ELECTRONIC WORD-OF-MOUTH: THE MODERATING ROLES OF

PRODUCT INVOLVEMENT AND BRAND IMAGE

Chinho Lin, Institute of Information Management, National Cheng Kung University,

Taiwan,
linn@mail.ncku.edu.tw

Yi-Shuang Wu, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan

pair0406@gmail.com

Jeng-Chung Victor Chen, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan,

victor@mail.ncku.edu.tw

ABSTRACT

Purpose: As an Internet-based version of word of mouth, electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM),

the new information presented from the perspective of consumers who have purchased and
used the product, have become a major informational source for consumers. The purpose of
this paper aims to investigate the influence of eWOM on purchasing intention. Moreover, this
study examines the moderating effect of product involvement and brand image in the
relationship between the effects of electronic word of mouth and purchase intention.
Design/ methodology/approach: The target samples of this study are people who have ever
searched for opinions or reviews through the Internet before buying the product. The survey
is consisted of three parts covering the following issues, including eWOM searching
experience, measurement items of each variable, as well as demographics and Internet using
experience. A structural equation modeling (SEM) is used to assess the relationships of the
research model.
Findings: Viewing online reviews or comments is helpful for consumers because it makes
consumers feel more confident on purchase decision. The results indicate that eWOM quality,
eWOM quantity and sender’s expertise have positive effect on purchase intention. Most
importantly, product involvement and brand image have moderating effect in the relationship
between eWOM and purchase intention.
Originality/ value: This study provides new insights into the eWOM, which in turn affects
customer purchase intention.

S3-29
Keywords: Electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM), Product involvement, Brand image,
Purchase intention, Structural equation modeling (SEM)
Paper type: Research paper

INTRODUCTION

As a new marketing channel, the World Wide Web differs from traditional retail formats in
many ways. Consumers shop online cannot touch or smell the products, as would be possible
in traditional retail stores, so their purchase judgments must be based on the product
information presented on the website. On-line sellers seek to overcome this limitation by
giving consumers the opportunity to share product evaluations on online platform. This
consumer-created information is helpful in making purchase decisions because it provides
indirect experiences of products.

Word-of-mouth (WOM) is defined as “all informal communications directed at other

consumers about the ownership, usage, or characteristics of particular goods and services or
their sellers (Westbrook, 1987).” While WOM has been traditionally spread among
acquaintances through personal “contagions,” its value has also been recognized and used in
practice. Pioneered by the seminal Bass (1969) paper, WOM is widely considered as a major
driver of new product diffusion for non-adopters. Additionally, the concept of positive word
of mouth has been largely used by marketing professionals as it can serve both the purpose of
measuring the effectiveness of the marketing tools like advertising and also at the same time
be used as a credible source for gaining information relating to the product (Li and Zhan,
2011).

The rapid development of the Internet with its enhanced communication capabilities has
dramatically increased the scale and scope of word-of-mouth communication. As an
Internet-based version of word of mouth, online reviews, the new information presented from
the perspective of consumers who have purchased and used the product, have become a
major informational source for consumers. Online reviews have very important implications
for a wide range of management activities, such as brand building, customer acquisition and
retention, product development, as well as quality assurance. Companies such as
Amazon.com and Circuitcity.com, provide convenient access for the customers to read and
write review for the products sold on their websites. Reichheld (2003) claimed that a
customer's propensity to recommend a product to others – termed referral value - was the
most important success measure in business today. Reichheld argued that referral value has a
higher correlation to firm performance than such traditional measures as customer

S3-30
satisfaction.

As an Internet-based version of word of mouth, eWOM has become a major informational

source for consumers before they buy the products. Whereas many studies have examined the
importance and roles of online product reviews on sales (e.g., Chevalier and Mayzlin 2006,
Godes and Mayzlin 2004, Dellarocas, Awad and Zhang, 2004, Judith and Dina, 2006), few
studies pay attentions on eWOM’s influences on consumer purchase intention, and this
reason motivates this study to conduct the research. Therefore, this study aims to investigate
the influence of eWOM (including quality and quantity of eWOM as well as sender’s
expertise) on purchasing intention. Additionally, this study examines the moderating effect of
product involvement and brand image on the relationship between the effects of electronic
word of mouth and purchase intention.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT

Electronic Word of Mouth (eWOM)

