國立中山大學人力資源管理全英語碩士學位學程

碩士論文
Global Human Resource Management English MBA Program
National Sun Yat-sen University
Master Thesis
網路購物錯誤如何導致口耳相傳？
HOW DO DIGITAL SHOPPING MISTAKES LEAD TO WORD
OF MOUTH?

研究生：孔善
Hkawn San
指導教授：金志衍博士
Dr. Jeeyeon Kim

中華民國110年01月
January 2021
Thesis validation letter

i
 Acknowledgements
Throughout the writing of this thesis, I have received a great deal of support and assistance.

I would first like to express my sincere gratitude towards my Academic Supervisor Dr. Jeeyeon

Kim for her guidance, tremendous support, valuable insights and comments during the whole

process of working on thesis. Her excellence knowledge and expertise were invaluable in

formulating the research questions, methodology and writing up the thesis. Her insightful

feedback pushed me to sharpen my thinking and brought my work to a higher level. I would

like to thank my supervisor not only for her expertise, but also for her kindness and patience.

She not only transfers her academic and research knowledge to me, but also with her kindness

and compassion, she inspires me to create positive impact on the people around me.

I would also like to acknowledge International program office team for their support and

assistance. I would particularly like to single out GHRM MBA program coordinator Scarlett

Wang for her support and assistance throughout my study years, also constantly helping me

checked and provided me kind reminder regarding graduation requirement. I am also grateful

to her for always patiently answering all the program and graduation requirement related

questions.

In addition, I am extremely grateful to my parents, family and friends for their wise counsel,

prayers and sympathetic ears. Finally, I could not have completed this thesis without the

support and encouragement of my friends, Nohelia Rivera and Josh Wilkes.

ii
 摘要

儘管先前的學術研究曾探討過線上購物與網路口碑之間的關係，但對於線上購物購買
失誤與網路口碑之間的關係仍鮮少被探討，特別是在購買失誤之後，消費者產生的網
路口碑。 本研究透過實驗性研究設計，探索線上購物的購買失誤和口碑評價之間的
關係。值得注意的是，本研究進一步探討因購買失誤而增加或減少負面口碑的潛在因
素，例如，廣告類型（環保與非環保廣告），意見領袖，平台類型（人際關係），以
支持何種邊界條件加劇/減弱了購買失誤和負面口碑之間的關係。結果顯示，在購買失
誤的情況下，相對於非環保廣告，消費者對於環保廣告會表現出較高的負面口碑分享
意圖。此外，與尋求意見者相比，意見領袖更有可能在經歷購買失誤後分享負面口
碑。最後，結果顯示，與在購買失誤下，與陌生人相比，消費者與朋友分享的負面口
碑的意圖更高。本研究提供了學術意涵和管理意涵，供後續研究者參考。

關鍵詞：線上購物 、購買失誤 、負面口碑 、環保廣告 、意見領袖 、平台類型

iii
 Abstract

While prior scholastic work has explored the connection between online/digital shopping and

word of mouth, there has been a lack of focus on the relationship between online/digital

purchase mistakes and WOM, specifically, what kind of WOM (WOM valence) consumers

generate after they made purchase mistake. Using an experimental research design, the current

research uncovers the relationship between digital shopping related purchase mistakes and

WOM valence. Notably, the current work highlights factors that increase or decrease NWOM

after purchase mistake, such that the author examine ad types (green vs non – green ad), opinion

leadership, platform type (interpersonal closeness) to demonstrate boundary conditions which

intensify the relationship between purchase mistake and NWOM. Interestingly, the result

revealed that in the case of purchase mistake, consumers express higher tendency to share

NWOM when green ad(vs non – green ad) is shown. In addition, surprisingly, compared to the

opinion seekers, opinion leaders are more likely to share NWOM after purchase mistake.

Finally, the result shows that consumers share more NWOM with friends compared to strangers

after purchase mistake. Theoretical contributions and marketing implications are discussed.

Key words: Digital shopping, purchase mistake, NWOM, green ad, opinion leadership,

platform type

iv
Contents

Thesis Validation letter ….………………………………………………………………… i

Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………… ii

摘要 …………………………………………………………………………………………iii
Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………………. iv

1. Introduction …………………………………………………………………………1

2. Literature review …………………………………………………………………… 5

2.1 Traditional word of mouth (WOM) …………………………………………….. 5

2.2 eWOM ……………………………………………………………………………6

2.3 Purchase mistake …………………………………………………………………7

2.4 Attribution and consumer behavior ………………………………………………8

2.5 Attribution in green ads …………………………………………………………. 9

2.6 The role of interpersonal closeness ……………………………………………. 10

2.7 The role of opinion leadership …………………………………………………. 12

3. Experimental studies ………………………………………………………………. 15

3.1 Study 1 ………………………………………………………………………….15

3.2 Study 2 ………………………………………………………………………… 18

3.3 Study 3 …………………………………………………………………………. 21

4. Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………. 26

5. Reference …………………………………………………………………………… 30

Appendix ……………………………………………………………………………….. 37
 1. INTRODUCTION

With the increasing popularity of digital communication, sharing consumers' experience in

digital channels has become modern life’s essential. Electronic word of mouth communication

has allowed individuals to exchange product information more readily and influence each

other’s choices. Consumers can easily contribute WOM opinions to share products and services

related experience, and their satisfaction regarding the products and service. Based on a survey

conducted by BrightLocal (2019), approximately 80% of people report they have experience

in sharing their opinions or feelings with others after digital shopping. Furthermore, prior

researches have demonstrated that compared with company-generated communications,

consumers – generated WOM is viewed as more genuine, relatable, and neutral (Friestad and

Wright 1994; Godes and Mayzlin 2004). Certainly, 78% of customers claim that online reviews

are equally trustworthy as offline recommendations (BrightLocal 2018), and nearly 50% of

consumers said they rely on online reviews for purchase decision (PwC 2016).

Especially, in the area of digital shopping, consumers tend to be heavily influenced by word of

mouth from others for reducing uncertainty since digital shopping can be quite unpredictable,

for example in fashion industry, issues with uncertainties includes size, color, fitting and

delivery etc. Consumers are always in danger of making mistakes when purchasing products

on digital channels. “A purchase mistake is defined as a self-identified imperfect decision

whereby individuals buy an item that consequently does not perform as anticipated” (Reich

and Maglio 2020). What kind of social talk will consumers generate after making purchasing

mistakes? As far as it’s known, there is a lack of research addressing when consumers generate

positive or negative WOM, rather than on its effects. Little is known about what leads to the

WOM, which reveals the post-purchase evaluation, and how it is influenced by purchase

1
mistakes. This research, therefore, aims to investigate what kinds of WOM consumers engage

in when they make a purchase mistake in digital shopping.

When consumers make purchase mistake, it is anticipated that consumers might complain

about their experience by blaming it on inappropriate information or product quality. For

example, a prior study demonstrates that consumers' dissatisfaction results in negative word of

mouth. Additionally, the more consumers blame the retailer for the dissatisfaction, the higher

the chance of disseminating negative WOM (Richins 1983). Prior work by Chevalier and

Mayzlin (2006); Fornell and Westbrook (1984) suggests that compared to positive reviews,

negative reviews result in less favorable company evaluations, moreover, negative reviews are

often more impactful than positive review (Chen and Lurie 2013; Mizerski 1982). With

negative reviews and NWOM having detrimental impact on firms and brands, managing

negative reviews and NWOM become an essential task for managers. Therefore, the important

contribution of the current research is shedding lights on the factors which increase or decrease

NWOM after purchase mistake. The result of this research demonstrates that the influence of

purchase mistakes by consumers themselves in disseminating negative NWOM is confirmed,

however, the differences in volumes of NWOM are bound to occur. The current research

deepens the understanding by exploring several boundary conditions, such as ad type (green

vs non – green ad), contributors’ characteristics (opinion leader or underdog), platform type

(public online community or private online community). Through a series of studies using

experimental methods, the findings of current research show that, first, consumers who make

purchase mistakes do generate a negative word of mouth. Second, the result shows that

consumer makes more NWOM after exposing to green ads ( vs non – green ads) in the case of

purchase mistakes. Third, building on the interpersonal closeness theory, the current study

shows that there is higher tendency of consumers generating NWOM in private online

2
community compared to public online community. Fourth, interestingly, when encountering

purchase mistake, opinion leaders tend to generate more negative WOM in order to remain

experts and put the blame on the company or the products instead.

