The influence of positive and negative eWOM on purchase intention

<strong>The</strong> <strong>influence</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>positive</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>negative</strong> <strong>eWOM</strong> on purchase intention
Introduction <strong>and</strong> Conceptual Framework
Consumers rely on information from others to make purchasing decision, especially in
uncertain situations (Mitchell <strong>and</strong> McGoldrick 1996). Word <strong>of</strong> mouth (WOM) is an effective
way to acquire service evaluation <strong>and</strong> insightful information from other experienced
customers within a short period <strong>of</strong> time (Mazzarol, et al, 2007) <strong>and</strong> it can be <strong>positive</strong> or
<strong>negative</strong>. <strong>The</strong> intangible <strong>and</strong> experiential attribute <strong>of</strong> services (Zeithamal, 1981) make WOM
more influential <strong>and</strong> more credible than in product decision situation (Opperman, 2000), <strong>and</strong>
this is reflected in the large number <strong>of</strong> customers that switch service providers based on
WOM (Keaveney, 1995; East et al., 2001). Holiday destination choice is a complex one that
includes decisions <strong>of</strong> many services activities <strong>and</strong> is highly costly (Bargeman <strong>and</strong> Van der
Poel, 2002).
<strong>The</strong>re is a rich body <strong>of</strong> literature on traditional face to face referral (Arndt, 1967; Bone,
1995). Electronic word <strong>of</strong> mouth (<strong>eWOM</strong>), that is, when the referral is received through
electronic communication, provides insights into how consumers use online information to
assist purchasing decision making through the use <strong>of</strong> online rating (Sparks <strong>and</strong> Browning,
2011), social media (Brown et al., 2007), online recommendation agents (Gersh<strong>of</strong>f et al.
2003), <strong>and</strong> online forum (Harrison-Walker, 2001). However, there is little that leverages the
power <strong>of</strong> e-mail <strong>and</strong> the extended personal <strong>influence</strong> <strong>of</strong> e-mail, despite it being one <strong>of</strong> the
most used online communication activities (Purcell, 2011). Email is a tremendously powerful
communication tool for marketers (Stokes <strong>and</strong> Lomax, 2002). <strong>The</strong>refore this study
investigates how unsolicited email referrals, <strong>influence</strong> purchasing intention <strong>of</strong> a holiday. In
particular, the study focuses on the <strong>influence</strong> <strong>of</strong> source (i.e., sender) expertise <strong>and</strong> similarity
on trustworthiness <strong>and</strong> purchase intention in both <strong>positive</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>negative</strong> email messages.
WOM is considered as more reliable <strong>and</strong> trustworthy than other sources <strong>of</strong> information
(Day, 1991) <strong>and</strong> is effective as a decision making aid when the consumer trusts the
recommender (Smith et al, 2005). <strong>The</strong> information source must be perceived as credible <strong>and</strong>
relevant for WOM to have an effect on the receiver. Expertise <strong>and</strong> trustworthiness are critical
components <strong>of</strong> credibility (Hovl<strong>and</strong> et al., 1953). In addition, Lazarsfeld <strong>and</strong> Merton (1954)
argue that similarity between people encourages communication, <strong>and</strong> Festiger (1954) asserts
that people with similar attitudes <strong>and</strong> capabilities have similar needs <strong>and</strong> preferences. Thus
WOM from a source that is similar to the receiver is likely to be considered more relevant
than a referral from a dissimilar source.
Trustworthiness is also essential to credibility. <strong>The</strong> perception <strong>of</strong> trustworthiness is the
product <strong>of</strong> a set <strong>of</strong> beliefs that are centred on the integrity, benevolence <strong>and</strong> ability <strong>of</strong> the
trusted party (Mayer <strong>and</strong> Davis, 1999). Mayer <strong>and</strong> Davis (1999) defined ‘integrity’ as the
belief that the trusted party adheres to accepted rules <strong>of</strong> conduct, such as honesty,
‘benevolence’ as the belief that the trusted party wants to do good to the customer <strong>and</strong>
‘ability’ as concerned with beliefs about the skills <strong>and</strong> competence <strong>of</strong> the trusted party.
