Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
e-WOM Scale - Word-of-Mouth Measurement Scale For E-Services Context PDF
e-WOM Scale - Word-of-Mouth Measurement Scale For E-Services Context PDF
e-WOM Scale - Word-of-Mouth Measurement Scale For E-Services Context PDF
Line Ricard**
Universit du Qubec Montral (SG-UQAM)
Jasmin Bergeron
SG-UQAM
Franois Marticotte
SG-UQAM
Rsum
Dans cet article, nous proposons, partir dune enqute
ralise auprs de 218 rpondants, une chelle de mesure
du concept de bouche--oreille (chelle BAO ou e-WOM
scale) dans le contexte de services lectroniques. La batterie de tests statistiques raliss rvle que le concept
de BAO comprend quatre dimensions, savoir :
lintensit du BAO, la polarit positive du BAO, la polarit ngative du BAO et le contenu du BAO. Lchelle de
mesure propose peut tre utilise comme un outil stratgique par les gestionnaires dentreprises de services
en ligne dsireux damliorer leurs stratgies de marketing en matire de bouche--oreille. Copyright 2010
ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Abstract
In this article, using data from a survey of 218 consumers
across two samples, we propose a measurement scale for
word of mouth (e-WOM scale) in the context of electronic service. A battery of statistical tests reveals that
the WOM construct encompasses four dimensions: WOM
intensity, positive valence WOM, negative valence WOM,
and WOM content. Our proposed e-WOM scale can be
used as a strategic tool for business managers aiming to
improve their word-of-mouth marketing strategies.
Copyright 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.
JEL Classifications: M31, L81, C3
The authors would like to offer their sincere gratitude to the guest editor, the anonymous referees, Jean-Mathieu Fallu (MBA, SG-UQAM), and MarcAntoine Vachon (post-graduate student, SG-UQAM) for their apt and constructive recommendations. The second database that was used to validate
the scale is the result of a survey undertaken by Mrs. Olfa Gmach in her masters thesis. The authors would also like to highlight the logistical and
financial contribution from SSHRC and the Chair in Financial Services Management SG-UQAM.
*Please note that this paper was originally submitted in French and translated into English. Both versions are available on Wiley Interscience.
**Please address correspondence to: Line Ricard, SG, Universit du Qubec Montral, Case Postale 6192, succursale Centre-ville, Montral (Qubec),
Canada, H3C 4R2. Email: ricard.line@uqam.ca
GOYETTE ET AL.
GOYETTE ET AL.
Table 1
Definitions of Word-of-Mouth
Definitions1
Dimensions2
I
Arndt (1967a, p. 3)
Anderson (1998, p.
6)
Mangold & al. (1999,
p. 83)
Kim, Han, and Lee
(2001, p. 276)
Salzman, Matathia,
and OReilly
(2004)
WOMMA (2006)
Total
E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5
13
Loose translation.
I = Informal, F = Formal, N = Noncommercial, C = Post-purchase behavior, E = Exchange/Flow of information/Communication/
Conversation.
GOYETTE ET AL.
Appendix A lists authors who have conducted an empirical study of WOM. This summary shows for each author
the type of measurement scale used (unidimensional or
multidimensional), Cronbachs alpha or a reliability
index, the recommended methodology, the WOM measurements and context (the way the researchers conceived
WOM), and the viewpoint from which WOM was measured (receiver or communicator).
Among the authors presented, Harrison-Walker
(2001) and Godes and Mayzlin (2004) are the only ones
to have dedicated their research primarily to the study of
WOM measurement. For others, a WOM measure mostly
follows from the need to include this dependent or
independent variable into their research. On the other
hand, there are only six papers that explicitly present a
Cronbachs alpha. In these cases, the internal consistency
level is high with coefficients ranging from 0.78 to 0.80.
Appendix A shows that most WOM measurement
scales presented in published research are unidimensional, that is, they measure a single dimension of WOM
using in most cases a single statement or a single question. Moreover, those authors who use unidimensional
scales do not specify which dimension they were
attempting to measure. Only through an in depth analysis
of statements and a comparison of dimensions measured
by other authors using multidimensional scales was it
possible to identify the WOM dimension measured by
these authors. For example, Burzynski and Bayer (1977)
focused on the valence of a WOM conversation, Higie,
Feick, and Price (1987) analyzed the volume of WOM,
while Bone (1992) concentrated on WOM content.