Historically, word of mouth is widely considered as a powerful influence in consumer

marketplace, especially on consumers’ information search and subsequent decision making
(Brown & Reingen, 1987; Money, Gilly, & Graham, 1998; Silverman, 1997). With the rapid
growth of the Internet, electronic communication has become a critical phenomenon.
According to Buttle (1998), computer-mediated communication such as blogs, message
boards, and emails can also be included in the definition. Following the notion,
Hennig-Thurau et al. (2004) described electronic word of mouth as “any positive or negative
statement made by potential, actual, or former customers about a product or company, which
is made available to a multitude of people and institutions via the Internet (p. 39)”.
Comparing with WOM, Bickart and Schindler’s (2001) showed that eWOM may have higher
credibility, empathy and relevance to customers than marketer-created sources of information
on the Web.

In this study, eWOM is viewed from three dimensions, including eWOM quality, eWOM
quantity, as well as sender’s expertise. Quality of eWOM refers to the persuasive strength of
comments embedded in an informational message (Bhattacherjee, 2006). Consumer buying
decision can be based on some criteria or requirement that meet their needs and to determined
their willingness to buy it will be based on their perceived of quality of information they
received (Cheung 2008). Therefore, it is important to determine consumer’s perception of
information quality as element for assessing their potential buying decision. In addition,

S3-31
quantity of eWOM refers to total number of posted comments (Cheung and Thadani, 2010).
The popularity of the product is determined by quantity of online comments because
considered could represent the market performance of product (Chevalier and Mayzlin, 2003).
Consumer also need reference to strengthened their confidence to reduce the feeling making
mistake or risk while shopping, and online comment quantity represent the product popularity
and importance. In other words, consumers may perceive that more reviews represent higher
product popularity and importance (Lee, 2009). Furthermore, expertise is aptitude, required
training and experience and is domain specific. On the other hand, expertise can be viewed as
“authoritativeness,” “competence,” and “expertness” (Hung and Cheng 2006). It is
considered that the expertise of sender when they made a comment in consumer review will
attract user to adopt the information and make decision to purchase.

Purchase Intention

Purchase intention refers to consumer’s intention to purchase a particular product or service.

Purchase intention, was cited by Fishbein and Azjen (1975), as the single most accurate
predictor of actual purchase behavior. Several studies have been conducted in this regard, and
have found statistically significant relationships between purchase intention and actual
purchase behaviors. It has been found that, particularly in the consumer durable goods
category, purchase intention is a reliable measure of actual purchase behavior (Kalwani and
Silk, 1982). Research conducted by Godes and Mayzlin (2009) tried to focus on the ways a
firm should try to use the exogenous word of mouth to foster the sales. The research result
showed that exogenous word of mouth accounts for the higher level of sales for the
organizations.

Word of mouth could be one of the most believable form (Henricks, 1998) and affect
consumer’s choices of products in the WOM spread by other consumers (Brown & Reingen,
1987; Herr, Kardes, & Kim, 1991). Moreover, the Internet allows peoples’ opinions can be
more easily and quickly accessible to other consumers. Advices and product using
experiences from online users become influential for their behavior (Thompson, 2003) and
eWOM is regarded as a critical source for consumers making a buying decision. Some related
studies have also indicated that eWOM messages are an important means whereby consumers
can obtain information about product or service quality (Chevalier and Mayzlin, 2006).
Moreover, this kind of message can effectively reduce the risk and uncertainty recognized by
consumers when purchasing products or services, so that their purchase intention and
decision making can be further influenced (Chatterjee, 2001).
eWOM quality is defined as the quality of a review’s contents from the perspective of

S3-32
information characteristics (relevance, understandability, sufficiency, and objectivity). Since
previous buyers are anonymous on the Internet, people generally will not easily accept or
believe a review posted on a Web site if it does not provide enough information (Ratchford,
Talukdar, and Lee, 2001). Other things being equal, reviews that are more persuasive have a
greater positive effect on consumers’ purchasing intention. Besides, the number of on-line
consumer WOM (eWOM quantity) of a product represents the product’s popularity as the
on-line word-of-mouth effect because it is related to the sales volume of the product
(Chatterjee 2001; Chen and Xie 2004). It is likely to lead consumers to rationalize their
purchasing decisions by telling themselves, “Many other people also bought the product.”
Additionally, consumers usually have belief in expert due to experts represent the individuals
who have more professional knowledge (Alba & Hutchinson, 1987). Therefore, this study
proposes that：

H1: The quality of electronic word-of-mouth positively affects consumers’ purchasing

intention.
H2: The quantity of electronic word-of-mouth positively affects consumers’ purchasing
intention.
H3: Sender’s expertise positively affects consumers’ purchasing intention.

