African Journal of Business Management Vol. 5(26), pp.

10303-10313, 28 October, 2011

Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJBM
DOI: 10.5897/AJBM10.378DOI: 10.5897/AJBM10.378
ISSN 1993-8233©2011 Academic Journals

Full Length Research Paper

Word of mouth communication and some consumption

habits among Iranian consumers
Bahram Ranjbarian1, Mojtaba Barari1 and Monireh Salehnia2*
1
University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2
Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.
Accepted 3 August, 2010

Word of mouth (WOM) is becoming increasingly recognized as an important form of promotion. The
present paper seeks to explore the factors that are likely to enhance chances that receivers of positive
word of mouth might be influenced by such information or situations. Infact, the purpose of this
research is to investigate the relationship between word of mouth communication and some
consumption habit among Iranian consumers. The study examines findings gathered from 1104
questionnaires filled by students in the University of Isfahan. The sample was composed of students
belonging to different Iranian ethnic groups. The findings suggest that the consumers' potential for
WOM engagement which affects their perceptions or their actions depends on some consumption
habits and some consumer characteristics such as culture and sex. Consumers' creative choice
counter conformity, role-relaxed consumption, consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence,
attention to social comparison information and status consumption, have a relationship to the extent to
which they are engaged in WOM.The findings are tentative; however, they provide a useful framework
for future research into the process of WOM. The importance of WOM in marketing, particularly
professional services marketing is widely accepted; however, little is known about how to enhance its
occurrence. The present study provides marketing managers with a better understanding of the factors
likely to relate receivers or senders of WOM. Most WOM research focuses on the sender of WOM. In
contrast, this paper provides insights on related factors of WOM on the receiver, something that is
currently a black box in the marketing literature.

Key words: Consumer behavior, consumer decision making, word of mouth communication, consumer need
for uniqueness, role-relaxed consumption, social comparison, interpersonal influence.

INTRODUCTION

The idea of understanding consumer behaviour as a se- the decision.

quential decision-making process is one that is common
in marketing (Engel et al., 1993; Wilkie, 1994, Assael,
1992; Loudon and Della Bitta, 1993; Kotler, 1997). The
decision-making process itself is presented as a logical
flow of activities, working from problem recognition to pur-
chase to post-purchase evaluation. This decision-making
process is affected by a number of other more complex
influences. Some of these influences are related to the
wider environment in which the decision is being made
while others are related to the individual who makes the
*Corresponding author. E-mail: salehnia_monir@yahoo.com.
In this context, one of the most widely accepted notions
in consumer behaviour is that word-of-mouth commu-
nication (hereafter WOM) plays an important role in
shaping consumers' attitudes and behaviours (Brown and
Reingen, 1987). More specifically, WOM communications
between consumers are a topic of interest in both the
pre-purchase and post-purchase decision-making
literature. Research into the diffusion of innovations has
focused on modelling the role of WOM in product
adoption at various stages of the diffusion process
(Mahajan et al., 1990). WOM has also been studied as a
mechanism through which consumers convey both
informational and normative influences in the product
evaluation (Arndt, 1967; Brown and Reingen, 1987).
10304 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.
Finally, WOM has been identified as an important post-
purchase complaining option (Day, 1984; Singh, 1990).
Although WOM plays an important role in consumer
pre-purchase and post-purchase decision-making,
research into this phenomenon has been fragmented.
Importantly, relatively little attention has been directed at
understanding key issues with respect to WOM communi-
cations and the factors that influence their use (Brown
and Reingen, 1987, Duhan et al., 1997). The aim of the
present work is to add to this small body of empirical
research.
Further, this places emphasis on WOM communication
and its role in understanding consumer behaviour. It also
focuses on hypothesis development. Empirical research
is presented which explores the factors that influence on
the WOM communication. Finally, concluding remarks
and recommendations for further research are made.
Word of mouth communication
Research on word-of-mouth (WOM) dates back to the
1960s (Arndt, 1967; Dichter, 1966). Generally, word-of-
mouth communication can be defined as an oral, person
to person communication between a receiver and a
communicator whom the receiver perceives as non-
commercial regarding a brand, product or service (Arndt,
1967). Also, Hawkins et al. (2004) defined WOM
communication as the process allowing consumers to
share information and opinions that direct buyers towards
and away from specific products, brands, and services.
WOM, however, need not necessarily be brand,
product or service focused; rather, it may be organization
focused. Nor in this electronic age need WOM be face to
face, direct, oral or ephemeral. There is some evidence
that virtually, WOM through electronic bulletin boards
functions analogously face-to- face (Buttle, 1998).
Westbrook in its definition described WOM as all
informal communications directed at other consumers
about the ownership, usage, or characteristics of particu-
lar goods and services or their sellers (Westbrook, 1987).
The reasons justifying the power of WOM, is its credi-
bility being more than commercial sources of information
controlled by companies (for example, advertising and
sponsorship). Most of our discussions are indeed with
friends, family members, that is, people we trust and
whose goal is not the promotion of a specific company.
Secondly, WOM is really communication, that is, the
message flow tends to be two-way. Thirdly, WOM pro-
vides potential consumers with a description of what the
experience would be, and is thus considered to be a risk
reliever, especially for experience goods (Derbaix and
Vanhamme, 2003).
According to Rusticus, word-of-mouth marketing is
more credible than other marketing techniques because,
only 14% of people believe what they see, read or hear in
advertising. Surprisingly, 90% of the folks will believe
their family members, friends, or colleagues who endorse
a service or product because they know they do not have
a vested interest in it (Rusticus, 2006).
According to Silverman (2001), WOM usually occurs in
three main ways among customers:
1) Peer to peer: This is the informal communication
between customers for example, where the peers
function as verification.
2) Expert to peer: The expert gives confirmation but if the
expert is a company advocate, then his/her function is
seen as a giver of information.
3) Expert to expert: Experts that get together and share
ideas that also quickly can reach critical mass
psychologically (Silverman, 2001).
Typically, word- of- mouth is assumed to be of two
general types: negative and positive (Soderlund and
Rosengren, 2007; East et al., 2008). Why are consumers
involved in WOM that positive and negative feelings
associated with a product experience create inner tension
and call for a discharge in the form of WOM (Westbrook,
1987)? Other authors added to these emotions, and
noted that a consumer’s affective elements of satisfac-
tion, pleasure, and sadness all motivated consumers to
wish to share experiences with others (Litvin et al., 2008).
Also, East et al. (2008) claimed that PWOM and NWOM
are similar behaviors and PWOM is based on satisfaction
and NWOM on dissatisfaction.
Sundram and his associates found that consumers
were engaged in word-of-mouth communications for
altruistic, product involvement and self-enhancement
reasons. Gatignon and Robertson (1987) cited decision
support, decision justification, social status and social
power as the main factors that motivated word-of-mouth
communications. Previous research has found that
consumers engage in word-of-mouth communication for
altruistic motives, anxiety reduction, advice seeking,
product involvement and selfenhancement reasons
(Sundram et al., 1998).
Also, WOM communication is related to every
behaviour in consumer behaviour, it has been link with a
variety of personality traits or trait-like constructs
including extraversion (Mooradian and Olver, 1997) and
traits or facets subsumed by extraversion such as
sociability (Lau and Ng, 2001) and social needs
(Reynolds and Beatty, 1999) and locus of control(Lam
and Mizerski, 2005).
LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES
DEVELOPMENT
Based on some previous empirical studies and related
theoretical considerations, the hypotheses of this present
study have been developed.
One of the personality traits which considered