Appendix A also shows that authors mostly utilized
self-administered questionnaires, and, to a lesser degree,
telephone questionnaires or interviews. In other words,
personal interviews and telephone surveys are the second
data collection method used by these authors. Finally,
some authors used experiments to test the impact of
WOM on other variables rather than to measure WOM
itself.
Since the WOM construct is not the primary object
of the majority of studies, specific items or scales for
measuring WOM are rarely found. Rather, they are found
in the context that enabled the construct to be measured.
Appendix A takes this feature into account by providing
a two-column representation: for the statements themselves and for the context.
Higie et al. (1987), Bone (1992), and Mangold,
Miller, and Brockay (1999) studied the WOM content
dimension. Harrison-Walker (2001) focused on four
aspects of WOM: (1) frequency, (2) number of contacts,
(3) detail, and (4) word-of-mouth praise. Further refinement of this measurement scale led Harrison-Walker to
retain only two primary WOM dimensions: word-of-
GOYETTE ET AL.
e-services. The objective set for these exploratory interviews was to gain better insight into the WOM phenomenon in the context of e-services. Respondents were also
asked about online companies pertinent to their word-ofmouth activity. As direction for these meetings, one of
the authors used an interview guide with four primary
open questions regarding: (a) their reasons for engaging
in WOM online; (b) the credibility of these conversations; (c) their propensity to initiate a positive or a negative conversation; and (d) the content of their electronic
messages. An analysis and an interview report were produced by one of the researchers that developed a classification matrix. In addition, there was an informal
meeting with two consultants specializing in buzz marketing, which helped assess the scope of the word-ofmouth phenomenon in the electronic context and better
differentiate between buzz, viral marketing, and WOM.
This first phase also enabled us to explore the different
dimensions of WOM (WOM intensity, negative and
positive valance, and content).
A self-administered questionnaire was selected for
the survey. This method enabled information to be collected on multiple dimensions. Based on previous work
and exploratory meetings, one of the researchers wrote
the first draft of the questionnaire and another researcher
critiqued it. In the end, researchers arrived at a four-page
questionnaire intended to be concise, clear, and in
keeping with the objectives of the present study. To
ensure this objective was met, the questionnaire was
presented to two other researchers who made minor suggestions mostly with respect to the sociodemographic
variables (for example, adding income) and the wordings
of some of the statements. Finally, the questionnaire was
pretested on ten e-service users with an inclination
towards WOM. The respondents independently completed the questionnaire under the watchful eye of one
of the researchers. The time required to answer the questions was calculated and any remaining points of confusion cleared up as required. Following updates based on
several minor comments primarily with respect to
rewording the first question, the questionnaire was finalized. Again, not a single statement was eliminated.
The questionnaire consists of three sections: (1)
WOM activities; (2) assessment of the various dimensions of word-of-mouth; and (3) the general propensity
on the part of respondents to engage in WOM, their
online buying activities, and their social and demographic characteristics. The respondents were expected
to evaluate their WOM activities with respect to the last
e-services company they had discussed (six such companies were proposed, namely: amazon.com or .ca, eBay.
com, admission.com, chapters.indigo.ca, expedia.com or
expedia.ca, and archambault.ca). The companies were
Method
This paper is an extension of the train of thought
started by Harrison-Walker (2001). This author developed
a measurement scale comprised of six items and two
WOM dimensions. She tested her scale using a sample
made up of veterinary clinic and hair salon customers.
The author observed that although interesting, it is
important that her scale be refined using different contexts and that the possibility of adding other dimensions
be examined. As such, we proceeded in the context of
e-service companies because it is considered higher risk
(thus favouring WOM activity) and because this context
promotes the use of personal sources of information
(Murray, 1991).
Before proceeding to the development of the questionnaire and subsequent data collection, a few steps
were required to define a reliable and valid measurement
scale. After the primary WOM dimensions and measures
derived from a detailed review of existing works were
identified, meetings were held with ten consumers of
GOYETTE ET AL.
10
GOYETTE ET AL.
Table 2
Word-of-Mouth Dimensions and Statements
Word-of-Mouth (WOM) dimensions
Statements
WOM intensity
I spoke of this company much more frequently than about any other e-services company.
I spoke of this company much more frequently than about companies of any other type.
I spoke of this company to many individuals.
WOM content
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
GOYETTE ET AL.
