Word of Mouth and Fundamental Attribution Error: External Influencing Factors
and a Research Agenda
Dan Liu, Adrian Payne, University of New South Wales
Abstract
Prior research on Word of Mouth (WOM) focuses mainly on the internal causes relating to its
generation and effectiveness, whilst external factors have received rather less attention. Much
of this research may not take into account ‘Fundamental Attribution Error’ (Ross, 1977). This
paper explores a series of situational factors that have not been fully studied. Antecedent
states, competitive situation and social ties are proposed as areas where the generation of
WOM needs to be considered. In terms of the effectiveness of WOM, source consensus,
brand name strength and timing are worthy of further investigation. Future research and
managerial implications are discussed.
Introduction
Word of Mouth (hereafter ‘WOM’) is the interpersonal communication or exchange of any
information about a target object (e.g., a product/company/brand) from one individual to
another (Brown et al., 2005). As a highly credible and vivid means of persuasion (Murray,
1991; Silverman, 2001), WOM is much more effective than impersonal communication
sources on customers’ product adoptions and brand choices (Bone, 1995; Herr et al., 1991).
For organizations, customers acquired from WOM contribute twice as much long-term value
compared to marketing-induced customers (Villanueva et al., 2008).
Research has largely attributed this communication behaviour to the internal qualities or
needs of the involved person (WOM senders and receivers). This is generally based on an
early psychological explanation of WOM, that people only speak, in this context, for a
specific reason: be it self confirmation, excitement and disappointment release, or concern for
others (Dichter, 1966). Consequently, enduring involvement, altruism, risk perception, or
arousal due to the satisfactory performance and complaint handling of the firm are among the
most cited reasons of WOM occurrence (e.g. Dichter, 1966; 1988; Swan and Oliver, 1989).
An extensive number of external factors have not been identified in this area. Anderson’s
(1998) study reveals that although very satisfied or dissatisfied customers produce higher
levels of WOM, those who have neutral attitudes still generate some 80 per cent of these
levels. This implies that apart from customer-felt satisfaction or dissatisfaction, other
circumstances also impact the incidence of WOM (East et al., 2008). It is believed that these
circumstances include situational factors. Here, ‘Fundamental Attribution Error’ (FAE) may
be present. This is the tendency to overestimate the personality or internal causes of the
behaviour, while underestimating the influence of situational or external causes (Ross, 1977).
These causes involve external non-lasting variables that occur when people have encounters
at a particular point in time and space (Belk, 1975). The underestimation of these causes could
oversimplify the conceptualization of WOM. It could also hinder understanding and use of
this powerful communication tool. The remainder of the paper addresses this issue by
discussing a series of situational factors that may be overlooked in the context of WOM
generation and effectiveness. Subsequently, some relevant research questions are raised. This
is followed by the discussion of potential academic and managerial contributions.
1
Potential Fundamental Attribution Error in Current Research
Generation of WOM
Antecedent States: Antecedent states are momentary moods or conditions such as depression
or pleasantness, which are less stable and subject to change at different times and places (Belk,
1975). These momentary states are situational compared to the individual qualities identified
in the WOM literature (e.g., market mavenism or self-enhancement). However, they could be
crucial to the likelihood of WOM transmission. For example, consider a person who feels
depressed before watching a movie. If the movie causes him/her to feel happier, the chances
of his/her initiating positive WOM regarding the movie would be higher than customers with
neutral antecedent mood states. Forgas (2002) notes that individuals in bad mood are more
likely to pay their attention to stimuli from the environment, whilst the shift of mood effected
by the stimuli could improve customers’ perception of the shopping environment and product
quality (Chebat and Michon, 2003). Hence, it is natural to imagine that the improved product
evaluation could lead to positive WOM.
Little WOM research has been committed to the impact of antecedent emotional states. Rather,
research has been more concerned about the subsequent states of the individual which result
from the experience. For example, affect from notable good or bad product and consumption
experiences, is presented as the main driver of WOM transmission (Westbrook, 1987).
Satisfaction as another widely recognized driver of WOM, is also post-consumption by nature
(e.g., Swan and Oliver, 1989). In sum, antecedent states as the situational cause for WOM
have been overlooked so far.
