Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences Revue canadienne des sciences de l’administration 27: 5–23 (2010) Published online in Wiley Interscience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/CJAS.129 e-WOM Scale: Word-of-Mouth Measurement Scale for e-Services Context* Isabelle Goyette CROP Inc. Line Ricard** Université du Québec à Montréal (ÉSG-UQAM) Jasmin Bergeron ÉSG-UQAM François Marticotte ÉSG-UQAM Résumé Dans cet article, nous proposons, à partir d’une enquête réalisée auprès de 218 répondants, une échelle de mesure du concept de bouche-à-oreille (échelle BAO ou e-WOM scale) dans le contexte de services électroniques. La batterie de tests statistiques réalisés révèle que le concept de BAO comprend quatre dimensions, à savoir : l’intensité du BAO, la polarité positive du BAO, la polarité négative du BAO et le contenu du BAO. L’échelle de mesure proposée peut être utilisée comme un outil stratégique par les gestionnaires d’entreprises de services en ligne désireux d’améliorer leurs stratégies de marketing en matière de bouche-à-oreille. Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Abstract In this article, using data from a survey of 218 consumers across two samples, we propose a measurement scale for word of mouth (e-WOM scale) in the context of electronic service. A battery of statistical tests reveals that the WOM construct encompasses four dimensions: WOM intensity, positive valence WOM, negative valence WOM, and WOM content. Our proposed e-WOM scale can be used as a strategic tool for business managers aiming to improve their word-of-mouth marketing strategies. Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. JEL Classifications: M31, L81, C3 Mots clés : Bouche-à-oreille, e-WOM scale, marketing, Internet, équations structurelles Keywords: word-of-mouth, e-WOM scale, marketing, Internet, structural equations The authors would like to offer their sincere gratitude to the guest editor, the anonymous referees, Jean-Mathieu Fallu (MBA, ÉSG-UQAM), and MarcAntoine Vachon (post-graduate student, ÉSG-UQAM) for their apt and constructive recommendations. The second database that was used to validate the scale is the result of a survey undertaken by Mrs. Olfa Gmach in her master’s thesis. The authors would also like to highlight the logistical and financial contribution from SSHRC and the Chair in Financial Services Management ÉSG-UQAM. *Please note that this paper was originally submitted in French and translated into English. Both versions are available on Wiley Interscience. **Please address correspondence to: Line Ricard, ÉSG, Université du Québec à Montréal, Case Postale 6192, succursale Centre-ville, Montréal (Québec), Canada, H3C 4R2. Email: [email protected] Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 5 Can J Adm Sci 27(1), 5–23 (2010) e-WOM SCALE: WORD-OF-MOUTH MEASUREMENT SCALE FOR e-SERVICES CONTEXT Word-of-mouth (WOM) is probably the oldest means of exchanging opinions on various goods and services offered by markets. At one time, word-of-mouth occurred mostly among neighbours exchanging news on what was being offered by neighbourhood stores (Whyte, 1954). As early as 1955, Katz and Lazarsfeld believed that word-of-mouth was seven times more effective than newspaper ads, four times more effective than direct sales, and twice as effective as radio advertising. Later, Day (1971) estimated that word-of-mouth was nine times more effective than advertising in changing consumer attitudes, whereas Morin (1983) showed that “other people’s recommendations” were three times more effective in terms of stimulating purchases of over 60 different products than was advertising. According to Reicheld (1996), these effects are amplified by a higher degree of customer loyalty and profitability. Today, many researchers continue to maintain that word-ofmouth constitutes one of the most effective ways of attracting and keeping customers (Duhan, Johnson, Wilcox, & Harrell, 1997). Studies on word-of-mouth have demonstrated that its effectiveness is based on the overwhelming influence that it has on consumer behaviour. Researchers have shown that word-of-mouth was strongly and positively associated with clients’ levels of trust (Bergeron, Ricard, & Perrien, 2003), service quality (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988), satisfaction (Anderson, 1998), perceived value (Hartline & Jones, 1996), relationship quality (Boles, Barksdale, & Johnson, 1997), and with clients’ intention to purchase (Crocker, 1986). In today’s virtual era, the power of word-of-mouth has grown exponentially. For example, the international bank HSBC announced in the summer of 2007 that it was introducing a charge of 9.9% interest for each student account (previously free) with a balance of under 1,500 pounds Sterling (approx. CAD 3000). The National Union of Students (NUS) immediately created a group on the Facebook website to bring together the largest possible number of students opposed to this change of policy at HSBC. In a few short weeks, the power of virtual word-of-mouth managed to mobilize 5,000 students on summer break, each threatening to boycott or to change bank. Under pressure, HSBC reversed the change, indicating it had “answered the needs of its customers.” Although many studies target WOM, very few have focused on a measure of word-of-mouth, especially in the context of e-services. The recent concept of viral marketing (Godin, 2001), which represents a modern version of word-of-mouth, also shows the relevance of word-of-mouth (WOM) in an online context. Thus, our objective here was to develop a multidimensional word- Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. GOYETTE ET AL. of-mouth measurement scale in the area of e-services. Given the enormous potential benefits of favourable word-of-mouth (especially online), such a scale could serve as an important tool for managers wishing to measure their companies’ performance and the effect of their strategies on people’s propensity to talk favourably about them. In addition, this scale could be used to predict customers’ purchasing intentions and their inclination to speak well of the company (Arndt, 1968; Brown & Reingen, 1987; Maxham III, 2001; Ying & Chung, 2007). This article is structured as follows. The first section reviews prior research of the concept of WOM. Subsequent sections are dedicated to the methodology, presentation of our WOM model, and an analysis of results, respectively. The paper closes with a discussion of the intended contribution and the implications for theory and management. Literature Review Word-of-Mouth (WOM) Here we briefly explain what is meant by word-ofmouth by placing it alongside new concepts such as viral marketing and buzz marketing, among others. Additionally, relevant research on the subject, and especially studies that have developed a measure of WOM, are reviewed. Over the past five years, WOM has been the object of multiple studies in the field of marketing. Authors have sometime associated this concept with personal recommendations (Arndt, 1967a), interpersonal communication (Godes & Mayzlin, 2004), interpersonal relationships (Arndt, 1967a), informal communication (Silverman, 2001), personal and interpersonal influence (Arndt, 1967a, Brown & Reingen, 1987), and with informal advertising (Arndt, 1967a). WOM definitions by Westbrook (1987), Bone (1992, 1995), Silverman (2001), and Anderson (1998) have all been inspired by that of Arndt (1967a), which focused on the informal aspect of WOM communication, the communicator’s independence from a commercial source, and on the phenomenon of information diffusion (cf. Table 1). Table 1 indicates that word-of-mouth is usually defined as an exchange, flow of information, communication, or conversation between two individuals. There is but a single author (Haywood, 1989) who considered word-of-mouth as formal conversation. Other authors agree that word-of-mouth is an informal and noncommercial conversation. The term “informal” makes reference to something that is not organized in an official 6 Can J Adm Sci 27(1), 5–23 (2010) e-WOM SCALE: WORD-OF-MOUTH MEASUREMENT SCALE FOR e-SERVICES CONTEXT GOYETTE ET AL. Table 1 Definitions of Word-of-Mouth Definitions1 Dimensions2 I Arndt (1967a, p. 3) Richins (1983, p. 17) Brown and Reingen (1987, p. 350) Higie, Feick, and Prince (1987, p. 263) Westbrook (1987, p. 261) Haywood (1989, p.58) Swan and Oliver (1989, p. 523) Singh (1990, p. 1) File, Jude, and Prince (1992, p. 7) File, Cermark, and Prince (1994, p. 302) Bone (1992, p. 579) Bone (1995, p. 213) Silverman (2001, p. 4) Anderson (1998, p. 6) Mangold & al. (1999, p. 83) Kim, Han, and Lee (2001, p. 276) Salzman, Matathia, and O’Reilly (2004) WOMMA (2006) “. . . is defined as oral, person-to-person communication between a receiver and a communicator whom the receiver perceives as non-commercial, concerning a brand, a product, or a service.” “The WOM communication was defined as the act of telling at least one friend or acquaintance about the dissatisfaction” “The WOM exists at the macro level of inquiry (e.g., flows of communication across groups), as well as the micro level (e.g., flows within dyads or small groups)” “Conversations motivated by salient experiences are likely to be an important part of information diffusion” X “In a postpurchase context, consumer word-of-mouth