Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 428

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Effect of Need for Uniqueness on Word of Mouth

Cheema, Amar, Kaikati, Andrew M.·2010·Journal of Marketing Research

Abstract

This research examines the psychosocial cost associated with positive word of mouth (WOM), which can decrease the uniqueness of possessions and thus harm high-uniqueness consumers (pilot study). As a result, high- (versus low-) uniqueness consumers are less willing to generate positive WOM for publicly consumed products that they own. However, high uniqueness does not decrease willingness to generate WOM for privately consumed products (Study 1). Study 2 demonstrates that for publicly consumed products, WOM that includes positive recommendations is more persuasive than WOM that only contains product details. Consequently, the effect of uniqueness is more pronounced for WOM recommendations than for WOM that only provides details (Study 3). Study 4 confirms that high- (versus low-) uniqueness consumers are less willing to recommend a public product to others but are equally willing to discuss product details. Study 5 analyzes real-world WOM content and finds evidence in support of these results.

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 · 10.1509/jmkr.47.3.553

Cites

4 of 4 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

Cited by

See all 428

Metadata

Authors
Cheema, A., & Kaikati, A. M.
Venue
Journal of Marketing Research
Published
2010-06
Volume
47
Issue
3
Pages
553-563
ISSN
  • 0022-2437 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-7193
OpenAlex
W1969100624
Cited by
428
References
4
FWCI
65.73
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.