Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 531

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

Steffes, Erin M., Burgee, Lawrence E.·2009·Internet Research

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/10662240910927812

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 531

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.