The findings of current research contribute critical academic and managerial insights for digital

retailing. Expanding the discoveries in both online/digital shopping and WOM academic fields,

the current research has led to several additional findings. First, while most of the WOM

research found that consumers’ dissatisfaction resulting from product or service failure leads

to NWOM, this study highlights a novel scenario when consumers themselves make a purchase

mistake and its effect on WOM. Second, from the theoretical standpoint, the purchase mistake

literature is at its infancy, the current research contributes to this emerging field of study which

examines purchase mistake and online review (Reich and Maglio 2020). Third, the existing

work on purchase mistake has primarily focus on the persuasiveness of revealing the mistake

in the review (Reich and Maglio 2020), it has not considered which factors motivate people to

reveal their mistake. Therefore, by introducing the boundary conditions to the main effect such

as ad type (green ads vs non – green ad), platform type and opinion leadership, the current

research enriches the purchase mistake an online review literature.

Current research also makes several managerial contributions. First, the current research gives

insight to managers that when consumers make purchase mistake, there is tendency to write

negative review. When encountering negative review, firms need to decide whether to win

back the customers or to protect the firm’s reputation or do both. Recent work on service

recovery suggests that firms need to implement careful strategy to win back customers: eg.,

after service failure, when interacting with consumers, instead of apologizing for the service

providers’ fault, emphasizing appreciation towards buyers’ merits and contributions is likely

3
to raise post recovery satisfaction (You, Yang, Wang, and Deng 2020). On the other hand,

recent study by Surachartkumtonkun, Grace and Ross (2020) argues that firms can consider

utilizing defensive or accommodative response strategy depending on the fairness of the review

written by the reviewers.

Second, despite the prevalence of green advertising in the marketplace, the findings of current

research confirm that managers dealing with green advertising need to be cautious about

consumer attributions (Nyilasy, Gangadharbatla, and Paladino 2014). Therefore, careful

consideration is required whether to advertise the product as green or not as the result of the

current research confirms the notion that companies with green claims are often closely

scrutinized by the consumers (Easterling, Kenworthy, and Nemzoff 1996) and which in turn

stimulate to generate higher volume of NWOM. Third, opinion leaders tend to generate more

negative WOM in order not to show their failure and instead remain an expert, therefore, put

the blame on the company or the product. Thus, marketers should consider how to help opinion

leaders in digital shopping, eg., monitoring the digital shopping process, providing them with

more accurate product specific information to prevent potential purchase mistake in advance.

4
 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Traditional word of mouth(WOM)

"Word of mouth" (WOM) generally describes as the flow of products and services related

communications among consumers (Westbrook 1987). WOM communication receives

tremendous theoretical, empirical and practical attention not only because of its significance in

consumers’ knowledge accumulation in products and brands but also its importance in

marketers’ spreading products and brand related message. Researchers suggest that nearly 70%

of consumers’ purchase decisions are influenced by WOM communications (Balter 2008),

additionally, WOM communications are also regarded as a key driver of 66% of all industries

(Dye 2000). Increasing number of consumers are sharing their holiday experiences with

friends, giving dining recommendations to relatives, and discussing about products with

strangers (Chen 2017).

However, the motivation for sharing WOM is diverse. Regarding the motivation of WOM,

Dichter (1966) classified four major drivers of WOM communication: self-involvement,

product involvement, other involvement, and message involvement. Current research focuses

on three types of WOM such as product involvement WOM, self – involvement WOM and

other involvement WOM. Product involvement – driven WOM is common when evaluating

the product itself (Bloch and Bruce 1984; Wohlfeil and Whelan 2006). Prior research suggests

that self – involvement or self – enhancement WOM is produced due to the desire to share

favorable product and service related experiences so as to be seen as smart buyers (Dichter

1966, p-148).

A variety of empirical evidence shows that people share WOM for the purpose of satisfying

self-serving objectives (Cheema and Kaikati 2010; Chen and Berger 2013; De Angelis,

5
Bonezzi, Peluso, Rucker, and Costabile 2012; Berger 2014). In addition, Wojnicki and Godes

(2017) have discovered that positive WOM is driven by an eagerness to signal expertise to

others. Furthermore, Feick and Price (1987) also suggest that spreading WOM may be to show

up as savvy purchasers, whereby those individuals derive utility from other people’s evaluation

of them as “smart shoppers.” On the other hand, other involvement (or concern for others)

WOM is generated when the need to help others or the need to participate in selfless conduct

is evoked.

2.2 eWOM

Due to the prevalence of internet usage, in addition to traditional word-of-mouth (WOM),

researchers are exploring electronic word of mouth ( eWOM) (King, Racherla, and Bush 2014).

eWOM is characterized as “any positive or negative statement made by potential, actual, or

former customers about a product or firm, which is made accessible to a large of individuals

and institutions by means of Internet” (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004, p-39). eWOM makes

interaction of consumers, product – related information exchange and making informed

purchase decisions possible through computer – mediated discussions (Blazevic et al. 2013;

Hoffman and Novak 1996). Additionally, eWOM permits consumers to take part in online

networks communication (e.g., Kozinets et al. 2010); this kind of interactions are more

noticeable (King, Racherla, and Bush 2014).

Prior studies have examined various eWOM communications, such as social networking sites

(SNS) (Dwyer 2007; Trusov, Bucklin, and Pauwels 2009), blogs (Dhar and Chang 2009;

Kozinets et al. 2010; Thorson and Rodgers 2006), discussion forums (e.g., Andreassen and

Streukens 2009; Cheung et al. 2009), UseNet groups (e.g.,Godes and Mayzlin 2004) and

product reviews (Lee and Youn 2009; Sen and Lerman 2007; Tirunillai and Tellis

6
2012). Drawing from the previous research, there are several motivational factors for

consumers to take part in eWOM: individualization (Ho and Dempsey 2010), self enhancement

(Angelis et al. 2011; Fiske 2002; Wojnicki and Godes 2008), ability and self-efficacy (Gruen,

Osmonbekov, and Czaplewski 2006; Huang, Lin, and Lin 2009), innovativeness and opinion

leadership (Sun et al. 2006), neuroticism (Picazo-vela et al. 2010) and benevolence (Dellarocas

and Narayan 2007; Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004).

2.3 Purchase mistake

The current research examines purchase mistake made by customers on digital channels and

its relationship with word of mouth communication. Mistake commonly carry the meaning of

“an error in action, estimation, opinion, or judgment caused by insufficient knowledge,

carelessness, poor reasoning, etc.” (as cited in Reich, Kupor, and Smith 2017). Particularly, the

mistake in this study addresses “an error in action by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient

knowledge” (Reich, Kupor, and Smith 2017), specifically “the action” in this study refers to

“purchase”.

According to the existing research, “a purchase mistake is defined as a self-identified imperfect

decision whereby individuals buy an item that consequently does not perform as anticipated”

(Reich and Maglio 2020). For example, a customer purchase a product what he/she thought

was the best choice, however, when he/she uses the product the next day, the realization comes

that the product performance falls below the buyer’s expectation, for example, the product is

found to be functionally inferior, the product purchase lead to negative outcome which is “not

functionally well”. For instance, a person might buy a speaker system, but found out later that

the speakers do not perform as well as he/she expected (Reich and Maglio 2019). Although

7
still in its infancy, scientific research on purchase mistake seems to be a promising research

area to explore. Therefore, the current research investigates the effect of digital purchase

mistake on eWOM.

2.4 Attribution and consumer behavior

Attribution theory suggests that individuals process the information rationally and the actions

of those individuals are tended to be affected by causal inferences (Folkes 1984). Weiner’s

(1980) classified three categories of attributions that contribute to an individual’s overall

judgment of responsibility or blame such as: (1) the internal or external locus of the behavior;

(2) the stability of the behavior and (3) the controllability of the behavior. Prior research has

demonstrated that three causal dimensions such as locus, stability, and controllability are the

primary values of consumer’s reactions to a product failure (Folkes 1984). It has further been

argued that in the case of product failure, locus of control explains whether the failure was

company-related, buyer -related, or a result of outside factors (Folkes 1984). If the locus of

control is internal, consumers are likely to associate the responsibility with the actor (Folkes

1984). In contrast, if the locus is external, outside factors are more likely to be the source of

attributions (Folkes 1984). In addition, Mohr and Bitner (1995) found the strong link between

consumer attributions and customer satisfaction. Moreover, extensive work on attributions also

shows that consumers’ attribution in service delays lead to consumers’ complaint, and

negatively impacted repurchase behavior (Folkes and Kotsos 1986; Folkes, Koletsky, and

Graham 1987).

