Definition of Word of Mouth (WOM)

Word of mouth can be traced back to ancient times of many different cultures and countries when there was not yet an effective way for both government and social

communities to enable information or messages between people. Individuals relied on this as one of the main sources to gain access to information and news. Up to this day, word of mouth is still one of most familiar function anyone can use to spread and gain information on certain issues and topics. It is defined as “informal communication directed at other

consumers about the characteristics, ownership, or their sellers (Westbrook, 1987).” From the marketing and advertising perspective, word of mouth is no doubt one of the most important mechanisms that have an impact over the purchase intentions of consumers. The production of output WOM is thought to be an outcome of customer experiences with a product or services (Buttle, 1998). Both positive and negative Word of mouth has influences on whether or not a potential consumer would choose to buy the product. The most obvious example is when we ask suggestions from friends or family and the information given could easily influence our purchase decision. A disappointed customer’s reactions can be categorized into 3 different actions exit the relationship, complain to others, or make their dissatisfaction

known to the suppliers or company (Hirschman, 1970). Out of these three, complaining to others, also known in our literature as “negative WOM,” is the most destroyable for a company’s reputation and sales: Consumer purchase intentions lead to the search of shared experience which greatly influences the outcomes of their behavior, that is, to buy the product or service or not. Customers often depend on word of mouth to decide whether or not they should patronize. One of the most direct ways for consumers to find such shared information is through the search of word of mouth. It is mostly free and easy to access. Furthermore, consumers seem to find it hard to keep such information to themselves and they tend to like to share their experiences with others. According to statistical data, individuals usually only keep 10% of our emotional experiences, whether good or bad, to ourselves; the majority will be shared through the sharing of our conversation (Flynn, Goldsmith, and Eastman, 2006).

Surprisingly, after acquiring word of mouth, sometimes consumers even exclude their own opinions and private information they already have and prefer the information given by others (Godes and Mayzlin, 2004). In other words, the effect and influence of word of mouth is stronger when the consumer is faced with an ambiguous experience which they have to make an immediate or delayed decision (Bone, 1995). This is one of the main reasons why word of mouth has become one of the major concerns of corporate organizations in hope to gain more customers. The advice from friends, family, or other individuals whom have persuasive power serves as an important factor for them. The significance and influence of word of mouth has long been documented. “Word of mouth communications (WOM) is an interpersonal communication in which none of the participants are marketing sources” (Bone, 1995) The

traditional depiction of word of mouth is divided into a model of 2 parts (Figure 1.),

information given by the corporate and content based on their experience will be passed on from opinion leaders on to other potential consumers (Haywood, 1989). Yet word of mouth does not necessarily rely on opinion leaders to be passed on, ordinary consumers can also generate word of mouth. This research will focus on step 2, the spread of information and subjective point of view by consumers.

Figure 2-1. The Two Step flow of Word of Mouth

Reference: Haywood, K. Michael (1989), “Managing Word of mouth Communications” The Journal of Services Marketing, Vol.3, No.2, 55-67

According to Godes and Mayzlin (2004), the study of WOM can be categorized into three different streams: (1) a driver of consumer purchase behavior, (2) a result of consumer behavior, (3) the social structure in the flow of WOM. This study will focus on how word of mouth works as the driver of purchase behavior.

Word of Mouth: A two step flow hypothesis

Step 1

Step 2

Marketing Activities Target Market

Initial consumers, adaptors, evaluators

Word of Mouth by opinion leaders

A decision maker looks at the former decision maker that has already chosen as a foundation and base for his own choice. This is a rational choice for him since the former decision maker must have some sort of information that the latter one lacks. Therefore, when a person does not have sufficient information to make a perfect choice, this is the most often chosen way to make a decision. Benerjee proposed a model on the ‘herding’ phenomenon which quite depicts the situation of reliance and trust of consumers on word of mouth, “if an agent has a signal, then he follows that signal, unless someone before him has already

followed someone else. In that case, he follows suit” (Banerjee, 1992). For example, if we had to choose between two different restaurants and had neither information nor any sort of clue which was better, then normally we would choose to observe the choices of past customers.