moderating the influence of WOM on receiver is
consumer need for uniqueness (CNFU). Tian et al. (2001:
52) defined the need for uniqueness as the trait of
pursuing differentness relative to others through the
acquisition, utilization, and disposition of consumer goods
for the purpose of developing and enhancing one's self-
image and social image. This concept is conceptualized
with three dimensions: 1) creative choice counter-
conformity; 2) unpopular choice counter-conformity; and
3) avoidance of similarity.
Firstly, consumers may seek a creative choice by
making a product selection that is acceptable, yet
original, novel, or unique from choices made by others.
Consumers identified as market mavens (Solomon and
Rabolt, 2004) are part of this group. Thus, brand names
that can offer some distinguishing attributes (for example,
unique features, exclusivity, and prestige) appeal to
consumers who demonstrate this type of consumer
behaviour (Knight and Kim, 2007).
As a second option, consumers may make an
unpopular choice by making a product selection that is
considered unacceptable and thus is rarely chosen by
others. These consumers are not concerned about
criticism from others; in fact, they tend to make purchase
decisions that others might consider to be bizarre (Knight
and Kim, 2007).
Thirdly, consumers may avoid similarity to the larger
group by pursuing a minority choice that is considered
acceptable or good and is frequently selected by others
but is not typically owned by the group (Tian and
McKenzie, 2001). Consumers in this group tend to select
products or brands that are not likely to become too
popular, but that will distinguish them from others. To
avoid similarity with others, consumers may develop a
variety of strategies. For instance, they may purchase
discontinued styles, shop in vintage stores, or combine
apparel in unusual ways (Knight and Kim, 2007). Consu-
mers establish their uniqueness through various
uniqueness-seeking behaviors in response to environ-
mental inputs that increase or decrease their perceptions
of similarity to others (Tian et al., 2001):
H1a: creative choice counter-conformity trait is negatively
related to word of mouth influence on receiver.
H1b: unpopular choice counter-conformity trait is nega-
tively related to word of mouth influence on receiver.
H1c: avoidance of similarity negatively is related to word
of mouth influence on receiver.
Another considered variable in this study is consumer
susceptibility to interpersonal influence (CSII). Consumer
susceptibility to interpersonal influence is a measure of
the degree to which a person is influenced by real or
imagined others, specifically with regard to his or her
consumption choices (Kropp et al., 2005). This construct
is multi-dimensional and consists of normative and
informational influences (Deutsch and Gerard, 1955;
Ranjbarian et al. 10305
Bearden et al., 1989). Informational influence refers
influence to accept information obtained from another as
evidence about reality (Deutch and Gerard, 1955;
Burnkrant and Cousineau, 1975; Bearden et al., 1989).
Informational influence can be a consequence of either a
search for information from informed others or from
observation of others’ behaviour (Park and Lessig, 1977).
It also reflected in the desire to obtain objective
information about products and brand (Netemeyer et al.,
1992).
Normative influence relates to individuals' attempts to
conform to the expectations of another person or group
(Deutch and Gerard, 1955; Burnkrant and Cousineau,
1975). Normative influences can further be subdivided
into value expressive and utilitarian influences (Bearden
and Etzel, 1982; Park and Lessig, 1977; Bearden et al.,
1989). Utilitarian influences are reflected in individuals'
attempts to comply with the expectations of others to
achieve rewards or avoid punishments (Bearden et al.,
1989) or an individual’s willingness to conform to the
expectations of others in making purchase decisions
(Kropp et al., 2005). Value expressiveness reflects the
individual's desire to enhance self-image by association
with a reference group (Bearden et al., 1989) or an
individual’s need to use product and/or brand purchases
to identify with or enhance their image in the eyes of
significant others (Kropp et al., 2005):
H2a: Consumer susceptibility to normative interpersonal
influence is positively related to word of mouth influence
on receiver.
H2b: Consumer susceptibility to informational interper-
sonal influence is positively related to word of mouth
influence on receiver.
Role-relaxed consumption (RRC) as another influencing
factor on using word-of-mouth communication has been
considered in this study.
Role-relaxed consumer (RRC) is an individual that
focuses on the utilitarian aspects of a product rather than
the superficial aspects (Kahle, 1995a). These consumer
purchase products for their intended use rather than the
prestige or status the product might convey (Clark et al.,
2007). Role-relaxed consumer (RRC) does not seek
social approval of his or her purchases and is not very
concerned with what other consumers think (Goldsmith
and Clark, 2008). Indeed role-relaxed consumer is
suggesting who is low on susceptibility to interpersonal
influence (Kahle, 1995b). Kahle in his research indicates
role-relaxed consumer relatively affluent, self confident,
self respecting and these consumers view themselves as
educated, knowledgeable, logical, sensible, and
intelligent (Kahle, 1995b). Role-relaxed consumers make
purchase decisions based on utilitarian product attributes
rather than the impression that the product will make on
