The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Social ties and online word of mouth
Abstract
Purpose: The power of word of mouth (WOM) communication and its influence on consumer decision making is well established in academic literature. The recent adoption of online communication by many consumers has facilitated a fundamental change to the structure of many WOM interactions by exposing consumers to electronic WOM (eWOM) from virtual strangers. The current study seeks to uncover whether traditional findings on social ties and WOM communication hold for eWOM information. Design/methodology/approach: Data were collected from 482 college students with varying levels of expertise with eWOM forums, specifically RateMyProfessors.com in the USA. Participants completed a 20‐question survey related to university professor and class choice. Findings: The study finds that students seeking information on which professor to take weight the information they obtain from eWOM forums to be equally influential in their decision as their own primary experience with the professor. Furthermore, the information gained from the eWOM forum is more influential in their decision than speaking with friends in person (WOM). While existing research suggests that strong tie referral sources are more influential than weak tie information sources on decision making, this research finds that some weak tie information sources are rated as more influential. Research limitations/implications: A limitation of the study is the focus on one eWOM forum, RateMyProfessors.com. Future research would benefit from expanding the number and type of eWOM forums. Originality/value: While the emergence of the Internet and social networking has spawned an interest in the overall study of eWOM, this study is the first to evaluate eWOM in the context of tie strength, homophily and decision making. The study also investigates whether existing theories of interpersonal communication hold in an online context.
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
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
Product/Consumption-Based Affective Responses and Postpurchase Processes
Westbrook, R. A. (1987) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378702400302 · Cited by 2,462
Cited by
The impact of electronic word-of-mouth communication: A literature analysis and integrative model
Cheung, C. M. K., & Thadani, D. R. (2012) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2012.06.008 · Cited by 2,005
Messing, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2014) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650212466406 · Cited by 902
Ladhari, R., Massa, E., & Skandrani, H. (2020) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.102027 · Cited by 557
The effect of characteristics of source credibility on consumer behaviour: A meta-analysis
Ismagilova, E., Slade, E., Rana, N. P., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2020) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.01.005 · Cited by 504
Amblee, N., & Bui, T. (2011) · International Journal of Electronic Commerce · doi:10.2753/jec1086-4415160205 · Cited by 490
Metadata
- Authors
- Steffes, E. M., & Burgee, L. E.
- Venue
- Internet Research
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2009-01-30
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 42-59
- ISSN
- 1066-2243 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2056684504
- Cited by
- 531
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 67.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Social ties and online word of mouth. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/10662240910927812
- The paper
- Steffes, E. M., & Burgee, L. E. (2009). Social ties and online word of mouth. Internet Research. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240910927812
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.