Research has shown that source expertise in the product or service has an impact on the
receiver’s purchasing decision <strong>and</strong> perceived trustworthiness (e.g., Smith, et al., 2005). A
source may be considered expert by virtue <strong>of</strong> “his or her occupation, social training, or
experience” (Schifman <strong>and</strong> Kanuk, 1997: p.335).

Online consumers are used to relying on other consumers’ product/service ratings to make
their purchasing decision (Sparks <strong>and</strong> Browning, 2011). In the specific context <strong>of</strong> this study,
the travel industry, people who are frequent travellers accumulate knowledge <strong>and</strong> retain
expertise from their experiences (Kerstetter <strong>and</strong> Cho, 2004). <strong>The</strong>se characteristics may permit
consumers to effect others’ choices with respect to destination related alternatives (Kerstetter
<strong>and</strong> Cho, 2004). <strong>The</strong>refore we incorporated sender expertise into our scenario <strong>and</strong>
hypothesise:
H1: <strong>The</strong> greater the perceived expertise <strong>of</strong> the source, the greater their perceived
trustworthiness.
Consumers appear to give more weight to recommendations coming from those with
greater knowledge about products <strong>and</strong> services. Consequently, information from an expert
source is also more influential (Bansaal <strong>and</strong> Voyer, 2000). <strong>The</strong>refore we hypothesise that:
H2: <strong>The</strong> greater the perceived expertise <strong>of</strong> the source, the greater their perceived <strong>influence</strong> on
purchase intention.
Similarity is the degree to which individuals are similar in terms <strong>of</strong> certain attributes
including demographic <strong>and</strong> lifestyle (Wangenheim <strong>and</strong> Bayon, 2003) <strong>and</strong> perceptual believes
<strong>and</strong> values (Gilly, et al., 1998). Similarity between people facilitates the development <strong>of</strong> close
relationships <strong>and</strong> friendships (Lazarsfeld <strong>and</strong> Merton, 1954), as individuals tend to affiliate
with others who share similar interests or are in a similar situation (Schacter, 1959). Similarity
predisposes people towards a greater level <strong>of</strong> interpersonal attraction, trust <strong>and</strong> underst<strong>and</strong>ing
than would be expected among dissimilar individuals (Ruef et al., 2003). Thus we
hypothesise:
H3: <strong>The</strong> greater the perceived similarity <strong>of</strong> the source, the greater their perceived
trustworthiness.
Similarity facilitates the flow <strong>of</strong> product information due to a perception <strong>of</strong> ease associated
with the communication (Price <strong>and</strong> Feik, 1984). People with similar attributes, such as age,
gender, education or lifestyle are likely to have similar values <strong>and</strong> needs. Consequently,
WOM regarding product/service information from such source is perceived as more relevant
<strong>and</strong> will exert more <strong>influence</strong> (Gilly et al., 1998). Thus we hypothesise:
H4: <strong>The</strong> greater the perceived similarity <strong>of</strong> the source, the greater their perceived <strong>influence</strong>
on purchase intention.
When a message recipient is confident that an expert source will be willing to provide
accurate information because <strong>of</strong> his or her high trustworthiness, they may forgo the effortful
task <strong>of</strong> scrutinizing the message <strong>and</strong> instead unthinkingly accept the source’s conclusion as
valid. Information presented by trustworthy sources is, as such, more likely to be unthinkingly
accepted (Priester <strong>and</strong> Petty, 1995). <strong>The</strong>refore we hypothesise that:
H5: <strong>The</strong> greater the perceived trustworthiness <strong>of</strong> the source, the greater its <strong>influence</strong> on
purchasing intention.
WOM can be <strong>positive</strong> or <strong>negative</strong>. Positive WOM (pWOM) refers to favourable
experiences <strong>and</strong> recommendations to buy, <strong>negative</strong> WOM (nWOM) to unfavourable
experiences <strong>and</strong> recommendations not to buy (Luo, 2009). Investigation <strong>of</strong> the differences in
the impact <strong>of</strong> nWOM <strong>and</strong> pWOM online has been increasing. Nevertheless, most <strong>of</strong> these
studies focus on product/br<strong>and</strong> choices rather than services. Studies on <strong>eWOM</strong> are generally
consistent with the negativity bias theory (Folkes <strong>and</strong> Kamins, 1999); <strong>negative</strong> <strong>eWOM</strong> has a
significantly higher impact on consumers’ evaluation <strong>of</strong> their emotional trust <strong>and</strong> intention to

shop online (Cheung <strong>and</strong> Lee, 2008). In addition, <strong>negative</strong> opinions receive more
consideration by recipients than <strong>positive</strong> opinion (Sparks <strong>and</strong> Browning, 2011). This may be
because <strong>negative</strong> opinions are perceived as more credible <strong>and</strong> easier to generalise than
<strong>positive</strong> opinions (Mizerski, 1982). Chatterjee (2001), however, disagrees with this notion as
the credibility <strong>of</strong> an online source is minimal when compared with face to face
communication. In contrast to other studies, Ahluwalia, (2002) <strong>and</strong> East et al. (2008) found
that <strong>positive</strong> information has a stronger impact on br<strong>and</strong> choice than <strong>negative</strong> information.
