Keywords
recipient characteristics
fresh agricultural products
product attitude
product involvement
How to Cite
Abstract
Purpose – Word-of-mouth (WOM) valence refers to the favorable impact of positive WOM on marketing outcomes. However, studies have shown that negative WOM can have a greater influence. Therefore, this study aims to explore the impact of negative online WOM (OWOM) on marketing.
Theoretical framework – Drawing from the perspectives of psychology and communication, and using the sender-message-channel-receiver (SMCR) communication process theory, we construct a moderated mediation model to explore the mechanism and threshold of WOM recipients’ product involvement in reversing the impact of WOM valence on product attitude.
Design/methodology/approach – SPSS 22.0 and SmartPLS 3.0 were used to empirically analyze the survey data from a sample of 1,107 consumers.
Findings – Our study reveals a nonlinear relationship between negative OWOM recipients’ product involvement and consumer product attitude, mediated by risk perception and moderated by sender characteristics and WOM characteristics. The relationship shows a U-shaped curve between product involvement and product attitude, and an inverted U shaped curve between product involvement and risk perception. Risk perception mediates the relationship between product involvement and product attitude, which varies with the strength of the senderrecipient relationship and the amount of negative WOM. Sender professionalism moderates both the U-shaped and the inverted U-shaped curves.
Practical & social implications of research – From a practical standpoint, our findings have implications for the management of OWOM marketing for fresh agricultural products.
Originality/value – Our study provides a more nuanced understanding of the impact of negative WOM on consumer attitudes, challenging the one-sided focus on strengthening positive WOM valence in the context of the Internet.
Keywords: Negative online word-of-mouth, recipient characteristics, fresh agricultural products, product attitude, product involvement.
References
Al-Ansi, A., Olya, H. G. T., & Han, H. (2019). Effect of general risk on trust, satisfaction, and recommendation intention for halal food. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 83, 210-219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.10.017.
Azemi, Y., Ozuem, V., & Howell, K. E. (2020). The effects of online negative word-of-mouth on dissatisfied customers: A frustration-aggression perspective. Psychology and Marketing, 37(4), 564-577. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.21326.
Bansal, H. S., & Voyer, P. A. (2000). Word-of-mouth processes within a services purchase decision context. Journal of Service Research, 3(2), 166-177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109467050032005
Bronfman, N. C., & Vázquez, E. L. (2011). A cross-cultural study of perceived benefit versus risk as mediators in the trust-acceptance relationship: Perceived benefit versus risk as mediators in the trust-acceptance relationship. Risk Analysis, 31(12), 1919-1934. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01637.x. PMid:21605152.
Brown, J. J., & Reingen, P. H. (1987). Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior. The Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/209118.
Casaló, L. V., Flavián, C., & Ibáñez-Sánchez, S. (2020). Influencers on instagram: Antecedents and consequences of opinion leadership. Journal of Business Research, 117, 510-519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.005.
Chen, F., Liu, S. Q., & Mattila, A. S. (2020). Bragging and humblebragging in online reviews. Annals of Tourism Research, 80, 102849. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.102849.
Choi, Y. K., Seo, Y., Wagner, U., & Yoon, S. (2020). Matching luxury brand appeals with attitude functions on social media across cultures. Journal of Business Research, 117, 520-528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.003.
Coppola, N. W., Hiltz, S. R., & Rotter, N. G. (2004). Building trust in virtual teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 47(2), 95-104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2004.828203.
Dholakia, U. M. (2001). A motivational process model of product involvement and consumer risk perception. European Journal of Marketing, 35(11-12), 1340-1362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006479.
Du, R. Y., Joo, M., & Wilbur, K. C. (2019). Advertising and brand attitudes: Evidence from 575 brands over five years. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 17(3), 257-323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11129-018-9204-6.
Duarte, P., Teixeira, M., & Costa e Silva, S. (2021). Healthy eating as a trend: Consumers’ perceptions
towards products with nutrition and health claims. RevistaBrasileira de Gestão de Negócios, 23(3), 405-421. http://dx.doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v23i3.4113.
Earle, T. C. (2010). Trust in risk management: A model-based review of empirical research. Risk Analysis, 30(4), 541-574. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01398.x. PMid:20522197.
Featherman, M. S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Predicting e-services adoption: A perceived risk facets perspective. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(4), 451-474. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00111-3.
Garepasha, A., & Aali, S. (2020). Dynamics of online relationship marketing: Relationship quality and customer loyalty in Iranian banks. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, 22(1), 140-162. http://dx.doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v22i1.4043.
Gervais, S., Heaton, J. B., & Odean, T. (2011). Overconfidence, compensation contracts, and capital
budgeting. The Journal of Finance, 66(5), 1735-1777. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2011.01686.x.
Gil, R., Korkmaz, E., & Sahin, O. (2020). Can freeshipping hurt online retailers? Quantitative Marketing and
Economics, 18(3), 305-342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11129-020-09225-8.