Social ties: Social ties refers to a customer’s social relations with others, ranging from strong
ties (such as close friends) to weak ties (such as co-workers) (Brown and Reingen, 1987).
Current findings are more concerned about the strength of social ties on the effectiveness of
WOM influence (e.g., Gilly et al., 1998). In other words, social ties tend to be studied from
the receiver’s perspective. However, social relationships could also impact the generation of
WOM, which is related to the sender’s perspective. For example, weak ties are characterized
as the type of social relationship among recently met, casual acquaintances and new friends
(Bone, 1992). These ties perform an important bridging function across distinct social groups
(Brown and Reingen, 1987). WOM is used in these weak tie situations to initiate discussions
on safe and uncontroversial topics, so that people get to know each other better (Yale, 1987).
This suggests that customers are not always driven by a strong internal need to promote a
company; instead the social context determines the WOM motivation.
Additionally, the content of WOM can differ depending on tie strength (White et al., 2005).
The presence of other people is also likely to be more important in dominating people’s
behaviour than previously thought (Latane and Darley, 1968). Customers have been found to
modify their verbal messages (e.g., wordings chosen between ‘confident’ or ‘conceited’)
depending on the characteristics and attitude of the listener (Higgins and Rholes, 1978). When
people’s self-images are threatened (e.g., buying a car at a higher price), they are motivated to
give deceptive WOM messages such as praising the superior function of the car (White et al.,
2005). The deception in WOM is less likely if the person is close to the sender. Even in
complaining events, the anticipated concerns and reactions of the receiving party are also
considered (Emerson and Messinger, 1977). Therefore, WOM message content is contingent
on the presence of the listener. As interpersonal communication involves not only
transmitting information, but also creating, sustaining and transforming relationships (Higgins,
2
1992), it is understandable why people make adjustments in what they say according to the
audience being addressed. Prior research has suggested that customers vary in terms of the
strength and manner of the WOM delivery (Mazzarol et al., 2007). It would be interesting to
know if these variations are partly due to the relationship between the sender and the receiver.
Competitive Situation: The likelihood of customers initiating WOM conversations depends
not only on the absolute importance of the subject dimension, but also on the extent to which
the subject dimension stands out from the market offering (Higie et al., 1987). This research
implies that whether people get aroused or excited, or not, is also dependent on the external
environment. For example, convenience plays a dominating role in determining petrol station
repatronage. However, when more competitors compete in the same area, convenience of the
first petrol station as a differential advantage may become irrelevant. As a result, customers
may be less motivated to talk up the company to friends and acquaintances. Hence the
competitive situation could determine the novelty of the experience. This aspect has been
classified as a situational variable (Sells, 1963, cited in Belk, 1975). As Ping (1993) points out,
increased alternative attractiveness could cause neglect - a type of emotional ‘exiting’, which
decreases post-purchase evaluations such as satisfaction or commitment (Frazier, 1983;
Rusbult, 1980). However, research on this dimension is very limited and it merits further
attention.
Effectiveness of WOM
The situational and external forces discussed above relate mainly to the senders’ perspective.
The WOM impact on receivers is equally important, but has received much less attention
(Sweeney et al., 2008). This can be considered from two perspectives: what is the internal
impact on customers; and, what factors could affect the impact? There has been rich literature
addressing the former, which is functional and psychological in nature (Sweeney et al., 2008).
Examples are changes of customers’ attitude, judgement and expectations (Bone, 1995;
Sweeney et al., 2008; Zeithaml and Bitner, 1996).
Research on the latter perspective has again relied more on the internal factors, namely
characteristics of WOM senders and receivers, as well as their interrelationships. These
internal characteristics involve the sender’s expertise and opinion leadership, the receiver’s
expertise, the perceived risk and the preference for WOM (e.g., Bansal and Voyer, 2000). The
interrelationships involve tie strength and similarity between the sender and the receiver (e.g.,
Bansal and Voyer, 2000; Gilly et al., 1998). Recent research has started to realize the potential
situational and external factors, such as the price of the product, ‘time-poorness’ of the
receiver at the time of WOM transmission and the effect of multiple sources (Sweeney et al.,
2008). It is suggested that WOM is likely to be more effective when the product price is high,
or customers lack enough time to conduct market research, or the WOM message is received
from multiple people. Although further empirical research is needed, these findings open up
the discussion of non-internal factors that might affect WOM effectiveness. This situation can
be developed by addressing several other research issues.