Consequently, we hypothesise that:
H6: <strong>The</strong> impact <strong>of</strong> source characteristics <strong>and</strong> trustworthiness on purchase intention will differ
according to email message direction (i.e., <strong>positive</strong> versus <strong>negative</strong> <strong>eWOM</strong>).
Research Design
A 2 (<strong>positive</strong>/<strong>negative</strong>) x 2 (expert/non-expert) x 2 (similar/non-similar), full factorial,
between subjects survey research design, using unsolicited e-mail scenarios, was used to
test the hypotheses. Two extreme scenarios – <strong>positive</strong>, expert, similar <strong>and</strong>, <strong>negative</strong>, nonexpert,
dissimilar – are shown in Figure 1. As the study focuses on the relationships
between source characteristics <strong>and</strong> individual factors as they impact on behavioural
intentions, the sample needed to be (i) homogeneous <strong>and</strong> (ii) comfortable receiving
<strong>eWOM</strong>. Undergraduate students are homogenous in terms <strong>of</strong> age, interest <strong>and</strong> use <strong>of</strong>
computers <strong>and</strong> extensively use email, fulfilling both criteria. <strong>The</strong> survey was distributed
<strong>and</strong> administered during lectures, with an equal number <strong>of</strong> each scenario distributed. In
total, 650 questionnaires were returned. One hundred <strong>and</strong> seventy seven questionnaires
were discarded due to missing responses.
Figure 1: Scenarios
Scenario: Positive/ Expert/ Similar
You have received the following e-mail from your friend, who is similar to you. She/he travels abroad a lot
to different destinations <strong>and</strong> is telling you about her/his holiday. Please read the e-mail <strong>and</strong> complete the
questionnaire.
Hey sorry I wasn’t in-touch last week. I have been to yet another place for a holiday <strong>and</strong> have just got back
home. That holiday was good value. It was really fantastic. I should have gone there sooner. You should have
seen the beaches, really gorgeous, the place was fabulous, great weather, never been to such a brilliant place;
wow, I might even go back there again you’d love it.
Got to go, time to go out
See you around
Scenario: Negative/ Non-expert/ Dissimilar
You have received the following e-mail from your friend, who is not similar to you. She/he has never
travelled abroad before <strong>and</strong> is telling you about her/his holiday. Please read the e-mail <strong>and</strong> complete the
questionnaire.
Hi, sorry I have not been in-touch for a while. I have changed where I go to on my annual holiday <strong>and</strong> have
just got back home. That holiday was not good value. It was really awful. I should not have gone there. You
should have seen the beaches, really like a rubbish dump. <strong>The</strong> place was horrible, lousy weather. It is such a
boring place. It is not somewhere I’d go back to, definitely not worth visiting.
Look forward to seeing you when we have the chance
Catch up with you later
Expertise was measured using a five-item, seven point semantic differential scale
(Netemeyer <strong>and</strong> Bearden, 1992; Bansal <strong>and</strong> Voyer, 2000). <strong>The</strong> scale used to measure
similarity (Brown <strong>and</strong> Reingen, 1987; Gilly, et al., 1998) contained five items with responses
ranging from not similar at all to very similar. Trustworthiness consisted <strong>of</strong> three factors -
Ability, Benevolence, <strong>and</strong> Integrity (Mayer et al., 1995) – <strong>and</strong> was measured using seventeen
seven point Likert items: six for ability, five for benevolence <strong>and</strong> six for integrity. Purchase

intention was measured using five semantic differential items with seven response categories
(Brunner <strong>and</strong> Hensel, 1996).
