The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Why recommend a brand face‐to‐face but not on Facebook? How word‐of‐mouth on online social sites differs from traditional word‐of‐mouth
Open accessAbstract
We examine the conceptual difference between consumer electronic word‐of‐mouth on online social sites (sWOM) such as Facebook and traditional face‐to‐face word‐of‐mouth (WOM). We find that consumers are less willing to engage in sWOM than WOM. Such a difference in willingness to offer word‐of‐mouth can be explained by social risk associated with different communication modes. We show that the difference between people's desire to engage in sWOM and WOM is mediated by perceived social risk and amplified when social risk is made salient. Furthermore, we show that consumers' need to self‐enhance mitigates the difference in willingness to offer sWOM versus WOM.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/brm.40.3.879 · Cited by 34,117
The Behavioral Consequences of Service Quality
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.2307/1251929 · Cited by 12,003
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1002/dir.10073 · Cited by 5,916
Garbarino, E., & Strahilevitz, M. (2004) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/s0148-2963(02)00363-6 · Cited by 954
Self-Enhancement: Food for Thought
Sedikides, C., & Gregg, A. P. (2008) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00068.x · Cited by 880
Estimating and testing mediation and moderation in within-subject designs.
Judd, C. M., Kenny, D. A., & McClelland, G. H. (2001) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.6.2.115 · Cited by 846
What Drives Immediate and Ongoing Word of Mouth?
Berger, J., & Schwartz, E. M. (2011) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmkr.48.5.869 · Cited by 663
Cited by
Belanche, D., Flavián, M., & Pérez-Rueda, A. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12104275 · Cited by 187
Thumbs Up, Sales Up? The Contingent Effect of Facebook Likes on Sales Performance in Social Commerce
Lee, K., Lee, B., & Oh, W. (2015) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2015.1138372 · Cited by 181
Parmar, N., Dong, L., & Eisingerich, A. B. (2018) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/10109 · Cited by 116
Self-citationTudor-Sfetea, C., Rabee, R., Najim, M., Amin, N., Chadha, M., Jain, M., Karia, K., Kothari, V., Patel, T., Suseeharan, M., et al. (2018) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/mhealth.9405 · Cited by 56
Self-citationFritze, M. P., Eisingerich, A. B., & Benkenstein, M. (2019) · Electronic Commerce Research · doi:10.1007/s10660-018-9309-8 · Cited by 50
Metadata
- Authors
- Eisingerich, A. B., Chun, H. H., Liu, Y., Jia, H. (., & Bell, S. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Consumer Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-05-29
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 120-128
- ISSN
- 1057-7408 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7663
- OpenAlex
- W2103954575
- Cited by
- 299
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 57.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Why recommend a brand face‐to‐face but not on Facebook? How word‐of‐mouth on online social sites differs from traditional word‐of‐mouth. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.05.004
- The paper
- Eisingerich, A. B., Chun, H. H., Liu, Y., Jia, H. (., & Bell, S. J. (2015). Why recommend a brand face‐to‐face but not on Facebook? How word‐of‐mouth on online social sites differs from traditional word‐of‐mouth. Journal of Consumer Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.05.004
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