transmissions consist of informal communications directed at other consumers about the ownership, usage, or characteristics of particular goods and services and/or their sellers.” “WOM is a process that is often generated by a company’s formal communications and the behavior of its representatives.” “Postpurchase communications included positive versus negative word-of-mouth and complaints and praising directed at the three entities in the exchange (i.e., the salesperson, dealer, and manufacturer)” “(c) telling others about the unsatisfactory experience (that is, negative word-of-mouth).” “Positive and negative word-of-mouth are examples of exit behaviors exhibited by consumers at the conclusion of a service encounter.” “Word-of-mouth, both Input and Output, is the means by which buyers of services exchange information about those services, thus diffusing information about a product throughout a market.” “WOM communication is conceptualized herein as a group phenomenon—an exchange of comments, thoughts, and ideas among two or more individuals in which none of the individuals represent a marketing source.” “Word-of-mouth communications (WOM), interpersonal communications in which none of the participants are marketing sources, . . .” “1) Word-of-mouth is communication about products and services between people who are perceived to be independent of the company providing the product or service, in a medium perceived to be independent of the company.” 2) Word-of-mouth is originated by a third party and transmitted spontaneously in a way that is independent of the producer or seller.” “Word of mouth refers to information communications between private parties concerning evaluations of goods and services.” “WOM was far more likely to be initiated by receivers’ need for information than by communicators’ satisfaction level.” “Word of mouth is the interpersonal communication between two or more individuals, such as members of a reference group or a customer and a salesperson.” Buzz is a “WOM effect, a transfer of information through social networks. It frequently occurs in a spontaneous manner, without so much as a raised finger on the part of a marketing specialist or any other person.” WOM is “an act by consumers providing information to other consumers.” X Total F N C X E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 5 1 5 7 13 1 Loose translation. I = Informal, F = Formal, N = Noncommercial, C = Post-purchase behavior, E = Exchange/Flow of information/Communication/ Conversation. 2 Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 7 Can J Adm Sci 27(1), 5–23 (2010) e-WOM SCALE: WORD-OF-MOUTH MEASUREMENT SCALE FOR e-SERVICES CONTEXT manner (Rey-Debove & Rey, 2007). In addition, WOM communications are occasionally defined as postpurchase behaviours. In addition, according to previous work, for a consumer to be considered involved in a WOM-type conversation, the message being transmitted and the medium used for the transmission must be perceived as independent from influence by the company (Silverman, 2001). For instance, can the context of e-services where many companies have discussion forums on their websites be regarded as independent? In fact, in the current study such forums are considered to be a source of WOM insofar as consumers perceive these communications to be informal and not sponsored or subsidized by the company. According to Silverman, any other type of communication would be perceived as commercial and formal because advertising, public, and media relations communicate a message specifically selected, conceived, and expressed by the product or service vendor through an owned or leased medium. Including media relations could be debatable because, although these are well planned, managers do not necessarily have any direct control over the end result. WOM communications can occur face to face, by phone, email, mailing list, or any other means of communication (Silverman, 2001). In addition, there are personal and impersonal sources of recommendations that have to be considered. Friends, family, and acquaintances are personal sources of recommendations (Brown & Reingen, 1987, Duhan, et al., 1997) recognized as WOM vehicles. Columns, articles, and commentary by journalists, columnists, consumers, and experts to be found in newspapers, magazines, specialized publications, online discussion forums, and expert systems are regarded as impersonal sources of WOM recommendations. Expert systems and discussion forums are included as impersonal recommendation sources (Sénécal, Kalczynski & Nantel, 2005) because consumers are influenced in their choice of products online by recommendations posted online (Sénécal & Nantel, 2004). Consumers should not perceive any commercial or marketing intent behind the statements in these sources of recommendations. If that is not the case, these communications cannot be considered WOM. Thus, a WOM communication can be based both on personal and impersonal sources. In short, WOM could be affected by a marketing effort such as advertising, media relations, and public relations as well as by spontaneous conversations between two individuals and by accounts of satisfactory or unsatisfactory buying experiences. WOM sources can be both personal and impersonal. On the other hand, a conversation that follows a series of triggers may not Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. GOYETTE ET AL. contain anything that may be perceived as a commercial or marketing intention to persuade or to inform one of the communicating parties. Generally, it is this informal and independent side of WOM that makes it unique. New Terms Emerge Since the advent of information technologies and the Internet, word-of-mouth has acquired several new names. Thus, mention is made of viral marketing, email marketing, Internet word-of-mouth, word-of-mouth marketing, and electronic WOM (e-WOM). In addition, the concept of “buzz marketing” has made itself known as a new marketing strategy derived from conventional word-ofmouth and bearing a strong resemblance to the concept of viral marketing. Viral marketing is associated with word-of-mouth through electronic media. Internet is the central component of viral marketing and it is this necessary connection with the Internet that makes it distinct from general word-of-mouth. The word viral refers, according to Godin (2001), to a virus, epidemic, or rather to an idea virus, which he defined as follows: A big idea that runs amok in the target audience, a fashionable idea that propagates through a segment of the population, teaching and changing and influencing everyone it touches (p. 17). The consumer takes an active part in the advertising process of a company by becoming its supporter, advertising propagator, and, on occasion, advertising concept developer (Stanbouli, 2003) or salesperson (Phelps, Lewis, Mobilio, Perry, & Raman, 2004). One of the consumer’s strengths is that he or she is perceived as independent from the company that “hires” him or her. Whether it is viral marketing or electronic word-ofmouth, these strategies serve as a way for companies to empower the consumer (Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner, Walsh, & Gremier, 2004). Godin suggested that helping consumers communicate amongst themselves would be preferable to attempting to address them directly. This could be done voluntarily by a group of consumers or encouraged by financial incentives made available by a company. The latter option is further from the WOM definition because customer independence is not as obvious in this case. Compared to viral marketing, the concept of buzz marketing is even less clearly defined. This situation is probably the result of the fact that these two notions are frequently confused with each other (ABC-Netmarketing. com, 2009). However, there is a difference. In fact, unlike viral marketing, buzz marketing is not at all associated with the Internet or any other electronic communication medium. It does sometime happen that the word “Internet” crops up in explanations of buzz marketing 8 Can J Adm Sci 27(1), 5–23 (2010) e-WOM SCALE: WORD-OF-MOUTH MEASUREMENT SCALE FOR e-SERVICES CONTEXT given by authors, but it is not done in a restrictive manner. Propagation rates inherent in an epidemic are not mentioned. Rather, buzz marketing plays the part of a catalyst of a WOM conversation. For example, a classic buzz catalyst is to place interesting and/or nice-to-look-at people who know what they are talking about, in locations on the Internet or in the real world where they are able to share reflections and their personal ideas on one product or another (Salzman, Matathia, & O’Reilly, 2004, p. 30). The objective of buzz marketing is to create a relationship between brands and people as a means to influence purchase choices and create loyalty to a single brand (Salzman, et al., 2004). Unlike WOM, buzz marketing is structured to provide people with incentives to speak favourably of a good or a service among themselves. The spontaneity of exchanges is in evidence to a lesser degree as demonstrated in the previous example. In short, the illusion of spontaneity should be well orchestrated by buzz marketing specialists such that consumers do not at all suspect that a company is behind the entire communication process. The three concepts could be summarized as