Product Involvement

Product involvement, as defined by Zaichkowsky (1986), refers to “a person’s perceived

relevance of the object based on inherent needs, values, and interest.” Involvement is
associated with the motivation to process information, and prior knowledge (expertise) is
associated with the ability to process information (Celsi, and Olson 1988; Petty and Cacioppo
1984). Issue-relevant arguments and product-relevant attributes were more influential under
high-involvement conditions; while peripheral cues, such as the characteristics of information
sources or number of arguments, were more influential under low-involvement conditions
(Chaiken 1980; Petty and Cacioppo 1984; Petty et al. 1983). Therefore, this study proposes
that：

H4a: Product involvement moderates the relationship between quality of eWOM and
purchase intention.
H4b: Product involvement moderates the relationship between quantity of eWOM and
purchase intention.
H4c: Product involvement moderates the relationship between sender’s expertise and
purchase intention.

S3-33
Brand Image

Keller (1998) conceptualized brand image as a perception of consumers when they see a
brand and reflected by brand associations in their mind. And these associations of brand
image are multidimensional and contain the emotional dimension or the attitudes regarding
the brand and the perceived quality dimension. From consumers’ overall picture of their
experiences, brand image is important because through this technique, brand image will
create the consumer’s cognitive, emotional, and behavioral responses as an outcome (Padgett
and Allen, 1997). Moore (1981) argued that image is a mental estimate of a general degree of
satisfaction from an organization’s activities and performances. And through image
investigation, organizers will know the attitudes from customers tend to their companies,
indeed, how well customers understand and what they prefer of companies.

Park, Jaworski, and Maclnnis (1986) advanced that brand image is one strategic technique
with the goal of helping the concept of a brand to be completed by means of an exercise in
brand management. The objective of companies is to establish favorable and positive
connection about the brand which the outcome in a positive image of the brand. The
consumer may have more desire with one brand simply because this brand has the different
image from other competitor’s brands (Schiffman and Kanuk, 1994). Engel et al. (2001)
indicated that consumers will make the decision based on the existing and external
information. When there is the conflict between brand image and information content,
consumer’s decision will be hard to make. Therefore, this study proposes that：

H5a: Brand image moderates the relationship between quality of eWOM and purchase
intention.
H5b: Brand image moderates the relationship between quantity of eWOM and purchase
intention.
H5c: Brand image moderates the relationship between sender’s expertise and purchase
intention.

S3-34
 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Research Assumption

Base on the literature review in chapter two, the research model of this study is shown in
Figure 3-1.

Electronic WOM
Product
eWOM Involvement
Quality

eWOM Purchase
Quantity Intention

Sender’s
Expertise Brand
Image

Figure 3-1 The Research Framework of This Study

After reviewing the literature in chapter two and basing on the research objectives and
framework, the research hypotheses were proposed as shown in table 3-1:

Table 3-1 Research Hypotheses

Hypothesis Content
The quality of electronic word-of-mouth positively affects consumers’
H1
purchasing intention.
The quantity of electronic word-of-mouth positively affects consumers’
H2
purchasing intention.
H3 Sender’s expertise positively affects consumers’ purchasing intention.
Product involvement moderates the relationship between quality of
H4a
eWOM and purchase intention.
Product involvement moderates the relationship between quantity of
H4b
eWOM and purchase intention.
Product involvement moderates the relationship between sender’s
H4c
expertise and purchase intention.

S3-35
 Table 3-1 Research Hypotheses (cont.)

Hypothesis Content
Brand image moderates the relationship between quality of eWOM and
H5a
purchase intention.
Brand image moderates the relationship between quantity of eWOM and
H5b
purchase intention.
Brand image moderates the relationship between sender’s expertise and
H5c
purchase intention.

Research Design

To achieve the study objectives, a self-administered survey questionnaire was developed

based on the findings of the literature review. The survey consisted of three parts covering the
following issues: (1) eWOM searching experience, (2) measurement items of each variable,
and (3) demographics and Internet using experience.

