, 1998; Dichter, 1966; Westbrook, 1987). While early definitions

focused on oral WOM (Arndt, 1967, 1967), more recent research includes non-personal

communication via electronic channels, such as email, mobile phone text messages, bulletin

boards and other means that would comprise what may be called digital WOM (Bickart and

Schindler, 2002; Newman, 1999; Stokes and Lomax, 2002).

7/29/2019 wm-e

2/10

WOM's Significance

Researchers have recognized that WOM is probably the most powerful force shaping

consumer behaviour (Whyte, 1954), which lead researchers to describe WOM as almost

irresistible (Arndt, 1967) and a response that may be among the most important (Brown,

Barry, Dacin, and Gunst, 2005).

How persuasive WOM is, particularly in comparison with more traditional marketing

communication channels such as advertising, has long been a topic of inquiry (Katz and

Lazarsfeld, 1955). Research has found that informal information, such as WOM, was a more

important source of information compared to mass media such as print or television

advertising (Beal and Rogers, 1957; Buttle, 1998; East, Hammond, Lomax, and Robinson,

2005; Hinde, 1999; Katz and Lazarsfeld, 1955; Traylor and Mathias, 1983). WOM has even

been found to be more important in influencing consumers compared to independent third-

party reviews such as Consumer reports (Herr, Kardes, and Kim, 1991; Hinde, 1999; Price

and Feick, 1984). Lastly, WOM can also be more powerful than the consumers own attitude

toward a product (Bourne, 1957).

While it has become clear that WOM can dominate other information channels, no research

has summarised why WOM has such a significant impact on consumers; this is what this

paper wishes to investigate. Thus, this paper will now turn to a synthesis of previous research

to fill this gap.

At the most fundamental level, one could think of two fundamental factors that fuel WOM's

significance: The pervasiveness of WOM, that is its reach or the number of consumers

exposed to it, and the persuasiveness, that is its impact on consumers' attitudes and

behaviours. The following two sections synthesize findings from the literature regarding the

pervasiveness and persuasiveness of WOM and build a conceptual framework consisting ofeleven drivers that contribute towards the significance of WOM.

The Pervasiveness of WOM

Based on extant literature, seven factors can be thought of as contributing towards the

pervasiveness of WOM. Firstly, WOM is a global phenomenon (Money, 2000; Takada and

Jain, 1991; Watkins and Liu, 1996), although individualist and collectivist cultures may

engage in WOM to a different extent (Watkins and Liu, 1996). WOM has been found to be of

importance in western countries such as the UK (Ranaweera and Prabhu, 2003; Stokes and

Lomax, 2002), the US (Brown et al., 2005; Whyte, 1954), Canada (Bansal and Voyer, 2000),

Germany (Wangenheim, 2005; Wangenheim and Bayn, 2004) and Sweden (Anderson,1998), Asian countries such as Japan (Money, 1995; Money, 2000), South Korea (Babin,

Yong-Ki, Eun-Ju, and Griffin, 2005) and Singapore (Chew and Wirtz, 2001; Wirtz and Chew,

2002) and developing nations such as India (Ennew, Banerjee, and Li, 2000) and the former

Soviet Union (Bauer and Gleicher, 1953). Thus, WOM can be seen to be effective across

geographical borders.

Secondly, WOM operates across all industries. WOMs importance stretches across diverse

industries encompassing corporate services (Money, 2000), personal services (Reichheld,

2003; Swanson and Kelley, 2001), basic goods (Belk, 1971) and complex goods (Arndt and

May, 1981; Gilly, Graham, and Wolfinbarger, 1998; Herr et al., 1991; Price and Feick, 1984;

Schindler and Bickart, 2002; Stuteville, 1968; Swan and Oliver, 1989; Westbrook, 1987).

7/29/2019 wm-e

3/10

Thirdly, the proportion of consumers engaging in WOM has been found to be very high

(Bone, 1995; Bristor, 1990). Data from the Swedish and US customer satisfaction barometers

indicate that more than half of all consumers engage in WOM (Anderson, 1998). Similarly,

57% of people who had initiated contact with a manufacturer (e.g. email, phone, web) talked

to at least one other person about their experience (Bowman and Narayandas, 2001) and more

than 70% of consumers had engaged in WOM after product consumption (i.e. watching amovie) (Bayus, Carroll, and Rao, 1985). Other research findings have suggested that as many

as 80% of consumers engage in WOM (Bone, 1992; Larsen and Hill, 1954). Thus, a sizeable

proportion of consumers engage in WOM, across a variety of industries.

