Electronic word of mouth in tourism and

hospitality consumer behaviour: state of

the art
Shahab Pourfakhimi, Tara Duncan and Willem J.L. Coetzee

Abstract Shahab Pourfakhimi is

Purpose – Despite its volume, the academic research on the impact of electronic word of mouth based at the University of
(eWOM) on tourism and hospitality consumer behaviour is fragmented and largely limited to the Sunshine Coast,
investigating a small scope of its impact. The purpose of this paper is to bridge this gap by Sunshine Coast, Australia.
synthesising the existing literature, providing a conceptual framework for the various dimensions Tara Duncan is based at
of this impact. Hogskolan Dalarna, Falun,
Design/methodology/approach – This paper is based on the meta-synthesis and a critical conceptual
Sweden.
analysis of relevant academic literature identified using a keyword search of papers via the Web of
Willem J.L. Coetzee is
Science and Scopus databases, followed by a snowballing process comprising tracking the citations to
the resources referred to in the identified papers. based at the Department of
Findings – This conceptual analysis illustrates how the full spectrum of the impact of eWOM on tourist Tourism, University of
behaviour spans well beyond the limited scope traditionally focussed on by tourism and hospitality Otago, Dunedin,
researchers. This scope, encompassing multiple cognitive, normative and affective dimensions, is New Zealand.
illustrated in an evidence-based conceptual framework proposed in this paper, providing a systematic
tool to identify the less-studied aspects of this important phenomenon.
Originality/value – This paper synthesises the large and fragmented body of literature on eWOM
and proposes a novel conceptual framework, illustrating the vast scope of the various cognitive,
affective and normative mechanisms through which eWOM affects consumers’ choice of tourism
and hospitality products. Furthermore, this paper provides a synthesis of the state-of-the-art of
research in this field, highlights the existing gaps and provides researchers with a systematic tool to
identify pathways towards breaking the status-quo in progressing beyond the current boundaries of
academic research in this field.
Keywords Electronic word of mouth, eWOM, Consumer behaviour, Hospitality, Tourism, Word of mouth,
WOM
Paper type Conceptual paper

感知对清真旅游目的地的影响：结构模型分析
目的 : 尽管有大量研究, 但有关网络口碑eWOM对旅游业和酒店业消费者行为的影响的学术研究仍是零散
的, 并且在很大程度上只限于调查其影响的一小部分。本文的目的是通过综合现有文献来弥合这种差距,
为这种影响的各个方面提供概念框架。
设计/方法/方法 : 本文基于元合成法和对相关学术文献的关键性, 概念性分析。这些文献是通过Web of
Science和Scopus数据库对文章进行关键字搜索而确定的。随后是滚雪球式搜索过程, 该过程包括跟踪对
已识别文章中引用的资源的引用。
结果 : 这项概念分析阐述了eWOM对游客行为的影响范围如何远远超出了旅游和酒店业研究人员传统上
关注的有限范围。这一范围是基于有理论依据的的概念框架提出的, 并涵盖多个认知, 规范和情感的维
度。此范围为识别这一重要且缺乏研究的现象提供了系统的工具。
创意/价值 : 本文综合了有关eWOM的大量零散文献, 并提出了一个新颖的概念框架, 阐明了eWOM影响消
费者选择旅游和酒店产品的各种认知, 情感和规范机制的范围。此外, 本文提供了该领域最新的研究综述,
突出了现有的差距, 并为研究人员提供了系统的识别打破现状的途径, 以超越当前学术界在这个领域的研
究局限。 Received 19 January 2019
Revised 21 June 2019
关键词 : 关键字 电子口碑, eWOM, WOM, 酒店, 旅游, 口碑 15 August 2019
文章类型 : 研究论文 Accepted 15 August 2019

DOI 10.1108/TR-01-2019-0019 © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1660-5373 j TOURISM REVIEW j

 El Boca a Boca Electronico  en el Comportamiento del Consumidor Turı´stico y Hotelero: Estado
del Arte
Objetivo : A pesar del gran volumen de investigacion  académica sobre el impacto de eWOM en el
comportamiento del consumidor turı´stico y hotelero, esta se encuentra fragmentada y en gran medida se

limita a investigar un pequeño alcance de su impacto. El proposito de este artı´culo, es cerrar esta brecha
sintetizando la literatura existente y proporcionando un marco conceptual para las diversas dimensiones
de este impacto.
Diseño/metodología/enfoque : Este documento se basa en un análisis metası´ntesis crı´tico y conceptual

de la literatura relevante académica identificada, mediante una busqueda de artı´culos por palabras claves
a través de las bases de datos de Web of Science y Scopus, seguido de un proceso de ‘‘bola de nieve’’ que
comprende el seguimiento de las citas de los recursos mencionados en los artı´culos identificados.
Resultados : Este análisis conceptual, ilustra como  el espectro total del impacto de eWOM en el
comportamiento turı´stico se extiende mucho más allá del limitado alcance que tradicionalmente han
realizado investigadores del turismo y hoteles. Este nuevo alcance, que abarca multiples  dimensiones
cognitivas, normativas y afectivas, se ilustra en un marco conceptual basado en la evidencia propuesta
en este documento, que proporciona una herramienta sistemática para identificar los aspectos menos

estudiados de este importante fenomeno.
Originalidad/valor : Este documento sintetiza la gran cantidad de literatura fragmentada sobre eWOM y
propone un marco conceptual novedoso, que ilustra el amplio alcance de los diversos mecanismos
cognitivos, afectivos y normativos a través de los cuales eWOM afecta la eleccion  de los consumidores
de productos turı´sticos y hoteleros. Además, este documento proporciona una sı´ntesis del estado de la
investigacion en este campo, destaca las brechas existentes y brinda a los investigadores una
herramienta sistemática para identificar vı´as para romper el statu quo en el progreso más allá de los
lı´mites académicos actuales en este campo.

Palabras clave : Boca a boca electronica, eWOM, WOM, Industria hoteleram, Turismo, Boca a boca
Tipo de papel : – Trabajo de investigacion 

1. Introduction
The academic attention to the impact of word of mouth (WOM) on consumer behaviour, as
an interpersonal information exchange phenomenon, originated in its potential to alleviate
perceived risk and enhance trust (Arndt, 1967b). WOM is regarded as any non-commercial
communication about a product (Arndt, 1967b). The importance of WOM in shaping
consumers’ perceptions of products and services in their purchase behaviour is one of the
most widely accepted notions in the study of consumer behaviour (Arndt, 1967b; Laczniak
et al., 2001; Goldenberg et al., 2001). Meanwhile, within the current century, the increasing
integration of social media into our contemporary human lifestyle has led to an exponential
growth in the production, dissemination and consumption of WOM online (Buhalis and Law,
2008; Filieri and McLeay, 2014; Yoo and Gretzel, 2011b). Therefore, it is not surprising to
find that a voluminous body of academic literature has studied the impact of WOM and its
electronic word of mouth (eWOM) on consumer behaviour in general (Chevalier and
Mayzlin, 2006; Gupta and Harris, 2010; Maslowska et al., 2017) and in hospitality and
tourism in particular (Litvin et al., 2008; Tham et al., 2013; Serra Cantallops and Salvi, 2014;
Williams et al., 2015; Williams et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2017; Sreejesh and Ansuree, 2016;
Pourfakhimi, 2012).
However, despite the existence of such a voluminous large body of research affirming the
impacts of eWOM, comparatively less attention has been paid to exploring the foundations of
the mechanisms through which eWOM affects tourists’ behaviour and choice (Cox et al., 2009,
p. 748). In an attempt to bridge this gap and synthesise this rapidly growing and fragmented
body of literature, this conceptual paper draws together a wide range of academic literature
both within and beyond the field of hospitality and tourism to provide an evidence-based
conceptual framework highlighting various aspects of the role of eWOM in hospitality and
tourism consumer behaviour. An array of empirical evidence from previous key scientific

j TOURISM REVIEW j
inquiries is provided to support each proposed dimension in this framework. In doing so, this
paper provides a conceptual consideration of the changing role of eWOM in hospitality and
tourism, highlighting that there is a need to think beyond eWOM as a single, easily identifiable
and separate choice criterion in the consumer decision making process.
This evidence-based conceptual framework is constructed based on a critical, conceptual
analysis of relevant academic literature. Using a systematic review process (Tranfield et al.,
2003), this conceptual analysis is based on a meta-synthesis of relevant key scientific
literature identified using a keyword search of academic articles via the Web of Science and
Scopus databases. Subsequently, a snowballing process was used to track the resources
referred to in the identified articles to extend the scope of analysis.

2. Characteristics of electronic word of mouth

WOM plays an important role in disseminating interpersonal, non-market-oriented
information about products and services (Brown et al., 2007). The uncommercial and inter-
personal nature of WOM is, perhaps, the reason that WOM is often trusted by consumers
more than other sources of information (Brown et al., 2007; Laczniak et al., 2001). Hence,
WOM is perceived as an exceptionally powerful determinant of consumers’ perceptions and
behaviour (Laczniak et al., 2001; Arndt, 1967b). The exceptional power of WOM in
influencing consumers’ judgements is also attributed to its flexibility, vividness,
accessibility, reach, ease of use, speed of dissemination, objectivity, pervasiveness,
persuasiveness and diagnosticity (Gilly et al., 1998; Katz and Lazarsfeld, 1955; Mangold
et al., 1999; Silverman, 1997; Smith et al., 2005; Wright, 1974). eWOM defined as any
online, non-commercial and interpersonal communication of information about a product or
brand (N. Hu et al., 2008), benefits from the advantages of both mass and interpersonal
communication channels (Jin et al., 2002; Wathen and Burkell, 2002). On the one hand, it
has the speed, scale and reach of mass communication channels (Chatterjee, 2001; Liu,
2006; Prendergast et al., 2010; Serra Cantallops and Salvi, 2014) and, on the other hand, it
has a comparable level of persuasiveness, availability, diagnosticity and relatability with the
traditional interpersonal channels (Jin et al., 2002; Wathen and Burkell, 2002).
In comparison to traditional WOM, eWOM is more accessible, long-lasting, rapidly
disseminated and confidential, and has a greater scope of reach (Cheung and Thadani,
2012; Cui et al., 2012; Pan et al., 2007; Yoo and Gretzel, 2008; Zhang et al., 2013).
Consumers have also found eWOM to be more relevant (Burgess et al., 2009), up-to-date
(Varkaris and Neuhofer, 2017), enjoyable to perceive (Gretzel and Yoo, 2008), less intrusive
(Purnawirawan et al., 2012a, 2012b) and often represents consumers’ true experiences
(Brochado, 2019; Torres Edwin et al., 2013). Therefore, eWOM is often perceived as a more
efficient and convenient source of information (Schindler and Bickart, 2005).
Furthermore, unlike WOM, eWOM is not necessarily oral, face-to-face or ephemeral. It can
be communicated as rich multimedia messages (e.g. photos, audio, videos, words, and
ratings and rankings online) and in both individual and aggregated forms. In addition,
dissemination of eWOM is neither limited to the intimate networks of individuals nor to the
time and geographical place of where it is produced (Cheung and Thadani, 2012; Yoo and
Gretzel, 2008; Zhang et al., 2013). Therefore, it is free from the boundaries of personal,
temporal and physical proximities and can be anonymous or aggregated (Cheung and
Thadani, 2012; Goldsmith and Horowitz, 2006).
The anonymity, confidentiality and independence from temporal, interpersonal and
physical proximities result in the alleviation of social pressures, social-anxiety and self-
awareness involved in the communication. This enables individuals to openly communicate
and receive a broader scope of opinions, independent from marketers and suppliers
(Schindler and Bickart, 2005; Bronner and de Hoog, 2011). While in some cases such
advantages may lead to the higher perceived credibility of eWOM (Burgess et al., 2009;