In the first section, respondents were asked to answer their eWOM searching experience,
including the channel (ex. BBS, Forum, Blog…etc.) they used, the product they usually
search for (ex. 3C product, food, cosmetics product…etc.), and the reasons they search
comments via Internet. The second section is for the measurement items. Regarding the
electronic word of mouth, to measure eWOM quality, initially 7 items were adapted from the
studies of Park et al. (2007) and Bailey and Pearson (1983), however, 1 item was deleted
because its factor loading is less than 0.7. Four items were adapted from Park and Lee (2008)
as well as Do-Hyung and Band (2008) to measure eWOM quantity, in which, 1 item was
deleted because of lower factor loading (<0.7). As for sender’s expertise, 7 items were
adapted from Gilly et al. (1998), but 2 item were deleted because the factor loading are less
than 0.7. Besides, initially 9 items were adapted from Zaichkowsky (1986) ‘s research to
measure product involvement, and 9 items were adapted from the study of Dodds et al. (1991)
to measure brand image, however, 3 items of product involvement and 4 items of brand
image were deleted because the factor loading are less than 0.7 Furthermore, in order to
measure purchase intention, 5 items were adapted from the study of Baker and Churchill
(1977). All the measurement questions of eWOM, product involvement, brand image and
purchase intention were carried out by a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from “1=Extremely
disagree” to “7= Extremely agree”. In the last section of the questionnaire gathered
respondents’ demographic information, such as gender, age, education, monthly income, and

S3-36
their Internet using experience.

The target samples of this study are the people who have ever searched for opinions or
reviews through the Internet before buying the product. Online questionnaire sampling is the
major way in this study by using the online survey website- mySurvey. Meanwhile, the
address link of online questionnaire was posted in personal website such as facebook, and
also spread by friends. In the end, 182 responses were received and valid. Data analysis
involves descriptive statistics using SPSS 20 and structural equation modeling using AMOS
20 structural equation program. AMOS is designed to estimate and test structural equation
models (SEMs). SEMs are statistical models of linear relationships among latent (unobserved)
variables and manifest (observed) variables. Its purpose is estimating the coefficients in a set
of structural equations. For this research AMOS is used to investigate the causal relationships,
where the path coefficients are tested for significance and goodness-of-fit. The overall model
fit measures were used to evaluate the fit of the structural model. In estimating the
goodness-of-fit indices (GFI) for measurement and structural models, χ 2 (chi-square) test was
used. In addition, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was used as an
absolute fit index. The incremental fit index (IFI) nd the comparative fit index (CFI) were
used as incremental fit indices. Standardized estimates were used in reporting the causal
relationships between the exogenous and endogenous constructs.

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

54.6% of the respondents were male and 45.4% were female. The 21–30 age group occupied
72.8% of the total sample respectively. For the education level, 58.3% of respondents are
with college/university degree and 37.6% of respondents are with master or doctoral degree.
Regarding the experience of Internet usage, 75.5% of respondents said they have used
Internet for more than 8 years. The majority of respondents use Internet everyday (82%).
When people search for the product review or comment, the major platform that respondents
use is the forum (41.6%) to search the 3C product (38.2%) and food (30.6%).

Measurement of Validity and Reliability

As shown in the Table 1, the result of CFA indicates that convergent validity represented by
construct reliability (CR) and average variance extract (AVE) are greater than 0.7 and 0.5
respectively.

S3-37
Table 4-1. CFA Outcome for the Measurement Model

CR
Factor
Construct Eigen-value
Loading
Reliability
eWOM Quality
The online review/comment is clear. 0.863
The online review/comment is understandable. 0.871
The online review/comment is helpful. 0.860
The online review/comment is credible. 0.752
0.876 1.752
The online review/comment has sufficient reasons
0.782
supporting the opinions.
In general, the quality of each online
0.755
review/comment is high.
eWOM Quantity
The number of online review/comment is large,
0.873
inferring that the product is popular.
The quantity of online review/comment
information is great, inferring that the product has 0.846 0. 853 1.746
good sales.
Highly ranking and recommendation, inferring
0.768
that the product has good reputations.
Sender’s Expertise
The persons who provided online
0.882
reviews/comments, I think they are experienced.
The persons who provided online
reviews/comments, I think they have abundant 0.876
knowledge toward the product.
The persons who provided online
0.850 1.684
reviews/comments, I think they have the ability 0.812
on judgment.
This person provided some different ideas than
0.761
other sources.
This person mentioned some things I had not
0.752
considered.
Purchase Intention

