publication . Preprint . 2013

Paradoxical Relationship between the Amount of Negative eWOM Messages and Positive Consumer Attitude

Mai Kikumori; Akinori Ono;
Open Access
  • Published: 01 Feb 2013
Most research has shown that positive electric word-of-mouth (e-WOM) has positive effects, while negative e-WOM has negative effects on consumer attitude towards a product. However, negative e-WOM may have positive impacts rather than negative impacts. Using ANOVA in three experiments, this study found that negative e-WOM can have a positive impact on consumer attitude under some conditions, including when the e-WOM is in regard to hedonic products, when expert consumers read attribute-centric reviews, and/or when there is negative e-WOM at the top of the website than at the bottom.
Related Organizations

Adaval, Rashmi (2001), “Sometimes It Just Feels Right: The Differential Weighting of Affect-Consistent and Affect-Inconsistent Product Information,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (6), 1-17. [OpenAIRE]

Ahluwalia, Rohini and Baba Shiv (1997), “The Effects of Negative Information in the Political and Marketing Arenas: Exceptions to the Negativity Effect,” Advances in Consumer Research, 24 (1), 222.

Arndt, Johan (1967), “Role of Product-Related Conversations in the Diffusion of a New Product,” Journal of Marketing Research, 4 (3), 291-295.

Bickart, Barbara and Rovert M. Schindler (2001), “Internet Forums as Influential Sources of Consumer Information,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15 (3), 31-52.

Broadbent, Donald, Robyn Vines, and Margaret Broad bent (1978), “Recency Effects in Memory, as a Function of Modality of Intervening Events,” Psychological Research, 40 (1), 5-13.

Cheung, Christy M. K., Matthew K. O. Lee, and Neil Rabjohn (2008), “The Impact of Electronic Word-of-Mouth: The Adoption of Online Opinions in Online Customer Communities,” Internet Research, 18 (3), 229-247.

Doh, Sun-Jae M. S. and Jang-Sun Hwang (2009), “How Consumers Evaluate eWOM (Electronic Word-of-Mouth) Messages,” Cyber Psychology and Behavior, 12 (2), 193-197.

Any information missing or wrong?Report an Issue