j TOURISM REVIEW j
 Cheung and Thadani, 2012; Fotis et al., 2012), in other cases the lack of personal tie
between the producer and receiver of the message imposes difficulties in assessing the
credibility and authenticity of the message (Chang and Wu, 2014; Yoo et al., 2009; Mauri
and Minazzi, 2013).
Furthermore, limited information about the context of the consumption and absence of the
physical cues complementing face-to-face communication complicates understanding,
applicability and interpretation of eWOM messages (Goldsmith and Horowitz, 2006;
Dellarocas, 2003). Such decontexualisations combined with the anonymity of eWOM also
facilitate distribution of misleading, untruthful, biased, commercially motivated or inaccurate
information (N. Hu et al., 2011; Leung et al., 2013; Xie et al., 2011).
Similar to many other sources of information, generation and interpretation of eWOM are
also susceptible to a wide range of biases (Hu and Li, 2011; Li and Hitt, 2008; Moe and
Schweidel, 2012). For example, a consumer who has already purchased a product has
formed a preference for the product, and thus, is more likely to have positive evaluations of
it (Hu et al., 2009). In addition, consumers who are highly satisfied or dissatisfied can be
more motivated to share their reviews online than those who are impartial (Hu et al., 2009).
Moreover, there exists empirical evidence (Cosley et al., 2003) to suggest that a consumer’s
review or rating of a product could be deliberately or subconsciously adjusted based on the
existing reviews and ratings of the product (Hu and Li, 2011; Moe and Schweidel, 2012;
Moe and Trusov, 2011). For example, existing eWOM about a product affects the formation
of consumers’ expectations at the time of decision making, consumers’ satisfaction of the
product after purchase is thus anchored according to the existing reviews. Thus, highly
favourable reviews and ratings could raise the bar for the expected level of performance,
potentially leading to lower prospective reviews and ratings (Hu and Li, 2011; Lorenz,
2009). Similarly, lower consumer expectations as the result of average or unfavourable
reviews and ratings may lead to the generation of prospective higher ratings as a result of
consumers’ perceptions of delight and surprise facilitated by the lower initial level of
expectations (Hu and Li, 2011).
Such adjustments could be further motivated by consumers’ sense of altruism and
responsibility to share truthful information about the product’s performance (Hu and Li, 2011).
For example, a consumer who finds a product significantly better or worse than what was
expected is more likely to rate a product than someone who had an experience consistent with
the overall reviews (Ghose and Ipeirotis, 2006). This can lead to a situation where reviews only
demonstrate the experiences of consumers who are either extremely satisfied or dissatisfied
with the product (Moe and Schweidel, 2012; Martin-Fuentes and Mellinas Juan, 2018).
Some empirical evidence suggests that depending on the context, consumers’ ratings of
products and services can often be motivated by either consistency or differentiation
motives (Moe and Schweidel, 2012). In other words, a desire to post consistent reviews with
others (Moe and Schweidel, 2012) or conversely, a desire to increase the chance that the
posted review will affect the general trend of ratings of that product (Wu and Huberman,
2008). Both of the above motivations will lead to biases in the overall evaluation of the
product. Consistency motives will lead to an artificial consensus and exaggerated influence
of early reviews, and ultimately lead to a bandwagon effect (Leibenstein, 1950) – a condition
where an unfavourable average rating attracts further negative reviews and an average
positive rating attracts more positive reviews (Moe and Schweidel, 2012). Thus, gradually,
negative reviews can become more negative and positive reviews become more positive
(Moe and Schweidel, 2012; Wu and Huberman, 2008), resulting in a J-shaped distribution.
A J-shape distribution shows a significantly larger number of positive reviews compared to
moderate or negative ones. On the other hand, differentiation motives, especially in a
divisive market, will trigger more extreme opposite reviews resulting in a snob effect that
creates a polarised U-shaped distribution of online reviews (Dellarocas and Narayan, 2006;

j TOURISM REVIEW j
Moe and Schweidel, 2012). A U-shaped distribution shows a significantly large proportion
of both highly positive and highly negative reviews as opposed to moderate ones.
Within the scope of tourism and hospitality, the outcomes of such biases are evident in the
analysis of consumers’ online product reviews. For example, the distribution of online user-
generated hotel ratings is found to be J-shaped, with a high proportion of hotels placed on
a relatively small spectrum of higher ratings (Mariani and Borghi, 2018; Mellinas et al., 2015,
2016).
The existence of biases questions the accuracy, justness and performance
representativeness of mass ratings in the face of their potent influence on consumers’
choices (Li and Hitt, 2008; Moe and Schweidel, 2012; Moe and Trusov, 2011). The above
issues raise doubts about the extent to which online ratings and reviews demonstrate the
degrees of consumers’ overall satisfaction with products and services (Moe and Schweidel,
2012). However, in spite of the above issues, there is ample evidence to support that
eWOM continues to play a determining role in consumers’ choices of hospitality and tourism
products (Casalo et al., 2015; Mauri and Minazzi, 2013; Noone and McGuire, 2013, 2014,
2016; Vermeulen and Seegers, 2009; Negri and Vigolo, 2015; Serra Cantallops and Salvi,
2014; Verma et al., 2012; Viglia et al., 2016; Nieto-Garcı́a et al., 2017). In the next section,
the body of literature on the mechanisms of this impact is analysed to constitute an
evidence-based conceptual framework for the multidimensional impacts of eWOM on
consumers’ choices.

3. The multidimensional scope of the impacts of electronic word of mouth on

consumers’ choices
Consumers’ motives to use eWOM in their purchase process can be categorised into three
groups as follows: informative (cognitive), hedonic (affective) and social (normative)
motives (Schindler and Bickart, 2005). Similarly, in this paper, the various dimensions of
these impacts are also categorised in the above three groups and are introduced in Table I.
These various mechanisms of impact are illustrated in Figure 1. Each group of impacts is
further discussed in the following subsections, and an array of evidence from existing
scientific empirical works is provided to support each proposed impact. In analysing
consumers’ behaviour, however, it should be noted that each of these mechanisms and the
overall impact of eWOM on consumers’ behaviour depends on several other external and
internal factors, including consumers’ beliefs, values, feelings, emotions and perceptions
(Papathanassis and Knolle, 2011).

3.1 Cognitive functions

Cognitive functions include the mechanisms through which eWOM affects consumers’
cognitive evaluations of available brands and their characteristics. In other words, the
mechanisms that help consumers to shape cognitive beliefs resulting in their choice of
the desired option. The notion of “the desired choice” here does not necessarily represent
the best utilitarian option; rather, it should be interpreted as the ideal representation of

Table I Three dimensions of eWOM’s impact on consumer behaviour

Dimension Definition

Cognitive functions eWOM’s impact on consumers’ conscious cognitions and thoughts about brands and their characteristics
Affective functions eWOM’s automatic impacts on consumers’ perceptions, emotions and feelings beyond consumers’
consciousness.
Normative functions eWOM’s impact on consumers’ perceptions of social norms, associations, meanings and interactions with
others and their expectations

j TOURISM REVIEW j
 Figure 1 The conceptual framework for the multiple dimensions of eWOM’s impact on
consumer behaviour

consumers’ dynamic utilitarian, hedonistic and socially constructive expectations. For

example, in a hypothetical hotel purchase scenario, based on each individual consumer’s
motives, desires and needs, the best option for a consumer could be the cheapest hotel,
the one closest to an airport, the most well-known brand or the most-spacious one, while for
another consumer any hotel below a certain price range in a given star category might be
ideal. Note that the consumer’s concept of the best option can change at any time during
the purchasing process. In other words, the best choice is the choice that the consumer is
happy with, regardless of why it is the case.
The cognitive functions of eWOM are associated with dual informational roles of eWOM, as
both a source of information (the informer) and as an indicator of a product’s performance
(the recommender) (Park and Kim, 2008; Park et al., 2007). The above roles resonate with
the informative and persuasive aspects of communication, representing both the flow and
impact of information (De Bruyn and Lilien, 2008). In this way, eWOM facilitates consumers’
choices through either reducing the cognitive effort and time needed for the decision or
increasing the accuracy of their choice (Schindler and Bickart, 2005). From a cognitive
perspective, in an information-intensive online environment, eWOM can reduce the
uncertainty and risk or facilitate forming preferences and making distinctions between
different alternatives through simplifying the development of a set of decision criteria or
evaluation of alternatives (Mudambi and Schuff, 2010; Smith et al., 2005). The rest of this
section discusses these roles in more detail.
3.1.1 Electronic word of mouth as an indicator of overall product performance. When the
dual-route interpretations of consumer behaviour, such as the heuristic-systematic model of
information processing (Chen and Chaiken, 1999) or the elaboration likelihood model (Petty
and Cacioppo, 1986), are taken into account, eWOM is more generally found to be