Prior research suggests that while encountering faulty product, consumers partake in causal

thinking to assess the cause of such failure (Weiner 2000). Research by Folkes and Kotsos

(1986) further suggests that firms are being condemned by certain complainants for failures

8
even when the firms are not responsible for it, subsequently, discounts, apologies, refunds are

more likely to be expected by the complainants who believe that organizations are liable for

disappointments. Furthermore, prior research demonstrates that post-consumption behavior

such as WOM referrals are affected by consumer attributions (Richins 1983). Therefore, the

current research predicts the following:

H1: Consumers tend to generate negative WOM after they make purchase mistake.

2.5 Attribution in green ads

Past research suggests that the usage of green ad messages has been increasing dramatically

since 1960s (Easterling et al. 1996). Prior research defined green advertising as ‘‘any ad that

fulfills one or more of the following criteria: (1) emphasizes the connection between a

product/service and the biophysical climate, (2) advocates a green way of life with or without

featuring a product/service, and (3) displays a corporate image of ecological duty’’ (Banerjee,

Gulas, and Iyer 1995, p-22). Research suggests that a great deal of monetary resources is being

spent on green advertisement and CSR conducts by the companies in order to be seen as social

and environmentally responsible by their customers, with the goal that such positive

perceptions will bring about positive brand attitudes and purchase intentions (Forbes 2012).

However, as green marketing is on the rise, there is also increase in consumers’ distrust towards

companies’ green claims as many firms fail to live what they preach, failing to conserve the

environment as they operate their business function (Nyilasy, Gangadharbatla and Paladino

2014).

9
The current research argues that when consumers encounter negative purchase experiences

such as purchase mistake, they will be more critical about the situation if those experiences are

related to the products or firms with green claims. Friestad and Wright (1994) found that

attributional processes complicate the way people form and change their perceptions of events,

and when attribution introduces skepticism, that may prohibit positive attitude/ behavior

change. It has also been argued that a company’s green advertising activities might be seen as

hypocritical, egocentric and opportunistic through consumers’ negative attributions, hence,

when a company underperforms, the negative impact on brand attitudes is heightened when

green advertising is utilized compared to general advertising and no advertising (Nyilasy et al.

2014). Furthermore, it has also been shown that organizations which make green claims are

often subject to closer inspection from government, competing firms, and customers

(Easterling et al. 1996). Importantly, when consumers perceive green advertising as deceitful,

greenwashing attributions are formed, which in turn affects CSR, firm reputation (Nyilasy et

al. 2014), brand attitudes and purchase intent negatively.

In sum, combining the literatures on attribution and green washing, the author hypothesizes the

following:

H2: The tendency of sharing negative WOM is increased when green advertising message (Vs

non-green advertising message) is present in the case of purchase mistake.

2.6 The role of interpersonal closeness

Interpersonal closeness(IC), the level of emotional intimacy between two individuals (Gino

and Galinsky 2012) is a critical in portraying social connections (Marsden and Cambell 1984).

Specifically, IC describes feelings of connection derive from the perceived commonality of

10
cognition, affection and behavior of two individuals (Dibbe, Levine, and Park 2012; Kelly et

al. 1983). It is important to note that several social behaviors such as self – information

disclosure (Altman and Taylor 1973), cooperating (Batson, Chang, Orr, and Rowland 2002),

or providing financial assistance to others (Aron, Aron, Tudor, and Nelson 1991) are influenced

by IC.

Research on IC literature suggests that the level of closeness between interacting individuals

stimulate various psychological motives (Aaker and Lee 2001; Markus and Kitayama 1991).

It has been suggested that while interacting with a closed one, others-protecting-motive is

activated (Cross, Bacon, and Morris 2000), therefore, consumers become more other-focused

and feel responsible for others (Clark, Fitness, and Brissette 2001; Clark and Mills 1993) this

leads to adopting the act of protecting others (Heine, Lehman, Markus, and Kitayama 1999;

Markus and Kitayama 1991). On the other hand, when individuals feel less close to others, they

become more self-centered and tend to compare themselves with others (For example, "Am I

better than them?"; Argo, White, and Dahl 2006; Cross and Madson 1997) which result in self

– enhancing behaviors (Blaine and Crocker 1993; Heine et al. 1999).

How do people protect friends and self – enhance in front of strangers? How do others-

protecting behaviors and self - enhancing behaviors are reflected in real life? In line with these

questions, researchers argue that positive product information allows individuals to signal

expertise, therefore, it is self-enhancing (Berger 2014; Chen and Lurie 2013; Wojnicki and

Godes 2013), while negative information can preserve social bonds (Dunbar 1996) by notifying

others about possible disadvantages of products and services, therefore, keeping them from

unfavorable encounters (Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner, Walsh, and Gremler 2004). These

aforementioned arguments are in line with a broad range of findings in the work of other

researchers. For example, as pointed out by the various theorists, when communicating with

11
distant others, consumers’ tendency of sharing positive personal experience (Brown, Collins,

and Schmidt 1988; De Angelis, Bonezzi, Peluso, Rucker, and Costabile 2012), positive news

and occasions (Berger and Milkman 2012) are increased (Brown, Collins, and Schmidt 1988;

De Angelis et al. 2012 ) while sharing personal experiences (Sedikides 1993), critiquing and

complaining (Hamilton, Vohs,' and McGill 2014) are avoided by consumers.

In contrast, it has been suggested that 23% of consumers generate negative WOM (NWOM)

to keep others from facing similar problems (Sundaram et al. 1998). In addition, Wetzer,

Zeelenberg and Pieters (2007) assert that when individuals feel regretful, they may seek to keep

others from committing the same mistakes by sharing negative information, thereby

strengthening social bonds. In sum, others – protecting motives and self – enhancement motive,

driven by various levels of IC influences the valence of WOM, such that sharing positive WOM

is bound to occur among distant others and sharing NWOM is common among friends (Dubois,

Bonezzi and De Angelis 2016). Therefore, the following hypothesis is anticipated:

H3: After making purchase mistake, customers generate more negative WOM with friends

(private online community) than with strangers (public online community).

2.7 The role of opinion leadership

A variety of theoretical conceptualizations and empirical findings suggest that opinion

leaders(OL) generally are knowledgeable individuals in their respective fields (Jacoby and

Hoyer 1981; Iyengar, Van den Bulte, and Valente 2011). Opinion leaders are “the individuals

who are likely to influence others in their surroundings,” (Katz and Lazarsfeld 1955, p-3;

Grewal, Mehta, and Kardes 2000, p-236). Rogers (1962) suggests that OL possess attributes

12
such as having: (1) high social status; (2) high social participation; and (3) high social

responsibility. Prior research also suggests that due to their significantly high level of product

involvement and know-how, opinion leaders are active in communicating with others and

giving informal, consumption- related information or advising others (Allen 2000; Bloch 1986;

Goldsmith, Flynn, and Goldsmith 2003). It has further been suggested that factors such as

searching and sharing information motivate opinion leaders (Bloch and Richins, 1983; Corey

1971; Hazeldine and Miles 2010; Venkatraman 1989). Moreover, prior research suggests that

opinion leaders in computer-mediated environments show considerably higher degrees of

innovativeness, enduring involvement, exploratory behavior and self-perceived knowledge

compared to underdogs (Lyons and Henderson 2005). Indeed, Berkman and Gilson (1986)

suggests that consumers perceive opinion – leaders – generated information to be more reliable

than advertising messages.

The role of opinion leaders is critical in marketing communication and the information

acquisition process of consumer decision making (Assael 1992; Chu, Chen and Gan 2020).