S3-38
 CR
Factor
Construct Eigen-value
Loading
Reliability
After reading online review/comment, it makes
0.884
me desire to buy the product.
I will consider buying the product after I read
0.879
online review/comment.
I intend to try the product/service discussed in the
0.872
online review/comment. 0.869 1.728
In the future, I intend to seek out the
product/service discussed in the online 0.860
review/comment.
In the future, I intend to buy the product discussed
0.844
in the online review/comment.
Product Involvement
When I am looking for the online
reviews/comments, I think the product is 0.873
important to me.
When I am looking for the online
reviews/comments, I think the product is 0.870
meaningful to me.
When I am looking for the online
reviews/comments, I think the product is useful to 0.867
me. 0.842 1.673
When I am looking for the online
reviews/comments, I think the product is valuable 0.849
to me.
When I am looking for the online
reviews/comments, I think the product is 0.765
attracting to me.
When I am looking for the online
0.820
reviews/comments, I am interested in the product.
Brand Image
The brand is safe. 0.817
The brand is reliable. 0.824 0.784 1.569
The brand has good quality. 0.808

S3-39
 CR
Factor
Construct Eigen-value
Loading
Reliability
The brand is interesting. 0.739
The brand can make me feel happy. 0.746

The Goodness of Fit Test for the Structure Model

The model was estimated using AMOS. Table 4-2 shows the result of goodness fitting
indexes for the structure model and provides a reasonably good fit for the data (χ2 = 367.891,
degrees of freedom (df) = 2.485, p < 0.000; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.914; normed fit
index (NFI) = 0.909; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.057). All of
these fit indices are acceptable, suggesting that the overall structural model provides a good
fit.

Table 4-2. The Goodness of Fit for Structure Model

Model goodness fitting Preferred value Value

CMIN/DF <3 2.835
GFI > 0.9 0.902
AGFI > 0.8 0.883
RMR <0.05 0.036
RMSEA < 0.08 0.057
NFI [0,1] and approaches 1 0.909
RFI [0,1] and approaches 1 0.902
IFI [0,1] and approaches 1 0.914
CFI [0,1] and approaches 1 0.914

Hypotheses Test

The result demonstrates that paths representing H1, H2, and H3 are supported as shown in
Table 4-3.

S3-40
 Table 4-3. The Result of Hypothesis Test

Estimate p-valu
S.E. C.R.
weight e
H1: eWOM Quality →Purchase Intention 0.452 0.051 8.626 ***
H2:eWOM Quantity →Purchase Intention 0.436 0.045 7.947 ***
H3: Sender’s Expertise →Purchase
0.385 0.047 5.563 **
Intention
***p-value <0.001, **p-value <0.05, *p-value <0.1;

The Moderating Effect

As for moderating effect, Table 4-4 demonstrates the result of Hypothesis 4a, 4b, and 4c as
well as Hypothesis 5a, 5b, and 5c. In conclusion, product involvement and brand image can
moderate the effect the relationship of eWOM and purchase intention.

Table 4-4. The Moderating Effect of Product Involvement and Brand Image

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

***
eWOM Quality 0. 508 0.487*** 0.442***
eWOM Quantity 0.427*** 0.351** 0.406
Sender’s Expertise 0.258 0.198 0.205
Product Involvement 0.283**
eWOM Quality x Product Involvement 0.177**
eWOM Quantity x Product Involvement 0.092
Sender’s Expertise x Product
0.049*
Involvement
Brand Image 0.278***
eWOM Quality x Brand Image 0.196**
eWOM Quantity x Brand Image 0.105*
Sender’s Expertise x Brand Image 0.063*
R2 0.537 0.298 0.362
ΔR2 (Changed R2) 0.526 0.288 0.335
F-value 29.361*** 22.714*** 18.683**
Durbin-Watson (D-W) 2.348 2.153 2.217