follows: Appendix A lists authors who have conducted an empirical study of WOM. This summary shows for each author the type of measurement scale used (unidimensional or multidimensional), Cronbach’s alpha or a reliability index, the recommended methodology, the WOM measurements and context (the way the researchers conceived WOM), and the viewpoint from which WOM was measured (receiver or communicator). Among the authors presented, Harrison-Walker (2001) and Godes and Mayzlin (2004) are the only ones to have dedicated their research primarily to the study of WOM measurement. For others, a WOM measure mostly follows from the need to include this dependent or independent variable into their research. On the other hand, there are only six papers that explicitly present a Cronbach’s alpha. In these cases, the internal consistency level is high with coefficients ranging from 0.78 to 0.80. Appendix A shows that most WOM measurement scales presented in published research are unidimensional, that is, they measure a single dimension of WOM using in most cases a single statement or a single question. Moreover, those authors who use unidimensional scales do not specify which dimension they were attempting to measure. Only through an in depth analysis of statements and a comparison of dimensions measured by other authors using multidimensional scales was it possible to identify the WOM dimension measured by these authors. For example, Burzynski and Bayer (1977) focused on the valence of a WOM conversation, Higie, Feick, and Price (1987) analyzed the volume of WOM, while Bone (1992) concentrated on WOM content. Appendix A also shows that authors mostly utilized self-administered questionnaires, and, to a lesser degree, telephone questionnaires or interviews. In other words, personal interviews and telephone surveys are the second data collection method used by these authors. Finally, some authors used experiments to test the impact of WOM on other variables rather than to measure WOM itself. Since the WOM construct is not the primary object of the majority of studies, specific items or scales for measuring WOM are rarely found. Rather, they are found in the context that enabled the construct to be measured. Appendix A takes this feature into account by providing a two-column representation: for the statements themselves and for the context. Higie et al. (1987), Bone (1992), and Mangold, Miller, and Brockay (1999) studied the “WOM content dimension.” Harrison-Walker (2001) focused on four aspects of WOM: (1) frequency, (2) number of contacts, (3) detail, and (4) word-of-mouth praise. Further refinement of this measurement scale led Harrison-Walker to retain only two primary WOM dimensions: word-of- • Word-of-Mouth is defined as a verbal informal communication occurring in person, by telephone, email, mailing list, or any other communication method regarding a service or a good. A recommendation source may be personal or impersonal. • Viral Marketing is defined as a rapidly spreading informal online communication between individuals regarding a service or a good. • Buzz Marketing is defined as a catalyst for a WOM conversation to occur in person or online derived from a formal corporate strategy with a view to creating an illusion of spontaneity. Given that the Internet has changed the dynamic of word-of-mouth, this technological evolution will be taken into account. In fact, in the current study we seek to define and develop a reliable and valid measurement scale in an e-service context. Word-of-Mouth (WOM) Measure A review of studies on WOM reveals the small number of works dedicated to WOM measurement. Although WOM has been in existence for many years, researchers and managers are still interested in it because it is an important driver of consumer behaviour. Yet, few researchers have focused explicitly on measuring it. Harrison-Walker (2001, p.62) stated: “. . . WOM was not treated as a construct to be measured but rather as a category to be assigned based on responding to a survey.” Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. GOYETTE ET AL. 9 Can J Adm Sci 27(1), 5–23 (2010) e-WOM SCALE: WORD-OF-MOUTH MEASUREMENT SCALE FOR e-SERVICES CONTEXT mouth praise with two items and word-of-mouth activity with four items. WOM activity includes all items associated with the action of engaging in WOM. As for Godes and Mayzlin (2004), they analyzed two WOM dimensions: volume and dispersion. To identify other potential WOM dimensions, we conducted a detailed analysis of the published works on this subject. Following this analysis we discovered another dimension measured by several authors: valence (Black, Mitra, & Webster, 1998; Bone, 1995; Burzynski, & Bayer, 1977; Singh, 1990; Swan & Oliver, 1989). Researchers verified whether conversations were positive or negative, or whether they reflected satisfaction or dissatisfaction with respect to a good or a service. This dimension, when positive, reflects praise. Negative valence remains to be explored. Finally, the WOM viewpoint refers to the perspective from which the communication process is examined. The examination could be based around the communicator (i.e., researchers wish to interview the individuals that start the conversation) of information or the receiver (i.e., the person on the receiving end of the comments). An analysis of research statements and contexts helped show that in measuring WOM, the communicator’s viewpoint had mostly been taken into consideration while the receiver’s viewpoint had been ignored. In conclusion, four major dimensions are identified to measure online word-of-mouth (WOM): (1) WOM intensity (activity, volume, dispersion), (2) positive valence (praise), (3) negative valence, and (4) content. e-services. The objective set for these exploratory interviews was to gain better insight into the WOM phenomenon in the context of e-services. Respondents were also asked about online companies pertinent to their word-ofmouth activity. As direction for these meetings, one of the authors used an interview guide with four primary open questions regarding: (a) their reasons for engaging in WOM online; (b) the credibility of these conversations; (c) their propensity to initiate a positive or a negative conversation; and (d) the content of their electronic messages. An analysis and an interview report were produced by one of the researchers that developed a classification matrix. In addition, there was an informal meeting with two consultants specializing in buzz marketing, which helped assess the scope of the word-ofmouth phenomenon in the electronic context and better differentiate between buzz, viral marketing, and WOM. This first phase also enabled us to explore the different dimensions of WOM (WOM intensity, negative and positive valance, and content). A self-administered questionnaire was selected for the survey. This method enabled information to be collected on multiple dimensions. Based on previous work and exploratory meetings, one of the researchers wrote the first draft of the questionnaire and another researcher critiqued it. In the end, researchers arrived at a four-page questionnaire intended to be concise, clear, and in keeping with the objectives of the present study. To ensure this objective was met, the questionnaire was presented to two other researchers who made minor suggestions mostly with respect to the sociodemographic variables (for example, adding income) and the wordings of some of the statements. Finally, the questionnaire was pretested on ten e-service users with an inclination towards WOM. The respondents independently completed the questionnaire under the watchful eye of one of the researchers. The time required to answer the questions was calculated and any remaining points of confusion cleared up as required. Following updates based on several minor comments primarily with respect to rewording the first question, the questionnaire was finalized. Again, not a single statement was eliminated. The questionnaire consists of three sections: (1) WOM activities; (2) assessment of the various dimensions of word-of-mouth; and (3) the general propensity on the part of respondents to engage in WOM, their online buying activities, and their social and demographic characteristics. The respondents were expected to evaluate their WOM activities with respect to the last e-services company they had discussed (six such companies were proposed, namely: amazon.com or .ca, eBay. com, admission.com, chapters.indigo.ca, expedia.com or expedia.ca, and archambault.ca). The companies were Method This paper is an extension of the train of thought started by Harrison-Walker (2001). This author developed a measurement scale comprised of six items and two WOM dimensions. She tested her scale using a sample made up of veterinary clinic and hair salon customers. The author observed that although interesting, it is important that her scale be refined using different contexts and that the possibility of adding other dimensions be examined. As such, we proceeded in the context of e-service companies because it is considered higher risk (thus favouring WOM activity) and because this context promotes the use of personal sources of information (Murray, 1991). Before proceeding to the development of the questionnaire and subsequent data collection, a few steps were required to define a