j TOURISM REVIEW j
particularly influential in choice scenarios involving effortless purchase decisions. In these
cases, eWOM, particularly in the form of aggregated ratings (Duverger, 2013; Qiu et al.,
2012), is reported to be particularly important as an influential cue in heuristic choice
scenarios, where minimal cognitive effort or processing time is sought (Chatterjee, 2001;
Gupta and Harris, 2010; Hennig Thurau and Walsh, 2003; Hu et al., 2011; Smith et al.,
2005). Here, a product’s online rating is considered as a heuristic clue for the superiority of
its quality. There exists academic evidence to support that higher product ratings result in a
higher perception of the quality of products by consumers (Flanagin et al., 2014; Lee and
Ro, 2016) and higher intention to purchase the products (See-To and Ho, 2014; Abubakar,
2016). Additionally, there exists evidence within the tourism and hospitality sector to
illustrate the relationship between the higher valance of online reviews and consumers’
willingness to pay for travel products (Nieto-Garcı́a et al., 2017).
One way to explain this trend is by using the attribute substitution principle. Here, eWOM is
perceived as a substitute product attribute, replacing other attributes, which are more
complicated to compare. Thus, due to the simplicity of comparison, eWOM becomes the
most salient attribute and acts as a heuristic cue for a less cognitively effortful judgement. In
this case, a consumer simply considers eWOM, particularly in its simpler representations
such as aggregated forms, rankings and ratings (Qiu et al., 2012), as the most important
attribute of the product (i.e. the single salient attribute). Within the spectrum of tourism and
hospitality products, such simplified illustrations of aggregated ratings, for example, star-
ratings, bars and simple categorical keywords (e.g. pleasant and fabulous) have been
shown to be particularly determinant in effortless heuristic decision making about tourism
products in a short time-frame (Sparks and Browning, 2011).
An example of heuristic decision making based on this mechanism is when a consumer
selects TripAdvisor’s highest ranked restaurant in a certain price category. This choice
strategy is an example of a lexicographic decision scenario. Another example is when the
consumer uses “filter” or “sort” decision-aid tools to either enforce cut-offs or order the
alternatives based on their eWOM ranking (Häubl and Trifts, 2000; Parra and Ruiz, 2009).
For example, in a hypothetical sequential elimination decision scenario, a consumer might
sort all the available alternatives based on their eWOM aggregated score and then select
the first available restaurant in the list. In an in-depth study of consumers’ online hotel
choices, Noone and Robson (2016) provided tangible evidence to support this function of
eWOM for choosing hotels online.
3.1.2 Electronic word of mouth as an indicator of the quality of a single attribute. The
cognitive impact of eWOM, however, is not limited to the low-involvement decision making
scenarios. eWOM is also reported to play an important role in more systematic and
deliberate decision scenarios (Cheung and Thadani, 2012; Hung and Li, 2007; Park and
Lee, 2008). In this context, the impact could result from the informative role of eWOM as one
of the most influential sources of information for consumers (Forman et al., 2008; Litvin et al.,
2008; Sparks and Browning, 2011; Xiang and Gretzel, 2010). eWOM provides consumers
with information about those product attributes, which are salient at the time of purchase
and assists consumers in attribute evaluation (Lim and Chung, 2011), particularly in
evaluating those groups of attributes that cannot be directly and objectively measured or
evaluated at the time of purchase. These attributes are generally referred to as the
experience (Nelson, 1970) and credence (Darby and Karni, 1973) categories of attributes.
The evaluation and comparison of these attributes are often more challenging for
consumers. Within this context, eWOM has the capacity to modify consumers’ existing
beliefs about various product attributes. The importance of this impact is magnified by not
only the credibility and accessibility of eWOM but also its potential to provide
recommendations, which could be highly relevant to consumers’ personal values and
context (Allsop et al., 2007).

j TOURISM REVIEW j
 For example, for a consumer who sees cleanliness as an important attribute of a hotel,
eWOM (either via reviews, scores or photos) can provide detailed information, which the
consumer can use to evaluate the cleanliness of a specific hotel. Park and Kim (2008) argue
that this function of eWOM is more likely to be used by experienced consumers than novice
users. This is, perhaps, why in deliberate decision making scenarios, the existence of
eWOM has been seen to prolong the decision making time (Gupta and Harris, 2010), as
users are more inclined to be engaged in an effortful evaluation of the products based on
eWOM (Cheung and Thadani, 2012).
However, this mechanism is not limited to extensively deliberate decision scenarios. Online
platforms often provide attribute-based aggregations of consumers’ appraisals of the
performance of each product based on various salient attributes (Xie et al., 2014). For
example, Booking.com shows the aggregated average ratings of hotels based on
consumers’ opinions about their various attributes such as location, cleanliness and
comfort. In a relatively less deliberate decision making scenario, consumers can rely on
these indicators to evaluate products based on various alternatives. Such reliance on
eWOM ratings, particularly for those attributes that are difficult to measure objectively, has
been supported by previous academic investigations (Lim and Chung, 2011).
In the contemporary tourism and hospitality online marketplace, these indicators are both
visually and numerically presented. The simple presentations of such indicators, combined
with the availability of decision-aid and comparison tools, further facilitate the use of
decision rules such as comparisons, implementation of cut-offs, and lexicographic and
semi-lexicographic decision rules. In such a context, because of a number of cognitive
biases such as primacy and affect, and the human tendency for motivated reasoning and
preference-consistent decision making, the order of exposure to information becomes an
immensely critical factor in forming consumers’ perceptions.
3.1.3 Electronic word of mouth as a salient product attribute. Perhaps, one of the most well-
studied dimensions of the impact of eWOM is its function as a salient product attribute. In
this case, it is presumed that consumers directly perceive eWOM as an important product
attribute. In this context, eWOM could be used similar to other product attributes (e.g. brand
and price) in evaluating different alternatives as a salient attribute of choice and as an
integral product feature (Silverman, 1997). From a cognitivist consumer behaviour
perspective, this impact of eWOM on consumers’ formation of attitudes is subject to
consumers’ belief-integration processes and use of trade-offs. Therefore, the salience of
eWOM against all the other attributes and the nature of the belief integration scenario
adopted by the consumer would affect the magnitude of eWOM’s impact on the consumer’s
choice.
In this context, a consumer uses aggregated ratings as “one” of the salient attributes and
then uses any given cognitive or heuristic choice strategy to compare alternatives in a multi-
attribute choice scenario based on eWOM, as well as all other salient attributes. Thus, it is
likely that consumers apply simple strategies such as cut-offs, and lexicographic strategies
based on eWOM ratings in conjunction with other attributes. As discussed before, within the
scope of tourism and hospitality studies, there exists ample evidence to support this impact
of eWOM on consumers’ choices of products (Gavilan et al., 2018; Noone and McGuire,
2016; Noone and Robson, 2016; Duffy, 2015; Casalo  et al., 2015; Tsao et al., 2015; Lee and
Ro, 2016; Ladhari and Michaud, 2015; Bahja et al., 2019).
3.1.4 Electronic word of mouth as a measure of attribute salience. eWOM also has the
capacity to impact consumers’ evaluation of products in a multi-attribute choice scenario by
affecting the degree of salience or scope of salient attributes (Gupta and Harris, 2010;
Vermeulen and Seegers, 2009; Schindler and Bickart, 2005). Here eWOM acts as a clue to
modify consumers’ perceptions of the importance of each product attribute. In a practical
experiment, it has been seen that consumers may switch the most salient attribute in
decision making because of their exposure to eWOM (Gupta and Harris, 2010). Within this

j TOURISM REVIEW j
role, eWOM neither functions as a product attribute nor as a source of information about a
product performance with regard to the certain attribute; rather, it works as the source of
information to modify consumers’ beliefs about the importance or salience of product
attributes.
3.1.5 Electronic word of mouth and expansion of evoked set. Another important function of
eWOM is in expanding the consumer’s evoked set by exposing them to new alternatives
(Hennig Thurau and Walsh, 2003; Schindler and Bickart, 2005) or further stimulating variety-
seeking purchase behaviour (Hung and Li, 2007). This function leads to the important role
WOM plays in adopting new products, diffusing technologies and market expansion (Arndt,
1967b, Whyte, 1954; East et al., 2008). WOM is often regarded as the key to the success or
failure of new products in mature markets (East et al., 2008; Whyte, 1954) and plays an
important role in raising consumers’ awareness about new brands and their adoption of new
products and brands (Brooks, 1957; Dellarocas and Narayan, 2006; Gu et al., 2013; Park
and Allen, 2013). Through this mechanism, WOM works as a source of information about
new alternatives that can satisfy consumers’ needs, and thus, it may lead to brand-
switching behaviour (Dellarocas and Narayan, 2006; East et al., 2008).
3.1.6 Electronic word of mouth and perceived risk, trust and confidence. Helpful information
derived from eWOM can reduce uncertainty and can lead to reduced risk and enhanced
trust (Hu et al., 2008; Wathen and Burkell, 2002). Furthermore, social interactions and social
networks are also influential in the perceptions of trust (Kuan and Bock, 2007). This impact
of WOM on risk reduction was among the first features of eWOM that gained academic
attention (Arndt, 1967a, 1967b; Taylor, 1974; Woodruff, 1972). In information-intensive
online environments, eWOM – in both its individual and aggregated forms – has also been
found particularly influential in reducing perceptions of risk, reducing uncertainties and
enhancing consumers’ trust in the alternatives (Awad and Ragowsky, 2008; Hyrynsalmi
et al., 2015; See-To and Ho, 2014; Sparks and Browning, 2011; Serra Cantallops and Salvi,
2014; Ladhari and Michaud, 2015).
Consumers need information about the performance of products and services to build
confidence in the product’s ability to result in favourable consequences and form certain
levels of predictability for its reliability. WOM and eWOM are particularly important sources
of independent, interpersonal information for such purposes, as they provide consumers
with (presumably) unbiased, impersonal testimonies of others’ experiences with the product
and its supplier (Hennig Thurau and Walsh, 2003; Hu et al., 2008; Hyrynsalmi et al., 2015;
Sparks and Browning, 2011). For example, Varkaris and Neuhofer (2017) discuss that
consumers might use eWOM to verify the information provided by suppliers’ commercial
websites.
Empirical research also demonstrates that risk reduction is one of the most predominant
consumer motivations for consulting eWOM (Goldsmith and Horowitz, 2006; Hennig Thurau
and Walsh, 2003; Kim et al., 2011). As perceived risk acts as an inhibiting force in
consumers’ purchase processes, eWOM can thus be seen as a factor to alleviate this
inhibiting force, facilitating intentions to select an alternative.
Similarly, eWOM can also be used as a measure of reduced cognitive dissonance and
quality assurance to enhance the confidence in choice (Gretzel and Yoo, 2008; Hennig
Thurau and Walsh, 2003), perception of trust (Utz et al., 2012; Abubakar, 2016; Abubakar
et al., 2017) and willingness to pay (Wu et al., 2013; Nieto-Garcı́a et al., 2017). Consumers
use eWOM to reinforce their beliefs about the chosen alternative and gain more confidence
in the views they have already developed during the purchase process (Ricci and Wietsma,
2006; Schindler and Bickart, 2005). This function of eWOM is closely related to the notion of
cognitive dissonance and individuals’ tendencies to maintain the cognitive consistency of
their choices and behaviour (Schindler and Bickart, 2005; Buttle, 1998).