other consumers. This type of information is easily
acquired through formal sources of product information
10306 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.
(for example, advertising, consumer publications, sales
representatives), which negates the need for subjective
opinions from referent others. It is likely that the role-
relaxed consumer does not consult other consumers prior
to making a purchase decision (Clark et al., 2007):
H3: Role-relaxed consumption trait is negatively related to
word of mouth influence on receiver.
The relationship of consumers’ attention to social com-
parison information (ASCI) with word-of- mouth influence
on receiver is also analyzed. Consumers often conform to
the product decisions of peers and others in a variety of
situations, with some consumers more predisposed than
others toward conformity, a trait known as attention to
social comparison information (Bearden and Rose, 1990;
Lennox and Wolfe, 1984). This tendency to comply with
group norms (Burnkrant and Cousineau, 1975) necessi-
tates the monitoring or observing of others for acceptable
social cues (Bearden and Rose, 1990; Lennox and
Wolfe, 1984). Bearden and Rose (1990; 461) recognized
that consumers with a high propensity to conform act on
the social cues available at the time a purchase or con-
sumption decision is being made and illustrated that such
subjects are more likely to conform to the decisions of
other consumers, regardless of whether those consumers
are physically present or not.
The ATSCI is a general tendency to conform and has
been found to be related to fear of the evaluation of
others (Bearden et al., 1990). ATSCI is correlated with
two factors of social anxiety: fear of negative evaluation
and neuroticism (Lennox and Wolfe, 1984). Consumers
sensitive to social comparison information are aware of
and apprehensive about others’ reactions; they strongly
care about what other people think about them
(Bertrandias and Goldsmith, 2006). This consumers’
propensity to use social cues to define their behaviour is
likely to influence the tendency to share or to seek
information (Bertrandias and Goldsmith, 2006):
H4: Attention to social comparison information is
positively related to word of mouth influence on receiver.
Status consumption (SC) as consumer behaviour has
been considered to moderate the influence of word of
mouth. Eastman et al. (1999) define status consumption
(SC) as the motivational process by which individuals
strive to improve their social standing through the conspi-
cuous consumption of consumer products that confer and
symbolize status both for the individual and surrounding
significant others. This concept is more associated with
increasing the status of both the consumer and the
significant others around them (Goldsmith and Clark,
2008). It is described as an enduring individual difference
present at different levels in different consumers (Clark et
al., 2007). Status consumption differs from conspicuous
consumption.
Conspicuous consumption indeed is purchase of high
priced products to convey wealth and status to others
(O’Cass and McEwen, 2004) while Status consumption is
a desire for buying something that represents status to
both the individual and to surrounding significant others
(Eastman et al., 1999). This concept is also different from
that of materialism, because in materialism, goods are
acquired for their own sake (Clark et al., 2007). However,
status consumers actively seek information from others
about prestigious products and brands (Clark et al.,
2007):
H5: Status consumption is positively related to word of
mouth influence on receiver.
One of the most important consumers' characteristics
which influences on their behaviour is their gender. It has
been suggested that women in general may be more
likely to engage in WOM due to their gender roles
(Bakan, 1966). Female sex roles are characterized by
fostering harmonious relationships, affiliating with others,
and having strong concern for other people’s feelings
(Meyers-Levy, 1988). Young women, in particular, have
been found to be quite adept at spreading WOM. For
example, Bush et al. (2004) found that young women
were more apt than young men to recommend products
and services to their friends that were endorsed by their
favourite athlete:
H6: Engaging in word of mouth communication varies for
different sexes.
Consumption choices cannot be understood without
considering the cultural context in which they are made.
A culture can be divided into sub-cultures based on age,
geographic regions or ethnic identity. Within these, there
are even greater similarities in people's attitudes, values
and actions than within the broader culture
(O'Shaughnessy, 1995; Dibb et al., 1997). The prevailing
culture will determine how consumers react to certain
aspects of the marketing mix (Ennew, 1993; Dibb et al.,
1997) and likely speciality on WOM:
H7: Engaging in word of mouth communication varies for
different cultural groups.
All the relationships that were assumed were had shown
on figure 1.
METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH
Research instrument
The data gathering instrument was a questionnaire divided into 2
parts. Part A, captured data about demographic characteristics
such as; age, marital status, sex, sub-culture, education level and
the duration of time they spent in the university (number of
semesters). Part B, included constructs measuring the research
variables and consisted of closed-end questions. They were mea-
sured on a 5-point Likert scale. Measurement of these constructs
was developed and are presented thus.
 Ranjbarian et al. 10307