Analysis
Refining the measurement model statistics resulted in deleting one item from the integrity
measure. <strong>The</strong> overall model fit statistics for the measurement model including all the
constructs was acceptable:
Figure 2: Positive <strong>and</strong> Negative <strong>eWOM</strong> models
CMIN (724) = 1325.472, p
=.000, CMIN/DF = 1.831,
TLI = .917, CFI = .926,
RMSEA = .042. Metric
invariance was also
established across the
<strong>positive</strong>/ <strong>negative</strong> scenarios.
AVEs were generally
acceptable (i.e., greater than
.5), though some <strong>of</strong> the subdimensions
<strong>of</strong> trustworthiness
were marginal: benevolence =
.49 (<strong>negative</strong> model), .48
(<strong>positive</strong> model); integrity =
.42 (<strong>negative</strong> model). All the
CRs were above .7 except those associated with the lower than desired AVEs. <strong>The</strong>
discriminant validity <strong>of</strong> the
trustworthiness sub-dimensions
was confirmed by the three factor
model being a significantly better
fit <strong>of</strong> the data than a single factor
model (Hair et al., 2010).
<strong>The</strong> structural models were
fitted simultaneously. <strong>The</strong> model
fit statistics were acceptable:
CMIN (749) = 1353.142, p =.000,
CMIN/DF = 1.807, TLI = .919,
CFI = .926, RMSEA = .041. When
the relationships between
constructs were constrained to be
equal across <strong>negative</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>positive</strong>
<strong>eWOM</strong> models there was a
significant differences between the
two models (∆χ² (13) = 32.037,
Table 1: Structural Paths Estimates
Paths Path estimates
From To Both Positive Negative
Expertise Ability .333
Expertise Integrity .286
Similarity Ability .228
Similarity Integrity .219
Benevolence Ability .580
Integrity Benevolence .866
Benevolence Purchase .367
Expertise Purchase .242
Similarity Purchase .791 .382
In all cases p < .001
Table 2: Direct <strong>and</strong> indirect effects
Model Direct Indirect Total
Positive <strong>eWOM</strong> .242 --- ..242
Expertise Negative <strong>eWOM</strong> .242 .090 .332
Positive <strong>eWOM</strong> .791 --- .791
Similarity Negative <strong>eWOM</strong> .382 .070 .452
p=.002), indicating differences between the <strong>positive</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>negative</strong> message scenarios. Each
path was then individually constrained to identify where the differences between the <strong>positive</strong>
<strong>and</strong> <strong>negative</strong> models occurred. Three paths differed: from Similarity to Ability, from
Similarity to Purchase Intention, <strong>and</strong> from Benevolence to Purchase Intention. <strong>The</strong> resulting
models are shown in Figure 2, Table 1 shows the regression weights <strong>and</strong> the effects <strong>of</strong> source
characteristics on purchase intentions are in Table 2.

Findings <strong>and</strong> Conclusions
This paper determined the impact <strong>of</strong> source expertise <strong>and</strong> similarity on purchase intention.
In particular, it examined whether source expertise <strong>and</strong> similarity impacted directly or through
trustworthiness, <strong>and</strong> whether their impact differed according to message direction (i.e.,
<strong>positive</strong> or <strong>negative</strong>). <strong>The</strong> analysis clearly showed that both expertise <strong>and</strong> similarity impacted
directly on purchase intention. However, there was little indirect impact on purchase intention
through trustworthiness. While, with <strong>negative</strong> <strong>eWOM</strong>, expertise <strong>and</strong> similarity acted directly
on purchase intention, but also through trustworthiness, with <strong>positive</strong> <strong>eWOM</strong> only a direct
effect was observed. However, despite the lack <strong>of</strong> any indirect effects, the impact <strong>of</strong> source
similarity on purchase intention was significantly greater with <strong>positive</strong> <strong>eWOM</strong>.
Table 3 summarises the hypotheses. <strong>The</strong> study’s findings support the hypotheses
concerning the direct effect <strong>of</strong> source expertise <strong>and</strong> similarity on purchase intentions (H2 <strong>and</strong>
H4), as well as showing that there are differences between <strong>positive</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>negative</strong> <strong>eWOM</strong> (H6).