j TOURISM REVIEW j
 However, it is evident that eWOM can have both positive and negative impacts on brand
purchases. For example, negative eWOM can also be influential in increasing consumers’
perceptions of risk and reducing consumers’ trust and confidence in a product. The
impending impact of negative eWOM on consumer behaviour is well documented in the
academic literature (Bambauer-Sachse and Mangold, 2011; Chang and Wu, 2014; Zhao
et al., 2015; Leung Xi et al., 2019). In such cases, negative eWOM can eventually act as an
inhibiting force, resulting in the generation of various responses such as postponing the
purchase, removing a brand from the consideration set, dedicating more time and effort to
the purchase process or affecting one’s loyalty to a brand (Buttle, 1998).
3.1.7 Electronic word of mouth, information overload and confusion. eWOM has been seen
as both a blessing and a curse for consumers (Netzer et al., 2012). On the one hand, the
abundance of information facilitates the choice while, on the other, the abundance of a large
volume of unstructured eWOM can lead to information overload and confusion (M.H.
Huang, 2000; Hwang et al., 2006; Smith et al., 2005; Wathen and Burkell, 2002; Ye et al.,
2009). Consumers’ usual response to such situations would be to: simplify the decision
either through decreasing the amount of information used, rely on simple decision making
strategies to simplify the choice problem or postpone the purchase (J.H. Huang and Chen,
2006). In such cases, eWOM, rather than reducing uncertainty, may lead to further
uncertainties and adds to consumers’ frustration (Papathanassis and Knolle, 2011).
Information overload occurs when it is beyond the consumer’s ability to process the amount
of data in the desirable or available timeframe (Wright, 1974). However, in addition to a high
volume of information, ambiguity, novelty complexity and contradiction, the intensity in
eWOM can also result in information overload and confusion (Park and Lee, 2008). In
addition, other conditions such as time pressure for choice, the existence of misleading or
irrelevant information and availability of too many sources of information can further intensify
the overload and confusion (Hoq, 2014). In consumer choice scenarios, the similarity
between stimuli and alternatives and a lack of ability to evaluate the products because of a
large number of alternatives or attributes can be considered as other antecedents of
consumers’ confusion (Walsh et al., 2007).
Information overload can result in adverse judgemental issues such as fatigue, cognitive
strain, confusion, uncertainty, anxiety, judgemental mistakes, postponing choice, losing
interest, abundance of purchase, overreliance on previously tried brands and becoming
less attentive to information and suboptimal choice (Hoq, 2014; Huang and Chen, 2006;
Matzler and Waiguny, 2005; Park and Lee, 2008). It may ultimately lead to consumer
frustration, dissatisfaction and a lack of confidence to choose and purchase the product
(Park and Lee, 2008). A double-edged sword, availability of information (which is necessary
for reducing uncertainties) can become an antecedent of consumers’ uncertainty (Netzer
et al., 2012; O’Connor, 2008; Wathen and Burkell, 2002).
In such cases, consumers respond by simplifying the decision making process either
through decreasing the amount of information to be processed, decreasing the time to
process each unit of information or simplifying the decision making task (Wright, 1974). To
decrease the information, consumers may use heuristics to restrict the amount of
information to be processed (Wright, 1974). This simplification can be achieved through
three mechanisms: reducing the number of sources of information, reducing the number of
alternatives or reducing the attributes considered for decision making. The first strategy can
be achieved through measures such as deliberately ignoring certain sources of information.
For example, limiting oneself to only reading the most recent reviews or checking a certain
number of websites. The second mechanism would be to rapidly reduce the number of
alternatives through using certain decision rules, such as relying on known brands or using
cut-offs, and contemporary decision-aid tools such as sorts and filters. The third mechanism
is likely to lead to a situation where consumers focus on those aspects that are more likely to
result in critical outcomes. In other words, they focus only on the alternatives that could

j TOURISM REVIEW j
result in extremely unwanted outcomes. For example, there is evidence to support that
when consumers face information overload conditions, they may tend towards an
overemphasis of the negative consequences (Wright, 1974).
Furthermore, as a solution to spend less time processing the information, consumers might
rely on some paratextual cues to infer information from the sources without spending much
time and cognitive effort (Marine Roig, 2017). In this case, easy-to-process stimuli, such as
visual cues, titles, summaries, numerical ratings and aggregated rankings, could be
particularly helpful for consumers to deal with information overload (Godes and Silva, 2012;
Hu et al., 2014; Ye et al., 2011). For example, for a consumer for whom the location of a
hotel is of utmost importance, it is easier to evaluate various alternatives on a map than on a
list.
Finally, as a mechanism to simplify the decision making, consumers may use simplified
decision rules (heuristics) to deal with the information overload (Huang, 2000; Lee and
Lehto, 2013; Wright, 1975). One simple strategy is to give up evaluating alternatives in its
entirety and engage in more effortless decision making through effect and/or herd
behaviour (Bonabeau, 2004; Duan et al., 2009).

3.2 Affective functions

While the above cognitive functions may have varying degrees of impact, depending on the
level of consumers’ involvement in the purchase process, consumers are generally
conscious of the impact. However, affective functions encompass those impacts of eWOM,
which are mostly automatic and affect consumers’ choices largely beyond their
consciousness. Rather than serving cognitive functions and satisfying consumers’ curiosity
or need for information, this group of eWOM impacts affects consumers’ affective
responses to their environment and different alternatives.
3.2.1 Electronic word of mouth and the formation of initial preferences. Exposure to positive
eWOM can enhance consumers’ attitudes towards products (Vermeulen and Seegers,
2009). An important mechanism through which eWOM, particularly in its aggregated form,
can affect consumers’ perceptions of the product is through its important impact on the
initial formations of consumers’ preferences (Qiu et al., 2012). Several biases of human
cognitive judgement, particularly primacy, halo and motivated reasoning effects and the
human tendency towards distortion of information in favour of preference-consistent
decision making, make initial product judgements particularly important in a decision
making process (Russo et al., 1996; Russo et al., 1998). Such initial judgements – even if
they are newly formed at the beginning of a purchase process – can affect further
perceptions of information and causal attributions. As consumers are now rapidly exposed
to cognitively easy-to-process aggregated eWOM ratings after searching for alternatives
online, such an early exposure to eWOM before evaluating other aspects of a product could
lead to the formation of an initial judgement of a brand, which, in turn, will play a critical role
in perceptions of the remaining information throughout the rest of the purchase process
(Russo et al., 1996; Russo et al., 1998).
3.2.2 Electronic word of mouth and affective arousal. Academic investigations of consumer
behaviour report on the importance of aesthetics in shaping consumers’ perceptions of
products (Bellman et al., 2006; Blijlevens et al., 2012; Bloch et al., 2003). eWOM in the form
of images and photographs not only delivers the visual illustration of reality but also affect-
laden and can represent rich, emotional, symbolic and cultural meanings (Scott, 1994).
Thus, eWOM can affect consumer behaviour through an integral effect. This denotes the
significant potential of photographs and images to affect consumer behaviour integrally in a
way that is automatic, unconscious and affective (Blijlevens et al., 2012; Cohen et al., 2008;
Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982; Scott, 1994).

j TOURISM REVIEW j
 Neuroscientific research illustrates the generation of affective responses in consumers’
neuronal reward system as the result of exposure to visual stimuli. For example, consumers’
neuronal activations when exposed to visually attractive cars are different from when they
view photos of other cars (Erk et al., 2002). Similar patterns are seen in the exposure to
attractive ads (Kenning et al., 2007) and packaging (Stoll et al., 2008).
In addition, recent neuroscientific discoveries assert that consumers’ choices of products
and their attitudes towards them have affective and cognitive aspects (Phelps et al., 2014).
Thus, emotions and effects interact with cognitions and thoughts to shape preferences and
decisions. Such an impact can be either conscious or automatic (Cohen et al., 2008). In
addition to the direct automatic effect, visual stimuli can also impact the behaviour indirectly
through affecting moods and emotions (Crilly et al., 2004; Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982).
As previously discussed in the last subsection, one, however, should not assume that this is
the only mechanism through which visual eWOM can affect purchase decisions. As
explained previously, in addition to eWOM’s affective impact, visual stimuli can also be
used to infer cognitive inferences from pictures (Crilly et al., 2004). In addition to explicit
information, visual eWOM can also convey symbolic meanings, rhetoric and cultural
symbols represented in the images, which deliver various messages to the consumer using
visual language, and each consumer interprets it using their own frame of reference (Scott,
1994). In any of these cases, images provide visual information, which can also be used for
any of the other previously mentioned cognitive mechanisms.

3.3 Normative functions

The third group of impacts comprises various mechanisms through which eWOM affects
consumers’ normative beliefs about their choices. Normative beliefs are those beliefs that
connect the notion of choice and consumption of a product to a consumer’s perception of
social norms, meanings and interactions with other consumers.

3.3.1 Electronic word of mouth as herd behaviour. A normative approach to explaining the
impact of eWOM on consumer behaviour is through the theories of herd behaviour and
information cascade (Çelen and Kariv, 2004; Chen, 2008; Duan et al., 2009; Godes and
Mayzlin, 2004; Huang and Chen, 2006; Kwon et al., 2011). Within the cognitive frame of
reference, herd behaviour can be considered as a type of heuristic judgement, where the
decision maker simply follows others’ choices rather than contemplates the conditions and
evaluates alternatives (Banerjee, 1992). In other words, herd behaviour can be considered
as a case of extreme heuristic choice under the influence of social norms (Chen, 2008).
Here, eWOM, instead of acting as a heuristic cue for indicating the satisfactory performance
of a product or service, acts like a social cue to highlight the most “popular” product to
guide a behaviour which is motivated by imitating others.
Previous literature suggests that some aspects of human social behaviour, such as local
conformities responsible for the rise and fall of fashion trends, fads, as well as many daily
personal decisions (even in professional contexts such as financial markets), can be
explained by the concepts of herd behaviour and contagion (Çelen and Kariv, 2004; Duan
et al., 2009; Banerjee, 1992; Chang et al., 2000).
Herd behaviour can expand to an extent where one disregard their own judgements and
information to conform with the fad (Bikhchandani et al., 1992; Çelen and Kariv, 2004) as if
the consumer perceives that other consumers are better able to choose the best alternative
(Huang and Chen, 2006). Here the consumer is not motivated to select the best product
with the least cognitive effort; instead, the consumer is motivated to purchase the best-
selling product or to imitate what others do, rather than choose a product based on their
own evaluation.

j TOURISM REVIEW j
This situation may arise when consumers perceive others are more capable of selecting the
best product (Duan et al., 2009). Imperfect information, product complexity, lack of ability to
understand decision criteria and evaluate products, a large number of available alternatives
and information overload are among the causes that can stimulate such a behaviour (Duan
et al., 2008a, 2008b). Such behaviour can result in a situation where a product dominates
the market – that is, becomes a hit product – and its competitive alternatives (which may
even have better performances) are rejected by the market (Duan et al., 2009; Gu et al.,
2013). Some empirical studies have shown the impact of eWOM on the emergence of such
hit products. For example, Gu et al. (2013) show that positive reviews improve the sale of
already popular products, while non-popular products seem to be more vulnerable to
negative reviews.
Another potential underlying motivation may concern the notion of consumers’ mitigation of
regret. Consumer behaviour theories posit that actions deviating from the norm involve a
greater level of responsibility in the case of failure, and thus, involve higher levels of regret
(Chatterjee, 2001). As choices conforming to social norms are associated with lower regret
and responsibility, there is a possibility that consumers anticipate the regret of deviating
from the normative choice and involve this anticipation when evaluating alternatives
(Chatterjee, 2001; Simonson, 1992). Thus, in this case, consumers feel more confident to
follow the crowd, rather than evaluate alternatives themselves and choose a product.
3.3.2 Electronic word of mouth as the indicator of a reference group’s choice. The influence
of social sources on consumer behaviour is well supported by academic studies (Bearden
et al., 1989; Brown and Reingen, 1987; Cohen and Golden, 1972; Price and Feick, 1984)
and is mirrored in a number of classic consumer behaviour theories such as the theory of
reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) and the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen,
1985). According to these theories, the formation of a favourable attitude toward a product
is affected by consumers’ beliefs about the perceived expectations of their social
environment towards the purchase of a product, and consumers’ motivation to comply with
them (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). Normative beliefs are generally considered to be related
to the normative perceptions of certain choices or behaviours by referent groups whom the
consumer is motivated to comply with Fishbein and Ajzen (1975).
Social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) provides another mechanism to explain this
impact. The theory posits that people internally drive to evaluate their opinions and choices
based on the opinions and choices of their references groups and this drive is enhanced
with the increasing level of similarity between the decision maker and reference groups
(Festinger, 1954; Alexandrov and Babakus, 2011). It also emphasises that conformity with
reference groups increases the stability of evaluations and attitudes (Festinger, 1954;
Moschis, 1976).
In online environments, consumers may perceive high degrees of common interests and
shared identity with other users in online communities (Prendergast et al., 2010). In such
cases, regardless of the existence of a strong social tie between the individual users, an
affective bond might be formed between the consumer and the online community in a way
that the consumer will perceive motives to align with group norms and maintain group
harmony (Prendergast et al., 2010). If this sense of belonging to the group is strong, the
motive to conform to the norms of the social group will become specifically salient to the
degree that users might adjust their behaviour to conform to the group (Qu and Lee, 2011).
In this case, eWOM in a certain online community can act as a form of salient normative
influence because consumers are motivated to make congruent decisions with their
reference group norms. Another type of social influence – the notion of informational social
influence – also posits that a similar effect can occur in perceptions of information, in the
sense that consumers can be influenced by the impact of social influences to accept
information provided by other peers in the reference group as reality (Price and Feick,
1984). Within the scope of tourism and hospitality, such a social conformity tendency

