Skip to main content
Log in

The unrealized value of incentivized eWOM recommendations

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While companies have recognized the perceived economic benefits of encouraging and managing electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM), the benefits may be understated. Companies take into account the influence on the audience. But, what about any effects on the person who communicates the eWOM? We explore the impact that incentivized eWOM has on communicator attitude. Using the saying is believing effect as our theoretical foundation, we suggest that providing eWOM induces a change in the communicator’s attitude. By generating and providing a biased recommendation, the communicator will believe the biased recommendation. Furthermore, the communicator is likely to remember the biased recommendation and will use it to update their attitude. We examine how valence of recommendations (negative versus positive) and the number of opportunities to recommend affect the change in attitude. Our findings indicate that providing recommendations changes communicator’s attitude. Implications of the results are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agarwal, A., Xie, B., Vovsha, I., Rambow, O., & Passonneau, R. (2011). Sentiment analysis of twitter data. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Language in Social Media, Portland, Oregon, 30–38.

  • Basuroy, S., Chatterjee, S., & Ravid, S. A. (2003). How critical are critical reviews? The box office effects of film critics, star power, and budgets. Journal of Marketing, 67(October), 103–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J. (2014). Word-of-mouth and interpersonal communication: a review and directions for future research. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(4), 586–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J., & Iyengar, R. (2013). Communication channels and word of mouth: how the medium shapes the message. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 567–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Block, L. G., & Keller, P. A. (1995). When to accentuate the negative: the effects of perceived efficacy and message framing on intentions to perform a health-related behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(2), 192–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chevalier, J. A., & Mayzlin, D. (2006). The effect of word of mouth on sales: online book reviews. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(August), 345–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deshpande, M., & Sarkar, A. (2010). BI and sentiment analysis. Business Intelligence Journal, 15(2), 41–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Chapter 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fournier, S., & Avery, J. (2011). The uninvited brand. Business Horizons, 54(3), 193–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garnefeld, I., Helm, S., & Eggert, A. (2011). Walk your talk: an experimental investigation of the relationship between word of mouth and communicators’ loyalty. Journal of Service Research, 93(1).

  • Gillig, P. M., & Greenwald, A. G. (1974). Is it time to lay the sleeper effect to rest? Journal of Persoanlity and Social Psychology, 29, 132–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herr, P. M., Kardes, F. R., & 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T., & McCann, C. D. (1984). Social encoding and subsequent attitudes, impressions, and memory: “context-driven” and motivational aspects of processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(1), 26–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T., & Rholes, W. S. (1978). “Saying is believing”: effects of message modification on memory and liking for the person described. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 363–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, C.-L., Lin, J. C.-C., & Chiang, H.-S. (2013). The effects of blogger recommendations on customers’ online shopping intentions. Internet Research, 23(1), 69–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kardes, F. R., Cronley, M. L., Pontes, M. C., & Houghton, D. C. (2001). Down the garden path: the role of conditional inference processes in self-persuasion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11(3), 159–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leeper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: a test of the “overjustification” hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 129–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayzlin, D., Dover, Y., & Chevalier, J. (2014). Promotional reviews: an empirical investigation of online review manipulation. American Economic Review, 104(8), 2421–2455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCann, C. D., Higgins, E. T., & Fondacaro, R. A. (1991). Primary and recency in communication and self-persuasion: how successive audiences and multiple encodings influence subsequent evaluative judgments. Social Cognition, 9(1), 47–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merich, N. (2014). Negative thinking vs. positive thinking. http://insidetheathleticgrind.com/negative-thinking-vs-positive-thinking/. Accessed 20 Jan 2015.

  • Miller, M.J. (2011). P&G’s secret weapon: word-of-mouth marketing. Brand Channel.com. http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/PG-Word-of-Mouth-Vocalpoint.aspx. Accessed 27 Jan 2015.

  • Moore, S. G. (2012). Some things are better left unsaid: how word of mouth influences the storyteller. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(April), 1140–1154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posavac, S. S., Kardes, F. R., & Brakus, J. J. (2010). Focused induced tunnel vision in managerial judgment and decision making: the peril and the antidote. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113, 102–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Posavac, S. S., Kardes, F. R., & Mantel, S. P. (1988). Selective hypothesis testing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5(2), 197–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Vanous, S., Hook, C., Posavac, S. S., & Kardes, F. R. (2011). Whither the alternatives: determinants and consequences of selective versus comparative judgemental processing. Thinking & Reasoning, 17(4), 367–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sasson, R. (n.d.), The power of negative thinking and how to overcome it. http://www.successconsciousness.com/index_00002d.htm. Accessed 20 Jan 2015.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Kim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, J., Naylor, G., Sivadas, E. et al. The unrealized value of incentivized eWOM recommendations. Mark Lett 27, 411–421 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-015-9360-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-015-9360-3

Keywords

Navigation