Creative choice counter- H1a H3 Role-relaxed

Consumer need for
uniqueness conformity trait consumption trait

Unpopular choice counter- H1b H4 Attention to social

conformity trait comparison information

H1c H5
Avoidance of similarity Status consumption

Word of mouth
communication
Consumer susceptibility to
interpersonal influence

Consumer susceptibility to H2a

normative interpersonal H6
influence Gender

H2b H7
Consumer susceptibility to Cultural group
informational interpersonal
influence

Figure 1. Conceptual model of the research.

Consumer need for uniqness (CNFI). chosen.

This measure originally has 12-items, developed by Bearden et al.

(1989) that measures the extent to which individuals are sensitive
to social comparison cues regarding their product choices. But in
this paper, 8 items have been adapted and consist of three com-
ponents; (1) creative choice counter-conformity (Cnf); (2) unpopular
choice counter-conformity (Cnf 2), and (3) avoidance of similarity
(Cnf 3).
Attention to social comparison information (ATSCI)
This scale has been developed by Lennox and Wolfe (1984). Origi-
nally it has 13 items that measure the extent to which individuals
are sensitive to social comparison cues regarding their product
choices. In this paper 8 items have been adapted.

Consumer Susceptibility to interpersonal influence (CSII) Word of mouth comunication (WOM)

The original scale has 12 items developed by Bearden et al. (1989).
But in adapted scale for the purpose of this study presents only 8
items and consisted of two components of normative (NCSII) and
informational influences (ICSII).
Role-relaxed consumption (RRC)
The original construct has 7 items developed by Kahle (1995a) that
measures the extent to which individuals ignore interpersonal
influences in making product and brand decisions and prefer
substantive product attributes to stylistic product attributes. But in
this paper 5 items have been adapted.
Status consumption (SC)
This scale that has 5 items was developed by Kahle (1995) to
measure the extent to which individuals strive to improve their
social status through conspicuous consumption of consumer
products that confer or symbolize status both to the individual and
to surrounding significant others. In this paper, 4 items were
This scale has 6 items obtained from Podoshen (2006). This scale
measures all informal communications directed at other consumers
about the ownership, usage, or characteristics of particular goods
and services or their sellers.
The measurement constructs were evaluated for reliability and
validity. Construct reliability or internal consistency was assessed
by computing Cronbach’s alpha. Table 1 shows the result of the
Constructs reliability.
Procedure
The survey questionnaire was distributed personally or through the
internal mail at the University of Isfahan. The respondents were
debriefed for the objectives of the research and were informed that
the returned questionnaires would be treated confidentially. 1500
questionnaires were distributed. 1245 of them were returned
(making 83% response rate) among which 1104 were useful. We
suppose, promising to report the results of research lead to high
return rate of questionnaires. Demographic characteristics of the
participants who returned the completed questionnaires are
summarised in Table 2.
10308 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

Table 1. Results of the constructs reliability.

Variable No. of items in original constructs No. of items in adapted constrauts Cronbach’s alpha
WOM 6 6 0.78