j TOURISM REVIEW j
 regarding the perception of online hotel reviews is reported in the academic literature
(Gavilan et al., 2018; Henning et al., 2012; Purnawirawan et al., 2012a, 2012b; Al-Htibat and
Garanti, 2019).
In any of the above cases, eWOM no longer acts as an indicator of the product
performance per se, rather – similar to the case of herd behaviour – it is a measure of the
reference group’s attitude towards a product. Unlike the case of herd behaviour,
consumers’ motivation is not to simply follow the crowd but there is a strong motive to
conform to the norm. In this case, eWOM works as a socially generated indicator of a
product’s popularity for the reference group (Amblee and Bui, 2011; King et al., 2014). The
choice, in this case, can be contingent on the potency of other motives and the way
consumers integrate various beliefs and motives to make a decision. Furthermore, in this
case, consumers can use eWOM to evaluate the conformity of their choice with the
reference group’s norms in an attempt to reduce uncertainties and enhance the confidence
in their choice. Such motivations are suggested by previous literature to be influential in
consumers’ use of eWOM (Hennig Thurau and Walsh, 2003; Kim et al., 2011). Empirical
studies (Gretzel et al., 2007) have previously illustrated such impact of eWOM in enhancing
the confidence of consumers’ choices of tourism and hospitality products.

3.4 Other impacts

In addition to the above mechanisms, other cognitive, affective and normative impacts,
such as indication of social status of a brand, loyalty, brand equity, generation of further
WOM through recommendations to friends and relatives, increasing brands’ social capital,
affecting consumers’ learning and increasing consumers’ reflexivity are also suggested by
the academic literature (Gauri et al., 2008; Gruen et al., 2006; Hennig Thurau and Walsh,
2003; Hung and Li, 2007; Hyrynsalmi et al., 2015). In addition, several post-consumption
impacts such as reduced cognitive dissonance after selecting or rejecting a product,
developing more concrete expectations about the product, influencing expectations, and
thus, affecting (dis)satisfaction and delights, are also considered in the literature (Buttle,
1998; Mazzarol et al., 2007). Furthermore, among the other impacts, which are more directly
relevant to the purchase process are inducing a purchase process, enhancing stimulating
consumers’ needs and motives, hedonic enjoyment from reading reviews, feeling of active
involvement in the purchase process, reducing price sensitivity, increasing the willingness
to pay, higher satisfaction with the purchase process and greater confidence in consumers’
satisfaction (Cox et al., 2009; De Maeyer, 2012; Gretzel et al., 2006; Gretzel and Yoo, 2008;
Yoo and Gretzel, 2011a, 2011b). However, while the above impacts are particularly
important in inducing consumers to purchase a product or to their post-purchase
perceptions and attitudes, their impact on the choice of the product can be explained
through at least one of the above-mentioned mechanisms.

4. Conclusion
Academic attention to the role of WOM began in relation to its exceptional potential to
reduce risk and enhance trust (Arndt, 1967a, 1967b). However, this is only one of the
underlying causes of the impact of eWOM on consumer behaviour. This paper, through a
conceptual analysis of the fragmented body of literature, has studied the characteristics
and impacts of eWOM on consumer behaviour both within and beyond tourism and
hospitality studies. This analysis provides an evidence-based conceptual framework for the
various impacts of eWOM on consumer behaviour in tourism and hospitality. This framework
broadens current research by illustrating the various mechanisms through which eWOM
can affect consumers’ cognitive, affective and normative perceptions (Figure 1). Each
proposed mechanism is supported by an array of evidence from the existing published
empirical research in this field.

j TOURISM REVIEW j
While tourism and hospitality academia generally focus on a very limited scope of the
impact of eWOM, this paper emphasises that eWOM is able to affect consumers at any
stage of their decision making process. This includes understanding their motives in
establishing their evoked set, developing their decision criteria, evaluating alternatives
based on their attributes (formation of beliefs and attitudes) and comparing alternatives.
These impacts affect various cognitive, affective and normative processes, including the
use and evaluation of information, evoked set, choice criteria, evaluation of alternatives,
perception of risk and trust, the formation of normative associations, as well as consumers’
affective and automatic responses to various stimuli. Also, these mechanisms appear to
affect various modes of decision making, from the most deliberate and slow to heuristic and
automatic decision making beyond one’s consciousness. Therefore, contrary to the often-
limited conceptualisation of the role of eWOM as merely another product attribute in tourism
and hospitality studies, this synthesis shows that various forms of eWOM theoretically affect
a wide range of different aspects of consumer behaviours in various contexts. For example,
in a deliberate and slow decision making context, a consumer might rely on detailed
consumer reviews to gain information about various product attributes, while in a simple
choice scenario a consumer can rely on the overall rating of a hotel in a certain price
category to choose a hotel. Therefore, it is important to recognise that the impact of eWOM
is not limited to a discrete stage of a consumer’s decision making process.
In any of these cases, it is significant to note that eWOM does not work in isolation from
other sources of information or consumers’ other beliefs, perceptions and feelings. In
contemporary information-rich environments, eWOM is not the only source of information
that affects consumer purchasing (Cox et al., 2009; Papathanassis and Knolle, 2011). In
both offline and online environments, consumers are exposed to various sources of
information, and eWOM messages are perceived and processed in combination with the
messages received and retained from other sources (Papathanassis and Knolle, 2011).
Furthermore, consumers’ purchase processes are dynamic, context-dependent and
constructive (Bettman et al., 1998), and eWOM is only one of the forces that work in
conjunction with other external and internal factors to shape consumers’ perceptions and
behaviour. It can be seen then that eWOM, as one of the most influential sources of
consumers’ behaviour, can play a context-dependent and dynamic role. This means the
exact mechanism through which eWOM affects a consumer’s behaviour at each time and
context, as well as the degree of influence of each determinant of eWOM at each stage, is
contingent on the task, situation and environment, and can vary through the different stages
of the purchase process (De Bruyn and Lilien, 2008). For example, in a given scenario, a
consumer might use numerical eWOM ratings to limit the number of alternatives and
simplify the decision making process, and then engage in more effortful evaluations based
on textual reviews once the choice set is small enough (Hu et al., 2014).
An extensive array of empirical evidence has been drawn together in this paper to
demonstrate various dimensions of eWOM’s impact. As illustrated throughout this paper,
various impacts of eWOM are well studied and well supported in academic literature.
However, within the scope of tourism and hospitality, eWOM’s affective and normative
functions have received less attention from tourism scholars compared to its cognitive
functions. Furthermore, even within the scope of cognitive impacts, some important
cognitive functions of eWOM, such as its role in perceptions of the salience of various
attributes, its impact on the expansion of the evoked set and its role in the conditions of
information overload, have received less attention from tourism and hospitality scholars than
its role as an attribute of choice. Therefore, further research in this field could include more
in-depth explorations of such less-studied aspects of the impact of eWOM in various
contexts.
Furthermore, while tourism and hospitality consumer behaviour studies generally regard
eWOM as an exceptionally accessible and important source of impact on consumers’

j TOURISM REVIEW j
 decision making, in contemporary, highly information-intensive online environments, eWOM
can contribute to information overload and increase consumer confusion. Thus, important to
note is that rather than simplifying decision making, the abundance of eWOM and its
accessibility on multiple platforms can further complicate the choice process. While it could
be argued that in such cases, the accessible forms of eWOM (e.g. aggregated ratings) and
online decision aids (e.g. sorts, filters and maps) can be helpful in aiding consumers to deal
with the information overload, through reducing the number of alternatives and facilitating
the evaluation and comparison of various alternatives, this function of eWOM depends on
users’ ability to interact and use the decision-aid tools and other technological features.
Therefore, further research within the scope of tourism and hospitality is required to explore
the important role of eWOM in contemporary information-rich environments, and study to
what extent various forms of eWOM gain consumers’ attention in information-rich interfaces.
Furthermore, in such contexts, two important questions should be addressed: the
magnitude of the impact of aggregated ratings in comparison to other accessible attributes
of a product, which could be used by consumers in a rapid and effortless evaluation of
alternatives; and consumers’ propensity and actual ability to use decision aids in simplifying
decision making based on various attributes. Further academic research is required to
investigate the above research questions within the context of tourism and hospitality
studies.
As consumers’ preferences are constructed adaptively and dynamically (Bellman et al.,
2006), the actual impact of eWOM on consumers’ processes can vary in different contexts
and is interrelated to other environmental and personal conditions. In addition, it should be
noted that eWOM also affects other aspects of consumer behaviour, during and after
purchase. While this paper has focussed exclusively on the mechanisms through which
eWOM can directly affect consumers’ choices of a product or service, further research
could explore the impacts of eWOM in various contexts and conditions, the relationships
and interactions between the impact of eWOM and other external and internal factors as
well the impacts of eWOM during and after product consumption.
Furthermore, as the world of tourism and hospitality continues to be drastically affected by
the impact of new media and technologies (e.g. increasing adoption of artificial intelligence,
virtual reality and augmented reality in tourism marketing), researchers in this field should
investigate how such progress affects the nature, magnitude or mechanism of the impact of
new forms, channels or smart applications of eWOM on consumer behaviour. One
particularly important area of further tourism and hospitality consumer behaviour research is
to investigate tourists’ adoption of smart technologies in decision making and, particularly,
the potentially important impact that the increasingly voluminous body of eWOM stored as
big data will have on the recommendations or interactions generated by such smart
technologies.