Fourthly, the proportion of consumers relying on WOM has been found to be very high.

While the precise proportion is disputed (East et al., 2005; Walker, 1995), it is clear that the

majority of consumers often rely on WOM for decision-making. The proportion of consumers

who rely on WOM as the main source of information can vary from nine percent to 65% (East

et al., 2005). A number of other studies support the notion that at least half of all consumers

rely on WOM when making purchase decisions (Barnes, 1986; Engel, Blackwell, and

Kegerreis, 1969a; Engel, Kegerreis, and Blackwell, 1969b; Feldman and Spencer, 1965;Walker, 1995).

Fifthly, WOM can spread quickly. In a study of how many people an innovator had spoken to

a few days after trialling a product, 90% of innovators had told at least one person about their

experience, while 40% of people had told two or more people (Engel et al., 1969b).

Importantly, the speed with which WOM is re-transmitted is even greater for digital WOM

(Phelps, Lewis, Mobilio, Perry, and Raman, 2004).

Sixthly, one of the key factors in allowing WOM to spread quickly is the fact that WOM may

be re-transmitted (Bristor, 1990). That is, WOM may be received by a consumer who then

passes the message on to another consumer and so forth (Arndt, 1967). Early research calledfor an investigation of this phenomenon (Richins, 1984; Sheth, 1971) with subsequent

inquiries showing that re-transmission is a real world phenomenon in traditional settings

(Brown and Reingen, 1987; Reingen, 1987; Reingen and Kernan, 1986) as well as for digital

WOM (Phelps et al., 2004).

Lastly, one of the most powerful facets of WOM is that it can be shared with more than one

person, i.e. multiple dyads. Some research has found that WOM is 'only shared on average

with a relatively low number of three people (Bowman and Narayandas, 2001; Larsen and

Hill, 1954). Using Swedish and US national customer satisfaction barometers, it was found

that those who engaged in WOM, talked to an average of 9.5 people (Sweden) and 7.9 people

(US) (Anderson, 1998). The number of people talked to by each WOM sender can varyconsiderably from zero to up to 35 in a traditional WOM context (Larsen and Hill, 1954).

Digital WOM appears to vary even more substantially, ranging between one and 177 digital

episodes in a month (Phelps et al., 2004). After having discussed the pervasiveness, or

reach, of WOM, the following section discusses the persuasiveness or impact of WOM.

The Persuasiveness of WOM

Based on the extant literature, four factors have been identified that contribute towards the

persuasiveness of WOM. Firstly, it is generally agreed that the persuasiveness of WOM is

mainly due to WOM being seen as credible, trustworthy and reliable (Arndt, 1967; Dholakia

and Sternthal, 1977; Heckman, 1999; Richins, 1984; Sobczak, 1990). Secondly, WOM hasbeen found to be highly persuasive due to the receiver's ability to give feedback (Arndt, 1967,

7/29/2019 wm-e

4/10

1967). Thirdly the sender's ability to deliver tailored (Lazarsfeld, Berelson, and Gaudet, 1948)

or personalized information (Bolen, 1994) in which information may be added or filtered or

one's own interpretation is added makes it more relevant to the receiver, thus making WOM

highly persuasive (Arndt, 1967). Lastly, research has identified that more accessible and

diagnostic information has a greater impact on consumers (Feldman and Lynch, 1988).

Diagnosticity in this instance refers to how useful information is for making a purchasedecision, for example, how much brands differ and whether certain brands are judged better

than others. Importantly, WOM fares well in both accessibility and diagnosticity compared to

non-personal sources of information such as advertising (Herr et al., 1991; Lynch,

Marmorstein, and Weigold, 1988) thus making it a highly persuasive communication channel.

Discussion of Conceptual Framework

So far this paper has distilled eleven factors that contribute towards the significance of WOM.

Figure 1 integrates these factors into one framework. The following section discusses the

interrelationship between the pervasiveness and the persuasiveness of WOM.