From the marketing point of view, opinion leaders are identified by their know – how, influence,

communication, and word of mouth (Feick and Price, 1987; Flynn, Goldsmith, and Eastman

1996; Hazeldine and Miles 2010; Myers and Robertson 1972). Moreover, existing research

shows that opinion leaders disseminate a greater volume of word of mouth in a given category

(King and Summers 1976; Childers 1986). For instance, prior research shows that there is

positive relationship among OL, consumer awareness, and the product review websites usage

(Bailey 2005). In addition, prior research also reveals that OL dramatically and directly impact

consumers’ engagement with CSR communication on social networking sites (Chu, Chen and

Gan 2020). Furthermore, through the medium of their social media activities, digital opinion

leaders or influencers can impact the attitudes, decisions and behaviors of their followers

13
(Watts and Dodds 2007; Lyons and Henderson 2005). For example, Bilgihan, Peng and

Kandampully (2014) found that OL influences millennials’ restaurant related information

searching and sharing on social networking sites.

What are the unique characteristics of OL? On this issue, existing research demonstrated that

opinion leaders are likely to be more self-centered (Baumgarten 1975) and prone to self-

enhancement or promoting self-image (Berger 2014; Zhang, Feick, and Mittal 2014) by

showing their competence to other people in order to seen as unique (Baumeister 1998; Chan

and Misra 1990; Wojnicki and Godes 2012). It has also been suggested that market mavens

and opinion leaders tend to see themselves as particularly knowledgeable consumers and wish

to keep up with these positive self-concepts, and keen on opinions sharing (Dichter 1966; Feick

and Price 1987). Moreover, prior finding has shown that OL have a stronger relationship

between impression-relevant and outcome-relevant involvement with mobile technology

purchase and utilization (Eastman, Iyer, Liao-Troth, Williams, and Griffin 2014). In sum,

opinion leaders are concerned with building and maintaining their self – image and impression

management. When encountering purchase mistake, opinion leaders are likely to hide their

mistake but rather share negative experience about the product, and attribute the consequence

of the mistake on the companies (or products). Therefore, I hypothesize the following:

H4: Opinion leaders(vs Underdogs) are more likely to share negative WOM after purchase

mistake.

14
 3. EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES

In the following section, I present three studies that test the hypotheses which examine the

relationship between purchase mistake and WOM, and its interaction effects. Study 1

demonstrates that consumers tend to share negative WOM after they make purchase mistake.

Study 2 confirms the interaction effect of green ads and purchase mistake on WOM, such that

consumers’ tendency of sharing NWOM is increased when the green advertising message (Vs

non-green advertising message) is present after purchase mistake. Finally, study 3 explores the

role of interpersonal closeness and OL on the relationship of purchase mistake and WOM. The

findings of study 3 demonstrates that after making purchase mistake, consumers share more

NWOM with friends (private online community) than with distant others (public online

community), study 3 further shows the interaction effect of opinion leadership and purchase

mistake on WOM, specifically, opinion leaders share more NWOM after purchase mistake.

3.1 Study 1: Testing purchase mistake and NWOM

Study 1 was conducted with the purpose of testing H1, the relationship between purchase

mistake and NWOM.

Participants and procedure

201 participants from Amazon Mechanical Turk participated in the study, Male= 130, Mmale age

= 33.1, SD = 8.0, Female = 71, Mfemale age = 37, SD = 11.7. The experiment was 2(Purchase

condition: purchase mistake vs successful purchase) x WOM between subject design.

Participants were randomly assigned. I first screened the participants to see whether they have

online / digital shopping experience or not. If the answer to the screening question is yes,

participants proceed the survey, the participants with the answer “no” were terminated. I then

15
proceed with questions regarding their online/mobile channel shopping frequency. After that

participants were asked to recall and write down their dissatisfied or satisfied online/mobile

purchase experience within the last 6 months (Adopted from De Angelis et al. 2012). Next,

participants wrote review about the dissatisfied or satisfied purchase experience on community

board (e.g., Facebook) (Adopted from De Angelis et al. 2012) and they were asked to write

down their purchase experience. Subsequently, participants answered questions regarding their

intent on NWOM (Adopted from Wan 2013). Finally, participants responded questions

regarding their age and gender.

To mimic a real- world situation, participants were asked to write review. For instance, in the

purchase mistake condition, participants were asked to write down their purchase mistake

condition as the following:

“Please carefully recall your online/mobile purchase experience within the last 6 months. Is there any

dissatisfaction with the purchase experience? If there is any dissatisfaction, please write down what

did you purchase and the dissatisfactory factor specifically.”

Finally, NWOM intent was assessed on seven Likert scale (1 = extremely unlikely, 7 =

extremely likely). For example, one of the questions being “How likely are you to post your

experience with negative comments on the community board?” (eg., Facebook) (Adopted from

Wan, 2013).

Result

Example responses of purchase mistake condition from the participants include “I received a

broken night lamp. I am totally dissatisfied with it”. “Last week i ordered a t-shirt. It's size is

very small. I'm totally dissatisfied”. “The purchase did not arrive on time”. “The shipping

16
takes too long”. Example responses of successful purchase condition from the participants

include “I purchased a mobile online, I completely satisfied with service, the product,

processor and money”. “I purchased an Apple watch. The purchasing experience was

delightful and seamless”. “Delivery time in last few months are really impressive”.

Purchase mistake scenario was coded as “1” and “Successful purchase” scenario was coded as

“0”. The result of ANOVA shows that compare to the “successful purchase” condition,

participants in the “purchase mistake” condition (Mneg comment = 4.72, SD = 1.50) show higher

tendency to share negative comment than in “successful purchase” condition ( Mneg comment =

4.16, SD = 2.06) (F(1, 172) = 3.70 , p < 0.1) ( Figure 1). Therefore, the result confirms H1.

FIGURE 1
Study 1 result: Purchase conditions and likeliness to share NWOM on SNS

17
 3.2 Study 2: Testing the role of ad type (green ad vs non – green
ad)

Study 2 was conducted with the purpose of testing H2: the interaction effect of ad type (green

ad vs non – green ad) and purchase mistake on WOM.

Participants and procedure

536 adults from MTurk engaged in the study, a small incentive was paid to the participants.

Male= 354, Mmale age = 35, SD =10.5, Female = 182, Mfemale age = 38.9, SD = 12.6. The

experiment was 2(purchase condition: mistake vs success) x 2(Ad type: green ad vs non – green

ad) between subject design, participants were randomly assigned. As in study 1, screening

question which indicates “having prior online / digital shopping experience” was asked. If the

answer to the screening question is yes, participants proceed the survey, followed by

online/mobile channel shopping frequency questions. If the answer is “no”, the participants

were terminated.

Stimuli: Green vs non – green ads: The stimuli for both green vs non – green ads conditions

were created from the same image of a pair of jeans, fictitious brand name “E & G” was used.

In the green ad condition, the green ad was manipulated through words such as “ethical supply

chain, eco-friendly and quality fabric, slow and timeless design”, the jeans were described as

“timeless jeans” (See APPENDIX). On the other hand, in the non- green ad condition, the ad

was manipulated through words such as “efficient supply chain, affordable and quality fabric,

fast and trendy design”, the jeans were described as “trendy jeans”. All other aspects of the ad

were held constant (See APPENDIX).

18
After viewing the ads, participants responded to a manipulation check for “green ads” (“I think

E&G is a sustainable fashion brand”, 1 = completely disagree, 7 = completely agree). After

that participants read purchase mistake or successful purchase related priming paragraphs.

In the purchase mistake condition, the following priming paragraph was read by participants.

“Imagine a few days ago, you purchased a pair of jeans from a company called E&G. You

bought it from its online site. When the delivery arrived, you were so excited to unpack the

package. With full of excitement, you tried on the jeans. First of all, you learned that the jeans

are not comfortable, they are a little bit tight on your thighs. Second, they are a bit loose on

the waist area. Third, the fabric is too thick and stiff that the breathability of the jeans

is NOT what you expected. Fourth, the color is lighter that it is different from what it is

displayed on the picture on the website”.

Conversely, in the successful purchase condition, participants read the following priming

paragraph.

“Imagine a few days ago, you purchased a pair of jeans from a company called E&G. You

bought it from its online site. When the delivery arrived, you were so excited to unpack the

package. With full of excitement, you tried on the jeans. First of all, you learned that the jeans

are so comfortable, they fit well on your thighs. Second, the fitting at the waist is also perfect.