References
Abubakar, A.M. (2016), “Does eWOM influence destination trust and travel intention: a medical tourism
perspective”, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 598-611.
Abubakar, A.M., Ilkan, M., Meshall Al-Tal, R. and Eluwole, K.K. (2017), “eWOM, revisit intention,
destination trust and gender”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 31, pp. 220-227.
Ajzen, I. (1985), “From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior”, in Kuhl, J. and Beckmann, J.
(Eds), Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, DE.
Alexandrov, A. and Babakus, E. (2011), “Purpose of word-of-mouth: a conceptual model”, in Bradshaw,
A., Hackley, C. and Maclaran, P. (Eds), E-European Advances in Consumer Research, Association for
Consumer Research, Duluth, MN.
Al-Htibat, A. and Garanti, Z. (2019), “Impact of interactive eReferral on tourists behavioral intentions”,
Marketing Intelligence & Planning.

j TOURISM REVIEW j
Allsop, D.T., Bassett, B.R. and Hoskins, J.A. (2007), “Word-of-mouth research: principles and
applications”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 398-411.
Amblee, N. and Bui, T. (2011), “Harnessing the influence of social proof in online shopping: the effect of
electronic word of mouth on sales of digital microproducts”, International Journal of Electronic
Commerce, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 91-114.
Arndt, J. (1967a), “Role of product-related conversations in the diffusion of a new product”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 291-295.
Arndt, J. (1967b), “Word of mouth advertising and information communication”, in Cox, D.F. (Ed.), Risk
Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior, Harvard University, Boston, MA.

Awad, N.F. and Ragowsky, A. (2008), “Establishing trust in electronic commerce through online word of
mouth: an examination across genders”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 101-121.

Bahja, F., Cobanoglu, C., Berezina, K. and Lusby, C. (2019), “Factors influencing cruise vacations: the
impact of online reviews and environmental friendliness”, Tourism Review, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 400-415.
Bambauer-Sachse, S. and Mangold, S. (2011), “Brand equity dilution through negative online word-of-
mouth communication”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 38-45.
Banerjee, A.V. (1992), “A simple model of herd behavior”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 107
No. 3, pp. 797-817.
Bearden, W.O., Netemeyer, R.G. and Teel, J.E. (1989), “Measurement of consumer susceptibility to
interpersonal influence”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 473-481.
Bellman, S., Johnson, E.J., Lohse, G.L. and Mandel, N. (2006), “Designing marketplaces of the artificial
with consumers in mind: four approaches to understanding consumer behavior in electronic
environments”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 21-33.
Bettman, J.R., Luce, M.F. and Payne, J.W. (1998), “Constructive consumer choice processes”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 187-217.

Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D. and Welch, I. (1992), “A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural
change as informational Cascades”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 100 No. 5, pp. 992-1026.
Blijlevens, J., Carbon, C.C., Mugge, R. and Schoormans, J.P.L. (2012), “Aesthetic appraisal of product designs:
Independent effects of typicality and arousal”, British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 44-57.
Bloch, P.H., Brunel, F.F. and Arnold, T.J. (2003), “Individual differences in the centrality of visual product
aesthetics: concept and measurement”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 551-565.
Bonabeau, E. (2004), “The perils of the imitation age”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82 No. 6, pp. 45-54.

Brochado, A. (2019), “Nature-based experiences in tree houses: guests’ online reviews”, Tourism
Review, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 310-326.
Bronner, F. and De Hoog, R. (2011), “Vacationers and eWOM: who posts, and why, where, and what?”,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 15-26.
Brooks, R.C. (1957), “Word-of-mouth’ advertising in selling new products”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 22,
pp. 154-161.
Brown, J.J. and Reingen, P.H. (1987), “Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 350-362.
Brown, J., Broderick, A.J. and Lee, N. (2007), “Word of mouth communication within online
communities: conceptualizing the online social network”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 21
No. 3, pp. 2-20.
Buhalis, D. and Law, R. (2008), “Progress in information technology and tourism management: 20 years
on and 10 years after the internet – the state of eTourism research”, Tourism Management, Vol. 29 No. 4,
pp. 609-623.
Burgess, S., Sellitto, C., Cox, C. and Buultjens, J. (2009), “User-generated content (UGC)
in tourism: benefits and concerns of online consumers”, in Newell, S., Whitley, E., Pouloudi, N.J.
W. and Mathiassen, L. (Eds), 17th European Conference on Information Systems, 2009
Verona, IT. Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Economics, University of Verona,
Verona.

j TOURISM REVIEW j
 Buttle, F.A. (1998), “Word of mouth: understanding and managing referral marketing”, Journal of
Strategic Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 241-254.
, L.V., Flavián, C., Guinalı́u, M. and Ekinci, Y. (2015), “Do online hotel rating schemes influence
Casalo
booking behaviors?”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 49, pp. 28-36.
Çelen, B. and Kariv, S. (2004), “Distinguishing informational Cascades from herd behavior in the
laboratory’, The”, American Economic Review, Vol. 94 No. 3, pp. 484-498.
Chang, H.H. and Wu, L.H. (2014), “An examination of negative e-WOM adoption: brand commitment as a
moderator”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 59, pp. 206-218.
Chang, E.C., Cheng, J.W. and Khorana, A. (2000), “An examination of herd behavior in equity markets: an
international perspective”, Journal of Banking & Finance, Vol. 24, pp. 1651-1679.
Chatterjee, P. (2001), “Online reviews: do consumers use them?”, in Gilly, M.C. and Myers-Levy, J. (Eds),
NA-Advances in Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT.
Chen, Y.F. (2008), “Herd behavior in purchasing books online”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 24
No. 5, pp. 1977-1992.
Chen, S. and Chaiken, S. (1999), “The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context”, in Chaiken, S.
and Trope, Y. (Eds), Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology, The Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Cheung, C.M.K. and Thadani, D.R. (2012), “The impact of electronic word-of-mouth communication: a
literature analysis and integrative model”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 461-470.
Chevalier, J.A. and Mayzlin, D. (2006), “The effect of word of mouth on sales: online book reviews”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 345-354.
Cohen, J.B. and Golden, E. (1972), “Informational social influence and product evaluation”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 54-59.
Cohen, J.B., Pham, M.T. and Andrade, E.B. (2008), “The nature and role of affect in consumer behavior”,
in Haugtvedt, C.P., Herr, P.M. and Kardes, F.R. (Eds), Handbook of Consumer Psychology, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, New York, NY.
Cosley, D., Lam, S.K., Albert, I., Konstan, J.A. and Riedl, J. (2003), “Is seeing believing?: how
recommender system interfaces affect users’ opinions”, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
Cox, C., Burgess, S., Sellitto, C. and Buultjens, J. (2009), “The role of user-generated content in tourists’
travel planning behavior”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, Vol. 18, pp. 743-764.
Crilly, N., Moultrie, J. and Clarkson, P.J. (2004), “Seeing things: consumer response to the visual domain
in product design”, Design Studies, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 547-577.
Cui, G., Lui, H.K. and Guo, X. (2012), “The effect of online consumer reviews on new product sales”,
International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 39-58.
Darby, M.R. and Karni, E. (1973), “Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud”, The Journal of Law
& Economics, Vol. 16, pp. 67-88.
De Bruyn, A. and Lilien, G.L. (2008), “A multi-stage model of word-of-mouth influence through viral
marketing”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 151-163.
De Maeyer, P. (2012), “Impact of online consumer reviews on sales and price strategies: a review and
directions for future research”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 21, pp. 132-139.
Dellarocas, C. (2003), “The digitization of word of mouth: promise and challenges of online feedback
mechanisms”, Management Science, Vol. 49 No. 10, pp. 1407-1424.
Dellarocas, C. and Narayan, R. (2006), “A statistical measure of a population’s propensity to engage in
post-purchase online word-of-mouth”, Statistical Science, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 277-285.
Duan, W., Gu, B. and Whinston, A.B. (2008a), “Do online reviews matter? – An empirical investigation of
panel data”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 1007-1016.

Duan, W., Gu, B. and Whinston, A.B. (2008b), “The dynamics of online word-of-mouth and product sales
– an empirical investigation of the movie industry”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 233-242.

Duan, W., Gu, B. and Whinston, A.B. (2009), “Informational Cascades and software adoption on the
internet: an empirical investigation”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 33, pp. 23-48.

j TOURISM REVIEW j
Duffy, A. (2015), “Friends and fellow travelers: comparative influence of review sites and friends on hotel
choice”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 127-144.
Duverger, P. (2013), “Curvilinear effects of user-generated content on hotels’ market share”, Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 465-478.
East, R., Hammond, K. and Lomax, W. (2008), “Measuring the impact of positive and negative word of mouth
on brand purchase probability”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 215-224.

Erk, S., Spitzer, M., Wunderlich, A., Galley, L. and Walter, H. (2002), “Cultural objects modulate reward
circuitry”, NeuroReport, Vol. 13 No. 18, pp. 2499-2503.
Festinger, L. (1954), “A theory of social comparison processes”, Human Relations, Vol. 7 No. 2,
pp. 117-140.
Filieri, R. and McLeay, F. (2014), “E-WOM and accommodation”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 53
No. 1, pp. 44-57.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and
Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Flanagin, A.J., Metzger, M.J., Pure, R., Markov, A. and Hartsell, E. (2014), “Mitigating risk in ecommerce
transactions: perceptions of information credibility and the role of user-generated ratings in product
quality and purchase intention”, Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1-23.
Forman, C., Ghose, A. and Wiesenfeld, B. (2008), “Examining the relationship between reviews and
sales: the role of reviewer identity disclosure in electronic markets”, Information Systems Research,
Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 291-313.
Fotis, J., Buhalis, D. and Rossides, N. (2012), “Social media use and impact during the holiday travel
planning process”, in Fuchs, M., Ricci, F. and Cantoni, L. (Eds), Information and Communication
Technologies in Tourism 2012, Springer-Verlag, Vienna, AT.
Gauri, D.K., Bhatnagar, A. and Rao, R. (2008), “Role of word of mouth in online store loyalty”,
Communications of the Acm, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 89-91.

Gavilan, D., Avello, M. and Martinez-Navarro, G. (2018), “The influence of online ratings and reviews on
hotel booking consideration”, Tourism Management, Vol. 66, pp. 53-61.
Ghose, A. and Ipeirotis, P.G. (2006), “Designing ranking systems for consumer reviews: the impact of
review subjectivity on product sales and review quality”, In 16th Annual Workshop on Information
Technology and Systems (WITS), University of WI, Milwaukee, WI.
Gilly, M.C., Graham, J.L., Wolfinbarger, M.F. and Yale, L.J. (1998), “A dyadic study of interpersonal
information search”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 83-100.
Godes, D. and Mayzlin, D. (2004), “Using online conversations to study word-of-mouth communication”,
Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 545-560.
Godes, D. and Silva, J.C. (2012), “Sequential and temporal dynamics of online opinion”, Marketing
Science, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 448-473.
Goldenberg, J., Libai, B. and Muller, E. (2001), “Talk of the network: a complex systems look at the
underlying process of word-of-mouth”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 211-223.