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework of Factors that Contribute Towards the Significance

of WOM

WOM

Importance of WOM

Pervasiveness of WOM

Persuasiveness of WOM

Multiple dyads

Re-transmission

Can spreadquickly

Global incidence

Across productcategories

High proportionengage in

High proportionrely on

Accessible anddiagnostic

Tailored andpersonalised

Credible,trustworthy &

reliable

Ability to givefeedback

The labels pervasiveness and persuasiveness appear conceptually clear cut. That is, one is

concerned about the reach of WOM, while the other is concerned about the impact of

WOM upon consumers once they are reached. However, one should consider the

pervasiveness and the persuasiveness of WOM not as two independent factors but rather as

two interdependent factors. Furthermore, both factors appear interdependent upon each other.

Firstly, the pervasiveness of WOM impacts on the persuasiveness of WOM. The greater the

number of people who utter consistent WOM to a consumer, the higher the chances of that

consumer following the collective advise of WOM senders (Watts, 2003). Thus, the sheer

pervasiveness of WOM can contribute towards the persuasiveness of WOM. Secondly, thepersuasiveness of WOM can impact on the pervasiveness of WOM. As discussed earlier, the

7/29/2019 wm-e

5/10

pervasiveness of WOM is in part driven by the presence of multiple dyads and consumers'

ability to re-transmit WOM to other consumers (Anderson, 1998; Bowman and Narayandas,

2001; Brown and Reingen, 1987; Larsen and Hill, 1954; Reingen, 1987; Reingen and Kernan,

1986). Research has found that message content, including its persuasiveness, can influence

consumers intentions to share WOM with other consumers (i.e. multiple dyads) and

consumers' intention to re-transmit WOM (Phelps et al., 2004). Thus, the persuasiveness ofWOM can also impact on the pervasiveness of WOM.

This discussion suggests that each of the eleven factors may be powerful individually, but that

a combination of two or ideally more of these factors would yield stronger synergistic effects.

In this sense, the framework may be seen as a checklist for an 'ideal WOM campaign'; the

more factors that apply, the more powerful the WOM campaign is likely to be. Thus, the

framework may be used by practitioners to assess a WOM campaign's likely impact prior to

its implementation.

Conclusion

In summary, the first conceptual framework of the factors that contribute towards WOMs

significance has been proposed. The framework was developed by synthesizing WOM

research from the past six decades. Two higher order factors, the pervasiveness, or reach, of

WOM and the persuasiveness, or impact, of WOM were identified. Eleven factors were found

to have contributed towards these two higher order factors. Lastly, the pervasiveness of WOM

and the persuasiveness of WOM were conceptualized as two interdependent factors.

It is hoped that this framework serves as a useful framework for both academics and

practitioners. For practitioners, this framework could serve as a diagnostic tool to assess the

appropriateness of WOM to a particular situation. For example, the tool could be used bycompanies to assess how fully the eleven factors apply to a given situation. The more fully the

factors apply, the more appropriate WOM may be as a communications tool in that particular

situation. For instance, if the content of a WOM message is highly engaging, then multiple

dyads and re-transmission rates are likely to be high, thus resulting in higher pervasiveness

and persuasiveness of the message. It is also hoped that the framework presented in this paper

is of use to academics. During the past six decades, significant progress has been made but

some questions remain unanswered. This paper wishes to fill one of these gaps by making the

significance of WOM more explicit. It is also hoped that the proposed theoretical framework

will stimulate discussion and highlight WOM's significance even further.

The extensive review of the literature is a good starting point for building the framework.However, this has restricted the research to being purely inductive in nature. A logical next

step would be to engage in a test of the framework, or, in other words, a deductive step. Such

progression would result in a more developed understanding of a phenomenon that has caught

the imagination of both marketing academics and practitioners, in itself a rare occurrence as

often academics and practitioners priorities are not closely matched. WOM maybe one of the

few exceptions to this; thus allowing for both: Relevance and theory development.

7/29/2019 wm-e

6/10

References

Anderson, E. W., 1998. Customer Satisfaction and Word of Mouth. Journal of Service

Research 1 (1), 5-17.

Arndt, J., 1967. Role of Product-Related Conversations in the Diffusion of a New Product.

Journal of Marketing 4 (August), 291-295.