Third, the fabric is breathable and it is just what you expected. Fourth, the color is just the

same as the displayed picture on the website.”

In both conditions, participants responded to the manipulation check questions, “I consider the

above-mentioned purchase as a purchase mistake”. “I consider the above-mentioned purchase

as a successful purchase”. (1 = completely disagree, 7 = completely agree). Subsequently,

19
participants answered NWOM intent on seven Likert scale (1 = extremely unlikely, 7 =

extremely likely). For example, one of the questions being “How likely are you to post your

experience with negative comments on the community board?” (eg., Facebook) (Adopted from

Wan, 2013). Finally, participants responded questions regarding their age and gender.

Result

Manipulation check: Chi – square test analysis was conducted for manipulation check. The

result showed that all the manipulations for purchase conditions (Purchase mistake vs

successful purchase) were successful, χ2=64.83, p<.001. Moreover, manipulation for ads type

has also shown significant, χ2=12.85, p<.001.

The result of ANOVA revealed that consistent with this hypothesis 2, I obtained a significant

interaction effect of ads type and purchase condition on NWOM (F= 7.44, p < 0.01) (see Figure

2). When consumers make purchase mistake, they are more likely to share NWOM in the

presence of green ads (Mneg comment = 4.30, SD = 2.27) compared to non – green ads (Mneg comment

= 3.76, SD = 1.98, F (1,574) = 8.92, p < 0.01) (see Figure 2).

FIGURE 2
Study 2 result: Effect of ad type on purchase conditions and NWOM

20
 3.3 Study 3: Testing the role of platform type and OL
Study 3 was conducted with two objectives, such as testing H3 and H4. As the first objective,

H3 was tested, the interaction effect of platform type on purchase mistake and NWOM. As the

second objective, H4 was tested, the interaction effect of OL on purchase mistake and NWOM.

Participants and procedures

437 participants from Mturk participated in Study 3, Male= 276, Mmale age = 35.5, SD = 11,

Female = 161 , Mfemale age = 35.8 , SD = 10.5. The study was a 2(purchase condition: mistake

vs success) x 2 (Platform type: public vs private) between subject design and participants were

randomly assigned. Each participant also responded to opinion leadership scale.

As in study 1, screening question which indicates “having prior online / digital shopping

experience” was asked. If the answer to the screening question is yes, participants proceed the

survey, followed by online/mobile channel shopping frequency questions. If the answer is “no”,

the participants were terminated.

Next, participants completed three items of opinion giving, for example, “I often persuade my

contacts on the social media to buy products that I like” (1 = completely disagree, 7 =

completely agree) (Chu and Kim 2011). The scale includes 3 – item scales that composite an

opinion giving scale (  = 0. 851) . The score of each item were averaged to form composite

scores of opinions giving in which higher than the mean – centered is interpreted as opinion

leaders and participants with lower scores than the mean – centered is interpreted as underdogs.

Stimuli: Private vs public online community: Participants who were assigned in the private

online community read the following priming paragraph.

21
“Recently a friend of yours invited you to a private online fashion community group

called “Fashionistas closed group”. The membership of this group is pretty selective. You

found out that your fashion passionate friends are gathered in this group. Your friends share

their expertise on fashion products, therefore, the information from this group is relatively

reliable”.

After reading the paragraph, they were shown the screenshot of a Facebook group called

“Fashionista closed group” with description on the wallpaper of Facebook that said “share your

fashion related opinions and experiences to connect with your friends and also help others”.

(see APPENDIX)

Conversely, in the public online community condition, participants read the following priming

paragraph,

“Recently you have found out an open online fashion community group called “Fashionistas

group”. Anyone who is interested in fashion is welcomed to join this group freely. You found

out that there are a lot of fashion passionate likeminded individuals are gathered in this group.

These individuals share their expertise on fashion products, therefore, the information from

this group is relatively reliable”.

After reading the paragraph, participant viewed the screenshot of a Facebook group called

“Fashionista group” with description on the wallpaper of Facebook that said “share your

fashion related opinions and experiences to connect with likeminded individuals and also to

learn from each other”.

22
Subsequently, participants rated six manipulation check questions, for example, “This FB page

is for people who have an interest in fashion.” “I think this FB page is for me to interact with

my friends”. “I can interact over the public sphere via this FB page” (1 = completely disagree,

7 = completely agree).

The same priming paragraphs from study 2 were used for purchase mistake and successful

purchase condition, participants answered manipulation check questions such as “I consider

the above-mentioned purchase as a purchase mistake.” “I consider the above-mentioned

purchase as a successful purchase.” (1 = completely disagree, 7 = completely agree).

Subsequently, participants answered measures of NWOM intent on seven Likert scale (1 =

extremely unlikely, 7 = extremely likely). For example, one of the questions being “How likely

are you to post your experience with negative comments on the community board?” (eg.,

Facebook) (Adopted from Wan 2013). Finally, participants responded questions regarding

their age and gender.

Result

Manipulation check: Chi – square test was conducted for manipulation check. The result

showed that all the manipulations for purchase conditions (Purchase mistake vs successful

purchase) were successful, χ2=8.34, p<.01. Moreover, manipulation for platform type has also

shown significant, χ2=4.28, p<.05).

The result of ANOVA revealed that consistent with this hypothesis 3 (see Figure 3), a

significant interactive effect of platform type and purchase condition on NWOM (F = 7.82, p

< 0.01) was obtained. When consumers make purchase mistake, they are more likely to share

NWOM in private online community (Mneg comment = 5.09, SD = 1.91) compared to the public

23
online community (Mneg comment = 4.28, SD = 1.77, F (1, 487) = 23.17, p < 0.001) (see Figure

3). Therefore, H3 was supported.

The result of study 3 further indicated that opinion leaders are more active in sharing NWOM

(Mneg comment = 5.10 , SD = 1.80) after purchase mistake compared to underdogs (Mneg comment =

4.05, SD = 1.87, F(1,479)= 37.85 , p < 0.001) (see Figure 4). Moreover, a significant interaction

effect of opinion leadership and purchase condition on NWOM (F = 5.29 , p < 0.05 ) was

obtained. Therefore, H4 was supported.

FIGURE 3
Study 3 result: Effect of platform type and purchase conditions on NWOM

24
 FIGURE 4

Study 3 result: Effect of OL on purchase conditions and NWOM

25
 4. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, across three experimental research studies, the current research provides

converging evidence of the relationship between purchase mistake and WOM and their

boundary conditions such as ad types (green ads vs non – green ads), opinion leadership and

platform type (private vs public). The findings of the current research suggest that consumers

do spread NWOM after purchase mistake. Interestingly, the results of study 2 revealed that

consumers’ tendency to generate NWOM is greater when they are exposed to green ads

compared to non-green ads condition. It is also worth noting that study 3 compared NWOM

intent between opinion leaders and underdogs and found that opinion leaders tend to generate

more NWOM compared to their counterparts. Additionally, by manipulating interpersonal

closeness as private online community vs public online community, the current research tested

whether NWOM intent is driven by interpersonal closeness (eg., friends vs strangers). Study 3

provides converging evidence that after making purchase mistake, consumers tend to generate

more NWOM in private online community compared to public online community. In other

words, consumers share more NWOM with friends. In sum, these results suggest that people

do share NWOM after purchase mistake. However, the intensity and volume of NWOM differs

depending on the various boundary conditions.

Moreover, the current research also discusses the theoretical implications and practical

implications, additionally, it also identifies the avenues for future research. The current

research has important contribution to several streams of literatures. First, in terms of WOM

research, by suggesting that consumers’ purchase mistake lead to negative WOM, the results

of the current research expand past word of mouth research (Chen and Lurie 2013; Hamilton,

Vohs, and McGill 2014; Richins 1983). Most importantly, the author argues that the

26
relationship between purchase mistake and NWOM appear due to consumers’ attribution. By

demonstrating this nuanced role of consumers’ attribution, this research contributes to the

research field that examines consumer attribution (e.g., Folkes 1984; Mohr and Bitner 1995).

Second, the findings of current research contribute to the emerging trend of research that

explores purchase mistake and online review (Reich and Maglio 2020). Third, by highlighting

the role of green ad intensifies the relationship between purchase mistake and NWOM, the

current research add value to the perceived green washing literature (Nyilasy et al. 2014).