Table 3
Respondent Profiles
Variable*
Classification
In class
111 respondents
(%)
By email
107 respondents
(%)
Gender
Men
Women
Primary/Secondary
College
University
Under $ 29,999
$ 30,000 to $ 69,999
$ 70,000 and more
In class
By email
34.2
65.8
8.1
51.4
40.5
41.3
43.3
15.4
48.6
51.4
3.8
7.6
88.6
17.5
30.1
52.4
Mean
Mean
27
32
Education
Household revenue
Age
Total
N (%)
218 (100 )
90 (41.3)
128 (58.7)
13 (6.0)
65 (30.1)
138 (63.9)
61 (29.5)
76 (36.7)
70 (33.8)
111 (50.9)
107 (49.1)
Mean (Standard
Deviation)
29.5 (8.1)
the same thing. Many authors agree that unidimensionality is fundamental to measurement theory (Hattie, 1985)
and is crucial in the development of a quality scale
(Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Cox and Cox (2002) tested
the unidimensionality of their measurement scale using
principal component analysis. This technique was
employed, and the results of Table 4 (first column of
results) indicate that each dimension of the scale is
unidimensional.
A confirmatory factor analysis using the EQS 6.1
structural equation modelling software (Bentler, 2005)
was also performed for a more in depth validation of the
scales psychometric properties. Baumgartner and
Homburg (1996) emphasized that this statistical method
helps validate the quality of the measurement tool. As
mentioned by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), structural
equation modelling holds great potential in measurement
scale validation. Table 4 (first column of resultsCFA)
also indicates that the coefficients are all associated with
their respective dimensions, that they are all greater than
0.50, and that they are statistically significant.
Multiple statistics were used to assess the models
goodness of fit to the data. Firstly, the average offdiagonal standardized residual (AOSR) is 0.067 and the
RMSEA index is 0.08, which is somewhat high but
nonetheless acceptable. However, we can reconfirm a
satisfactory validation of goodness of fit to the data with
12
GOYETTE ET AL.
Table 4
Results of Reliability and Validity Analyses
DIMENSIONS
Principal component
analysis/CFAa
Adjusted item-total
correlations
0.76/0.58
0.47
0.84/0.80
0.58
0.77/0.60
0.49
0.86/0.84
0.83/0.79
0.70/0.61
0.81/0.80
0.81/0.82
0.84/0.73
0,78
0,73
0.60
0.73
0.70
0.74
0.92/0.93
0.92/0.74
0.69
0.69
Word-of-mouth content
I discuss the user-friendliness of its website.
I discuss security of transactions and its Internet site.
I discuss the prices of products offered.
I discuss the variety of the products offered.
I discuss the quality of the products offered.
I discuss ease of transactions.
I speak of the rapid delivery.
I speak of the companys notoriety.
0.58/0.51
0.65/0.56
0.61/0.58
0.70/0.67
0.70/0.66
0.62/0.52
0.69/0.60
0.62/0.54
0.46
0.51
0.45
0.55
0.55
0.50
0.56
0.48
Word-of-mouth intensity
I spoke of this company much more frequently than about any other
e-services company.
I spoke of this company much more frequently than about companies of
any other type.
I spoke of this company to many individuals.
Alpha
()/CFIb
0.69/0.64
0.89/0.85
0.82/0.78
0.80/0.77
The first number represents the factor coefficient generated by principal component analysis. The second number represents the factor
coefficient generated by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), performed using EQS 6.1 software (Bentler, 2005).
b
The first number represents Cronbachs alpha. The second number represents the reliability index of the CFI components (cf. Fornell
and Larcker, 1981).
13
GOYETTE ET AL.
Figure 1.
Standardized results for word-of-mouth measurement scale in an e-services context
Item 1
Item 2
0.63
0.75
WOM Intensity
0.62
Item 3
0.65
0.92
Item1
Item 2
0.71
Item 1
0.93
Item 2
0.74
Positive Valence
WOM
0.81
-0.22
Word-ofMouth
Negative Valence
WOM
0.57
Item 1
Item 2
*
**
***
0,87
0,72
WOM Content
2 / DF = 43.14 / 22 = 1.96
AOSR = 0.067 ; RMSEA =
0.08
NFI = 0.91 ; NNFI =0.92
AGFI = 0.88 ; GFI = 0.94
14
Discussion
Summary
The primary objective of the study was to create a
multidimensional measurement scale for WOM in the
context of electronic servicesthe e-WOM Scale. A
review of prior research highlighted the paucity of studies
focusing on this set of problems, especially in the domain
of e-services. Taking inspiration from the results of a
study by Harrison-Walker (2001) and from many others,
the nine items of the e-Scale measure four dimensions of
word-of-mouth: (1) intensity (activity); (2) positive
valence/praise; (3) negative valence; (4) content. Statistical tests applied to two different samples helped confirm
the validity and the reliability of this measurement tool.