Goldsmith, R.E. and Horowitz, D. (2006), “Measuring motivations for online opinion seeking”, Journal of
Interactive Advertising, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 2-14.
Gretzel, U. and Yoo, K.H. (2008), “Use and impact of online travel reviews”, in O’Connor, P., Höpken, W.
and Gretzel, U. (Eds), Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2008, Springer-Verlag,
Vienna, AT.
Gretzel, U., Fesenmaier, D.R. and O’Leary, J.T. (2006), “The transformation of consumer behaviour”, in
Buhalis, D. and Costa, C. (Eds), Tourism Business Frontiers: Consumers, Products and Industry, Elsevier,
Burlington, MA.
Gretzel, U., Yoo, K.H. and Purifoy, M. (2007), “Online travel review study: role and impact of online travel
reviews”, Laboratory for Intelligent Systems in Tourism, pp. 1-70.
Gruen, T.W., Osmonbekov, T. and Czaplewski, A.J. (2006), “eWOM: the impact of customer-to-customer
online know-how exchange on customer value and loyalty”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 4,
pp. 449-456.

j TOURISM REVIEW j
 Gu, B., Tang, Q. and Whinston, A.B. (2013), “The influence of online word-of-mouth on long tail
formation”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 56, pp. 474-481.
Gupta, P. and Harris, J. (2010), “How e-WOM recommendations influence product consideration and
quality of choice: a motivation to process information perspective”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63
Nos 9/10, pp. 1041-1049.
Häubl, G. and Trifts, V. (2000), “Consumer decision making in online shopping environments: the effects
of interactive decision aids”, Marketing Science, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 4-21.
Hennig Thurau, T. and Walsh, G. (2003), “Electronic word-of-mouth: motives for and consequences of
reading customer articulations on the internet”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 8,
pp. 51-74.

Henning, V., Hennig Thurau, T. and Feiereisen, S. (2012), “Giving the expectancy-value model a heart”,
Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 29, pp. 765-781.

Hirschman, E.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (1982), “Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods and
propositions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 92-101.
Hoq, K.M.G. (2014), “Information overload: causes, consequences and remedies – a study”, Philosophy
and Progress, Vol. 55, p. 49.
Huang, M.H. (2000), “Information load: its relationship to online exploratory and shopping behavior”,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 337-347.
Huang, J.-H. and Chen, Y.-F. (2006), “Herding in online product choice”, Psychology and Marketing,
Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 413-428.
Hu, Y. and Li, X. (2011), “Context-dependent product evaluations: an empirical analysis of internet book
reviews”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 123-133.
Hu, N., Koh, N.S. and Reddy, S.K. (2014), “Ratings lead you to the product, reviews help you clinch it?
The mediating role of online review sentiments on product sales”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 57,
pp. 42-53.
Hu, N., Liu, L. and Sambamurthy, V. (2011), “Fraud detection in online consumer reviews”, Decision
Support Systems, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 614-626.
Hu, N., Liu, L. and Zhang, J. (2008), “Do online reviews affect product sales? The role of reviewer
characteristics and temporal effects”, Information Technology and Management, Vol. 9 No. 3,
pp. 201-214.
Hu, N., Zhang, J. and Pavlou, P.A. (2009), “Overcoming the J-shaped distribution of product reviews”,
Communications of the Acm, Vol. 52 No. 10, pp. 144-147.

Hung, K.H. and Li, S.Y. (2007), “The influence of eWOM on virtual consumer communities: social capital,
consumer learning, and behavioral outcomes”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 47 No. 4,
pp. 485-495.
Hwang, Y.H., Gretzel, U., Xiang, Z. and Fesenmaier, D.R. (2006), “Destination recommendation
systems: behavioural foundations and applications”, in Fesenmaier, D.R., Wöber, K.W. and
Werthner, H. (Eds), Destination Recommendation Systems: Behavioural Foundations and
Applications, CABI, Oxfordshire.
Hyrynsalmi, S., Seppänen, M., Aarikka Stenroos, L., Suominen, A., Järveläinen, J. and Harkke, V. (2015),
“Busting myths of electronic word of mouth: the relationship between customer ratings and the sales of mobile
applications”, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 1-18.
Jin, Y., Bloch, P. and Cameron, G.T. (2002), “A comparative study: does the word -of -mouth
communications and opinion leadership model fit opinions on the internet?”, Paper presented at the HI
International Conference on Social Sciences, Honolulu, HI.
Katz, E. and Lazarsfeld, P.F. (1955), Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass
Communications, Free Press, Glencoe, Il.
Kenning, P., Plassmann, H., Kugel, H., Schwindt, W., Pieper, A. and Deppe, M. (2007), “Neural correlates
of attractive ads”, in Koschnick, W. (Ed.), Focus-Jahrbuch 2007: Schwerpunkt: Neuroökonomie,
Neuromarketing Und Neuromarktforschung, FOCUS Magazin Verlag, Munich, DE.
Kim, E.E.K., Mattila, A.S. and Baloglu, S. (2011), “Effects of gender and expertise on consumers’
motivation to read online hotel reviews”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 399-406.

j TOURISM REVIEW j
King, R.A., Racherla, P. and Bush, V.D. (2014), “What we know and don’t know about online word-of-
mouth: a review and synthesis of the literature”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 3,
pp. 167-183.

Kuan, H.H. and Bock, G.W. (2007), “Trust transference in brick and click retailers: an investigation of the
before-online-visit phase”, Information & Management, Vol. 44, pp. 175-187.
Kwon, J.M., Bae, J.I. and Phelan, K. (2011), “Online consumer herding behaviors in the hotel industry”, in
Hsu, C. and Li, M. (Eds), 16th Graduate Student Research Conference in Hospitality and Tourism,
University of MA Amherst, Houston, TX.
Laczniak, R.N., Decarlo, T.E. and Ramaswami, S.N. (2001), “Consumers’ responses to negative word-of-
mouth communication: an attribution theory perspective”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 11
No. 1, pp. 57-73.

Ladhari, R. and Michaud, M. (2015), “eWOM effects on hotel booking intentions, attitudes, trust, and
website perceptions”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 46, pp. 36-45.
Lee, D.Y. and Lehto, M.R. (2013), “User acceptance of youtube for procedural learning: an extension of
the technology acceptance model”, Computers & Education, Vol. 61, pp. 193-208.

Lee, S.H. and Ro, H. (2016), “The impact of online reviews on attitude changes: the differential effects of
review attributes and consumer knowledge”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 56,
pp. 1-9.
Leibenstein, H. (1950), “Bandwagon, snob, and Veblen effects in the theory of consumers’ demand”, The
Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 183-207.
Leung Xi, Y., Sun, J. and Bai, B. (2019), “Thematic framework of social media research: state of the art”,
Tourism Review, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 517-531.
Leung, D., Law, R., Van Hoof, H. and Buhalis, D. (2013), “Social media in tourism and hospitality: a
literature review”, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 30, pp. 3-22.
Li, X. and Hitt, L.M. (2008), “Self-selection and information role of online product reviews”, Information
Systems Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 456-474.
Lim, B.C. and Chung, C.M.Y. (2011), “The impact of word-of-mouth communication on attribute
evaluation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 18-23.
Litvin, S.W., Goldsmith, R.E. and Pan, B. (2008), “Electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and tourism
management”, Tourism Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 458-468.
Liu, Y. (2006), “Word of mouth for movies: Its dynamics and impact on box office revenue”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 74-89.
Lorenz, J. (2009), “Universality in movie rating distributions”, The European Physical Journal B, Vol. 71
No. 2, pp. 251-258.
Mangold, W.G., Miller, F. and Brockway, G.R. (1999), “Word-of-mouth communication in the service
marketplace”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 13, pp. 73-89.

Mariani, M.M. and Borghi, M. (2018), “Effects of the booking.com rating system: bringing hotel class into
the picture”, Tourism Management, Vol. 66, pp. 47-52.
Marine Roig, E. (2017), “Online travel reviews: a massive paratextual analysis”, in Xiang, Z. and
Fesenmaier, D.R. (Eds), Analytics in Smart Tourism Design: Concepts and Methods, Springer
International Publishing, Cham.
Martin-Fuentes, E. and Mellinas Juan, P. (2018), “Hotels that most rely on booking.com – online travel
agencies (OTAs) and hotel distribution channels”, Tourism Review, Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 465-479.
Maslowska, E., Malthouse, E.C. and Viswanathan, V. (2017), “Do customer reviews drive purchase
decisions? the moderating roles of review exposure and price”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 98,
pp. 1-9.
Matzler, K. and Waiguny, M. (2005), “Consequences of customer confusion in online hotel booking”, in
Frew, A.J. (Ed.), Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2005: Proceedings of the
International Conference in Innsbruck, Austria, 2005, Springer Vienna, Vienna.
Mauri, A.G. and Minazzi, R. (2013), “Web reviews influence on expectations and purchasing
intentions of hotel potential customers”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 34,
pp. 99-107.

j TOURISM REVIEW j
 Mazzarol, T., Sweeney, J.C. and Soutar, G.N. (2007), “Conceptualizing word-of-mouth activity, triggers
and conditions: an exploratory study”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 No. 11/12, pp. 1475-1494.
Mellinas, J.P., Martı́nez Marı́a-Dolores, S.-M. and Bernal Garcı́a, J.J. (2015), “Booking.com: the
unexpected scoring system”, Tourism Management, Vol. 49, pp. 72-74.
Mellinas, J.P., Martı́nez Marı́a-Dolores, S.-M. and Bernal Garcı́a, J.J. (2016), “Effects of the booking.com
scoring system”, Tourism Management, Vol. 57, pp. 80-83.
Moe, W.W. and Schweidel, D.A. (2012), “Online product opinions: incidence, evaluation, and evolution”,
Marketing Science, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 372-386.
Moe, W.W. and Trusov, M. (2011), “The value of social dynamics in online product ratings forums”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 444-456.
Moschis, G.P. (1976), “Social comparison and informal group influence”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 237-244.
Mudambi, S.M. and Schuff, D. (2010), “What makes a helpful online review? A study of customer reviews
on amazon.com”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 34, pp. 185-200.
Negri, F. and Vigolo, V. (2015), “Hotel attributes and visual image: a comparison between website and
user-generated photos”, in Tussyadiah, I.P. and Inversini, A. (Eds), Information and Communication
Technologies in Tourism 2015, Springer International Publishing, Cham, CH.
Nelson, P. (1970), “Information and consumer behavior”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 78 No. 2,
pp. 311-329.

Netzer, O., Feldman, R., Goldenberg, J. and Fresko, M. (2012), “Mine your own business: market-
structure surveillance through text mining”, Marketing Science, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 521-543.
Nieto-Garcı́a, M., Muñoz-Gallego, P.A. and González-Benito, Ó. (2017), “Tourists’ willingness to pay for
an accommodation: the effect of eWOM and internal reference price”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 62, pp. 67-77.
Noone, B.M. and McGuire, K.A. (2013), “Pricing in a social world: the influence of non-price information
on hotel choice”, Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 385-401.
Noone, B.M. and McGuire, K.A. (2014), “Effects of price and user-generated content on consumers’
prepurchase evaluations of variably priced services”, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 38,
pp. 562-581.
Noone, B.M. and McGuire, K.A. (2016), “Impact of attitudinal loyalty on the frequent unmanaged
business traveler’s use of price and consumer reviews in hotel choice”, Journal of Revenue and Pricing
Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 20-36.
Noone, B.M. and Robson, S.K.A. (2016), “Understanding consumers’ inferences from price and nonprice
information in the online lodging purchase decision”, Service Science, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 108-123.
O’Connor, P. (2008), “User-generated content and travel: ‘a case study on tripadvisor.Com’”, in
O’Connor, P., Höpken, W. and Gretzel, U. (Eds), Information and Communication Technologies in
Tourism 2008, Springer-Verlag, Vienna, AT.
Pan, B., Maclaurin, T. and Crotts, J.C. (2007), “Travel blogs and the implications for destination
marketing”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 35-45.
Papathanassis, A. and Knolle, F. (2011), “Exploring the adoption and processing of online holiday
reviews: a grounded theory approach”, Tourism Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 215-224.
Park, S.Y. and Allen, J.P. (2013), “Responding to online reviews: problem solving and engagement in
hotels”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 64-73.