CNFU
Cnf 1 11 4 0.87
Cnf 2 11 4 0.82
Cnf 3 9 4 0.80

CSII
NCSII 8 4 0.83
ICSII 4 4 0.75

RRC 7 5 0.79

ASCI 13 8 0.91

SC 5 4 0.76

RESULTS WOM was found to be significant (p < 0.05). The mean

Basically, the analysis was structured into two parts.
Firstly, the hypothesised relationships of WOM with
studied consumption habits were tested (H1, H2, H3, H4,
and H5). Secondly, groups' differences with regards to
gender and cultural groups which they belong to, were
tested (H6, H7). Data analysis has been done by the
SPSS statistical package.
In order to examine the hypothesised relationships, a
bivariate correlation approach was employed. The aim of
this approach is to, provide quantitative value of
correlation coefficients for relationships between sets of
variables. Data were normal so Pearson's coefficient was
computed. Table 3 showed results of this analysis.
With reference to Table 3, the results reveal that the
relationship of three dimensions of consumer need for
uniqueness with WOM influence on receivers were found
to be negative. But only the relationship of creative
choice counter-conformity with WOM (r= -0.101) was
significant (p < .05). Also results indicate that the
relationship of Role-relaxed consumption with WOM (r= -
0.099) is negative and significant (p < .05).
As Table 2 indicates, the relationship between
consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence
(informational and normative) with WOM was found to be
positive (r=0.269, r=0.198) and significant (p < 0.05).
But the results with regard to the relationship between
attention to social comparison information with WOM
(r=0.147) and status consumption with WOM (r=0.102)
are found to be positive and significant (p < 0.05).
For testing H6, independent samples T-test was used to
compare mean of WOM for women and men, and the
result is shown in Table 4.
As indicated in Table 4, the difference of engaging in
value of engaging in WOM for women was (4.488), and
for men was equal (4.329).
To test H7, one-way ANOVA test was used, which
compares mean values of WOM for different cultural
groups. The results are shown in Table 5.
Table 5, reveals that the differences of engaging in
WOM communications among different cultural groups
were found to be significant (p < 0.05). The overall results
of examining the hypotheses are shown in Table 6.
DISCUSSION
The objective of the present study was to investigate the
role of some consumption habits, more specifically, the
relationship between need for uniqueness, susceptibility
to interpersonal influence, role relaxed consumption,
status consumption, and also the gender and culture to
the extent of engaging in WOM communications among
Iranian consumers has been examined. Based on the
results of our study, amongst 1104 consumers, only two
out of ten studied hypotheses were not supported by
acquired data.
From three sub-hypotheses which examined the rela-
tionship of need for uniqueness with the extent of WOM
communication only unpopular choice counter conformity
(UNF2), had a negative significant relation with WOM
communication. But the relationships between WOM with
creative choice counter conformity (CNF1) and avoidance
of similarity (CNF3) were negative but not significant,
contrary to what was expected. These results are com-
patible with other studies that are implied in hypotheses
development. The results of previous studies shows that,
consumers who establish their uniqueness through
 Ranjbarian et al. 10309

Table 2. Demographic characteristics.

Demographic Frequency Percent

Age
Under 20 87 7.9
20-24 594 53.8
25-29 350 31.7
30-34 69 6.2
35-39 4 0.3
40+ 0 0
Missing 0 0

Sex
Male 411 37.3
Female 693 62.7
Missing 0 0

Marital status
Single 984 89.1
Married 120 10.9
Divorced/separated 0 0
Missing 0 0

Education
MC 587 53.2
Graduate 447 40.5
PHD candidate 70 6.3
Missing 0 0

Cultural group
Lor 119 10.8
Balouch 10 0.9
Kord 80 7.2
Arab 5 0.45
Fars 503 45.6

Gilak 15 1.4
Tabari 49 4.4
Azari 95 8.6
Others 5 0.45
Missing 223 20.2

various uniqueness-seeking behaviors in response to
environmental inputs that increase or decrease their
perceptions of similarity to others, less likely would attend
to others. Bertrandias and Goldsmith (2006) investigate
some consumers' characteristics with fashion opinion
leadership and fashion opinion seeking. Result indicates
consumer need for uniqueness was positively related to
fashion opinion leadership. Cheema and Kaikati (2010)
stated that, positive WOM can decrease the uniqueness
of one’s possessions, which hurts high-uniqueness indivi-
duals. As a result, high- (vs. low-) uniqueness individuals
are less willing to generate positive WOM for publicly
consumed products that they own. However, high unique-
ness does not decrease willingness to generate WOM for
privately consumed products. Lack of support for these
two hypotheses in present study is not fully understood
and further study is suggested.
According to results shown in Table 6, the
hypothesised relationship between WOM and consumer
susceptibility to normative interpersonal influence
(NCSII), consumer susceptibility to informational interper-
sonal influence (CSIII) was positive and significant, as
10310 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

Table 3. Correlation between WOM and studied variables.

Hypothesis Variable R P
H1a Cnf 1 0.27 0.417
H1 H1b Cnf 2 1.01 0.003
H1c Cnf 3 0.48 0.148
H2a NCSII 0.269** 0.000
H2
H2b ICSIN 0.198** 0.000
H3 RRC 0.99** 0.001
H4 ASCI 0.174** 0.000
H5 SC 0.102** 0.000
* Significant at the 0.05 level; * * Significant at the 0.01 level.

Table 4. Independent sample test for gender.

Variable F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Equal variances assumed 2.175 1112 0.030
WOM 10.780 0.001
Equal variances not assumed 2.084 747.921 0.037

Table 5. ANOVA test to compare cultural groups as WOM.

Variable Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.

Between
97.401 8 12.175 8.943 0.000
groups
Within groups 1187.123 872 1.361
Total 1284.524 880

Table 6. Result of hypothesis testing.

Hypothesis Relation Result

H1a Cnf 1 and WOM Rejected
H1 H1b Cnf 2 and WOM Accepted
H1c Cnf 3 and WOM Rejected