Contributions to Scholarship
The e-WOM Scale adapted to the e-services domain
helped double the number of measured dimensions with
respect to the scale of Harrison-Walker (2001), while
slightly increasing the number of items (from six to
nine). Thus, the e-WOM Scale enabled us to grasp in a
more complete manner the concept of word-of-mouth
without complicating the scale by increasing the number
of items. This increased precision provides a better
understanding of the components of word-of-mouth. For
example, Burzynski and Bayer (1977) spoke of valence
in a global way. The e-WOM Scale, on the other hand,
shows that valence is divisible into two distinct dimensions: positive valencefrequently described as praise
and negative valence. This result is similar to the results
GOYETTE ET AL.
15
GOYETTE ET AL.
16
Harrison-Walker, L.J. (2001). The measurement of Word-ofMouth communication and an investigation of service
quality and customer commitment as potential antecedents. Journal of Service Research, 4(1), 6075.
Hartline, M.D., & Jones, K.C. (1996). Employee performance
cues in a hotel service environment: Influence on perceived service quality, value and word-of-mouth intentions. Journal of Business Research, 35(March),
207215.
Hattie, J.R. (1985). Methodological review: Assessing unidimensionality of tests and items. Applied Psychological
Measurement, 9(June), 139164.
Haywood, K.M. (1989). Managing Word of Mouth communications. The Journal of Services Marketing, 3(2), 5567.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., & Gremler, D.D. (2002).
Understanding relationship marketing outcomes. Journal
of Service Research, 4(3), 230247.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Walsh, G., & Gremier,
D.D. (2004). Electronic Word-of-Mouth via consumeropinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate
themselves on the Internet?. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1), 3852.
Herr, P.M., Kardes, F.R., & Kim, J. (1991). Effects of Wordof-Mouth and product-attribute information on persuasion: An accessibility-diagnostic perspective. Journal of
Consumer Research, 17(4), 454462.
Higie, R.A., Feick, L.F., & Price, L.L. (1987). Types and
amount of Word-of-Mouth communications about retailers. Journal of Retailing, 63(3), 260279.
Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P.F. (1955). Personal influence.
Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Kim, W.G., Han, J.S., & Lee, E. (2001). Effects of relationship
marketing on repeat purchase and Word of Mouth. Journal
of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 25(3), 272288.
Mangold, W.G., Miller, F., & Brockay, G.R. (1999). Word-ofMouth communication in the service marketplace. Journal
of Services Marketing, 13(1), 7389.
Maxham III, J.G. (2001). Service recoverys influence on consumer satisfaction, positive Word-of-Mouth, and purchase
intentions. Journal of Business Research, 54(1), 1129.
McKelvey, W.W. (1976). An approach for developing shorter
and better measuring instruments. Working Paper 766.
Human Systems Development Study Center, Graduate
School of Management, UCLA.
Morin, S.P. (1983). Influentials advising their friends to sell
lots of high-tech gadgetry. Wall Street Journal, February
28, 30.
Murray, K.B. (1991). A Test of Services Marketing Theory :
Consumer Information Acquisition Activities. Journal of
Marketing, 55(1), 1025.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., & Berry, L.L. (1988).
SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring customer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing,
64(1). 1240.
Peterson, R.A. (1994). A meta-analysis of Cronbachs coefficient alpha. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2),
381391.
Bone, P.F. (1992). Determinants of Word-of-Mouth communication during product consumption. Advances in Consumer Research, 19, 579583.
Bone, P.F. (1995). Word of Mouth effects on short-term and
long-term product judgments. Journal of Business
Research, 32(3), 213223.
Brown, J.J., & Reingen, P.H. (1987). Social ties and Word-ofMouth referral behavior. Journal of Consumer Research,
14(3), 350362.
Burzynski, M.H., & Bayer, D.J. (1977). The effect of positive
and negative prior information on motion picture appreciation. The Journal of Social Psychology, 101(1),
215218.