S3-41
 DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Considerable previous research has studied the effects of offline WOM on consumer behavior.
With the substantial growth in electronic word of mouth, there is a need for marketers to
better understand how electronic word of mouth might influence consumer’s purchase
intention. The major objective of this study is to investigate the relationship among electronic
word of mouth and purchase intention by adopting Structural Equation Model (SEM). This
study also evaluates the moderating effect of product involvement and brand image on the
relationship between electronic word of mouth and purchase intention. The research results
indicate that, first of all, consumers who feel uncertainty toward the product tend to search
for the online comments. Viewing online comments is helpful for consumers because it can
make consumers feel more confident on purchase decision. Comments that are clear, logical
and persuasive, with sufficient reasons based on specific facts about the product, have a
strong positive effect on the purchase intention. Most importantly, this study finds a
moderation effect of product involvement and brand image on the relationship between
electronic word of mouth and purchase intention

This study makes several practical contributions. The major results emphasize the importance
of properly managing online consumer reviews. Since online word of mouth function both as
informants and recommenders, they can be used strategically as a communication channel.
For example, online sellers can provide a review format that enables reviewers to post
high-quality reviews focusing on the informant role of online consumer reviews (providing
user-oriented information to improve consumers’ understanding of a product). Furthermore,
this research brings several new insights for corporations to use electronic word of mouth as
part of their strategic marketing campaign in gaining new consumers and holding onto the
ones they already have.

Mitchell (2001) stated that people to people communication is indeed more relevant than
traditional marketing. Communication brings forth exchange of goods, ideas, opinions and
other information. More importantly, communication is able to help people form relationships
that include “ties of loyalty and feelings of obligation”, as well developing supportive ties
with other people. Peppers and Rogers (2000) proposed that knowledge can build
relationships between a firm and its customers, and when a customer volunteers information,
it is the firm’s duty to act upon this information. While Selnes and Sallis (2003), identified
relationship learning as a vital way to create differential advantage for the firm. Corporate
blogs or online spaces can develop this awareness to their advantage, by providing factual
information and encouraging consumer to consumer knowledge exchange, marketers would

S3-42
be able to get real time feedback from their consumers, thus building customer loyalty and
generating sales (Senecal and Nantel, 2004; Goldsmith and Horowitz, 2006). As Scoble and
Israel (2006) said, electronic word of mouth as a marketing tool can also help leverage the
competitive advantages of small businesses, enabling them to compete among the more
established enterprises. Electronic word of mouth can significantly influence consumer
behavior, so marketers should not ignore the proliferation of online consumer-to-consumer
communication. In all of this, marketers need to remember that electronic word of mouth is
consumer-generated and, in principle at least, marketers are on the sidelines. As Brown has
pointed out (Brown et al. 2007), marketers need to be aware of the risks involved in
attempting to influence electronic word of mouth.

REFERENCE

1. Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). “Dimensions of consumer expertise.” Journal of

Consumer Research, Vol.13, pp.411-454.
2. Bagozzi, R. P. (1979). “Toward a formal theory of marketing exchanges, conceptual and
theoretical developments in marketing.” O.C. Ferell, S.W. Brown & C. W. Lamb Eds.,
Chicago: American Marketing Association, pp.431–447.
3. Bailey, J.E. & Pearson, S.W. (1983). “Development of a tool for measuring and
analysing computer user satisfaction.” Management Science, Vol.29 No.5, pp.530-545.
4. Baker, Michael J. & Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr. (1977). “The impact of physically attractive
models on advertising evaluations.” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.14, pp.538-555.
5. Bass, F. M. (1969). “A new product growth model for consumer durables.” Management
Science, Vol.15 No.5, pp.215-227.
6. Bhattacherjee, A. a. S. (2006). “Influence process for information technology acceptance:
an elaboration likelihood model.” MIS Quarterly, Vol.30 No.4 pp.805-825.
7. Bickart, B., & Schindler, R. (2001). “Internet forums as influential sources of consumer
information.” Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol.15 No.3 pp.31-40.
8. Bourdeau, J. Chebat & C. Couturier. (2002). “Internet consumer value of university
students: E-mail-vs.-web users.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol.9
pp.61-69.
9. Brown, J. J. & Reingen, P. (1987). “Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior.”
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.14 pp.350-362.

10. Brown, J., Broderick, A. & Lee, N. (2007). “Word of mouth communication within
online communities: Conceptualizing the online social network.” Journal of Interactive
Marketing, Vol.21 No.3 pp.2-20.