H2a NCSII and WOM Accepted

H2
H2b ICSII and WOM Accepted

H3 RRC and WOM Accepted

H4 ASCI and WOM Accepted
H5 SC and WOM Accepted
H6 Gender and WOM Accepted
H7 Cultural group and WOM Accepted

expected. Consumers do not operate in social vacuum.
They compare themselves with reference groups. Search
for information could be either from informed others or
from observation. Mowen et al. (2007) in their investi-
gation, indicate susceptibility to normative influence
positively related to information receiving. The body of
literature on interpersonal communication and WOM
suggests that, consumers with certain personal and
personality traits are more likely to disseminate WOM to
fellow consumers (Feick and Price 1987; Gilly et al.,
1998; Lazarsfeld et al., 1944). Findings of Chu (2009)
also shows that consumer susceptibility to interpersonal

influence is related to WOM behavior. Results from a
series of multiple regression analyses indicate that
certain social relationship variables are significant
predictors that relate to social networking site users’
WOM behavior. Bearden et al. (1989) indicate consumer
susceptibility to interpersonal influence is another of
variables that is useful to explain the effect of social
relationships on consumer reliance on social networking
sites as a source of product-focused information. Clark
and Goldsmith's (2005) researchindicate that suscep-
tibility to normative influence and consumer need for
uniqueness are positively related to the market maven
construct. Mavens are based, not on knowledge or exper-
tise in a particular product category, but rather on more
general knowledge and experience with markets (Feick
and Price, 1987).
According to results of this research, relationship
between WOM and attention to social comparison
information (ASCI) was positive and significant. This
results confirmed Netemeyer et al. (1992) who suggested
that consumers who are susceptible to the influence of
others are more likely to purchase products that they
perceive will lead others to make favorable attributions
about them, and avoid purchasing products that they
perceive will lead others to evaluate them negatively. The
concept of ATSCI is derived from the broader trait of self-
monitoring, which refers to the extent that people observe
their own behavior and adapt it to the behaviors of those
around them (Snyder, 1974). Also consumers differ in
how much they pay attention to other consumers and
how much others influence their behavior (Bearden and
Rose, 1990).
The preference for information from interpersonal
sources also indicates that seekers feel concerned for the
social adequacy of their choices. Thus, opinion seeking
may be the explicit expression of an implicit anxiety. To
alleviate social anxiety, opinion seekers pay attention to
others in order to find out how they should behave
(Bertrandias and Goldsmith, 2006).
The relationship between status consumption (SC) and
word-of-mouth (WOM) communication was positive and
significant according to our research. But as the results
indicate, people with role-relaxed consumption behavior
are less likely to attend to others' recommendations.
Tendency to comply with group norms lead to consumers'
conformation to the product decisions of peers and others
in a variety of situations. Consumers who follow status
consumption behavior, actively seek information from
others about prestigious products and brands. Status
consumption was showed positively related to word-of-
mouth communication, as expected.
Individuals tend to socialize with those who share
similar characteristics, often termed social homophily
(Mouw, 2006). So, interpersonal communications are
more likely to occur between two individuals who are
alike, that is, homophilous (Lazarsfeld and Merton, 1954).
Consumers may interact with others who are
Ranjbarian et al. 10311
demographically similar or with those quite different,
which could influence the nature and extent of WOM
communications.(netmeyer et al.,1992 ).
It has been found that women in general, are more
likely to engage in WOM due to their gender roles.
Results of this research support this hypothesis. This
result matches with that of other researches related to
WOM communication. Bush et al. (2005) indicate that
there would be a positive relationship between teen girls’
susceptibility to interpersonal influence and athlete WOM
behavior. Also previous researches indicate that young
women, in particular, have been found to be quite adept
at spreading WOM (Bush et al., 2005). For instance,
Bush et al. (2004) found that young women were more
susceptible than young men to recommend products and
services to their friends that were endorsed by their
favorite athlete.
Putrevu (2001) describes women as relational proces-
sors who attend to all available information and attempt
to identify the relationships and similarities/differences
between individual information items. The results of
Kempf and Palan (2006) provided empirical support that
women have more positive attitudes toward WOM
communication than do men. Ergin (2010), concluded
that gender is a significant predictor of compulsive buying
behavior and women are more affected by compulsive
buying than men (Ergin, 2010). So women explore more
information that affects on increasing their' WOM
communication.
As the results of the present study indicated, the extent
of WOM engagement differs within cultural groups.
Cultural Influences can account for the choice of recom-
mendation source and use of WOM as well as the impact
that different factors have on recommended choices.
Consumer cultural background affect personal per-
ception, and WOM initiation intentions, especially among
customers who come from low individualism cultural
backgrounds or those with higher level of uncertainty
avoidance(Chen, 2006). Of course, the simple cultural
classification of consumers may be subjective, and
further research is needed to explore the issue in a more
detailed classification.
To sum up, we may say that this study provided limited
evidence but it raised conceptual and methodological
questions appropriate for future research.
Findings of the reasearch has some implication for
marketing managers in their strategy developments,
specially in promotion and advertising issues. Of course,
the extent of engaing in word of mouth communication
could be a variable for market segmention. Being aware
of variables which influence the extent of engaing in
WOM can help marketer in this issue.
LIMITATIONS
Of course, findings of this study are also subject to some
10312 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.
limitations. The general limitations of the questionnaire-
based approach have to be taken into consideration. A
questionnaire may appear realistic but is not necessarily
compatible with the reality of individual participants.
Furthermore, some co-linearity may exist among studied
variables.
REFERENCES
Arndt J (1967). Role of Product-Related Conversations in the Diffusion
of a New Product. J. Mark. Res., 4: 291-295.
Assael H (1992). Consumer Behaviour and Marketing Action. Boston:
PWS-Kent Publishing Company.
Bakan D (1966). The Duality of Human Existence: An Essay on