Fourth, the current research also add value to interpersonal closeness literature.

In terms of managerial contributions, first, the current research gives insight to managers that

when consumers make purchase mistake, there is tendency to write negative review. When

encountering negative review, firms need to decide whether to win back the customers or to

protect the firm’s reputation or do both. Recent work on service recovery suggests that firms

need to implement careful strategy to win back customers: eg., after service failure, when

interacting with consumers, instead of apologizing for the service providers’ fault, emphasizing

appreciation towards buyers’ merits and contributions is likely to raise post recovery

satisfaction (You, Yang, Wang and Deng 2020). On the other hand, recent study by

Surachartkumtonkun, Grace and Ross (2020) argues that firms can consider utilizing defensive

or accommodative response strategy depending on the fairness of the review.

Second, based on the current findings, despite the prevalence of green advertising in the

marketplace, green ads seem to come with a tradeoff: green ads promote the CSR image of the

firms; however, they also seem to carry risk of consumers’ negative attribution in the case of

purchase mistake. Thus, the findings of current research confirm that managers who are

promoting green advertising should be mindful about consumer attributions (Nyilasy et al.

27
2014). Therefore, careful consideration is required whether to advertise the product as green or

not as the result of the current research confirms the notion that firms with green claims often

face closer investigation by the consumers (Easterling et al. 1996). Third, opinion leaders tend

to generate more negative WOM to attribute the consequence of the mistake to the company

or product so that they can hide their failure and instead remain experts. Thus, marketers should

consider how to help opinion leaders, eg., monitoring the digital shopping process, provide

them with more accurate information to prevent potential purchase mistake in advance.

However, the current research is not without limitations. Firstly, as the current study was

conducted through online experiment, it may not perfectly capture the result compared to the

field study conducted in real – world consumption behavior or in a more controlled laboratory

environment. Secondly, even though the recent research has defined the term purchase mistake

(Reich and Maglio 2020), the term can be rather confused with “disappointment”, therefore,

there is a need for clearer definition of purchase mistake. Thirdly, the current research

addresses the scenarios of sharing WOM after purchase mistake, however, there is also

possibility that consumers do not engage in any kind of WOM activities after purchase mistake.

Fourthly, for the test of main effect in study 1, the current research utilizes between subject

design for purchase mistake and successful purchase conditions, therefore, there might be

possibilities of bias in participants’ answer of NWOM intent due to not being able to access to

successful purchase condition, instead, within subject design will allow participants access to

the both purchase mistake and successful purchase scenario, therefore, there might be

possibility of differences in participants’ answer of NWOM intent. Finally, regarding the role

of opinion leadership in study 3, some might argue that due to the characteristics of opinion

leadership being active in sharing opinions, regardless of the purchase condition (purchase

28
mistake vs successful purchase), they will generate word of mouth, therefore, the result is too

obvious.

In terms of future research direction, firstly, future study should explore the purchase mistake

and eWOM in noisy real world condition by collecting data from the real reviews from the

websites. Moreover, it is worth noting that admitting mistake may be culturally dependent,

cross‐cultural research is necessary to investigate whether culture values have effect on

purchase mistake and NWOM. Due to the influence of Confucian values, in collective society

such as China, individuals are worried about their public image, social performance, and the

assessment of others (Hwang 1987). Therefore, secondly, future study could explore other

moderator such as the role of “mianzi”, face consciousness, in purchase mistake in the Asian

culture context. Thirdly, future research may also want to examine the role of product type

(hedonic vs utilitarian product) in the context of purchase mistake. Finally, importantly, future

research needs to examine the strategy to lessen consumers’ attribution that comes with green

ads.

29
 5. REFERENCES
Aaker, J. L., & Lee, A. Y. (2001). “I” seek pleasures and “we” avoid pains: The role of self-
regulatory goals in information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer
Research, 28(1), 33-49.
Ainsworth, M.D. S. (1989), “Attachments Beyond Infancy,” American Psychologist, 44 (4),
709–16.
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal
relationships. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Allen, P. W. (2000). Assessing the usefulness of an opinion leadership scale to the diffusion
of new accounting services. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 21(2), 149-
149.
Andreassen, Tor W. and Sandra Streukens (2009), “Service Innovation and Electronic Word-
of-Mouth: Is it Worth Listening To?,” Managing Service Quality, 19, 3, 249–65.
Angelis, Matteo De, Andrea Bonezzi, Alessandro M. Peluso, Derek D. Rucker,
and Michele Costabile (2011), “On Braggarts and Gossips: A Self- Enhancement
Account of Word-of-Mouth Generation and Transmission,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 49, 4, 1–13.
Argo, J. J., White, K., & Dahl, D. W. (2006). Social comparison theory and deception in the
interpersonal exchange of consumption information. Journal of Consumer
Research, 33(1), 99-108.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other
in the self. Journal of personality and social psychology, 60(2), 241.
Assael, H. (1992). Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action, 4th edn, Kent Publishing
Company, Boston, MA.
Bailey, A.A. (2005), “Consumer awareness and use of product review websites”, Journal of
Interactive Advertising, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 90-108.
Balter, D. (2008). The word of mouth manual. Boston: BZZ Pubs.
Banerjee, S., Gulas, C. S., & Iyer, E. (1995). Shades of green: A multidimensional analysis of
environmental advertising. Journal of Advertising, 24(2), 21–31.
Baumgarten, S. A. (1975). The innovative communicator in the diffusion process. Journal
of Marketing Research, 12–18.
Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The self. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.). The
Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 680–740). New York: Oxford University Press.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological bulletin, 117(3), 497.
Basuroy, Suman, Subimal Chatterjee, and S. Abraham Ravid (2003), “How Critical Are
Critical Reviews? The Box Office Effects of Film Critics, Star Power, and Budgets,”
Journal of Marketing, 67 (4), 103–17.
Batson, C. D., Chang, J., Orr, R., & Rowland, J. (2002). Empathy, attitudes, and action: Can
feeling for a member of a stigmatized group motivate one to help the
group? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(12), 1656-1666.
Berger, J. (2014). Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: A review and directions
for future research. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(4), 586–607.
Berkman, H. and Gilson, C. (1986) Consumer Behavior: Concepts and Strategies, Kent
Publishing Co., Boston, MA.
Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2012). What makes online content viral?. Journal of marketing
research, 49(2), 192-205.
Blazevic, Vera, Wafa Hammedi, Ina Garnefeld, Roland T. Rust, Timothy Keiningham, Tor
W. Andreassen, Naveen Donthu, and Walter Carl (2013), “Beyond Traditional Word-

30
 of-Mouth: An Expanded Model of Customer Influence,” Journal of Service
Management, 24, 3, 294–313.
Brown, J. D., Collins, R. L., & Schmidt, G. W. (1988). Self-esteem and direct versus indirect
forms of self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(3), 445.
Bloch, P. H. (1986). The product enthusiast: implications for marketing strategy. Journal of
Consumer Marketing.
Bloch, P. H., & Bruce, G. D. (1984). Product involvement as leisure behaviour. Advances in
Consumer Research, 11, 197–202.
Bloch, P. H., & Richins, M. L. (1983). A theoretical model for the study of product
importance perceptions. Journal of marketing, 47(3), 69-81.
Brown, S. P., & Beltramini, R. F. (1989). Consumer complaining and word of mouth
activities: field evidence. ACR North American Advances.
Bilgihan, A., Peng, C., & Kandampully, J. (2014). Generation Y's dining information seeking
and sharing behavior on social networking sites. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management.
Blaine, B., & Crocker, J. (1993). Self-esteem and self-serving biases in reactions to positive
and negative events: An integrative review. In Self-esteem (pp. 55-85). Springer,
Boston, MA.
Chan, K. K., & Misra, S. (1990). Characteristics of the opinion leader: A new dimension.
Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 53–60.
Chen, Z., & Lurie, N. H. (2013), “Temporal Contiguity and Negativity Bias in the Impact of
Online Word of Mouth,” Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (4), 463–76.
Chen, Z., & Berger, J. (2013). When, why, and how controversy causes conversation. Journal
of Consumer Research, 40(3), 580-593.
Chen, Z. (2017). Social acceptance and word of mouth: How the motive to belong leads to
divergent WOM with strangers and friends. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(3),
613-632.
Cheung, Mae Yee, Chuan Luo, Choon Ling Sia, and Huaping Chen (2009), “Credibility of
Electronic Word-of-Mouth: Informational and Normative Determinants of Online
Consumer Recommendations,” International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 13, 4,
9–38.
Cheema, A., & Kaikati, A. M. (2010). The effect of need for uniqueness on word of
mouth. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(3), 553-563.
Chu, S. C., Chen, H. T., & Gan, C. (2020). Consumers’ engagement with corporate social
responsibility (CSR) communication in social media: Evidence from China and the
United States. Journal of Business Research, 110, 260-271.
Chevalier, J. A., & Mayzlin, D. (2006). The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book
reviews. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3), 345-354.
Clark, M. S., & Mils, J. (1993). The difference between communal and exchange
relationships: What it is and is not. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(6),
684-691.
Clark, M. S., Fitness, J., & Brissette, I. (2001). Understanding people’s perceptions of
relationships is crucial to understanding their emotional lives. Blackwell handbook of
social psychology: Interpersonal processes, 2, 253-278.
Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. L. (2000). The relational-interdependent self-
construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 791.
Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. ( 1997), “Models of the self: Self – construals and gender”,
Psychological Bulletin, 122 (1), 5 – 37.