Source Consensus: The variety of sources, especially the consensus among different WOM
sources, could affect the degree to which receivers believe and act on the WOM information.
In the attribution literature, high and low consensus regarding information has been found to
result in people’s different beliefs of the reasons for product failure (Folkes, 1988). With high
consensus, people tend to believe that poor quality leads to the product failure, whereas with
low consensus, information givers’ improper use of the product is more likely to be the cause
3
of the failure. It can be imagined that these variations of perceptions could result in varying
trustworthiness of WOM, and subsequently varying effectiveness of WOM on receivers.
Similarly, the acceptance of online WOM is found to be influenced by overall agreement level
(Gershoff et al., 2003). However, source consensus (and especially how organizations could
capitalize on source consensus) has rarely been formally studied.
Brand Name Strength: The strength of the brand name is external and could be situational in
WOM transmission, because the strength of a particular brand name could vary with time
(e.g., depending on the spending on advertising during a given period). Prior research has
suggested that the effects of negative WOM on brand evaluations are likely to be discounted
when prior positive brand impressions exist in consumers’ memories (Herr et al., 1991).
Laczniak et al. (2001) posit that the effect of a brand name is likely to influence people’s
attributional processing of WOM communication. A strong favourable brand name reinforces
the persuasiveness of positive WOM, and discounts the negative impact of negative WOM.
Subsequently, the perceived persuasiveness could determine to what degree customers would
act upon the WOM. Studies on the relationship between brands and WOM have been very
limited and the few related studies are mainly based on fictitious brands (Bone, 1995; Holmes
and Lett, 1977), rather than real brands.
Timing: Christiansen and Tax (2000) raise the issue of the timing of WOM. Their starting
point is the timing of the WOM measurement, as WOM influence could decline over time.
Arndt (1968) emphasizes the impact of WOM influence as a function of its timing. He
concludes that the influence could vary with the strength of the purchase intentions. WOM on
customers who have been exposed to the product and have a neutral attitude would be the
strongest, whereas for those who have already hold strong favourable attitudes, the WOM is
of less importance. Overall, research on WOM influence from a timing perspective has been
very limited.
To summarize, although some situational factors have been identified in the extant literature,
the situational conditions of WOM behaviours described above await further exploration.
Ignoring these forces will expose researchers to the risk of FAE. Thus, we propose some
research questions here for the future study:
RQ1: What are the effects of antecedent states on the likelihood of WOM generation?
RQ2: How does customers’ strength of positive/negative WOM message vary by their social
ties with the listener?
RQ3: Can organizations enhance source consensus by strengthening interpersonal interactions
among fellow customers and encourage WOM?
RQ4: What is the best timing for WOM marketing in order to complement traditional
advertising or public relations so as to achieve an optimal impact, in persuading
customers to swift from competitors?
Contribution, Managerial Implications and Future Research
Academic contribution
This study makes a new contribution to the WOM research agenda and proposes a variety of
under-researched situational forces in WOM. These social, marketplace and temporal forces
extend our understanding of the circumstances under which WOM occurs, and under which
the effectiveness of WOM would be affected. Many of them such as the timing, the
4
competitive situation and the antecedent states exist in most WOM situations. Some may
operate without customers’ perceptual awareness, such as the source consensus and the brand
name strength. After all, WOM as a widespread form of person-to-person communication is
embedded within a variety of external contexts, such as social structure (Reingen and Kernan,
1986). Thus, the contextual and situational study of WOM would enhance our
conceptualization of this powerful means of communication.
Managerial considerations
Future empirical research is likely to provide some useful insights to managers seeking to
enhance the likelihood of increased positive WOM generation. There is potential risk in
giving WOM (especially direct recommendations) in the first place, due to the giver’s
uncertainty that the receiver would have the same positive experience (Mazzarol et al., 2007).