Park, D.H. and Kim, S. (2008), “The effects of consumer knowledge on message processing of electronic
word-of-mouth via online consumer reviews”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 7
No. 4, pp. 399-410.
Park, D.H. and Lee, J. (2008), “eWOM overload and its effect on consumer behavioral intention
depending on consumer involvement”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 7 No. 4,
pp. 386-398.
Park, D.H., Lee, J. and Han, I. (2007), “The effect of on-line consumer reviews on consumer purchasing
intention: the moderating role of involvement”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 11
No. 4, pp. 125-148.

j TOURISM REVIEW j
Parra, J.F. and Ruiz, S. (2009), “Consideration sets in online shopping environments: the effects of
search tool and information load”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 8 No. 5,
pp. 252-262.
Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986), “The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion”, in Leonard, B.
(Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press.

Phelps, E.A., Lempert, K.M. and Sokol Hessner, P. (2014), “Emotion and decision making: multiple
modulatory neural circuits”, Annual Review of Neuroscience, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 263-287.
Pourfakhimi, S. (2012), “The role of ‘online user generated hotel reviews’ in accommodation purchase
behaviour of Kuala Lumpur international free independent travellers”, Master of Science, University
Technology Malaysia.
Prendergast, G., Ko, D. and Siu Yin, V.Y. (2010), “Online word of mouth and consumer purchase
intentions”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 687-708.
Price, L.L. and Feick, L.F. (1984), “The role of interpersonal sources in external search: an informational
perspective”, in Kinnear, T.C. (Ed.), NA-Advances in Consumer Research, Association for Consumer
Research, Provo, UT.
Purnawirawan, N., De Pelsmacker, P. and Dens, N. (2012a), “Balance and sequence in online reviews:
how perceived usefulness affects attitudes and intentions”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 26
No. 4, pp. 244-255.
Purnawirawan, N., Dens, N. and De Pelsmacker, P. (2012b), “Balance and sequence in online reviews:
the wrap effect”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 71-98.
Qiu, L., Pang, J. and Lim, K.H. (2012), “Effects of conflicting aggregated rating on eWOM review
credibility and diagnosticity: the moderating role of review valence”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 54
No. 1, pp. 631-643.
Qu, H. and Lee, H. (2011), “Travelers’ social identification and membership behaviors in online travel
community”, Tourism Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 1262-1270.
Ricci, F. and Wietsma, R.T.A. (2006), “Product reviews in travel decision making”, in Hitz, M., Sigala, M.
and Murphy, J. (Eds), Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2006, Springer Verlag,
Vienna, AT.
Russo, J.E., Medvec, V.H. and Meloy, M.G. (1996), “The distortion of information during decisions”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 102-110.

Russo, J.E., Meloy, M.G. and Medvec, V.H. (1998), “Predecisional distortion of product information”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 438-452.
Schindler, R.M. and Bickart, B. (2005), “Published word of mouth: referable, consumer-generated
information on the internet”, in Hauvgedt, C.P., Machleit, K.A. and Yalch, R. (Eds), Online Consumer
Psychology: Understanding and Influencing Behavior in the Virtual World, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwah, NJ.

Scott, L.M. (1994), “Images in advertising: the need for a theory of visual rhetoric”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 252-273.
See-To, E.W.K. and Ho, K.K.W. (2014), “Value co-creation and purchase intention in social network sites:
the role of electronic word-of-mouth and trust – a theoretical analysis”, Computers in Human Behavior,
Vol. 31, pp. 182-189.
Serra Cantallops, A. and Salvi, F. (2014), “New consumer behavior: a review of research on eWOM and
hotels”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 36, pp. 41-51.
Silverman, G. (1997), “How to harness the awesome power of word of mouth”, Direct Marketing, Vol. 60
No. 7, pp. 32-36.
Simonson, I. (1992), “The influence of anticipating regret and responsibility on purchase decisions”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 105-118.
Smith, D., Menon, S. and Sivakumar, K. (2005), “Online peer and editorial recommendations, trust, and
choice in virtual markets”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 15-37.

Sparks, B. and Browning, V. (2011), “The impact of online reviews on hotel booking intentions and
perception of trust”, Tourism Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 1310-1323.

j TOURISM REVIEW j
 Sreejesh, S. and Ansuree, M.R. (2016), “The impacts of customers’ observed severity and agreement on
hotel booking intentions: moderating role of webcare and mediating role of trust in negative online
reviews”, Tourism Review, Vol. 71, pp. 77-89.
Stoll, M., Baecke, S. and Kenning, P. (2008), “What they see is what they get? An FMRI-study on
neural correlates of attractive packaging”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 7 No. 4-5,
pp. 342-359.
Taylor, J.W. (1974), “The role of risk in consumer behavior”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38, pp. 54-60.
Tham, A., Croy, G. and Mair, J. (2013), “Social media in destination choice: distinctive electronic word-of-
mouth dimensions”, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 30, pp. 144-155.

Torres Edwin, N., Adler, H., Lehto, X., Behnke, C. and Miao, L. (2013), “One experience and multiple
reviews: the case of upscale US hotels”, Tourism Review, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 3-20.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”, British Journal of Management,
Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-222.
Tsao, W.-C., Hsieh, M.-T., Shih, L.-W. and Lin, T.M.Y. (2015), “Compliance with eWOM: the influence of
hotel reviews on booking intention from the perspective of consumer conformity”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 46, pp. 99-111.
Utz, S., Kerkhof, P. and Van Den Bos, J. (2012), “Consumers rule: how consumer reviews influence
perceived trustworthiness of online stores”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 11
No. 1, pp. 49-58.
Varkaris, E. and Neuhofer, B. (2017), “The influence of social media on the consumers’ hotel decision
journey”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 101-118.
Verma, R., Stock, D. and McCarthy, L. (2012), “Customer preferences for online, social media, and
mobile innovations in the hospitality industry”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 183-186.
Vermeulen, I.E. and Seegers, D. (2009), “Tried and tested: the impact of online hotel reviews on
consumer consideration”, Tourism Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 123-127.
Viglia, G., Minazzi, R. and Buhalis, D. (2016), “The influence of e-word-of-mouth on hotel
occupancy rate”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 9,
pp. 2035-2051.
Walsh, G., Hennig-Thurau, T. and Mitchell, V.-W. (2007), “Consumer confusion proneness: scale
development, validation, and application”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 23 No. 7-8,
pp. 697-721.
Wang, T.-L., Tran, P.T.K. and Tran, V.T. (2017), “Destination perceived quality, tourist satisfaction and
word-of-mouth”, Tourism Review, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 392-410.

Wathen, C.N. and Burkell, J. (2002), “Believe it or not: factors influencing credibility on the web”, Journal
of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 134-144.
Whyte, W.H. Jr. (1954), “The web of word of mouth”, Fortune, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 140-143.
Williams, N.L., Inversini, A., Buhalis, D. and Ferdinand, N. (2015), “Community crosstalk: an exploratory
analysis of destination and festival eWOM on twitter”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 31 Nos 9/
10, pp. 1113-1140.
Williams, N.L., Inversini, A., Ferdinand, N. and Buhalis, D. (2017), “Destination eWOM: a macro and meso
network approach?”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 64, pp. 87-101.
Woodruff, R.B. (1972), “Brand information sources, opinion change, and uncertainty”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 414-418.

Wright, P. (1974), “The harassed decision maker: time pressures, distractions, and the use of evidence”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 555-561.
Wright, P. (1975), “Consumer choice strategies: simplifying vs. optimizing”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 60-67.
Wu, F. and Huberman, B.A. (2008), “How public opinion forms”, in Papadimitriou, C. and Zhang, S. (Eds),
Internet and Network Economics: 4th International Workshop, WINE 2008, Shanghai, China, December
17-20, 2008. Proceedings, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg.

j TOURISM REVIEW j
Wu, J., Wu, Y., Sun, J. and Yang, Z. (2013), “User reviews and uncertainty assessment: a two stage
model of consumers’ willingness-to-pay in online markets”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 55 No. 1,
pp. 175-185.
Xiang, Z. and Gretzel, U. (2010), “Role of social media in online travel information search”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 179-188.

Xie, K.L., Zhang, Z. and Zhang, Z. (2014), “The business value of online consumer reviews and
management response to hotel performance”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 43,
pp. 1-12.

Xie, H., Miao, L., Kuo, P.-J. and Lee, B.-Y. (2011), “Consumers’ responses to ambivalent online hotel
reviews: the role of perceived source credibility and pre-decisional disposition”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 30, pp. 178-183.

Ye, Q., Zhang, Z. and Law, R. (2009), “Sentiment classification of online reviews to travel destinations by
supervised machine learning approaches”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 6527-6535.
Ye, Q., Law, R., Gu, B. and Chen, W. (2011), “The influence of user-generated content on traveler
behavior: an empirical investigation on the effects of e-word-of-mouth to hotel online bookings”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 634-639.
Yoo, K.H. and Gretzel, U. (2008), “What motivates consumers to write online travel reviews?”, Information
Technology & Tourism, Vol. 10, pp. 283-295.
Yoo, K.H. and Gretzel, U. (2011a), “Creating more credible and persuasive recommender systems: the
influence of source characteristics on recommender system evaluations”, in Ricci, F., Rokach, L.,
Shapira, B. and Kantor, P.B. (Eds), Recommender Systems Handbook, Springer US, Boston, MA.
Yoo, K.H. and Gretzel, U. (2011b), “Influence of personality on travel-related consumer-generated media
creation”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 609-621.
Yoo, K.H., Lee, Y.J., Gretzel, U. and Fesenmaier, D.R. (2009), “Trust in travel-related consumer
generated media”, in Höpken, W., Gretzel, U. and Law, R. (Eds), Information and Communication
Technologies in Tourism 2009, Springer-Verlag, Vienna, AT.
Zhang, L., Ma, B. and Cartwright, D.K. (2013), “The impact of online user reviews on cameras sales”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 7, pp. 1115-1128.
Zhao, X., Wang, L., Guo, X. and Law, R. (2015), “The influence of online reviews to online hotel booking
intentions”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 1343-1364.

Corresponding author
Shahab Pourfakhimi can be contacted at: spourfak@usc.edu.au

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

j TOURISM REVIEW j