31
Dellarocas, C., & Narayan, R. (2007). Tall heads vs. long tails: Do consumer reviews
increase the informational inequality between hit and niche products?. Robert H.
Smith School of Business Research Paper, (06-056).
De Angelis, M., Bonezzi, A., Peluso, A. M., Rucker, D. D., & Costabile, M. (2012). On
braggarts and gossips: A self-enhancement account of word-of-mouth generation and
transmission. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(4), 551-563.
Dibble, J. L., Levine, T. R., & Park, H. S. (2012). The Unidimensional Relationship
Closeness Scale (URCS): Reliability and validity evidence for a new measure of
relationship closeness. Psychological Assessment, 24(3), 565.
Dichter, E. (1966). How word-of-mouth advertising works. Harvard Business Review, 44(6),
147–166.
Dhar, Vasant and Elaine A. Chang (2009), “Does Chatter Matter? The Impact of User-
Generated Content on Music Sales,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23, 4, 300–7.
Dubois, D., Bonezzi, A., & De Angelis, M. (2016). Sharing with friends versus strangers:
How interpersonal closeness influences word-of-mouth valence. Journal of Marketing
Research, 53(5), 712-727.
Dunbar, Robin I. M. (1996). Grooming, gossip, and the evolution of language. Harvard
University Press.
Dwyer, Paul (2007), “Measuring the Value of Electronic Word of Mouth and its
Impact in Consumer Communities,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21, 2, 63–79.
Dye, Renée (2000), "The Buzz on Buzz," Harvard Business Review, (November/December),
139.
Easterling, D., Kenworthy, A., & Nemzoff, R. (1996). The greening of advertising: A twenty-
five year look at environmental advertising. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice,
4(1), 20–33.
Eastman, J. K., Iyer, R., Liao-Troth, S., Williams, D. F., & Griffin, M. (2014). The role of
involvement on millennials' mobile technology behaviors: The moderating impact of
status consumption, innovation, and opinion leadership. Journal of Marketing Theory
and Practice, 22(4), 455-470.
Feick, L. F., & Price, L. L. (1987). The market maven: A diffuser of marketplace
information. Journal of marketing, 51(1), 83-97.
Fiske, A. P. (2002), “Using Individualism and Collectivism to Compare Cultures — A
Critique of the Validity and Measurement of the Constructs: Comment on Oyserman
et al. (2002),” Psychological Bulletin, 128, 1, 78–88.
Fritz, H. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations.
Folkes, V., & Kotsos, B. (1986). Buyers’ and sellers’ explanations for product failure: Who
done it? Journal of Marketing, 50(2), 74–80.
Folkes, V. S. (1984). Consumer reactions to product failure: An attributional
approach. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(4), 398-409.
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with
persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1-31.
Fornell, C., & Westbrook, R. A. (1984). The vicious circle of consumer complaints. Journal
of Marketing, 48(3), 68-78.
Folkes, V. S. (1982). Communicating the reasons for social rejection. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 18(3), 235-252.
Folkes, V. S., Koletsky, S., & Graham, J. L. (1987). A field study of causal inferences and
consumer reaction: the view from the airport. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4),
534-539.

32
Flynn, L. R., Goldsmith, R. E., & Eastman, J. K. (1996). Opinion leaders and opinion
seekers: Two new measurement scales. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 24(2), 137.
Gino, F., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). Vicarious dishonesty: When psychological closeness
creates distance from one’s moral compass. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 119(1), 15-26.
Godes, D., & Mayzlin, D. (2004). Using online conversations to study word-of-mouth
communication. Marketing Science, 23(4), 545-560.
Godes, D., & Mayzlin, D. (2009). Firm-created word-of-mouth communication: Evidence
from a field test. Marketing Science, 28(4), 721-739.
Gruen, Thomas W., Talai Osmonbekov, and Andrew J. Czaplewski (2006), “EWOM: The
Impact of Customer-to-Customer Online Know-how Exchange on Customer Value
and Loyalty,” Journal of Business Research, 59, 4, 449–56.
Gnambs, T., & Batinic, B. (2011). Evaluation of measurement precision with Rasch-type
models: The case of the short-generalized opinion leadership scale. Personality and
Individual Differences, 50(1), 53–58.
Goldsmith, Ronald E., Flynn, Leisa R., & Goldsmith, Elizabeth B. (2003). Innovative
Consumers and Market Mavens. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
11(4),54–64.
Goldsmith, R. E., & Clark, R. A. (2008). An analysis of factors affecting fashion opinion
leadership and fashion opinion seeking. Journal of Fashion Marketing and
management: an international journal.
Grewal, R., Mehta, R., & Kardes, F. R. (2000). The role of the social-identity function of
attitudes in consumer innovativeness and opinion leadership. Journal of Economic
Psychology, 21(3), 233-252.
Hamilton, R., Vohs, K. D., & McGill, A. L. (2014). We'll be honest, this won't be the best
article you'll ever read: The use of dispreferred markers in word-of-mouth
communication. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 197-212.
Hazeldine, M. F., & Miles, M. P. (2010). An exploratory role analysis of opinion leaders,
adopters, and communicative adopters with a dynamically continuous
innovation. Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR), 26(4).
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004). Electronic word-of-
mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate
themselves on the internet?. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1), 38-52.
Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten and Gianfranco Walsh (2003), “Electronic Word-of- Mouth:
Motives for and Consequences of Reading Customer Articulations on the Internet,”
International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8, 2, 51–74.
Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal need
for positive self-regard?. Psychological Review, 106(4), 766.
Hoffman, Donna L. and Thomas P. Novak (1996), “Marketing in Hypermedia Computer-
mediated Environments: Conceptual Foundations,” Journal of Marketing, 60, 3, 50–
69.
Ho, Jason Y.C. and Melanie Dempsey (2010), “Viral Marketing: Motivations to Forward
Online Content,” Journal of Business Research, 63, 9/10, 1000–6.
Huang, Chien-Chih, Tung-Ching Lin, and Kuei-Ju Lin (2009), “Factors Affecting Pass-
Along Email Intentions (PAEIs): Integrating the Social Capital and Social Cognition
Theories,” Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 8, 3, 160–9.
Hwang, K. K. (1987). Face and favor: The Chinese power game. American Journal of
Sociology, 92(4), 944-974.