Arndt, J., 1967. Word of Mouth Advertising. New York: Advertising Research Foundation

Inc.

Arndt, J., 1967. Word of Mouth Advertising and Informal Communication. In D. F.

Cox (Ed.), Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior (pp. 188-239).

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Arndt, J. A., and May, F. E., 1981. The Hypothesis of a Dominance Hierarchy of Information

Sources. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 9 (Fall), 337-351.

Babin, B. J., Yong-Ki, L., Eun-Ju, K., and Griffin, M., 2005. Modeling Consumer Satisfaction

and Word-of-Mouth: Restaurant Patronage in Korea. Journal of Services Marketing 19 (3),

133-139.

Bansal, H. S., and Voyer, P. A., 2000. Word-of-Mouth Processes within a Services Purchase

Decision Context. Journal of Service Research 3 (2), 166-177.

Barnes, N. G., 1986. Out of the Mouths of Patients. Journal of Dental Practice Administration

3 (2), 46-51.

Bauer, R. A., and Gleicher, D. B., 1953. Word-of-Mouth Communication in the Soviet Union.

Public Opinion Quarterly 17 (Autumn), 297-310.

Bayus, B. L., Carroll, V. P., and Rao, A. G., 1985. Harnessing the Power of Word of Mouth.

In J. M. Wind, V. (Ed.), Innovation Diffusion Models of New Product Acceptance (pp. 61-

83). Cambridge, Mass: Ballinger.

Beal, G. M., and Rogers, E. M., 1957. Informational Sources in the Adoption Process of aNew Fabric. Journal of Home Economics, 630-634.

Belk, R. W., 1971. Occurrence of Word-of-Mouth Buyer Behavior as a Function of Situation

and Advertising Stimuli. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the American Marketing

Association's Educators Conference, Chicago, IL.

Bickart, B., and Schindler, R. M., 2002. Expanding the Scope of Word of Mouth: Consumer-

to-Consumer Information on the Internet. Proceedings of Advances in Consumer Research,

428-430.

Bolen, W. H., 1994. The Role of Word-of-Mouth "Advertising" in Retailing. American

Business Review 12 (2), 11-14.

7/29/2019 wm-e

7/10

Bone, P. F., 1992. Determinants of Word-of-Mouth Communications During Product

Consumption. Proceedings of Advances in Consumer Research, 579-583.

Bone, P. F., 1995. Word-of-Mouth Effects on Short-Term and Long-Term Product

Judgements. Journal of Business Research 32, 213-223.

Bourne, F. C., 1957. Group Influence in Marketing. In R. Likert and S. P. Hayes (Eds.), Some

Applications of Behavioral Research (pp. 207-257). Paris: UNESCO.

Bowman, D., and Narayandas, D., 2001. Managing Customer-Initiated Contacts with

Manufacturers: The Impact on Share of Category Requirements and Word-of-Mouth

Behavior. Journal of Marketing Research 38 (3), 281-297.

Bristor, J., 1990. Enhanced Explanations of Word of Mouth Communications. Research in

Consumer Behaviour 4, 51-83.

Brown, J. J., and Reingen, P. H., 1987. Social Ties and Word-of-Mouth Referral Behaviour.

Journal of Consumer Research 14 (December), 350-362.

Brown, T. J., Barry, T. E., Dacin, P. A., and Gunst, R. F., 2005. Spreading the Word:

Investigating Antecedents of Consumers' Positive Word-of-Mouth Intentions and Behaviors

in a Retailing Context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 33 (2), 123-138.

Buttle, F. A., 1998. Word of Mouth: Understanding and Managing Referral Marketing.

Journal of Strategic Marketing 6, 241-254.

Chew, P., and Wirtz, J., 2001. The Effects of Incentives, Satisfaction, Tie Strength, and Deal

Proneness on Word-of-Mouth Behavior. Proceedings of Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer

Research, 335.

Cohen, A., 1999. A Best-Seller by Word of Mouth. Sales and Marketing Management

(October), 151, 15.

Davis, Z., 2005. Of Hype and Skype. eWeek 43 (26 September).

Dholakia, R. R., and Sternthal, B., 1977. Highly Credibly Sources: Persuasive Facilitators or

Persuasive Liabilities. Journal of Consumer Research 3 (March), 223-232.

