The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Consumers’ Responses to Negative Word‐of‐Mouth Communication: An Attribution Theory Perspective
Abstract
Research on negative word‐of‐mouth communication (WOMC) in general, and the process by which negative WOMC affects consumers’ brand evaluations in particular, has been limited. This study uses attribution theory to explain consumers’ responses to negative WOMC. Experimental results suggest that (a) causal attributions mediate the negative WOMC‐brand evaluation relation, (b) receivers’ attributions depend on the manner in which the negative WOMC is conveyed, and (c) brand name affects attributions. Results also suggest that when receivers attribute the negativity of the WOMC message to the brand, brand evaluations decrease; however, if receivers attribute the negativity to the communicator, brand evaluations increase.
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
A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs
Churchill, G. A. (1979) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224377901600110 · Cited by 16,549
The processes of causal attribution.
Kelley, H. H. (1973) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/h0034225 · Cited by 4,025 · cited 1×
“According to research in classical attribution theory (Kelley, 1967, 1973), the categories of causal attributions that people generate in response to information include: stimulus (i.e., brand, in this case), person (i.e., communicator, in this case), circumstance, or a combination of these three.”
MethodFrom acts to dispositions the attribution process in person perception
Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60107-0 · Cited by 3,424
Cited by
Electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and tourism management
Litvin, S. W., Goldsmith, R. E., & Pan, B. (2008) · Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2007.05.011 · Cited by 3,267
Travel Blogs and the Implications for Destination Marketing
Pan, B., MacLaurin, T., & Crotts, J. C. (2007) · Journal of Travel Research · doi:10.1177/0047287507302378 · Cited by 798
Electronic word of mouth (eWOM): How eWOM platforms influence consumer product judgement
Lee, M., & Youn, S. (2009) · International Journal of Advertising · doi:10.2501/s0265048709200709 · Cited by 662
Measuring the impact of positive and negative word of mouth on brand purchase probability
East, R., Hammond, K., & Lomax, W. (2008) · International Journal of Research in Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2008.04.001 · Cited by 629
Gray Shades of Green: Causes and Consequences of Green Skepticism
Leonidou, C. N., & Skarmeas, D. (2017) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2829-4 · Cited by 589
Trust transference in brick and click retailers: An investigation of the before-online-visit phase
Kuan, H.-H., & Bock, G.-W. (2007) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2006.12.002 · Cited by 259
Chen, C.-H., Nguyen, B., Klaus, P. “., & Wu, M.-S. (2015) · Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing · doi:10.1080/10548408.2014.956165 · Cited by 107
Metadata
- Authors
- Laczniak, R. N., DeCarlo, T. E., & Ramaswami, S. N.
- Venue
- Journal of Consumer Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-01
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 57-73
- ISSN
- 1057-7408 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7663
- OpenAlex
- W2068265912
- Cited by
- 502
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 5.44
- 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
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.