S3-43
11. Buttle, F. A. (1998). “Word of mouth: Understanding and managing referral behavior.”
Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol.6 No.3 pp.241-254.
12. Celsi, R.L., & Olson, J.C. (1988). “The role of involvement in attention and
comprehension processes.” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.15 No.2 pp.210–224.
13. Chaiken, S. (1980). “Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of
source versus message cues in persuasion.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol.39 No.5 pp.752–766.
14. Chatterjee, P. (2001). “Online reviews: Do consumers use them?” Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol.28 pp.129-133.
15. Chen, Y., & Xie, J. (2004) “Online consumer review: A new element of marketing
communications mix.” Working Paper. University of Arizona.
16. Cheung, C. M. K. and Thadani, D. R. (2010). “The state of Elecronic Word-of-mouth
Research: A literature Analysis.” Proceedings of the Pacific Asia Conference on
Information Systems, pp.1580-1587.
17. Cheung. E. a. (2008). “The impact of electronic word-of-mouth: The adoption of online
opinions in online customer communities.” Internet Research, Vol.18 No.3, pp.229-247.
18. Chevalier, J. & Mayzlin D. (2006). “The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book
reviews.” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.43, pp.345-354.
19. Chevalier, J. A. and Mayzlin, D. (2003). The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online
book reviews. National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge, Mass, USA.
20. Chevalier, J.A. and Mayzlin, D., (2006), “The effect of word of mouth on sales: online
book reviews”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 345–354.
21. Chiarelli, N. (2006). “The global rise of word of mouth.” Brand Strategy, October,
pp.42-43.
22. Dellarocas, C., Awad, N., & Zhang, X. (2004). “Exploring the value of online reviews to
organizations: Implications for revenue forecasting and planning.” In J.I. DeGross (ed.)
Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Conference on Information Systems. New
York: ACM Press: 379-386.
23. Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store
information on buyers’ product evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.28,
pp.307-319.
24. Doh, S.M.S. & Hwang, J. (2009). “How consumers evaluate eWOM (Electronic
Word-of-Mouth) messages.” CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol.12 No.2, pp.193-197.
25. Do-Hyung Park, S. K. and Band, W. (2008). “The effect of consumer knowledge on
message processing of electronic word-of-mouth viaonline consumer review.” Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications, Vol.7, pp.399-341.
26. Eagly & Chaiken (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace

S3-44
 Jovanovich.
27. Engel, J. R., Blackwell, R. D., & Miniard, P. W. (2001). Consumer behavior. Orlando
Florida: Harcourt Inc.
28. Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). “Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research.” Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
29. Gardner, B. B. & Levy, S. J. (1995). The Product and the Brand. Harvard Business
Review, 33, pp.33-39.
30. Gilly, M. C., Graham, J. L., Wolfinbarger, M. F., & Yale, L. J. (1998). “A dyadic study of
interpersonal information search.” Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol.26
No.2, pp.83-100.
31. Godes, D. & Mayzlin, D. (2009). “Firm-created word-of-mouth communication:
Evidence from a field test.” Marketing Science, Vol.28 No.4, pp.721-739.
32. Godes, D., & Mayzlin, D. (2004). “Using online conversations to study word-of-mouth
communication.” Marketing Science, Vol.23 No.4, pp.545-560.
33. Gruen TW, Osmonbekov T, Czaplewski AJ. (2006). “eWOM: The impact of
consumer-to-consumer online know-how exchange on customer value and loyalty.”
Journal of Business Research, Vol.59 No.4, pp.449-456.
34. Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004). “Electronic
word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate
themselves on the Internet?” Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol.18 No.1, pp.38-52.
35. Henricks, M. 1998. “Spread the word.” Entrepreneur, Vol.26 No.2 pp.120-125.
36. Herr, Paul M., Frank R. Kardes, & John Kim (1991). “Effects of word of mouth and
product attribute information on persuasion: An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective.”
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.17 (March) pp.454-462.
37. Huang, J. H. and Chen, Y. F. (2006). “Herding in online product choice.” Psychology and
Marketing, Vol.23 No.5 pp.413-428.
38. Judith, A. C. & Dina, M. (2006). “The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book
reviews.” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.43 No.3, pp.345-354.
39. Kalwani, M.U. & A.J. Silk (1982). “On the reliability and predictive validity of purchase
intention measures.” Marketing Science, Vol.1 No.3, pp.243-286.
40. Keller, K. L. (1998). Strategy Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing
Brand Equity, 2nd edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
41. Kotler, P. (2003). Marketing Management (11 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice
Hall.
42. Laurent, G. and J. N. Kapferer (1985) “Measuring Consumer Involvement
Profiles,”Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.22, pp.41-53.
43. Lee, M. & Youn, S. (2009). “Electronic word of mouth (eWOM): How eWOM platforms