The described audience factors could worsen the perceived risk. However, if there is strong
confidence in an organization based on extraordinary experiences, customers are still likely to
overcome the risk perception and express their views. After all, a main motivation of WOM is
to provide benefits to others. This represents relationship establishment and maintenance
activities that are the focal aim of interpersonal communication (Higgins, 1992). It would thus
be managerially insightful to explore the aspects of consumption or service experiences that
instil the confidence in generating WOM, regardless of the social surroundings.
For antecedent states, it has been found that the change of customers’ emotional states with
simply an authentic smile from employees, can lead to the change of customers’ assessments
of service encounters (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2006). This suggests that attempts to turn
customers’ antecedent states from negative to positive are both achievable and rewarding. The
understanding of the importance of competition situation to WOM is also crucial.
Organizations need indications regarding what (and when) different aspects of service/product
offerings must be emphasized, in an effort to differentiate themselves and increase positive
WOM conversations.
With respect to the effectiveness of WOM, organizations can benefit from the consensus
among customers, which enhances the effectiveness of WOM on receivers. For example, a
brand community is based on a structured set of relationships among admirers of a brand
(Muniz Jr and O'Guinn, 2001, p. 412). The process of how such communities generate
consensus among members and stimulate WOM is of substantial interest to organizations.
Further, as 50 per cent of the brand switching among service providers is the result of WOM
(Keaveney, 1995), further research on the strength of brand name using real brands is
necessary. Such research would strengthen our understanding of brand building in terms of
the impact of WOM, as previous research only confirms its function in WOM generation
(East et al., 2007). Finally, the timing of WOM in relation to its effectiveness could be studied
in conjunction with other marketing efforts such as mass media advertising, direct mail or
public relations. How these elements could work together with different timing and strength,
to optimize the effectiveness of WOM, is important to organizations.
Overall, the existence of FAE will underestimate the complexity and dynamics of situational
and external factors influencing WOM within its rich social and marketplace contexts. As a
result, the explanation of variations in WOM behaviour will be incomplete. This paper
identifies the research required to verify the existence of these factors and proposes to test
their significance in different research areas and empirical settings and, consequently, to
minimize the occurrence of FAE.
5
References
Anderson, E.W., 1998. Customer satisfaction and word-of-mouth. Journal of Service
Research 1 (1), 5-17.
Arndt, J., 1968. Selective processes in word of mouth. Journal of Advertising 8 (3), 19-22.
Bansal, H.S., Voyer, P.A., 2000. World-of-mouth processes within a services purchase
decision context. Journal of Service Research 3 (2), 166-177.
Belk, R.W., 1975. Situational variables and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer
Research 2 (3), 157-164.
Bone, P.F., 1992. Determinants of word-of-mouth communications during product
consumption. Advances in Consumer Research 19 (6), 579-583.
Bone, P.F., 1995. Word-of-mouth effects on short-term and long-term product judgments.
Journal of Business Research 32 (3), 213-223.
Brown, J.J., Reingen, P.H., 1987. Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior. Journal of
Consumer Research 14 (3), 350-363.
Brown, T., Barry, T., Dacin, P., Gunst, R., 2005. Spreading the word: Investigating
antecedents of consumers' positive word-of-mouth intentions and behaviors in a retailing
context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 33 (2), 123-138.
Chebat, J.-C., Michon, R., 2003. Impact of ambient odors on mall shoppers' emotions,
cognition, and spending: A test of competitive causal theories. Journal of Business Research
56 (7), 529-539.
Christiansen, T., Tax, S.S., 2000. Measuring word of mouth: the questions of who and when?
Journal of Marketing Communications 6, 185-199.
Dichter, E., 1966. How word-of-mouth advertising works. Harvard Business Review 44, 147166.
East, R., Hammond, K., Wright, M., 2007. The relative incidence of positive and negative
word of mouth: A multi-category study. International Journal of Research in Marketing 24 (2),
175-184.
East, R., Vanhuele, M., Wright, M., 2008. Consumer behaviour: Applications in marketing.
Sage Ltd., London.
Emerson, R.M., Messinger, S.L., 1977. The micro-politics of trouble. Social Problems 25 (2),
121-134.
Folkes, V.S., 1988. Recent attribution research in consumer behavior: A review and new
directions. The Journal of Consumer Research 14 (4), 548-565.
Forgas, J.P., 2002. Toward understanding the role of affect in social thinking and behaviour.