Calder, B.J., Philips, L.W., & Tybout, A.M. (1981). Design
research for application. Journal of Consumer Research,
8(1), 197206.
Churchill, G.A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing
Research, 16(1), 6473.
Cox, D., & Cox, A.D. (2002). Beyond first impressions: The
effects of repeated exposure on consumer liking of visually complex and simple product designs. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 30(2), 119130.
Crocker, K.E. (1986). The influence of the amount and type of
information on individuals perception of legal services.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 14(4),
1827.
Day, G.S. (1971), Attitude change, media, and word of mouth.
Journal of Advertising Research, 11(6), 3140.
Desormeaux, R., & Labrecque, J. (1999). La mesure de la
satisfaction de la clientle, Gestion, 24(2), 7481.
Duhan, D.F., Johnson, S.D., Wilcox, J.B., & Harrell, G.D.
(1997). Influences on consumer use of Word-of-Mouth
recommendation sources. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4), 283295.
File, K.M., Cermark, D.S.P., & Prince, R.A. (1994). Word-ofMouth effects in professional services buyer behavior. The
Service Industries Journal, 14(3), 301314.
File, K.M., Judd, B.B., & Prince, R.A. (1992). Interactive marketing: The influence of participation. Journal of Services
Marketing, 6(4), 5.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement
error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(February),
3950.
Gaski, J. (1984). The theory of power and conflict in channels
of distribution. Journal of Marketing, 48(Summer), 929.
Godes, D., & Mayzlin, D. (2004). Se servir des conversations
en ligne pour tudier le bouche--oreille. Recherche et
Applications en marketing, 19(4), 89111.
Godin, S., (2001). Les secrets du marketing viral : le bouche-oreille la puissance 10!. Paris : Maxima Laurent Du
Mesnil diteur, 197p.
Goyette, I. (2007). laboration dune chelle de mesure multidimensionnelle du bouche--oreille dans le secteur des
services lectroniques. Mmoire de matrise, cole des
Sciences de la Gestion, UQAM, 149p.
GOYETTE ET AL.
17
Phelps, J.E., Lewis, R., Mobilio, L., Perry, D., & Raman, N.
(2004). Viral marketing or electronic Word-of-Mouth
advertising: Examining consumers responses and motivations to pass along email. Journal of Advertising Research,
44(4), 333348.
Ranaweera, C., & Prabhu, J. (2003). On the relative importance
of customer satisfaction and trust as determinants of customer retention and positive word of mouth. Journal of
Targeting, Measurement and Analysis of Marketing,
12(1), 8290.
Reicheld, F.F. (1996). The loyalty effect. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Reichheld, F.F., & Sasser, W.E. (1990). Zero defections:
Quality comes to services. Harvard Business Review,
5(September/October), 105111.
Rey-Debove, F. & Rey, A. (2007). Le Nouveau Petit Robert :
Dictionnaire alphabtique et analogique de la langue
franaise, Paris, ditions Le Robert.
Richins, M.L. (1983). Negative Word-of-Mouth by dissatisfied
consumers: A pilot study. Journal of Marketing, 47,
6878.
Salzman, M., Matathia, I., & OReilly, A. (2004). Buzz . . . Le
marketing du bouche--oreille. Paris: Village Mondial.
Sncal, S., & Nantel, J. (2004). The Influence of online
product recommendations on consumers online choices.
Journal of Retailing, 80(2), 159169.
Sncal, S., Kalczynski, P.J., & Nantel, J. (2005). Consumers
decision making process and their online shopping behav-
GOYETTE ET AL.
18
19
Unidimensional
Brown and
Reingen
(1987)
Unidimensional
Richins (1983)
NA
Sheth (1971)
Unidimensional
Information not
available (NA)
Arndt (1967b)
Burzynski and
Bayer (1977)
Type of
measurement
scale
Authors
NA
NA
NA
NA
Information
not
available
(NA)
Cronbachs
Alpha
Self-administered
questionnaire
Respondents: adult
consumers
Sector: clothing and
apparel (electronic)
Telephone interview
Respondents:
professors, adults,
piano students.
Sector: music
Personal interview
Respondents: men
Sector: razor blades
Personal interview
Respondents: married
female students
Sector: food products
Methodology
NA
Appendix A
Who-toldwhomabout-theservice (p.