S3-45
 influence consumer product judgement.” International Journal of Advertising, Vol.28
No.3, pp.473-499.
44. Lee, S. H. (2009). “How do online reviews affect purchasing intention?” African Journal
of Business Management, Vol.3 No.10 pp.576-581.
45. Li, J. & Zhan, L. (2011). “Online persuasion: How the written word drives WOM,
evidence from consumer-generated product reviews.” Journal of Advertising Research,
Vol.51 No.1, pp.239- 257.
46. Money, R. B., Gilly, M. C., & Graham, J. L. (1998). “Explorations of national culture
and word-of mouth referral behavior in the purchase of industrial services in the United
States and Japan.” Journal of Marketing, Vol.62 No.4, pp.76-87.
47. Moore, H. F. (1981). Publish relations: Principles, cases and problems, 8th edition.
Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
48. Oliver, R. L. & DeSarbo, W. S. (1988). “Response determinants in satisfaction
judgments.” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.14 No.4, pp.495-508.
49. Padgett, D. & Allen, D. (1997). “Communicating experiences: A narrative approach to
creating service brand image.” Journal of Advertising, Vol.26 No.4, pp.49-62.
50. Park, C. W., Jaworski, B. J. & Maclnnis, D. J. (1986). Strategic brand concept-image
management. Journal of Marketing, Vol.50 No.4, pp.135-145.
51. Park, D.H., Lee, J., and Han I., (2008). “eWOM overload and its effect on consumer
behavioral intention depending on consumer involvement”, Electronic Commerce
Research and Applications.
52. Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1984). “The effects of involvement on response to
argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion.” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.46 No.1 pp.69–81.
53. Petty, R.E.; Cacioppo, J.T.; & Schumann, D. (1983). “Central and peripheral routes to
advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement.” Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol.10 No.2 pp.135–146.
54. Ratchford, B.T., Talukdar, D., & Lee, M.-S. (2001). “A model of consumer choice of the
Internet as an information source.” International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol.5
No.3, pp.7–22.
55. Ratchford, B.T., Talukdar, D., & Lee, M.-S. (2001). “A model of consumer choice of the
Internet as an information source.” International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol.5
No.3, pp.7-22.
56. Reichheld, F. F. (2003) “The one number you need to grow.” Harvard Business Review,
pp.1-9.
57. Schiffman, L. & Kanuk, L. (1994). Consumer Behavior, 5th edition. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.

S3-46
58. Scoble, R. & Israel, S. (2006). Naked conversations: How blogs are changing the way
businesses talk with customers. John Wiley & Sons.
59. Selnes, F. and Sallis, J. (2003). “Promoting relationship learning.” Journal of Marketing,
Vol.67 No.3 pp.80-96.
60. Senecal, S. & Nantel, J. (2004). “The influence of online product recommendations on
consumers’ online choices.” Journal of Retailing, Vol.80, pp.159-169.
61. Silverman, G. (1997). “How to harness the awesome power of word of mouth.” Direct
Marketing, Vol.60 No.7 pp.32-37.
62. Söderlund, M. & Rosengren, S. (2007). “Receiving word-of-mouth from the service
customer: An emotion-based effectiveness assessment.” Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Vol.14 No.2, pp.123-136.
63. Spears, N. & Singh S. N. (2004). “Measuring attitude toward the brand and purchase
intentions.” Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, Vol.26 No.2,
pp.53-66.
64. Trusov, M., Bucklin, R.E. & Pauwels K. (2009). “Effects of word-of-mouth versus
traditional marketing: Findings from an Internet social networking site.” Journal of
Marketing, Vol.73 No.5, pp.90–102.
65. Vilpponen, A., Winter, S., & Sundqvist, S. (2006). “Electronic word-of-mouth in online
environments: Exploring referral network structure and adoption behavior.” Journal of
Interactive Advertising, Vol.6 No.2, pp.71-86.
66. Westbrook, R.A. (1987). “Product/consumption-based affective responses and post
purchase processes.” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.24 No.3, pp.258-70.
67. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1986) “Conceptualizing Involvement,” Journal of Advertising,
Vol.15, pp.4-14.

S3-47