Psychology and Religion, Rand McNally Publishing, Chicago, IL.
Bearden WO , Etzel MJ (1982). Reference group influence on product
and brand purchase decisions. J. Cons. Res., 9: 183-194.
Bearden WO, Netemeyer RG, Teel JE (1989). Measurement of
consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. J. Consum. Res.,
15: 473-481.
Bearden WO, Rose RL (1990). Attention to social comparison
information: an individual difference factor affecting consumer
conformity. J. Consum. Res., 16( 3): 461-471.
Bertrandias L, Goldsmith RE (2006). Some psychological motivations
for fashion opinion leadership and fashion opinion seeking. J.
Fashion Mark. Manage., 10: 25-40.
Brown JJ, Reingen PH (1987). Social Ties and Word-of-Mouth Referrral
Behavior. J. Consum. Res., 14: 350-362.
Burnkrant RE, Cousineau A (1975). Informational and normative social
influence in buyer behavior. J. Consum. Res., 2: 206–215.
Bush VD, Martin CA, Bush AJ (2004). Sports celebrity influence on the
behavioral intentions of Generation Y. Advertis. Res., 4(1): 108-17.
Bush VD, Bush AJ, Clark P, Bush RP (2005). Girl power and word-of-
mouth behavior in the flourishing sports market, J. Consum. Mark.,
22(5): 257-264.
Buttle FA (1998). Word of mouth: Understanding and managing referral
marketing. J. Strateg. Mark., 6: 241-254.
Cheema A, Kaikati AM (2010). The effect of need for uniqueness on
word of mouth. J. Market. Res., 47(3): 553-56Chu. S.ch. (2009).
Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-of-mouth
in social networking sites Author. Available on:
http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/6585/chus00
644.pdf?sequence=2
Clark RA, Zboja JJ, Ronald EG (2007). Status consumption and role-
relaxed consumption: A tale of two retail consumers. J. Retail.
Consum. Serv., 14: 45–59.
Clark RA, Goldsmith RE (2005), “Market mavens: psychological
influences”. Psychol. Mark., 22: 289-312.
Day RL (1984). Modeling choices among alternative responses to
dissatisfaction”. Adv. Consum. Res., 11: 496-9.
Derbaix C, Vanhamme J (2003). Inducing word-of-mouth by eliciting
surprise-a pilot investigation. J. Econ. Psychol., 24: 99-116.
Deutsch M, Gerard HB (1955). A study of normative and informational
influence upon individual judgment. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., 51:
629-636.
Dibb S, Simkin L, Pride WM, Ferrell OC (1997). Marketing: Concepts
and Strategies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Dichter E (1966). How word-of-mouth advertising works. Harv. Bus.
Rev., 44: 147-66.
Duetsch M, Gerard HB (1955). A study of normative and informational
social influence on individual judgment. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., 51:
629-636.
Duhan DF, Johnson SD, Wilcox JB and Harrell GD (1997). Influences
on Consumer Use of Word-of-Mouth Recommendation Sources. J.
Acad. Mark. Sci., 25(4): 283-295.
East R, Hammond K, Lomax W (2008). Measuring the impact of
positive and negative word of mouth on brand purchase probability.
Int. J. Res. Mark., 25: 215-224.
Eastman JK, Goldsmith RE, Flynn LR (1999). Status consumption in
consumer behavior: scale development and validation”. J. Mark.
Theory Pract., 7 (3): 41-51.
Eliashberg J, Shugan SM (1997). “Film critics: influencers or predictors?
J. Mark., 61: 68-78.
Engel JF, Blackwell RD and Miniard PW (1993). Consumer Behaviour.
7th ed., Dryden Press, New York, NY.
Ennew CT (1993) The Marketing Blueprint. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ergin EA (2010). Compulsive buying behavior tendencies: The case of
Turkish consumers". Afr. J. Bus. Manage., 4 (3): 333-338.
Feick LF, Price LL (1987). “The market maven: a diffuser of
marketplace information”. J. Mark., 51: 83-97.
Flynn LR, Goldsmith RE, Eastman JK (1996). “Opinion leaders and
opinion seekers: two new measurement scales”. J. Acad. Mark. Sci.,
24(2): 137-147.
Galli J (1994). Keeping up with the Joneses: Consumption externalities,
portfolio choice, and asset prices. J. Money Credit Bank., 26 (1): 1-8.
Gatignon H, Robertson TS (1987). An exchange theory model of
interpersonal communication. Adv. Consum. Res., 13(1): 534-538.
Gilly, M. C, John L. G, Mary F. W, and Laura J. Y. (1998). A Dyadic
Study of Interpersonal Information Search”. J. Acad. Mark. Sci.,
26(2): 83-100.
Goldsmith RE, Clark RA (2008). An analysis of factors affecting fashion
opinion leadership and fashion opinion seeking. J. Fashion Mark.
Manage., 12(3): 308-322.
Hawkins DI, Best R, Coney KA (2004). Consumer behavior: Building
marketing strategy (9th ed). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Kahle LR (1995a). Role-relaxed consumers: a trend of the nineties. J.
Advert. Res., March/April: 66-71.
Kahle LR (1995b). Role-relaxed consumers: empirical evidence. J.
Advert. Res., May/June: 59-62.
Kempf De, Anna S, Pala KM (2006). The effects of gender and
argumentstrength on the processing of word of mouth
communication. Acad. Mark. Stud. J., 10 (1): 1-16.
Knight DK, Kim EY (2007). Japanese consumers’ need for uniqueness
Effects on brand perceptions and purchase intention. J. Fashion
Mark. Manage., 11(2): 270-280.
Kotler P (1997) Marketing Management: Analysis. Planning.
Implementation. and Control. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Kropp F, Lavack AM, Silvera DH (2005). Values and collective self-
esteem as predictors of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal
influence among university students. Int. Mark. Rev., 22(1): 7-33.
Lam D, Mizerski D (2005). The effects of locus of control on word of
mouth communication". J. Mark. Commun., 11(3): 215-228.
Lau GT, Ng S(2001). Individual and situational factors influencing
negative word-of-mouth behaviour. Can. J. Adm. Sci.,18(3): 163-178.
Lazarsfeld P, Robert KM (1954). Friendship as a Social Process: A
Substantive and Methodological Analysis. In Freedom and Control in
Modern Society. Morroe Berger. Theodore Abel, and Charles H.
Page, eds. New York:Van Nostrand, pp. 18-66.
Lazarsfeld P, Bernard B, Hazel G (1944). The People's Choice.How the
Voter Makes Up His Mind in A Presidential Election. New
York:Columbia University Press.
Lee S-H (2009). How do online reviews affect purchasing intention?".
Afr. J. Bus. Manage., 3(10): 576-581.
Lennox RD, Wolfe RN (1984). Revision of the self monitoring scale. J.
Pers. Soc. Psychol., 49: 1349-1364.
Loudon DL, Della Bitta AJ (1993). Consumer Behavior: Concepts and
Applications. London: McGraw-Hill.
Mahajan V, Muller E, Bass FM (1990). New product diffusion models in
marketing: a review and direction for research. J. Mark., 54: 1-26.
Meyers-Levy J (1988). The influence of sex roles on judgment”. J.
Cons. Res., 14: 522-530.
Mooradian TA, Olver JM(1997). Can't get no, satisfaction: the impact of
personality and emotion on postpurchase processes. Psychol. Mark.,
14(4): 379-393.
Mouw T (2006). Estimating the Causal Effect of Social Capital: A
Review of Recent Research. Ann. Rev. Sociol., 32: 79-102.
Mowen JC, Sojin PS, Zablah A (2007). Toward a theory of motivation
and personality with application to word-of-mouth communications. J.
Bus. Res., 60: 590-596.
Netemeyer RG, Bearden WO, Teel JE (1992). Consumer susceptibility
to interpersonal influence and attributional sensitivity". Psychol.