reliable and valid measurement scale. After the primary WOM dimensions and measures derived from a detailed review of existing works were identified, meetings were held with ten consumers of Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. GOYETTE ET AL. 10 Can J Adm Sci 27(1), 5–23 (2010) e-WOM SCALE: WORD-OF-MOUTH MEASUREMENT SCALE FOR e-SERVICES CONTEXT GOYETTE ET AL. sented in the in-class sample (65.8%) but not in the email group. Overall, however, men accounted for 41.3% of the total (combined) sample. Although there were differences in the sample profiles, this was not the case in terms of the assessment of the measurement scale statements. Of the 19 items in the measurement scale, only 3 have significantly different means (t-test) for the two samples, namely: I speak more often of this company than about any other type of company (3.26 in class vs. 2.43 by email); I speak favourably of this company to others (4.69 in class vs. 5.21), and I discuss variety (5.57 in class vs. 4.80 by email). Since there were few significant differences between the two groups in the assessment of WOM statements, the model was tested on the combined samples. selected based on a Statistics Canada (2004) study in which the above-mentioned sites were cited as the most popular in Canada. Those that had not recommended any e-service company had to answer the questions in Section 3 of the questionnaire nonetheless. Table 2 presents the 19 statements used to measure the four dimensions of WOM. Since this study is of a rather theoretical nature, the sample had to have a certain degree of homogeneity (Calder, Philips, & Tybout, 1981). The first data collection using a suitable sample was performed in four university classrooms. It produced 116 completed questionnaires. To complement data collection that was initiated in class and to obtain respondents of a different profile, “snowball” sampling was subsequently performed using electronic mail. Some 475 questionnaires were sent out by email and 107 were completed and returned. Following an analysis of outliers, the size of the final sample was 218 respondents. The respondents’ profile is shown in Table 3. Certain differences between the samples are apparent: the sample collected in-class had a lower age (mean of 27 years as compared to 32 years for email), lower income (84.6% have incomes below $70,000 vs. 52% for email respondents), and was mostly made up of junior college students (51.4%) vs. four-year university programs (88.6% email respondents). On the other hand, women were overrepre- Analysis and Results Assessment of Measurement Scale Quality The psychometric properties of the scale were analyzed in multiple ways. This section presents the analysis of unidimensionality and reliability as well as of convergent and discriminant validity. The results are summarized in Table 4. Unidimensionality. A scale is regarded as unidimensional whenever a group of statements measures Table 2 Word-of-Mouth Dimensions and Statements Word-of-Mouth (WOM) dimensions Statements WOM intensity • I spoke of this company much more frequently than about any other e-services company. • I spoke of this company much more frequently than about companies of any other type. • I spoke of this company to many individuals. Positive valence WOM • • • • • • Negative valence WOM • I mostly say negative things to others. • I have spoken unflatteringly of this company to others. WOM content • • • • • • • • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I recommended this company speak of this company’s good sides. am proud to say to others that I am this company’s customer. strongly recommend people buy products online from this company. mostly say positive things to others. have spoken favourably of this company to others. discuss the user-friendliness of its website. discuss security of transactions and its Internet site. discuss the prices of products offered. discuss the variety of the products offered. discuss the quality of the products offered discuss ease of transactions. speak of the rapid delivery. speak of the company’s notoriety. Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 11 Can J Adm Sci 27(1), 5–23 (2010) e-WOM SCALE: WORD-OF-MOUTH MEASUREMENT SCALE FOR e-SERVICES CONTEXT GOYETTE ET AL. Table 3 Respondent Profiles Variable* Classification In class 111 respondents (%) By email 107 respondents (%) Gender Men Women Primary/Secondary College University Under $ 29,999 $ 30,000 to $ 69,999 $ 70,000 and more In class By email 34.2 65.8 8.1 51.4 40.5 41.3 43.3 15.4 48.6 51.4 3.8 7.6 88.6 17.5 30.1 52.4 Mean Mean 27 32 Education Household revenue Data collection method Age Total N (%) 218 (100 ) 90 (41.3) 128 (58.7) 13 (6.0) 65 (30.1) 138 (63.9) 61 (29.5) 76 (36.7) 70 (33.8) 111 (50.9) 107 (49.1) Mean (Standard Deviation) 29.5 (8.1) * At 95% confidence, the four sociodemographic variables are significantly different. the ratio χ2/degrees of freedom of 1.96 (43.14/22), a CFI of 0.95, an AGFI of 0.88, an NFI of 0.91, an NNFI of 0.92, and a GFI of 0.94 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Bentler, 2005). Reliability. Baumgartner and Homburg (1996) recommended that the reliability of measurement scales be evaluated from different angles. Therefore, three different types of analysis were performed. Suggestions by Churchill (1979) were used to calculate first the adjusted item-total correlations (Table 4). The results show that all dimensions have adjusted item-total correlations greater than 0.35, which is satisfactory (McKelvey, 1976). Subsequently, component Cronbach’s alphas and reliability indices for each dimension were generated. The results shown in Table 4 indicate that the alphas range between 0.69 (WOM intensity) and 0.89 (WOM positive valence), which is satisfactory (Peterson, 1994). As for component reliability indices (CFI), they range between 0.64 (WOM intensity) and 0.85 (positive valence), exceeding the minimum of 0.60 suggested by Bagozzi and Yi (1988), as well as by Fornell and Larcker (1981). Convergent and discriminant validity. To assess convergent validity, many authors have suggested that it is important to determine if each statement is associated with the factor that it measures (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). Estimated coefficients as the same thing. Many authors agree that unidimensionality is fundamental to measurement theory (Hattie, 1985) and is crucial in the development of a quality scale (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Cox and Cox (2002) tested the unidimensionality of their measurement scale using principal component analysis. This technique was employed, and the results of Table 4 (first column of results) indicate that each dimension of the scale is unidimensional. A confirmatory factor analysis using the EQS 6.1 structural equation modelling software (Bentler, 2005) was also performed for a more in depth validation of the scale’s psychometric properties. Baumgartner and Homburg (1996) emphasized that this statistical method helps validate the quality of the measurement tool. As mentioned by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), structural equation modelling holds great potential in measurement scale validation. Table 4 (first column of results—CFA) also indicates that the coefficients are all associated with their respective dimensions, that they are all greater than 0.50, and that they are statistically significant. Multiple statistics were used to assess the model’s goodness of fit to the data. Firstly, the average offdiagonal standardized residual (AOSR) is 0.067 and the RMSEA index is 0.08, which is somewhat high but nonetheless acceptable. However, we can reconfirm a satisfactory validation of goodness of fit to the data with Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 12 Can J Adm Sci 27(1), 5–23 (2010) e-WOM SCALE: WORD-OF-MOUTH MEASUREMENT SCALE FOR e-SERVICES CONTEXT GOYETTE ET AL. Table 4 Results of Reliability and Validity Analyses DIMENSIONS Principal component analysis/CFAa Adjusted item-total correlations 0.76/0.58 0.47 0.84/0.80 0.58 0.77/0.60 0.49 Positive valence word-of-mouth I recommended this company I speak of this company’s good sides. I am proud to say to others that I am this company’s customer. I strongly recommend people buy products online from this company. I mostly say positive things to others. I have spoken favourably of this company to others. 0.86/0.84 0.83/0.79 0.70/0.61 0.81/0.80 0.81/0.82 0.84/0.73 0,78 0,73 0.60 0.73 0.70 0.74 Negative valence word-of-mouth I mostly say negative things to others. I have spoken unflatteringly of this company to others. 0.92/0.93 0.92/0.74 0.69 0.69 Word-of-mouth content I discuss the user-friendliness of its website. I discuss security of transactions and its Internet site. I discuss the prices of products offered. I discuss the variety of the products offered. I discuss the quality of the products offered. I discuss ease of transactions. I speak of the rapid delivery. I speak of the company’s notoriety. 