<strong>The</strong> effect <strong>of</strong> source characteristics on trustworthiness (H1 <strong>and</strong> H3) is, however, only partially
support as the perception <strong>of</strong> benevolence is not <strong>influence</strong>d by either expertise or similarity,
<strong>and</strong> it is only with <strong>negative</strong> <strong>eWOM</strong> that similarity <strong>influence</strong>s the assessment <strong>of</strong> integrity. H5
was largely unsupported as it was only with the <strong>negative</strong> model that a relationship is observed
between any <strong>of</strong> the trustworthiness sub-dimensions (specifically benevolence) <strong>and</strong> purchase
intention.
Table 3: Summary <strong>of</strong> Hypotheses
Hypothesis
<strong>The</strong> greater the perceived expertise <strong>of</strong> the source, the greater their perceived
H1
trustworthiness
<strong>The</strong> greater the perceived expertise <strong>of</strong> the source, the greater their perceived
H2
<strong>influence</strong> on purchase intention
<strong>The</strong> greater the perceived similarity <strong>of</strong> the source, the greater their perceived
H3
trustworthiness
<strong>The</strong> greater the perceived similarity <strong>of</strong> the source, the greater their perceived
H4
<strong>influence</strong> on purchase intention
<strong>The</strong> greater the perceived trustworthiness <strong>of</strong> the source, the greater its <strong>influence</strong>
H5
on purchasing intention
<strong>The</strong> impact <strong>of</strong> source characteristics <strong>and</strong> trustworthiness on purchase intention
H6 will differ according to email message direction (i.e., <strong>positive</strong> versus <strong>negative</strong>
<strong>eWOM</strong>)
Partially
supported
Supported
Partially
supported
Supported
Largely
unsupported
Supported
<strong>The</strong> relationships between source characteristics <strong>and</strong> trustworthiness are largely irrelevant
to <strong>eWOM</strong> as only benevolence is important to purchase intention <strong>and</strong> this only occurs with
<strong>negative</strong> messages. In contrast, the evidence for the direct effects <strong>of</strong> expertise <strong>and</strong> similarity
on purchase intention is much stronger. In most cases these relationships are equivalent across
<strong>negative</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>positive</strong> messages, however, similarity has a greater direct impact on purchase
intention with <strong>positive</strong> messages. Differences in attribution across <strong>negative</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>positive</strong>
messages might explain this. When <strong>negative</strong> experiences are reported attribution might be
being assigned to the source (i.e., they did something wrong), whereas with <strong>positive</strong>
experiences attribution could be being assigned to the situation (i.e., the holiday destination).
Overall, these findings indicate that similarity has a stronger impact on purchase intention
than expertise. <strong>The</strong> impact <strong>of</strong> similarity on purchase intention is clearly stronger with <strong>positive</strong>
messages, whereas the addition <strong>of</strong> indirect effects makes the impact <strong>of</strong> expertise on purchase
intention slight stronger with <strong>negative</strong> messages.

References:
Ahluwalia, R. (2002), “How prevalent is the negativity effect in consumer environments?”
Journal <strong>of</strong> Consumer Research, Vol. 29, No. 2, 270-279.
Arndt, J. (1967), “Role <strong>of</strong> product related conversation in the diffusion <strong>of</strong> a new product,”
Journal <strong>of</strong> Marketing Research, Vol. 4, No. 3, 291-295.
Bansal, H. S., <strong>and</strong> Voyer, P. A. (2000), “Word <strong>of</strong> mouth processes within a services purchase
decision context”, Journal <strong>of</strong> Services Research, Vol. 3, No. 2, 166-177.
Bargeman, B., <strong>and</strong> van der Poel, H. (2006), “<strong>The</strong> role <strong>of</strong> routines in the vacation decisionmaking
process <strong>of</strong> Dutch vacationers”, Tourism Management, Vol. 27, No. 4, 707-720.
Bickart, B., <strong>and</strong> Schindler, R.(2001), “Internet forums as influential sources <strong>of</strong> consumer
information”, Journal <strong>of</strong> Interactive Marketing, Vol.15, No.3, 31-40.
Bone, P. F. (1995), “Word <strong>of</strong> mouth effects on short-term <strong>and</strong> long-term product
judgements”, Journal <strong>of</strong> Business Research, Vol. 32, No. 3, 213-223.