Dichter, E., 1966. How Word-of-Mouth Advertising Works. Harvard Business Review 44

(November/December), 147-166.

East, R., Hammond, K., Lomax, W., and Robinson, H., 2005. What Is the Effect of a

Recommendation? Marketing Review 5 (2), 145-157.

Elliott, S., 2005. I Can't Believe It's Not a Tv Ad! The New York Times (26 July), C4.

Engel, J. F., Blackwell, R. D., and Kegerreis, R. J., 1969a. How Information Is Used to Adopt

an Innovation. Journal of Advertising Research 9 (December), 3-8.

7/29/2019 wm-e

8/10

Engel, J. F., Kegerreis, R. J., and Blackwell, R. D., 1969b. Word-of-Mouth Communication

by the Innovator. Journal of Marketing 33 (July), 15-19.

Ennew, C. T., Banerjee, A. K., and Li, D., 2000. Managing Word of Mouth Communication:

Empirical Evidence from India. International Journal of Bank Marketing 18 (2), 75-83.

Feldman, J. M., and Lynch, J. G. J., 1988. Self-Generated Validity and Other Effects of

Measurement on Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 73

(3), 421-435.

Feldman, S. P., and Spencer, M. C., 1965. The Effect of Personal Influence in the Selection of

Consumer Services. In P. Bennet (Ed.), Marketing and Economic Development (pp. 440-

452). Chicago, Il: American Marketing Association.

Frost, G., 2005. Didja Hear.? Marketing News 39, 12-43.

Gilly, M. C., Graham, J. L., and Wolfinbarger, M. F., 1998. A Dyadic Study of InterpersonalInformation Search. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 26 (2), 83-100.

Godes, D., and Mayzlin, D., 2004. Firm-Created Word-of-Mouth Communication: A Field-

Based Quasi-Experiment.Unpublished manuscript.

Gruen, T. W., Osmonbekov, T., and Czaplewski, A. J., 2006. EWOM: The Impact of

Customer-to-Customer Online Know-How Exchange on Customer Value and Loyalty.

Journal of Business Research 59 (4), 449-456.

Guyer, L., 2005. Hybrids Soar Via Word-of-Mouth. Advertising Age 76, 36.

Heckman, J., 1999. Word-of-Mouth Advertising: Cheap, Credible, Created. Marketing News

33, 2.

Herr, P. M., Kardes, F., R., and Kim, J., 1991. Effects of Word-of-Mouth and Product-

Attribute Information on Persuasion: An Accessibility-Diagnosticity Perspective. Journal of

Consumer Research 17 (March), 454-462.

Hinde, E. D., 1999. Applying Expectancy-Value Theory to the Consumer's Search for

Information About Restaurants. Unpublished PhD, The University of Southern Mississippi.

Howell, N., 2005. Pass It On. New Media Age (10/2/2005), 25-26

Katz, E., and Lazarsfeld, P. F., 1955. Personal Influence (Vol. 2). New York: The Free Press.

Knapp, R. H., 1944. A Psychology of Rumour. Public Opinion Quarterly 8 (1), 22-37.

Larsen, O. N., and Hill, R. J., 1954. Mass Media and Interpersonal Communication in the

Diffusion of a News Event. American Sociological Review 19 (August), 426-433.

Lazarsfeld, P., Berelson, B., and Gaudet, H., 1948. The People's Choice. New York:

Columbia University Press.

7/29/2019 wm-e

9/10

Lynch, J. G., Marmorstein, H., and Weigold, M. F., 1988. Choices from Sets Including

Remembered Brands: Use of Recalled Attributes and Prior Overall Evaluations. Journal of

Consumer Research 15 (September), 169-184.

Money, R. B., 1995. A Social Networks Analysis of the Influence of National Culture on

Word of Mouth Referral Behavior in the Purchase of Industrial Services in the United Statesand Japan. Unpublished PhD, University of California, Irvine.

Money, R. B., 2000. Word-of-Mouth Referral Sources for Buyers of International Corporate

Financial Services. Journal of World Business 35 (3), 314-329.

MusicWeek., 2005. Careful Behind-the-Scenes Build-up for Slow-Build Word-of-Mouth Hit.

Music Week (27/8/2005), 22.