351)
NA
NA
NA
Information
not
available
(NA)
WOM
statements
Viewpoint for
WOM
measurement
20
Unidimensional
dichotomous,
(0) for no
and (1) for
yes.
Singh (1990)
NA
Westbrook
(1987)
Unidimensional
seven-point
Likert.
NA
Type of
measurement
scale
Authors
NA
Reliability index:
0.86 (measured
by frequency,
number of
persons and
number of
topics)
NA
NA
Cronbachs Alpha
Self-administered
questionnaire by mail
Respondents: Households
that have had an
unsatisfactory experience
with one of the services
being studied.
Sector: grocery trade,
vehicle repair, medical
services
Telephone questionnaire
Respondents: residents of a
metropolitan region in
north-eastern United
States.
Sector: retail sales
Methodology
NA
NA
NA
NA
WOM
measurement
items
Communicator
(Goyette,
2007)
Communicator
(Goyette,
2007)
Communicator
(Goyette,
2007)
Communicator
(HarrisonWalker, 2001)
Viewpoint for
WOM
measurement
21
Bone (1995)
NA
Unidimensional
File,
Cermark,
and
Prince
(1994)
Multidimensional
with three
statements
Bone (1992)
Unidimensional
NA
Herr,
Kardes,
and Kim
(1991)
File, Judd,
and
Prince
(1992)
Type of
measurement
scale
Authors
NA
NA
NA
The three
statements
were
standardized
and added for
WOM = 0.79
NA
Cronbachs
Alpha
Experimental presentation.
Complete a card on
product expectations and
performance.
Respondents: students
Test product: biscuit
Questionnaire
Respondents: clients of an
attorney
Sector: Trust and estate
planning
Structured personal
interview
Respondents: company
executives
Sector: professional
services (consultants)
Individual self-administered
questionnaire
Respondents: group of two
or more after a meal.
Sector: restaurants
Experiment
Subjects: students
(undergraduate)
Experimental unit: printed
or verbal information
about a product
Methodology
NA
Communicator
(Harrison-Walker,
2001)
Communicator
(Goyette, 2007)
Viewpoint for
WOM measurement
Information
unavailable
Multidimensional
Black, Mitra,
and Webster
(1998)
Mangold, Miller,
and Brockway
(1999)
Unidimensional
seven-point
Likert
Unidimensional
Anderson (1998)
Type of
measurement scale
Authors
Self-administered
questionnaire
Respondents:
students
Sector: 77 different
services
Self-administered
questionnaire
Respondents: hotel
customers
Sector: hospitality
WOM: 0.80
Telephone
interview
Respondents: users
Sector: various
Critical incident
technique
Respondents:
persons stopped
on location
Sector: various
businesses.
Methodology
NA
NA
NA
Cronbachs
Alpha
NA
Willingness to
recommend,
recommendations to
others (p. 6)
Exactly what did you
tell the other person
and what motivated
you to share this
particular
experience? (p. 528)
WOM measurement
items
Communicator
(Goyette, 2007)
Receiver (Goyette,
2007)
Communicator
(Goyette, 2007)
Communicator
(Harrison-Walker,
2001)
Viewpoint for
WOM measurement
22
GOYETTE ET AL.
23
Unidimensional
Two-item
measurement
scale
NA
Ranaweera and
Prabhu (2003)
Godes and
Mayzlin (2004)
Multidimensional
7-point Likert
with
completely
agree and
completely
disagree at
either end.
Harrison-Walker
(2001)
Hennig-Thurau,
Gwinner,
Gremler
(2002)
Type of
measurement
scale
Authors
NA
WOM: 0.79
(statements
unavailable)
Direct observation of
interpersonal
conversations
(thousands of
discussion forums)
on the Usenet site.
Respondents: audience
of a new TV series
Sector: new TV series
(44)
Self-administered
questionnaire
Respondents: students
(undergraduate)
Sector: service
Qualitative interview
Respondents: consumers
Sector: phone service
Self-administered
questionnaire
Respondents:
Consumers of one of
the two services
under investigation.
Sector: veterinary clinic
and hair salon
WOMpraise =
0.80
WOMactivity =
0.78
NA
Methodology
Cronbachs
Alpha
NA
Communicator
and receiver
(Goyette, 2007)
Communicator
and receiver
(Goyette, 2007)
Communicator
(Goyette, 2007)
Communicator
(HarrisonWalker, 2001)
Viewpoint for
WOM
measurement