0.58/0.51 0.65/0.56 0.61/0.58 0.70/0.67 0.70/0.66 0.62/0.52 0.69/0.60 0.62/0.54 0.46 0.51 0.45 0.55 0.55 0.50 0.56 0.48 Word-of-mouth intensity I spoke of this company much more frequently than about any other e-services company. I spoke of this company much more frequently than about companies of any other type. I spoke of this company to many individuals. Alpha (α)/CFIb 0.69/0.64 0.89/0.85 0.82/0.78 0.80/0.77 a The first number represents the factor coefficient generated by principal component analysis. The second number represents the factor coefficient generated by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), performed using EQS 6.1 software (Bentler, 2005). b The first number represents Cronbach’s alpha. The second number represents the reliability index of the CFI components (cf. Fornell and Larcker, 1981). computed by the EQS software are all high (i.e., ≥0.50) and statistically significant (p < 0.01). To evaluate discriminant validity, the model presented in Figure 1 was assessed several times by combining two different dimensions together every time (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). The Chi-square of the original model was a great deal lower than in the models where two dimensions were combined, which is an excellent indication of the discriminant validity of the model’s dimensions (Bagozzi & Philips, 1982). In other words, for each pair of measures forcing two dimensions into one, we saw a reduced goodness of fit to the data as compared to the original model (Figure 1). We also evaluated discriminant validity by following recommendations by Gaski (1984), who state that the correlation between two dimensions should not exceed the reliability of the respective dimensions. Results indicate that the Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. fidelity indices of word-of-mouth dimensions were still higher than the correlation between the respective dimensions. Assessment of WOM Measurement Scale in an E-services Context For reasons of statistical parsimony, the method of partial aggregation of statements was used for the dimensions of positive valence and WOM content (Bagozzi & Heatherton, 1994). For example, we randomly selected two items from the “positive valence word-of-mouth” construct as a sample of the six-item scale. Hence, this strategy helped us reduce the number of items from 19 to 9 with each factor measured by two or three items. Thus, random error is reduced, a complex model is simplified, and the items aggregated at random 13 Can J Adm Sci 27(1), 5–23 (2010) e-WOM SCALE: WORD-OF-MOUTH MEASUREMENT SCALE FOR e-SERVICES CONTEXT GOYETTE ET AL. Figure 1. Standardized results for word-of-mouth measurement scale in an e-services context Item 1 Item 2 0.63 0.75 WOM Intensity 0.62 Item 3 0.65 0.92 Item1 Item 2 0.71 Item 1 0.93 Item 2 0.74 Positive Valence WOM 0.81 -0.22 Word-ofMouth Negative Valence WOM 0.57 Item 1 Item 2 * ** *** 0,87 0,72 WOM Content χ2 / DF = 43.14 / 22 = 1.96 AOSR = 0.067 ; RMSEA = 0.08 NFI = 0.91 ; NNFI =0.92 AGFI = 0.88 ; GFI = 0.94 All the coefficients are statistically significant (p< 0.05). A satisfactory goodness of fit of the model to the data is possible whenever the average off-diagonal standardized residual (AOSR) and the RMSEA index approach zero. In addition, the model is deemed satisfactory whenever the majority of the indices NFI, NNFI, AGFI, GFI, and CFI are greater than 0.9. Finally, the goodness of fit of the data to the model is satisfactory whenever the ratio χ2 / DF is under 4 (Bentler, 2005). For reasons of statistical parsimony, the method of partial aggregation of statements was used for the dimensions of positive valence and WOM content (Bagozzi & Heatherton, 1994). Hence, the two following items were randomly selected for each construct: “I recommended this company” and “I have spoken favourably of this company to others” for the Positive Valence WOM construct and “I discuss the quality of the product offer” and “I discuss the variety of the product offer” for the WOM Content construct. sors, and students of a Québec university. Thus, a new database of 150 respondents was created. The percentage of men in the second sample is 51.3%. The mean age is 31.3 with a standard deviation of 8.49. Just over 75% of the respondents make under $ 50,000 a year. Here again the psychometric properties of the scale were satisfactory. Cronbach’s alphas are 0.78, 0.83, 0.94, and 0.84, respectively for the following dimensions: content, WOM intensity, positive valence, and negative valence. A confirmatory factor analysis was performed again with the same statements shown in Figure 1. Indices of model goodness of fit to the data are satisfactory (e.g., NFI = 0.92 and CFI = 0.94). As in the first model, the dimension of positive valence explains the greater part of the variance in the WOM construct are more reliable than dimensions measured using a single statement (Bagozzi & Heatherton). The results presented in Figure 1 show that the dimension of positive valence (i.e., WOM praise) explains the greater part of the variance in the WOM construct (λ = 0.81) followed by the dimensions of WOM intensity (λ = 0.65), content (λ = 0.57), and negative valence (λ = −0.22). All these coefficients are statistically significant (p < 0.01). To improve scale validity, a new round of data collection was undertaken. A second survey was carried out by email using the snowball sampling method. This method involved asking the respondents to complete the questionnaire and to forward it on. A Word.doc file with the questionnaire was sent out to acquaintances, profes- Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 14 Can J Adm Sci 27(1), 5–23 (2010) e-WOM SCALE: WORD-OF-MOUTH MEASUREMENT SCALE FOR e-SERVICES CONTEXT (λ = 0.87) followed by the dimensions of WOM intensity (λ = 0.83), content (λ = 0.74), and negative valence (λ = −0.16). In addition to performing the same reliability and validity analyses, we empirically demonstrated the nomological validity of the scale. We analyzed the correlation coefficients for the four dimensions of our scale and three constructs strongly associated with WOM in previous research, namely, service quality, trust, and satisfaction (Anderson, 1998; Bergeron et al. 2003; Reicheld & Sasser, 1990). Absolute correlation coefficients between each scale dimension and each construct measuring service quality, respondent trust, and satisfaction range between 0.22 and 0.50. They are all statistically significant, which indicates that the nomological validity of our scale is acceptable. Thus, we can conclude that the internal validity of our scale is acceptable because it has been tested using two different samples. of Desormeaux and Labrecque (1999), which showed a difference between “satisfaction” and “dissatisfaction.” Recognition of valence as a dual concept is theoretically interesting; more so given that the effects of one seem not to have the same impact as the other. According to a frequently cited statistic, a dissatisfied customer mentions his or her dissatisfaction to nine people, while satisfaction is only expressed to five individuals. However, the results show that the principal constituent of WOM is positive valence. Does that mean that the propagation of valence is reversed in the specific context of e-commerce? Applied Implications The strategic importance of word-of-mouth as a communication medium for an organization no longer has to be proven. Paradoxically, companies have very little, if any control over its reach or content. A company is dependent on the message that will be communicated by its consumers and others with whom it has never had and never will have any contact. The virtual environment and its global scope only increase the power of word of mouth and, consequently, the level of dependence of the companies in question. The instant popularity and notoriety of trading and noncommercial sites such as Facebook, YouTube, eBay, or Wikipedia are irrefutable evidence of the ubiquity of WOM in the online world. Virtual communities such as DPReview owe their existence and their growth only to word-ofmouth. An integral part of our everyday life, some, like Google, have even become common names. It is difficult to imagine how much these online companies would have had to invest in conventional communications media to achieve the same result. It is understandable; WOM and the essence of these companies are one on the Web. Although these companies rarely have the means to control their members’ and nonmembers’ word-ofmouth, thanks to the e-WOM Scale, they now have the opportunity to measure its impact and to make the necessary adjustments. This scale fills a void whereby an organization is now able to assess how its brand and products are communicated through WOM. It enables the organization to measure what is being said about it (content), the scope of what is being said (intensity), and the surfers’ attitude towards the organization (positive or negative valence). The company will then have the capability to see if, for instance, the valence being expressed is compatible with the content or if the intensity correlates with the valence or the content. In the event that the results observed are not the results sought by management, managers will be able to retarget the Discussion Summary The primary objective of the study was to create a multidimensional measurement scale for WOM in the context of electronic services—the e-WOM Scale. A review of prior research highlighted the paucity of studies focusing on this set of problems, especially in the domain of e-services. Taking inspiration from the results of a study by Harrison-Walker (2001) and from many others, the