Mark., 9 (5): 379-394.
Netemeyer RG, Bearden WO, Teel JE (1992). Consumer susceptibility
to interpersonal influence and attributional sensitivity. Psychol Mark.,
9(5): 379-394.
O’Cass A, McEwen H (2004). Exploring consumer status and
conspicuous consumption”. J. Consum. Behav., 4(1): 25-39.
O'Shaughnessy J (1995). Competitive Marketing: A Strategic Approach.
London: Routledge.
Park CW, Lessig VP (1977). Students and housewives: differences in
susceptibility to reference group influence. J. Cons. Res., 4: 102-110.
Park C, Lee T (2007). Factors Influencing Perceived Credibility of
Online Word-of-Mouth : Information Objectivity, Product Type, and
Culture. Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy (ANZMAC)
Conference, pp. 3023-3030.
Podoshen JS (2008). The African American consumer revisited: brand
loyalty, word-of-mouth and the effects of the black experience. J.
Consum. Mark., 25(4): 211-222.
Putrevu S (2001). Exploring the origins and information processing
differences between men and women: Implications for advertisers.
Acad. Market. Sci. Rev., 10: 1-14.
Reynolds KE, Beatty SE (1999). A relationship customer typology. J.
Retail., 75(4): 509-523.
Rusticus S (2006). Creating brand advocates. in Kirby, J. and Marsden,
P. (Eds), Connected Marketing: The Viral, Buzz and Word-of-Mouth
Revolution, Elsevier, London.
Silverman G (2001). The Secrets of Word-of-Mouth Marketing: How to
Trigger Exponential Sales Through Runaway Word-of-Mouth,
Amacom Books, New York, NY.
Ranjbarian et al. 10313
Singh J (1990). Voice, exit and negative word-of-mouth behaviours: an
investigation across three service categories. J. Acad. Mark. Sci.,
18(1): 1-15.
Soderlund M, Rosengren S (2007). Receiving word-of-mouth from the
service customer: An emotion-based effectiveness assessment. J.
Retail. Consum. Serv., 14: 123-136.
Solomon MR, Rabolt NJ (2004). Consumer Behavior in Fashion,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Sundram DS, Mitra K, Webster C (1998). Word-of-mouth
communications: a motivational analysis. Adv. Consum. Res., 25:
527-531.
Snyder M (1974). “Self-monitoring of expressive behavior”. J. Personal.
Soc. Psychol., 30(4): 526-537.
Tian KT, Bearden WO, Hunter GL (2001). Consumers’ need for
uniqueness: scale development , validation. J. Cons. Res., 28: 50-66.
Tian KT , McKenzie K (2001). The long-term predictive validity of the
consumers’ need for uniqueness scale. J. Consum. Psychol., 10(3):
171-93.
Westbrook RA (1987). Product/consumption-based affective responses
and postpurchase process. J. Mark. Res., 24(3): 258-270.
Wilkie WL (1994). Consumer Behavior, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons,
New York, NY.