Brown, J., Broderick, A. J., <strong>and</strong> Lee, N. (2007), “Communication within online communities:
conceptualising the online social network”, Journal <strong>of</strong> Interactive Marketing, Vol. 21, No.
3, 2-20.
Chatterjee, P. (2001), “Online reviews - Do consumers use them?” In Advances in Consumer
Research by M. C. Gilly <strong>and</strong> J. Myers-Levy, eds., Provo, UT: Association for Consumer
Research, 129-134.
Cheung, C. M. <strong>and</strong> Lee, M. K. (2008), “Online Consumer Reviews: Does Negative Electronic
Word-<strong>of</strong>-Mouth Hurt More?”, Paper presented at Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the 14th Americas
Conference on Information Systems, Toronto, Canada.
Day, G. S. (1991), Learning about markets. Cambridge, Mass: Marketing Science Institute.
De Bruyn, A., & Lilien, G. (2008), “A multi stage model <strong>of</strong> word <strong>of</strong> mouth <strong>influence</strong> through
viral marketing”, nternational Journal <strong>of</strong> Research in Marketing, Vol. 25, 151-163.
East, R., Hammond, K., <strong>and</strong> Lomax, W. (2008), “Measuring the impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>positive</strong> <strong>and</strong>
<strong>negative</strong> word <strong>of</strong> mouth on br<strong>and</strong> purchase probability”, International Journal <strong>of</strong> Research
in Marketing, Vol. 25, 215-224.
East, R., Lomax, W., <strong>and</strong> Narain, R. (2001) “Customer tenure, recommendation <strong>and</strong>
switching”, Journal <strong>of</strong> Customer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction <strong>and</strong> Complaining Behaviour,
Vol. 14, 46-54.
Folkes, V. S., <strong>and</strong> Kamins, M.A. (1999), “Effects <strong>of</strong> information about firms’ ethical <strong>and</strong>
unethical actions on consumers’ attitudes”, Journal <strong>of</strong> Consumer Psychology, Vol. 8, No.
3, 243–259.
Gersh<strong>of</strong>f, A. D., Mukherjee, A., <strong>and</strong> Mukhopadhyay, A. (2003), “Consumer acceptance <strong>of</strong> online
agent advice: Extremity <strong>and</strong> positivity effects,” Journal <strong>of</strong> Consumer Psychology, Vol.
13, No. 1-2, 161-170.
Gilly, M. C., Graham, J. L., Wolfinbarger, M. F., <strong>and</strong> Yale, L. J. (1998), “A dyadic study <strong>of</strong>
interpersonal information search”, Journal <strong>of</strong> the Academy <strong>of</strong> Marketing Science. Vol. 26,
No. 2, 83-100.
Harrison-Walker, L. (2001), “<strong>The</strong> measurement <strong>of</strong> word <strong>of</strong> mouth communication <strong>and</strong>
investigation <strong>of</strong> service quality <strong>and</strong> customer commitment as potential antecedents”,
Journal <strong>of</strong> Service Research, Vol. 4, No. 1, 60-75.
Keaveney, S. M. (1995), “Customer Switching Behaviour in Service Industries: An
Exploratory Study”, <strong>The</strong> Journal <strong>of</strong> Marketing, Vol. 59, No. 2, 71-82.
Kerstetter, D. <strong>and</strong> Cho, M. H. (2004), “Prior Knowledge, Credibility <strong>and</strong> Information
Search”, Annals <strong>of</strong> Tourism Research, Vol. 31, No. 4, 961-985.
Lazarsfeld, P., <strong>and</strong> R. K. Merton. (1954), “Friendship as a Social Process: A Substantive <strong>and</strong>
Methodological Analysis”. In Freedom <strong>and</strong> Control in Modern Society, Morroe Berger,
<strong>The</strong>odore Abel, <strong>and</strong> Charles H. Page, eds. New York: Van Nostr<strong>and</strong>, 18–66.

Luo, X. (2009), “Quantifying the long-term impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>negative</strong> word <strong>of</strong> mouth on cash flows
stock prices”, Journal <strong>of</strong> Marketing Science, Vol. 28, No. 1, 148-165.