Gill, H., Boies, K., Finegan, J. E., & McNally, J. (2005). Antecedents of trust: Establishing a boundary condition for the relation between propensity to trust and intention to trust. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19(3), 287-302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-004-2229-8.
Gilly, M. C., Graham, J. L., Wolfinbarger, M. F., & Yale, L. J. (1998). A dyadic study of interpersonal information search. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26(2), 83-100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0092070398262001.
Gong, S., Li, Q., Zhao, P., & Ren, Z. W. (2018). Marketing communication in the digital age: Internet advertising, Internet word-of-mouth and mobile game sales. Nankai Business Review, 2, 28-42.
Han, J., Wang, D., & Yang, Z. (2021). A Study on the influence mechanism of forced participation on
consumers’ negative word-of-mouth. Journal of Business Research, 6, 1-8.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
Hu, Z., & Zhang, L. (2021). Brand image, product involvement and customer loyalty of e-commerce platform. Journal of Commercial Economics, 10, 87-90.
Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 569-598. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.569. PMid:15012464.
Le Bon, G. (1908). The crowd: A study of the popular mind. London: T. Fisher Unwin. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10878-000.
Lee, J., Park, D.-H., & Han, I. (2008). The effect of negative online consumer reviews on product attitude:
An information processing view. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 7(3), 341-352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2007.05.004.
Lee, Y. L., & Song, S. (2010). An empirical investigation of electronic word-of-mouth: Informational motive
and corporate response strategy. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 1073-1080. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.009.
Liu, Y. (2006). Word of mouth for movies: Its dynamics and impact on box office revenue. Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 74-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.70.3.074.
Liu, L. L., Lee, M. K. O., Liu, R. J., & Chen, J. (2018). Trust transfer in social media brand communities: The
role of consumer engagement. International Journal of Information Management, 41, 1-13. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.02.006.
Liu, Y., Su, X., Du, X., & Cui, F. (2019). How social support motivates trust and purchase intentions in
mobile social commerce. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, 21(4), 839-860. http://dx.doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v21i5.4025.
Lovett, M. J., Peres, R., & Xu, L. (2019). Can your advertising really buy earned impressions? The effect of brand advertising on word of mouth. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 17(3), 215-255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11129-019-09211-9.
McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (1998). Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 473-490. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/259290.
Mehrolia, S., Alagarsamy, S., & Solaikutty, V. M. (2021). Customers response to online food delivery services during COVID‐19 outbreak using binary logistic regression. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(3), 396-408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12630. PMid:33362434.
Mitchell, V. W., Yamin, M., & Pichene, B. (1997). Across-cultural analysis of perceived risk in British and French CD purchasing. Journal of Euromarketing, 6(1), 5-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J037v06n01_02.
Packard, G., Gershoff, A. D., & Wooten, D. B. (2016). When boastful word of mouth helps versus hurts social perceptions and persuasion. The Journal of Consumer Research, 43(1), 26-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw009.
Ren, Q. (2010). An empirical study on the influence of online word-of-mouth on consumer purchase decision [Unpublished master dissertation]. Zhejiang Normal University.
Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20(5), 713-719. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.205064. PMid:11110217.
Smith, E. K., & Mayer, A. (2018). A social trap for the climate? Collective action, trust and climate change
risk perception in 35 countries. Global Environmental Change, 49, 140-153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.02.014.
Song, Y., & Wang, X. (2011). Analysis of the influence of negative word-of-mouth on purchase intention:
Based on the comparison of traditional word-of-mouth and Internet word-of-mouth. Research on Financial and Economic Issues, 12, 22-27.
Tu, H., & Luo, P. (2017). The influence of consumer anger on travel intention and negative word-of-mouth: An empirical study based on the unethical events in the destination. Tourism Science, 2, 42-54.
Tuu, H. H., & Olsen, S. O. (2009). Food risk and knowledge in the satisfaction‐repurchase loyalty relationship. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 21(4), 521-536. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13555850910997571.
Vainio, A., Paloniemi, R., & Varho, V. (2017). Weighing the risks of nuclear energy and climate change: Trust
in different information sources, perceived risks, and willingness to pay for alternatives to nuclear power. Risk Analysis, 37(3), 557-569. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/risa.12640. PMid:27350103.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1986). Conceptualizing involvement.
Journal of Advertising, 15(2), 4-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1986.10672999.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality.
Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224299606000203.
If a paper is approved for publication, its copyright has to be transferred by the author(s) to the Review of Business Management – RBGN.
Accordingly, authors are REQUIRED to send RBGN a duly completed and signed Copyright Transfer Form. Please refer to the following template: [Copyright Transfer]
The conditions set out by the Copyright Transfer Form state that the Review of Business Management – RBGN owns, free of charge and permanently, the copyright of the papers it publishes. Although the authors are required to sign the Copyright Transfer Form, RBGN allows authors to hold and use their own copyright without restrictions.
The texts published by RBGN are the sole responsibility of their authors.
The review has adopted the CC-BY Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 allowing redistribution and reuse of papers on condition that the authorship is properly credited.