Assuming they made their choice according to some source of information, we then would also make the same decision. In contrast, if one person already had preferred to choose restaurant A over restaurant B, and yet knew that the customer in front of her chose B, then the struggle between the two restaurants would be ruled out, whereas he would then pick B, trusting and following the former consumer’s choice.

In our study, we believe that word of mouth consists of three different dimensions that make the construct complete which are word of mouth activity, positive word of mouth, and negative word of mouth. These three constructs can be seen as different aspects to a single and more generalized word of mouth construct that should be separately studied due to a certain level of independency each construct possesses (Harrison-Walker, 2001). Word of mouth activity is the level of enthusiasm and detail of the conversation content exchanged

between consumers on products. Each individual will choose according to his own preference, character, and other antecedents the content and frequency of sharing electronic word of mouth. Moreover, Richins (1984) argued that people are more likely to spread negative attitudes to others compared to positive attitudes. When unsatisfied or disappointed with a certain product, customers are likely to spread negative word of mouth by actions such as giving bad reviews or furthermore, even advising other customers not to make the same purchase.

Table 2-1. Definitions of Word of Mouth

Scholar Definition of word of mouth

Westbrook ,1987 Informal communication directed at other consumers about the characteristics, ownership, or their sellers

Haywood, 1989 Information given by the corporate and

content based on their experience passed on from opinion leaders on to other potential consumers

Bone, 1995 An interpersonal communication in which

none of the participants are marketing sources

Buttle, 1998 An outcome of customer experiences with a

product or services

Stern, 1994 The exchange of ephemeral oral or spoken

messages between a contiguous source and a

Stern, 1994 recipient who communicate directly in real life…(also)consumers are not assumed to create, revise, and record pre-written conversational exchanges about products or services

Armdt, 1967 Oral, person to person communication

between a receiver and whom the receiver perceives as non-commercial regarding a brand, product, or service.

2.2 Electronic Word of Mouth (eWOM)

New media offers different ways of the spread of word of mouth. The Internet in particular has been the main portal of electronic word of mouth. It has greatly changed the marketing communications. Similar to traditional word of mouth, electronic word of mouth has even higher reliability and level of credit than other forms of marketing information and strategies on the web (Bickhart and Schindler, 2001). The rise of the Internet makes the access of information available more easily with different choices of platforms that consumers can choose from. Blogs, forums, and websites are some examples of where electronic word of mouth can be spread. This is different from the traditional spread of word of mouth since the barriers such as distance, time, and cost of expense on gaining information is decreased or eliminated. The Internet enables consumers to share their opinions on, and experiences with, goods and services with a multitude of other consumers; that is, to engage in electronic word of mouth (eWOM) communication (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004). In addition, consumers can

gather in virtual forms of social communities and exchange opinions and share advice where the flow of content is free and wide. Consumers gather shared experiences posted on websites to learn more about a product before making a purchase (Doh and Hwang, 2009). Electronic word of mouth not only benefits consumers, but also is a new tool for players in the business and advertising industry. Media players can freely interact with consumers and advertisers through the new media. Electronic word of mouth shortens the distance between consumers and corporations and can reach out to a larger group of audience (Hung and Li, 2007).

Table 2-2. A Comparison of traditional word of mouth and electronic word of mouth Different types of Word of Mouth Communication platforms

Traditional word of mouth P2P

Electronic word of mouth

Bulletin Board System, Blogging, Micro-blogging, Instant Messaging

In traditional word of mouth, the source of information is more visible and people communicate in person whereas in electronic word of mouth, there are many more possibilities for information to be passed on. One of the most common used electronic

platforms in Taiwan is the Bulletin Board System, or more commonly known as “BBS” for its initial abbreviations. Textual messages are the only kind of communication available in this platform. The main viewers are students and often gather together on different boards to share their purchase experience on certain products ranging from digital cameras to makeup and accessories. Weblogs, or more often called “blogs,” are personal web pages that are