Mazzarol, T., Sweeney, J. C., <strong>and</strong> Soutar, G. N. (2007), “Conceptualizing word-<strong>of</strong>-mouth
activity, triggers <strong>and</strong> conditions: an exploratory study”, European Journal <strong>of</strong> Marketing,
Vol. 41, No. 11/12, 1475–1494.
Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999), “<strong>The</strong> effect <strong>of</strong> the performance appraisal system on trust
for management: A field quasi-experiment”, Journal <strong>of</strong> Applied Psychology, Vol. 84, 123-
136.
Mitchell, V.W. <strong>and</strong> Mc Goldrick, P. J. (1996), “Consumers' risk-reduction strategies: A
review <strong>and</strong> synthesis”, <strong>The</strong> International Review <strong>of</strong> Retail, Distribution <strong>and</strong> Consumer
Research, Vol. V No. 4, 504-34.
Mizerski, R.W. (1982), “An attributional explanation <strong>of</strong> the disproportionate <strong>influence</strong> <strong>of</strong>
unfavourable information”, Journal <strong>of</strong> Consumer Research, Vol. 9, No. 1, 301−310
Opperman, M. (2000), “Where psychology <strong>and</strong> geography interface in tourism research <strong>and</strong>
theory”, in Woodside, A. G., Crouch, G. I., Mazanec, J. A., Opperman, M. <strong>and</strong> Sakai, M.
Y. (eds) ‘Consumer Psychology <strong>of</strong> Tourism, Hospitality <strong>and</strong> Leisure’, New York: Cabi
Publishing, 19–37.
Price, L. L., & Feick, L. F. (1984), “<strong>The</strong> role <strong>of</strong> recommendation sources in external search:
An informational perspective.” In T. Kinnear (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (Vol.
11, 250–255). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Priester, J. R., <strong>and</strong> Petty, R. E. (2003), “<strong>The</strong> <strong>influence</strong> <strong>of</strong> spokesperson trustworthiness on
message elaboration, attitude strength <strong>and</strong> advertising effectiveness”, Journal <strong>of</strong> Consumer
Psychology, Vol. 13, No. 4,408-421.
Purcell, K. (2011), “Search <strong>and</strong> email still top the list <strong>of</strong> most popular online activities”, Pew
Research Centre, at: http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2011/PIP_Search-<strong>and</strong>-
Email.pdf accessed 29/11/2011
Ruef, M., Aldrich, H. E. <strong>and</strong> Carter, N. M. (2003), “<strong>The</strong> structure <strong>of</strong> founding teams:
homophily, strong ties, <strong>and</strong> isolation among U.S. entrepreneurs”, American Sociological
Preview, Vol. 68, No. 2, pp. 195-222.
Schiffman, L. G. <strong>and</strong> Kanuk, L. L. (1997), Consumer Behaviour, 6 th ed, NJ: Upper Saddle
River.
Smith, D., Menon, S. <strong>and</strong> Sivakumar, K. (2005), “Online peer <strong>and</strong> editorial recommendations,
trust, <strong>and</strong> choice in virtual markets”, Journal <strong>of</strong> Interactive Marketing, Vol. 19, No .3,
(Summer), 15-37.
Sparks, B. A. <strong>and</strong> Browning, V. (2011), “<strong>The</strong> impact <strong>of</strong> online reviews on hotel booking
intentions <strong>and</strong> perception <strong>of</strong> trust”, Tourism Management, Vol. 32, 1310-1323.
Stokes, W., <strong>and</strong> Lomax, W. (2002), “Taking control <strong>of</strong> word <strong>of</strong> mouth marketing: <strong>The</strong> case <strong>of</strong>
entrepreneurial hotelier”, Journal <strong>of</strong> Small Business <strong>and</strong> Enterprise, Vol. 9, No. 4, 349-
357.
Wangenheim, F., <strong>and</strong> Bayon, T. (2004), “<strong>The</strong> effect <strong>of</strong> word <strong>of</strong> mouth on services switching:
Measurement <strong>and</strong> moderating variables”, European Journal <strong>of</strong> Marketing, Vol. 38, No.
9/10, 1173-1185.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1981), “How Consumer Evaluation Processes Differ between Goods <strong>and</strong>
Services”, In Marketing <strong>of</strong> Services, J. Donnelly <strong>and</strong> W. George, eds., Chicago: American
Marketing, 186-190.