nine items of the e-Scale measure four dimensions of word-of-mouth: (1) intensity (activity); (2) positive valence/praise; (3) negative valence; (4) content. Statistical tests applied to two different samples helped confirm the validity and the reliability of this measurement tool. Contributions to Scholarship The e-WOM Scale adapted to the e-services domain helped double the number of measured dimensions with respect to the scale of Harrison-Walker (2001), while slightly increasing the number of items (from six to nine). Thus, the e-WOM Scale enabled us to grasp in a more complete manner the concept of word-of-mouth without complicating the scale by increasing the number of items. This increased precision provides a better understanding of the components of word-of-mouth. For example, Burzynski and Bayer (1977) spoke of valence in a global way. The e-WOM Scale, on the other hand, shows that valence is divisible into two distinct dimensions: positive valence—frequently described as praise— and negative valence. This result is similar to the results Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. GOYETTE ET AL. 15 Can J Adm Sci 27(1), 5–23 (2010) e-WOM SCALE: WORD-OF-MOUTH MEASUREMENT SCALE FOR e-SERVICES CONTEXT message to their advantage by propping up those aspects that are seen as weak in the e-WOM Scale. For example, should those surfers that are favourably disposed towards the company (positive valence) be encouraged to speak of it more (i.e., increased intensity through specials, for instance), or should the message target those that transmit negative valence to convince them to change their minds? It is obvious that the measurement tool helps target and adapt the steps to be undertaken to use WOM to its full potential. The quality of the scale (validity and reliability) and its relative length (nine items) make its application simple and accessible to every manager. strength of the association between WOM and future sales would have to be assessed in further research. The multidimensional WOM measurement scale developed in the context of electronic services is an anchor point in the pursuit of a reliable and valid scale. Since no measurement scale has been developed to date in the context of e-services, this study contributes to the advancement of research in the domains of WOM and electronic services. References ABC-Netmarketing.com (July 7, 2009). Buzz marketing ou marketing viral? Retrieved from http://www.abcnetmarketing.com/article.php3?id_article = 1765 Anderson, E.W. (1998). Customer satisfaction and Word-ofMouth. Journal of Service Research, 1(1), 5–17. Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(May), 411–423. Arndt, J. (1967a). Word of Mouth Advertising: A review of the literature. New York: The Advertising Research Foundation Inc. Arndt, J. (1967b). Role of product-related conversations in the diffusion of a new product. The Journal of Marketing Research, 4(2), 291–295. Arndt, J. (1968). Selective processes in Word of Mouth. Journal of Advertising Research, 8(3), 19–22. Bagozzi, R.P., & Heatherton, T.F. (1994). A general approach to representing multifaceted personality constructs. Structural Equation Modeling, 1(1), 35–67. Bagozzi, R.P., & Philips, L.W. (1982). Representing and testing organizational theories. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(3), 459–489. Bagozzi, R.P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–79. Baumgartner, H., & Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(2), 139–161. Bentler, P.M. (2005). EQS 6.1: Structural Equation Program Manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate software. Bergeron, J., Ricard, L., & Perrien, J. (2003). Les déterminants de la fidélité des clients commerciaux dans l’industrie bancaire canadienne. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 20(2), 107–120. Black, D.S.S., Mitra, K., & Webster, C. (1998). Word-ofMouth communications: A motivational analysis. Advances in Consumer Research, 25, 527–531. Boles, J.S., Barksdale, H.C. Jr., & Johnson, J.T. (1997). Business relationships: An examination of the effects of buyersalesperson relationships on customer retention and willingness to refer and recommend. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 12(3/4), 248–258. Limitations and Future Research Directions The newness of the WOM measure makes the development of a multidimensional measurement scale more urgent as this important topic should develop on sound methodological grounds. With its four distinct dimensions, the e-WOM Scale appears to be the most complete WOM measurement tool to date. However, this does not suggest that there are no new or secondorder factors underlying the four e-WOM Scale components. Another avenue of research is to apply the e-WOM Scale to word of mouth related to brick-and-mortar companies. The tool would help compare WOM components showing similarities or differences depending on what respondents say about the same company based on their in-person or online experience. This research has demonstrated the need for companies to measure WOM. It is also imperative proves imperative to identify the antecedents and consequences of WOM in the context of e-services. As for WOM antecedents that were investigated in conventional markets, we note client trust (Bergeron et al. 2003), service quality (Parasuraman et al., 1988), and satisfaction (Anderson, 1998). As far as the consequences of WOM are concerned, many researchers have found impacts on relationship quality (Boles et al., 1997) and customer purchasing intention (Crocker, 1986; Maxham III, 2001; Ying & Chung, 2007). Given the power of WOM online, it would be appropriate to study these relationships in the context of e-services. The e-WOM Scale would help measure WOM both against its antecedents and its consequences. Since many researchers have established a significant association between word of mouth and intention to purchase (Crocker, 1986; Maxham III, 2001; Ying & Chung, 2007), the e-WOM Scale could also be useful in predicting future demand for e-services companies. The Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. GOYETTE ET AL. 16 Can J Adm Sci 27(1), 5–23 (2010) e-WOM SCALE: WORD-OF-MOUTH MEASUREMENT SCALE FOR e-SERVICES CONTEXT Harrison-Walker, L.J. (2001). The measurement of Word-ofMouth communication and an investigation of service quality and customer commitment as potential antecedents. Journal of Service Research, 4(1), 60–75. Hartline, M.D., & Jones, K.C. (1996). Employee performance cues in a hotel service environment: Influence on perceived service quality, value and word-of-mouth intentions. Journal of Business Research, 35(March), 207–215. Hattie, J.R. (1985). Methodological review: Assessing unidimensionality of tests and items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9(June), 139–164. Haywood, K.M. (1989). Managing Word of Mouth communications. The Journal of Services Marketing, 3(2), 55–67. Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., & Gremler, D.D. (2002). Understanding relationship marketing outcomes. Journal of Service Research, 4(3), 230–247. Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Walsh, G., & Gremier, D.D. (2004). Electronic Word-of-Mouth via consumeropinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the Internet?. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1), 38–52. Herr, P.M., Kardes, F.R., & Kim, J. (1991). Effects of Wordof-Mouth and product-attribute information on persuasion: An accessibility-diagnostic perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 454–462. Higie, R.A., Feick, L.F., & Price, L.L. (1987). Types and amount of Word-of-Mouth communications about retailers. Journal of Retailing, 63(3), 260–279. Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P.F. (1955). Personal influence. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Kim, W.G., Han, J.S., & Lee, E. (2001). Effects of relationship marketing on repeat purchase and Word of Mouth. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 25(3), 272–288. Mangold, W.G., Miller, F., & Brockay, G.R. (1999). Word-ofMouth communication in the service marketplace. Journal of Services Marketing, 13(1), 73–89. Maxham III, J.G. (2001). Service recovery’s influence on consumer satisfaction, positive Word-of-Mouth, and purchase intentions. Journal of Business Research, 54(1), 11–29. McKelvey, W.W. (1976). An approach for developing shorter and better measuring instruments. Working Paper 76–6. Human Systems Development Study Center, Graduate School of Management, UCLA. Morin, S.P. (1983). Influentials advising their friends to sell lots of high-tech gadgetry. Wall Street Journal, February 28, 30. Murray, K.B. (1991). A Test of Services Marketing Theory : Consumer Information Acquisition Activities. Journal of Marketing, 55(1), 10–25. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., & Berry, L.L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring customer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1). 12–40. Peterson, R.A. (1994). A meta-analysis of Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2), 381–391. Bone, P.F. (1992). Determinants of Word-of-Mouth communication during product consumption. Advances in Consumer Research, 19, 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-ofMouth referral behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 350–362. Burzynski, M.H., & Bayer, D.J. (1977). The effect of positive and negative prior information on motion picture appreciation. The Journal of Social Psychology, 101(1), 215–218. Calder, B.J., Philips, L.W., & Tybout, A.M. (1981). Design research for application. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(1), 197–206. Churchill, G.A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73. Cox, D., & Cox, A.D. (2002). Beyond first impressions: The effects of repeated exposure on consumer liking of visually complex and simple product designs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(2), 119–130. Crocker, K.E. (1986). The influence of the amount and type of information on individuals’ perception of legal services. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 14(4), 18–27. Day, G.S. (1971), Attitude change, media, and word of mouth. Journal of Advertising Research, 11(6), 31–40. Desormeaux, R., & Labrecque, J. (1999). La mesure de la satisfaction de la clientèle, Gestion, 24(2), 74–81. Duhan, D.F., Johnson, S.D., Wilcox, J.B., & Harrell, G.D. (1997). Influences on consumer use of Word-of-Mouth recommendation sources. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4), 283–295. File, K.M., Cermark, D.S.P., & Prince, R.A. (1994). Word-ofMouth effects in professional services buyer behavior. The Service Industries Journal, 14(3), 301–314. File, K.M., Judd, B.B., & Prince, R.A. (1992). Interactive marketing: The influence of participation. Journal of Services Marketing, 6(4), 5. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(February), 39–50. Gaski, J. (1984). The theory of power and conflict in channels of distribution. Journal of Marketing, 48(Summer), 9–29. Godes, D., & Mayzlin, D. (2004). Se servir des conversations en ligne pour étudier le bouche-à-oreille. Recherche et Applications en marketing, 19(4), 89–111. Godin, S., (2001). Les secrets du marketing viral : le boucheà-oreille à la puissance 10!. Paris : Maxima Laurent Du Mesnil Éditeur, 197p. Goyette, I. (2007). Élaboration d’une échelle de mesure multidimensionnelle du bouche-à-oreille dans le secteur des services électroniques. Mémoire de maîtrise, École des Sciences de la Gestion, UQAM, 149p. Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. GOYETTE ET AL. 17 Can J Adm Sci 27(1), 5–23 (2010) e-WOM SCALE: WORD-OF-MOUTH MEASUREMENT SCALE FOR e-SERVICES CONTEXT ior: a clickstream analysis. Journal of Business Research, 58, 1599–1608. Sheth. J.N. (1971). Word-of-Mouth in low-risk innovations. Journal of Advertising Research, 11(3), 15–18. Silverman, G. (2001). The Power of Word of Mouth. Direct Marketing, 64(5), 47. Singh, J. (1990). Voice, exit, and negative Word-of-Mouth behaviors: An investigation across three service categories. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18(1), 1–15. Stanbouli, K. (2003). Marketing viral et publicité. Revue Française du Marketing, 192/193(May) , 97–106. Statistics Canada (September 23, 2004). Achats en ligne: magasinage des ménages sur Internet. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/Francais/040923/q040923a. htm Swan, J.E., & Oliver, R.L. (1989). Postpurchase communications by consumers. Journal of Retailing, 65(4), 516–533. Westbrook, R.A. (1987). Product/consumption-based affective responses and postpurchase processes. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3), 258–270. Whyte, W.H. Jr. (1954). The web of Word of Mouth. Fortune, 50(5), 140–143. Ying H.L., & Chung C.M. (2007). The effects of single-message single-source mixed Word-of-Mouth on product attitude and purchase intention. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 19(1), 75–93. Phelps, J.E., Lewis, R., Mobilio, L., Perry, D., & Raman, N. (2004). Viral marketing or electronic Word-of-Mouth advertising: Examining consumers responses and motivations to pass along email. Journal of Advertising Research, 44(4), 333–348. Ranaweera, C., & Prabhu, J. (2003). On the relative importance of customer satisfaction and trust as determinants of customer retention and positive word of mouth. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis of Marketing, 12(1), 82–90. Reicheld, F.F. (1996). The loyalty effect. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Reichheld, F.F., & Sasser, W.E. (1990). Zero defections: Quality comes to services. Harvard Business Review, 5(September/October), 105–111. Rey-Debove, F. & Rey, A. (2007). Le Nouveau Petit Robert : Dictionnaire alphabétique et analogique de la langue française, Paris, Éditions Le Robert. Richins, M.L. (1983). Negative Word-of-Mouth by dissatisfied consumers: A pilot study. Journal of Marketing, 47, 68–78. Salzman, M., Matathia, I., & O’Reilly, A. (2004). Buzz . . . Le marketing du bouche-à-oreille. Paris: Village Mondial. Sénécal, S., & Nantel, J. (2004). The Influence of online product recommendations on consumer’s online choices. Journal of Retailing, 80(2), 159–169. Sénécal, S., Kalczynski, P.J., & Nantel, J. (2005). Consumers’ decision making process and their online shopping behav- Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. GOYETTE ET AL. 18 Can J Adm Sci 27(1), 5–23 (2010) Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 19 Unidimensional Brown and Reingen (1987) Goyette (2007), p.28–35 Unidimensional Richins (1983) NA Sheth (1971) Unidimensional Information not available (NA) Arndt (1967b) Burzynski and Bayer (1977) Type of measurement scale Authors NA NA NA NA Information not available (NA) Cronbach’s Alpha Self-administered questionnaire Respondents: adult consumers Sector: clothing and apparel (electronic) Telephone interview Respondents: professors, adults, piano students. Sector: music Field experiment and self-administered questionnaire Respondents: adults going to see a movie Sector: cinema Personal interview Respondents: men Sector: razor blades Personal interview Respondents: married female students Sector: food products Methodology NA (1) Respondents were asked to recollect the time they became aware of the new blades, what source informed them for the first time. (2) Respondents were asked whether they adopted them immediately after becoming aware or some time later, and whether friends and other personal informal sources were influential in their adoption decision. (3) Respondents were also asked if they had influenced someone else after their own adoption. (p.16) Respondents were exposed to either positive, negative, or no comments about the film they were about to see. (p.216) (1) positive prior information: “I wouldn’t mind seeing this one again,” and “The acting was fantastic, but the plot was even better”. (p.216) (2) negative prior information: “You couldn’t pay me to see that thing again” and “Well, another two bucks shot,” (p.216) The act of telling at least one friend or acquaintance about the dissatisfaction. (p. 71) Since each respondent was questioned about comments received and given, the conversations could be cross-checked by comparing the questionnaires of both parties in the conversation. (p.291) WOM measurement context Word-of-Mouth Measurement Scales Appendix A “Who-toldwhomabout-theservice” (p. 351) NA NA NA Information not available (NA) WOM statements Receiver (HarrisonWalker, 2001) and communicator (HarrisonWalker, 2001) Receiver (HarrisonWalker, 2001) and communicator (Goyette, 2007) Receiver (HarrisonWalker, 2001) Receiver (HarrisonWalker, 2001) and communicator (Goyette, 2007) Receiver and communicator (Goyette, 2007) Viewpoint for WOM measurement e-WOM SCALE: WORD-OF-MOUTH MEASUREMENT SCALE FOR e-SERVICES CONTEXT GOYETTE ET AL. Can J Adm Sci 27(1), 5–23 (2010) Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 20 Unidimensional dichotomous, (0) for no and (1) for yes. Singh (1990) NA Westbrook (1987) Unidimensional seven-point Likert. NA Higie, Feick, and Price (1987) Swan and Oliver (1989) Type of measurement scale Authors NA Reliability index: 0.86 (measured by frequency, number of persons and number of topics) NA NA Cronbach’s Alpha Self-administered questionnaire by mail Respondents: Households that have had an unsatisfactory experience with one of the services being studied. Sector: grocery trade, vehicle repair, medical services Personal interview and selfadministered questionnaire Respondents: adult men and women Sector: automotive and cable TV Self-administered questionnaire Respondents: new car buyers Sector: automotive Telephone questionnaire Respondents: residents of a metropolitan region in north-eastern United States. Sector: retail sales Methodology NA NA The respondents were given the opportunity to recall and report “any other attributes of retail outlets that they discussed with other people.” Dimensions which pilot respondents did not discuss (e.g., location and store hours) and topics that were too broad or general (e.g, service) were dropped (p.266) Dimensions included in the final instrument were: (1) quality of merchandise, (2) special sales, (3) usual or everyday prices, (4) helpfulness and friendliness of employees, (5) variety of products available, (6) availability of particular brands, (7) return policy. The response categories were: never, a few times a year, about once a month, a few times a month, and once a week or more. (1) Reported frequency of discussions with others about CATV and local cable operator. (2) Number of persons