Psychological Inquiry 13, 90-102.
6
Frazier, G.L., 1983. Interorganizational exchange behavior in marketing channels: A
broadened perspective. Journal of Marketing 47 (4), 68-78.
Gershoff, A., D., Mukherjee, A., Mukhopadhyay, A., 2003. Consumer acceptance of online
agent advice: Extremity and positivity effects. Journal of Consumer Psychology 13 (1/2), 161170.
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), 83100.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Groth, M., Paul, M., Gremler, D.D., 2006. Are all smiles created equal?
How emotional contagion and emotional labor affect service relationships. Journal of
Marketing 70 (3), 58-73.
Herr, P.M., Kardes, F.R., Kim, J., 1991. Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute
information on persuasion: An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of Consumer
Research 17 (4), 454-462.
Higgins, E.T., 1992. Achieving "shared reality" in the communication game: A social action
that creates meaning. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 11 (3), 107-131.
Higgins, E.T., Rholes, W.S., 1978. "Saying is believing": Effects of message modification on
memory and liking for the person described. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 14
(4), 363-378.
Higie, R.A., Price, L.L., Feick, L.F., 1987. Types and amount of word-of-mouth
communications about retailers. Journal of Retailing 63 (3), 260-278.
Holmes, J.H., Lett, J.D.J., 1977. Product sampling and word of mouth. Journal of Advertising
Research 17 (5), 35-40.
Keaveney, S.M., 1995. Customer switching behavior in service industries: An exploratory
study. Journal of Marketing 59 (2), 71-82.
Laczniak, R.N., DeCarlo, T.E., Ramaswami, S.N., Motley, C.M., 2001. Consumers' responses
to negative word-of-mouth communication: An attribution theory perspective. Journal of
Consumer Psychology 11 (1), 57-73.
Latane, B., Darley, J., 1968. Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies.
Jounal of Personality and Social Psychology 10, 215-221.
Mazzarol, T., Sweeney, J., Soutar, G., 2007. Conceptualizing word-of-mouth activity, triggers
and conditions: An exploratory study. European Journal of Marketing 41 (11/12), 1475-1494.
Muniz Jr, A.M., O'Guinn, T.C., 2001. Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research 27
(4), 412-432.
Murray, K.B., 1991. A test of services marketing theory: Consumer information acquisition
activities. Journal of Marketing 55 (1), 10-25.
7
Reingen, P.H., Kernan, J.B., 1986. Analysis of referral networks in marketing: Methods and
illustration. Journal of Marketing Research 23 (4), 370-378.
Richins, M.L., Root-Shaffer, T., 1988. The role of involvement and opinion leadership in
consumer word-of-mouth: An implicit model made explicit. Advances in Consumer Research
15, 32-36.
Ross, L., 1977. The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution
process. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 10, 173-220.
Rusbult, C.E., 1980. Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the
investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 16, 172-186.
Silverman, G., 2001. The Secrets of Word-of-Mouth Marketing: How to Trigger Exponential
Sales Through Runaway Word of Mouth. American Management Association, New York.
Swan, J.E., Oliver, R.L., 1989. Postpurchase communications by consumers. Journal of
Retailing 65 (4), 516-532.
Sweeney, J.C., Soutar, G.N., Tim, M., 2008. Factors influencing word of mouth effectiveness:
Receiver perspectives. European Journal of Marketing 42 (3/4), 344-364.
Villanueva, J., Yoo, S., Hanssens, D.M., 2008. The impact of marketing-induced versus
word-of-mouth customer acquisition on customer equity growth. Journal of Marketing
Research 45 (1), 48-59.
Westbrook, R.A., 1987. Product/consumption-based affective responses and postpurchase
processes. Journal of Marketing Research 24 (3), 258-270.
White, K., Argo, J.J., Dahl, D.W., 2005. Motives for deception in consumer word-of-mouth
communication. Advances in Consumer Research 32 (1), 237-238.
Yale, L.J., 1987. Word of mouth advertising: A synthesis and review. Working paper,
Graduate School of Management, University of California Irvine.
Zeithaml, V.A., Bitner, M.J., 1996. Services Marketing. McGraw-Hill, New York.
8