Newman, P. J., 1999. When Windows Replace Walls: Investigating Virtual Word of Mouth

Exchanges and Constructing Multilogue Profiles. Proceedings of Advances in Consumer

Research, 653-654.

Phelps, J. E., Lewis, R., Mobilio, L., Perry, D., and Raman, N. 2004. Viral Marketing or

Electronic Word-of-Mouth Advertising: Examining Consumer Responses and Motivations to

Pass Along Email. Journal of Advertising Research 44 (4), 333-348.

Price, L. L., and Feick, L. F., 1984. The Role of Interpersonal Sources in External Search: An

Informational Perspective. Proceedings of Advances in Consumer Research, 250-255.

Ranaweera, C., and Prabhu, J., 2003. On the Relative Importance of Customer Satisfaction

and Trust as Determinants of Customer Retention and Positive Word of Mouth. Journal of

Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing 12 (1), 82-90.

Reichheld, F. F., 2003. The One Number You Need to Grow. Harvard Business Review

(December), 46-54.

Reingen, P. H., 1987. A Word-of-Mouth Network. Proceedings of Advances in Consumer

Research, 213-217.

Reingen, P. H., and Kernan, J. B., 1986. Analysis of Referral Networks in Marketing:

Methods and Illustration. Journal of Marketing Research 23 (November), 370-380.

Richins, M. L., 1984. Word of Mouth Communication as Negative Information. Proceedings

of Advances in Consumer Research, 697-702.

Schindler, R. M., and Bickart, B., 2002. Characteristics of Online Consumer Comments

Valued for Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Tasks. Proceedings of Advances in Consumer

Research, 428-430.

Sheth, J., 1971. Word-of-Mouth in Low-Risk Innovation. Journal of Advertising Research 11

(June), 15-18.

7/29/2019 wm-e

10/10

Sobczak, P. M., 1990. An Examination of the Relationship between Source Credibility in

Word-of-Mouth and Spokesperson Television Commercials and Service Purchase Intention.

Unpublished PhD, University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Stokes, D., and Lomax, W., 2002. Taking Control of Word of Mouth Marketing: The Case of

an Entrepreneurial Hotelier. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 9 (4),349-357.

Stuteville, J. R., 1968. The Buyer as a Salesman. Journal of Marketing 32 (July), 14-18.

Swan, J., and Oliver, R., 1989. Postpurchase Communications by Consumers. Journal of

Retailing 65 (4), 516-533.

Swanson, S. R., and Kelley, S. W., 2001. Service Recovery Attributions and Word-of-Mouth

Intentions. European Journal of Marketing 35 (1/2), 194-211.

Takada, H., and Jain, D. J., 1991. Cross-National Analysis of Diffusion of Consumer DurableGoods in Pacific Rim Countries. Journal of Marketing 55 (2), 48-54.

Traylor, M. B., and Mathias, A. M., 1983. The Impact of TV Advertising Versus Word of

Mouth on the Image of Lawyers: A Projective Experiment. Journal of Advertising 12 (4), 42-

45, 49.

Walker, C., 1995. Word of Mouth. American Demographics 17(7), 38-44.

Wangenheim, F. V., 2005. Postswitching Negative Word of Mouth. Journal of Service

Research 8 (1), 67-78.

Wangenheim, F. V., and Bayn, T., 2004. The Effect of Word of Mouth on Services

Switching. European Journal of Marketing 38 (9/10), 1173-1185.

Watkins, H. S., and Liu, R., 1996. Collectivism, Individualism and in-Group Membership:

Implications for Complaining Behaviors in Multi-Cultural Contexts. Journal of International

Consumer Marketing 8 (3/4), 69-96.

Watts, D. J., 2003. Six Degrees - the Science of a Connected Age.London: Vintage.

Westbrook, R. A. (1987). Product/Consumption-Based Affective Responses and Postpurchase

Processes. Journal of Marketing Research 24 (August), 258-270.

Whyte, W. H., 1954. The Web of Word-of-Mouth. Fortune 1, 140-143.

Wirtz, J., and Chew, P., 2002. The Effects of Incentives, Deal Proneness, Satisfaction and Tie

Strength on Word-of-Mouth Behaviour. International Journal of Service Industry

Management 13 (2), 141-162.