Internet sites (Nardi et al. 2004). New forms of micro-blogging that simplify the functions and make it easier for users to share their status and information is a new form of communication in which people can post short messages or upload pictures through mobile phones or the internet. The main difference between traditional blogging and micro-blogging is the later offers an even faster way of sharing information by encouraging users to keep their posts short. Not only does this lower the required time to share information, it also increases the frequency of posting. A traditional blog might have 1 or more articles per day, whereas in micro-blogging, users tend to renew their status several times a day. In addition, instant messaging is a type of technology on the Web that allows users to send and receive mainly short text based messages and check to see who of their friends are also online and available (Cameron et al. 2004).

Table 2-3. Comparison of different types of electronic word of mouth

Different types of eWOM Example(s)

Bulletin Board System (BBS) PPT

Blogs Wretch, Yam, Blogger

Micro-blogs Twitter, Facebook, Plurk

Instant Messaging MSN, Yahoo Messenger, AIM

2.3 Definition of Willingness to Communicate (WTC)

Each person has different levels of tendency whether or not they like to speak, write, or in any other form communicate with other people. The willingness to communicate is a personality trait that underlies the communication process (MacIntyre, 1994) which is a

tendency to approach or avoid communication with others. This construct most originally originated from Burgoon’s 1976 research on the unwillingness to communicate which was based on factors such as introversion, lack of communication competence, alienation, anomie, and communication apprehension (MacIntyre, 1994). Mortenson, Arntson, and Lustig (1977) used this construct to farther develop it into the construct “willingness to communicate” to measure predisposition towards verbal communication. McCroskey and Baer gave a more detailed description of this construct as “the intention to initiate communication when given the opportunity.” The word “intention” here should be highlighted and emphasized since this slight change in definition brings this construct makes it more complete. Past research has shown that the willingness to communicate is also positively related to how much a person chooses to listen and comprehend with others. The willingness to communicate is a

personality variable that decides how much or how little a person likes to talk. The willingness to communicate will result in good personal images in the work place. Yet, it varies in different situations, from the mood of the speaker to whom he is speaking to. More certainty leads to a higher level of willingness to communicate and develop interpersonal relationships (McCroskey, 1985).

The two different layers of willingness include L1 and L2. L1 is our native language, whereas L2 the second or foreign language one learns (MacIntyre et al. 1998). ManIntyre and other scholars focus more on L2 as the area of research for willingness to communicate, yet there has been a gap of research between the willingness to communicate and spread of word of mouth in L1. This is what this study intends to understand. The construct of willingness to

communicate was first conceptualized based on L1 by McCroskey and Baer in 1985.

Although this construct has more commonly been studied as personality trait that might vary across different situations rather than a situational variable, we do not have to limit the construct and its character.

Willingness to communicate is a study that has been researched thoroughly under different constructs. According to McCroskey (1992) these different constructs, the

willingness to communicate can be divided into three different groups that focus on various aspects. First group of constructs focuses on the anxiety or apprehension about

communication. Second group of constructs focuses on the frequency of talking. The third group of constructs centers on the preference to avoid or approach communication.

L2 Use Willingness to Communicate Desire to Communicate with a specific person

State Communicative Self Confidence L2 Self Confidence Intergroup Attitudes

Communicative Competence

Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5 Layer 6

Communication Behavior Behavioral Intention Situated Antecedents Motivational Propensities Affective-Cognitive Context Personality

Intergroup Motivation Social Situation Intergroup Climate

Interpersonal Motivation Social & Individual Context Figure 2-2. Model of variables influencing WTC Reference: MacIntyre P.D. and Z. Dornyei and R. Clement and K.A.Noels (1998) “Conceptualizing Willingness to Communicate in a L2: A Situational Model of L2 Confidence and Affiliation” The Modern Language Journal 82 545-562

This model with 6 layers represents the two basic structures that underlie willingness to communicate. Layers 1 to 3 describe how individuals will react under certain circumstances or situations. On the other hand, layers 4 to 6 represent the stable influencing factors that influence our willingness to communicate.