33
Iyengar, R., Van den Bulte, C., & Valente, T. W. (2011). Opinion leadership and social
contagion in new product diffusion. Marketing Science, 30(2), 195-212.
Jacoby, J., & Hoyer, W. D. (1981). What if opinion leaders didn't know more? A question of
nomological validity. ACR North American Advances.
Jamrozy, U., Backman, S. J., & Backman, K. F. (1996). Involvement and opinion leadership
in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(4), 908-924.
Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P.F. (1955), Personal Influence; the Part Played by People in the
Flow of Mass Communications, Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Kelley, Harold H., Ellen Berscheid, Andrew Christensen, John H. Harvey, Ted L. Huston,
George Levinger, et al. (1983), “Analyzing Close Relationships” in Close
Relationships, ed. Kelley, Harold H., Ellen Berscheid, Andrew Christensen, John H.
Harvey, Ted L. Huston, George Levinger, et al., San Francisco: Freeman, 20–67.
Kelley, H., & Michela, J. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of
Psychology, 31, 457– 501.
King, R. A., Racherla, P., & 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, 28(3), 167-183.
Krishnan, S., & Valle, V. A. (1979). Dissatisfaction attributions and consumer complaint
behavior. ACR North American Advances.
Kozinets, Robert V, Kristing De Valck, Andrea C. Wojnicki, and Sarah J.S. Wilner (2010),
“Networked Narratives: Understanding Word-of-Mouth Marketing in Online
Communities,” Journal of Marketing, 74, 2, 71–89.
Levinger, G. (1983), “Development and Change,” in Close Relationships, ed. Harold H.
Kelley, Ellen Berscheid, Andrew Christensen, John H. Harvey, Ted L. Huston, George
Levinger et al., New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Lee, Mira and Seounmi Youn (2009), “Electronic Word of Mouth (eWOM),”
International Journal of Advertising, 28, 3, 473–99.
Lyons, B., & Henderson, K. (2005). Opinion leadership in a computer‐ mediated
environment. Journal of Consumer Behaviour: An International Research
Review, 4(5), 319-329.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224.
Marsden, P. V., & Campbell, K. E. (1984). Measuring tie strength. Social forces, 63(2), 482-
501.
Mizerski, R. W., Golden, L. L., & Kernan, J. B. (1979). The attribution process in consumer
decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(2), 123–140.
Mizerski, R. W. (1982). An attribution explanation of the disproportionate influence of
unfavorable information. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 301-310.
Mohr, L. A., & Bitner, M. J. (1995). The role of employee effort in satisfaction with service
transactions. Journal of Business Research, 32(3), 239-252.
Myers, J.H., & Robertson, T.S. (1972), “Dimensions of opinion leadership”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 41-46.
Nyilasy, G., Gangadharbatla, H., & Paladino, A. (2014). Perceived greenwashing: The
interactive effects of green advertising and corporate environmental performance on
consumer reactions. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(4), 693-707.
O’Brien, J., & Hosany, S. (2016). Companies Wrestle with New Era of Negative Online
Reviews and Spiky Consumers. theconversation. com/companies-wrestlewith-new-
era-of-negative-online-reviews-and-spikyconsumers-64083.
Okazaki, S. 2009. Social influence model and electronic word of mouth: PC versus mobile
Internet. International Journal of Advertising 28, no. 3: 439–72.

34
Packard, G., & Wooten, D. B. (2013). Compensatory knowledge signaling in consumer word-
of-mouth. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(4), 434-450.
Picazo-Vela, S., Chou, S. Y., Melcher, A. J., & Pearson, J. M. (2010). Why provide an online
review? An extended theory of planned behavior and the role of Big-Five personality
traits. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 685-696.
Price, L. L., Feick, L. F., & Guskey, A. (1995). Everyday market helping behavior. Journal
of Public Policy and Marketing, 14(2), 255–266.
PwC (2016), “Global Total Retail Survey,” (February), https://www. pwc.com/gx/en/retail-
consumer/publications/assets/total-retail-glo bal-report.pdf.
Reich, T., Kupor, D. M., & Smith, R. K. (2017). Made by mistake: When mistakes increase
product preference. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(5), 1085-1103.
Reich, T., & Maglio, S. J. (2020). Featuring mistakes: The persuasive impact of purchase
mistakes in online reviews. Journal of Marketing, 84(1), 52-65.
Reynolds, F. D., & Darden, W. R. (1971). Mutually adaptive effects of interpersonal
communication. Journal of Marketing Research, 8(4), 449-454.
Richins, M. L. (1983). Negative word-of-mouth by dissatisfied consumers: A pilot
study. Journal of Marketing, 47(1), 68-78.
Rimé, B., Finkenauer, C., Luminet, O., Zech, E., & Philippot, P. (1998). Social sharing of
emotion: New evidence and new questions. European Review of Social
Psychology, 9(1), 145-189.
Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.
Sedikides, C. (1993). Assessment, enhancement, and verification determinants of the self-
evaluation process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 317.
Sen, S., & Lerman, D. (2007). Why are you telling me this? An examination into negative
consumer reviews on the web. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21(4), 76-94.
Sun, T., Youn, S., Wu, G., & Kuntaraporn, M. (2006). Online word-of-mouth (or mouse): An
exploration of its antecedents and consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 11(4), 1104-1127.
Summers, J.O. (1970), “The identity of women’s clothing fashion opinion leaders”, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 178-185.
Sundaram, D. S., Mitra, K., & Webster, C. (1998). Word-of-mouth communications: A
motivational analysis. ACR North American Advances.
Surachartkumtonkun, J. N., Grace, D., & Ross, M. (2020). Unfair customer reviews: Third-
party perceptions and managerial responses. Journal of Business Research.
Trusov, M., Bucklin, R. E., & Pauwels, K. (2009). Effects of word-of-mouth versus
traditional marketing: findings from an internet social networking site. Journal of
Marketing, 73(5), 90-102.
Thorson, Kjerstin S. and Shelly Rodgers (2006), “Relationships between Blogs as eWOM
and Interactivity, Perceived Interactivity, and Parasocial Interaction,” Journal of
Interactive Advertising, 6, 2, 39–50.
Tirunillai, Seshadri and Gerard J. Tellis (2012), “Does Chatter Really Matter? Dynamics of
User-Generated Content and Stock Performance,” Marketing Science, 31, 2, 198–215.
Trusov, Michael, Randolph E. Bucklin, and Koen Pauwels (2009), “Effects of Word-of-
Mouth Versus Traditional Marketing: Findings from an Internet Social Networking
Site,” Journal of Marketing, 73, 5, 90–102.
Valle, Valerie A. and Melanie Wallendorf (1977), "Consumers' Attributions of the Cause of
their Product Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction," Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction
and Complaining Behavior, ed. Ralph L. Day, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University
School of Business.

35
Venkatraman, M.P. (1989), “Opinion leaders, adopters, and communicative adopters: a role
analysis”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 51-68.
Wan, L. C. (2013). Culture's impact on consumer complaining responses to embarrassing
service failure. Journal of Business Research, 66(3), 298-305.
Watts, D.J., & P.S. Dodds., (2007). Influentials, networks, and public opinion formation.
Journal of Consumer Research, 34, no. 4: 441–58.
Weiner, B. (2000). Attributional thoughts about consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer
Research, 27(3), 382-387.
Weiner, B. (1980). Human motivation. New York7 Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer.
Wetzer, I. M., Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2007). Consequences of socially sharing
emotions: testing the emotion‐response congruency hypothesis. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 37(6), 1310-1324.
Westbrook, R. A. (1987). Product/consumption-based affective responses and post purchase
processes. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3), 258-270.
Wojnicki, A. C., & Godes, D. (2013), “Signaling Success: Strategically-Positive Word of
Mouth,” working paper, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, 105 St
George Street, Toronto, ON M5S 3E6, Canada.
Wojnicki, A. C., & Godes, D. (2017). Signaling success: Word of mouth as self
enhancement. Customer Needs and Solutions, 4(4), 68-82.
Wojnicki, A. C., & Godes, D. (2008). Word-of-mouth as self-enhancement. HBS Marketing
Research Paper, (06-01).
Wohlfeil, M., & Whelan, S. (2006). Consumer motivations to participate in event marketing
strategies. Journal of Marketing Management, 22(5–6), 643–669.
Zhang, X., & Dong, D. (2008). Ways of identifying the opinion leaders in virtual
communities. International Journal of Business and Management, 3(7), 21-27.
Zhang, Y., Feick, L., & Mittal, V. (2014). How males and females differ in their likelihood of
transmitting negative word of mouth. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(6), 1097-
1108.

36
 APPENDIX

Stimuli

Stimuli for Study 2: Green ad message Stimuli for Study 2: Non – green ad
message

Stimuli for Study 3: Public online community

(Fashionista group)

37
Stimuli for Study 3: Private online community
(Fashionista closed group)

Stimuli for Study 3: E & G jeans

38