involved. (3) Number of topics discussed. (p.263) WOM measurement context (1) “Did you say mostly positive or mostly negative things about the car.” (2) “Did you recommend “buy the car” or “not buy the car”.” (p. 522) “Told my friends and relatives about my bad experience.” (p. 7) NA NA WOM measurement items Communicator (Goyette, 2007) Communicator (Goyette, 2007) Communicator (Goyette, 2007) Communicator (HarrisonWalker, 2001) Viewpoint for WOM measurement e-WOM SCALE: WORD-OF-MOUTH MEASUREMENT SCALE FOR e-SERVICES CONTEXT GOYETTE ET AL. Can J Adm Sci 27(1), 5–23 (2010) Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 21 Bone (1995) NA Unidimensional File, Cermark, and Prince (1994) Multidimensional with three statements Bone (1992) Unidimensional NA Herr, Kardes, and Kim (1991) File, Judd, and Prince (1992) Type of measurement scale Authors NA NA NA The three statements were standardized and added for αWOM = 0.79 NA Cronbach’s Alpha Experimental presentation. Complete a card on product expectations and performance. Respondents: students Test product: biscuit Questionnaire Respondents: clients of an attorney Sector: Trust and estate planning Structured personal interview Respondents: company executives Sector: professional services (consultants) Individual self-administered questionnaire Respondents: group of two or more after a meal. Sector: restaurants Experiment Subjects: students (undergraduate) Experimental unit: printed or verbal information about a product Methodology The respondents were exposed to either a positive conversation or with a negative conversation between two students. (p. 217). WOM for this study refers to: “recommending the firm and the service to others as well as communications with the firm.” (p. 6) NA The respondents are subjected to a negative OR positive conversation. (1) WOM (+): “It’s the best car he’s ever had. He hasn’t spent a dime on repairs since he bought it. He says if it ever wears out he’ll get another just like it.” (2) WOM (−): “It’s the worst car he’s ever had. It seems like it’s always in the shop being repaired. I think he’s spent more to keep it running than it originally cost him.” (p. 458) NA WOM measurement context “A personal endorsement of the (professional services firm) from a business associate in the decision to retain the professional service provider.” “Telling other business associates what you thought of the (service provider).” (p. 308). NA (1) “We did not talk about the food at all” and “We talk about the food a lot.” (2) Whether the food eaten was a large part of the mealtime conversation. (3) How much of the table conversation dealt with the food being eaten. Responses ranged from “nothing was said about the food” to “the biggest topic of conversation was our food.” (p. 580) NA NA WOM measurement items Receiver (HarrisonWalker, 2001) Communicator (Harrison-Walker, 2001) Receiver (HarrisonWalker, 2001) & communicator (Goyette, 2007) Communicator (Goyette, 2007) Receiver (HarrisonWalker, 2001) Viewpoint for WOM measurement e-WOM SCALE: WORD-OF-MOUTH MEASUREMENT SCALE FOR e-SERVICES CONTEXT GOYETTE ET AL. Can J Adm Sci 27(1), 5–23 (2010) Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Information unavailable Multidimensional Black, Mitra, and Webster (1998) Mangold, Miller, and Brockway (1999) Unidimensional seven-point Likert Unidimensional Anderson (1998) Kim, Han, and Lee (2001) Type of measurement scale Authors Self-administered questionnaire Respondents: students Sector: 77 different services Self-administered questionnaire Respondents: hotel customers Sector: hospitality αWOM: 0.80 Telephone interview Respondents: users Sector: various Critical incident technique Respondents: persons stopped on location Sector: various businesses. Methodology NA NA NA Cronbach’s Alpha The respondents were then asked to think about the last time someone told them something positive about a service that they may have had an interest in purchasing. Then, they were asked to think about the last time someone told them something negative about a service that they may have had an interest in purchasing. Thus, each respondent reported on two WOM communication incidents, one positive and the other negative. In regard to each event, respondents were asked: (1) what service they were thinking about, (2) how long ago the communication had occurred, (3) what was said, (4) respondents’ relationship with the person to whom they were speaking, (5) how the particular WOM came about, (6) whether the WOM was part of a broader conversation; and, if so, (7) how that broader conversation came about. “Desire to recommend a hotel to other people and willingness to say good things about a hotel to other people” (p. 279) (Influences: Swan and Oliver (1989) The respondents were asked to provide details on a recent positive WOM and a negative WOM. The respondents were probed about the product discussed, approximate time period of conversation with the other person, specifics of the WOM conversation, and motivations behind the WOM. (p.527) Respondents report word-of-mouth activity in terms of the number of individuals spoken to about recent experiences with quality. (p. 10) WOM measurement context (1) “I am willing to tell other people about the good aspects of this hotel” (2) “I am willing to recommend this hotel to others” (p. 281) NA “Willingness to recommend”, “recommendations to others” (p. 6) “Exactly what did you tell the other person and what motivated you to share this particular experience?” (p. 528) WOM measurement items Communicator (Goyette, 2007) Receiver (Goyette, 2007) Communicator (Goyette, 2007) Communicator (Harrison-Walker, 2001) Viewpoint for WOM measurement e-WOM SCALE: WORD-OF-MOUTH MEASUREMENT SCALE FOR e-SERVICES CONTEXT 22 GOYETTE ET AL. Can J Adm Sci 27(1), 5–23 (2010) Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 23 Unidimensional Two-item measurement scale NA Ranaweera and Prabhu (2003) Godes and Mayzlin (2004) Multidimensional 7-point Likert with “completely agree” and “completely disagree” at either end. Harrison-Walker (2001) Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner, Gremler (2002) Type of measurement scale Authors NA αWOM: 0.79 (statements unavailable) Direct observation of interpersonal conversations (thousands of discussion forums) on the “Usenet” site. Respondents: audience of a new TV series Sector: new TV series (44) Self-administered questionnaire Respondents: students (undergraduate) Sector: service Qualitative interview Respondents: consumers Sector: phone service Self-administered questionnaire Respondents: Consumers of one of the two services under investigation. Sector: veterinary clinic and hair salon α WOMpraise = 0.80 α WOMactivity = 0.78 NA Methodology Cronbach’s Alpha (1) Recommendation of the service (2) Involuntary recommendation based on the two-dimensional typology, which identified two key types of WOM – receiver initiated and sender initiated (p. 85) Measure WOM on the Internet using online conversations. Study of two distinct WOM dimensions: volume and dispersion (p. 94). Based on 13 statements (cf. righthand column) created to measure 4 aspects of WOM. Statements (1) to (3) : Frequency Statements (4) to (6) : Number of contacts Statements (7) to (9): Details Statements (10) to (13): Praise Following a factor analysis in principal components, the author cleaned up the measurement scale retaining only the statements in bold in the righthand column. Statements (2), (4), (5), and (7) : WOM activity Statements (10) and (13): Praise WOM Statements (1), (3), (6), (8), (9), (11), and (12): Rejected during scale purification process Information unavailable WOM measurement context (1) Volume: “what is the scope of word of mouth?” (p. 94) (2) Dispersion: “extent and diversity of virtual communities in which conversations on a given product are found” (p. 90) NA “I often recommend this service provider to others” (p. 245) Since I have been with this service organization, I have mentioned the name of this service organization very rarely. 2) I mention this service organization to others quite frequently. 3) I rarely have occasion to mention the name of this organization to others. 4) I’ve told more people about this service organization than I’ve spoken about most other service organizations. 5) I seldom miss an opportunity to tell others about this service organization 6) I’ve told very few people about this service organization. 7) When I tell others about this service organization, I tend to talk about the organization in great detail. 8) I seldom do more than mention the name of this service organization to others. 9) Once I get talking about this service organization, it’s hard for me to stop. 10) I have only good things to say about this service organization. 11) Although I use this service organization, I tell others that I do not recommend it. 12) In general, I do not speak favourably about this service organization. 13) I am proud to tell others that I use this service organization . . . (p. 72–73). WOM measurement items Communicator and receiver (Goyette, 2007) Communicator and receiver (Goyette, 2007) Communicator (Goyette, 2007) Communicator (HarrisonWalker, 2001) Viewpoint for WOM measurement e-WOM SCALE: WORD-OF-MOUTH MEASUREMENT SCALE FOR e-SERVICES CONTEXT GOYETTE ET AL. Can J Adm Sci 27(1), 5–23 (2010)
© Copyright 2024 Paperzz