Layer I

In the top layer, layer 1, we have the use of a second language, L2. Communication behavior using the second language can be observed by the frequency of how an individual chooses to engage in behaviors that use L2. Reading magazines and articles in L2 language, or choosing to speak up in a L2 class are signals that the L2 education has succeeded in this level of willingness to communicate.

Layer II

An interesting example can be used to explain the second layer, willingness to communicate.

If we have a group of students taking a foreign language class, those who choose to answer or respond to the teacher’s question, regardless whether or not they are chosen to answer, but as long as they raise their hands, this is a demonstration of their willingness to communicate.

Layer 2 tends to explore the urge of raising one’s hands to express oneself in L2. A combination of different reasons behind this motivation has been given: self-confidence, affiliation and control motives.

Layer III

Layer 3 proposes 2 different precursors of willingness to communicate, desire to

communicate with a specific person and state communicative self-confidence. Both affiliative

and control motives can influence one’s desire to communicate. Yet, it is not always definite that these two factors will be potent every time. According to research in the psychology field, affiliative motives usually exist when those we communicate with are close to us, have more common attributes, or are more physically attractive to us (Lippa, 1994). In other words, when we encounter a person who attracts us, we will be more willing to communicate with him. According to Clement, the two key constructs that are the foundation of state

communicative self-confidence are “perceived competence” and “lack of anxiety”. Perceived competence means that “the feeling of competence one has to communicate efficiently at a particular moment” (MacIntyre et al. 1998). When one has a confident feeling that he will be able to talk and communicate in a certain situation, that signifies he is in a state of perceived competence. The state of anxiety is a mixture of tension and apprehension that also arouses the autonomic nervous system (Spielberger, 1983). Any cause that triggers the nervous

system and raises the sense of anxiety will cause the confidence in communication to decrease, which will lead to the weakening of one’s willingness to communicate.

Layer IV

Layer 4 includes three different variables which are interpersonal motivation, intergroup motivation, and L2 confidence and are all motivational propensities. Motivational propensities are defined as “stable individual differences that can be applied in different situations” (MacIntyre et al. 1998). Based on cognitive and affective contexts of one’s interpersonal interaction with others, motivational propensities decide the degree of one’s confidence and desire to interact and communicate with others. Interpersonal motivation can

be categorized under two different motives, control and affiliation. As a motivational aim, control restricts the cognitive, affective and behavioral freedom of the other person. Often this type of communication occurs more in hierarchal relationships such as workplaces or

situations where one has more authority over the other. For example, during the beginning of exams, teachers communicate in order to let students understand the rules and restrictions on exams. Different from control’s task oriented situations, affiliation originates from the desire to establish a relationship with another. Although the motive to control cannot be entirely eliminated, yet the degree is limited. The degree of affiliation is influenced by different personal characteristics such as attractiveness, similarity, yet it is most often relevant with one’s personality. Past research on the differences of personality points out that “the

personality trait of an individual leads to the different preference of the need for affiliation (or control).” In addition, intergroup relations can also be divided into control and affiliation. The orientation and definition is the same except for the interlocutors in this dimension are groups of people instead of individuals. In Layer 4, interpersonal and intergroup relations are more concerned with the affective and social aspects of motivational propensities, whereas L2 self-confidence studies the relationship between an individual with L2. The two elements that make up L2 self-confidence is one’s perception of L2 efficiency and anxiety when

communicating in L2. These two components also are classified as cognitive and affective.

The concept of one’s evaluation and anxiety of L2 usage also is linked to the willingness to communicate in L1. The core idea of Layer 4 is that control and affiliation are important deciding factors which decide how an individual will interact with other.

Layer V

Layer 5 includes variables that diverse according to each individual and his attitudes and motives. The three components, intergroup attitudes, social situation, and communicative

Layer 5 includes variables that diverse according to each individual and his attitudes and motives. The three components, intergroup attitudes, social situation, and communicative