See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/227196796

Word-of-Mouth Communications in Marketing: A Meta-Analytic Review of

the Antecedents and Moderators

Article in Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · December 2008

DOI: 10.1007/s11747-008-0121-1

CITATIONS READS

994 7,222

2 authors:

Celso Augusto de Matos Carlos Alberto Vargas Rossi

Universidade NOVA de Lisboa Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
67 PUBLICATIONS 2,554 CITATIONS 43 PUBLICATIONS 2,449 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Cross-Cultural Consumer Behavior View project

Consumer Debt - Endividamento de Consumidores View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Carlos Alberto Vargas Rossi on 17 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2008) 36:578–596
DOI 10.1007/s11747-008-0121-1
ORIGINAL EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
Word-of-mouth communications in marketing: a meta-analytic
review of the antecedents and moderators
Celso Augusto de Matos & Carlos Alberto Vargas Rossi
Received: 27 February 2008 / Accepted: 8 September 2008 / Published online: 23 September 2008
# Academy of Marketing Science 2008
Abstract Although word-of-mouth (WOM) activity has
been studied as an outcome variable of other constructs
such as satisfaction, less attention has been given to the
antecedents and moderators of WOM when considering
WOM as a central construct. Hence, we propose a model of
WOM antecedents and moderators using a meta-analytic
review. The results show that all antecedents have signif-
icant effects on WOM activity, with customer commitment
showing the strongest effect. The following hypotheses are
also supported: (1) WOM valence is a significant moder-
ator, (2) cross-sectional studies show a stronger influence of
satisfaction and loyalty on WOM activity than longitudinal
studies, and (3) studies of WOM behavior show a weaker
link between loyalty and WOM activity than studies of
WOM intentions. In addition, we show that satisfaction has a
stronger relationship with positive WOM than loyalty,
whereas (dis)loyalty has a stronger relationship with negative
WOM than does (dis)satisfaction. We discuss this finding
based on the different natures of positive and negative WOM.
Keywords Word-of-mouth activity .
Word-of-mouth valence . Antecedents . Moderators .
Meta-analysis
This article is based on the first author’s dissertation.
C. A. de Matos (*)
Marketing Department, School of Management,
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (PPGA-EA-UFRGS),
P.O. Box 532, 93.220-970, Sapucaia do Sul,
Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
e-mail: celsomatos@yahoo.com.br
C. A. V. Rossi
Marketing Department, School of Management,
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (PPGA-EA-UFRGS),
Rua Washington Luiz, 855, Centro, 90.010-460,
Porto Alegre/RS, Brazil
e-mail: cavrossi@ea.ufrgs.br
Interpersonal influence has received great attention in social
psychology and there is ample evidence for the relevance of
interpersonal communications when individuals make
choices in different contexts, including those of consump-
tion (Katz and Lazarsfeld 1955). This effect is also
investigated in consumer behavior, and its models consider
this interpersonal influence when information is sought as
well as given (Engel et al. 1995). Empirical studies show that
customers are even more likely to rely on these interpersonal
communications, known as “word of mouth” (WOM), in the
service context because of the intangibility and experiential
nature of services (Murray 1991; Zeithaml et al. 1993).
In the marketing context, WOM communications are
defined as “informal communications directed at other
consumers about the ownership, usage, or characteristics
of particular goods and services and/or their sellers”
(Westbrook 1987, p. 261). Arndt (1967) defined word of
mouth as “oral, person-to-person communication between a
perceived non-commercial communicator and a receiver
concerning a brand, a product, or a service offered for sale”
(p. 190). These definitions are consistent with recent studies
about WOM (Gruen et al. 2006; Harrison-Walker 2001;
Wangenheim 2005; Wangenheim and Bayón 2007).
There have been a great number of studies about WOM
since the frequently cited Arndt (1967) study, although
many of these investigations are focused on other con-
structs, such as satisfaction, and consider WOM merely as
one of the behavioral consequences (Mittal et al. 1999;
Oliver 1980; Swan and Oliver 1989). A recent investigation
by Mazzarol et al. (2007, p. 1478) has emphasized exactly
this point in saying, “Little research, however, has
addressed antecedents of WOM when considering WOM
as a focal construct.” Although the positive effects of the
antecedents of WOM, such as satisfaction, loyalty, quality,
commitment, trust, and perceived value, are well estab-
lished in the literature, there is still a lack of integration for
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2008) 36:578–596
the bivariate relationships involving WOM. Hence, we
conduct a systematic review of these antecedents using a
meta-analysis in order to provide a quantitative integration
of the previous studies after adjusting for measurement and
sampling error, to make comparisons about the strength of
each antecedent in influencing WOM, and to identify
studies’ characteristics as possible moderators.
Using the systematic and quantitative meta-analytic
review, this study makes several contributions to the field.
Primarily, it is the first meta-analytic effort to assess WOM
as a focal construct and to investigate its antecedents and
moderators. Additionally, it identifies the different method-
ological approaches and the main antecedents of WOM in
empirical studies. It evaluates the moderating effects of
studies’ characteristics and different WOM approaches such
as WOM valence and WOM incidence. Moreover, it finds that
satisfaction has a stronger relationship with positive WOM
than loyalty, while (dis)loyalty has a stronger relationship with
negative WOM than does (dis)satisfaction. Lastly, it identifies
research questions worthy of future investigations into WOM.
Our review is structured as follows. First, we present a
conceptual framework with the proposed hypotheses to
guide the meta-analysis. Second, we describe the meta-
analytic procedures, including the search process, database
development, effect sizes computation, and integration.
Third, we present a quantitative summary of the adjusted
mean effect sizes for the pair-wise relationships between
WOM and its antecedents. Fourth, we present the moder-
ating analysis and the test of the different roles of
satisfaction and loyalty for positive and negative WOM
activity. Finally, we discuss the main findings.
Conceptual framework
We developed the conceptual framework shown in Fig. 1
based on the literature review of WOM. This meta-analytic
framework describes the relationships between WOM and
the most investigated antecedents. Although the positive
effects of the WOM antecedents depicted in Fig. 1 are well
established in the literature, a systematic review of these
antecedents using a meta-analysis enables us to make
comparisons about the strength of each in influencing
WOM.
Among the potential moderators, we focus on WOM
valence, WOM incidence, and the studies’ characteristics. It
is common for meta-analyses to investigate the variability
of effect sizes across studies’ characteristics (Assmus et al.
1984; Pan and Zinkhan 2006). It has been suggested that
other variables, such as switching costs and customer
experience, could also intervene between WOM and its
correlates, but the limited number of studies testing these
variables as moderators precluded their assessment in our
579
WOM Approach Studies’ Characteristics
- WOM valence (positive, - Survey or experiment
negative or mixed) - Cross-sectional or longitudinal
- WOM incidence - Student or non-student
(intention or behavior) - Products or services
Antecedents
Satisfaction
Loyalty
Quality
Word-of-Mouth
Activity
Commitment
Trust
Perceived
Value
Figure 1 Conceptual framework of the antecedents and moderators
of word-of-mouth activity.
analyses. The theoretical rationale for the relationships
presented in Fig. 1 is discussed next.
Antecedents of WOM
Satisfaction
The dominant model for conceptualizing and measuring
customer satisfaction has been the expectancy disconfirma-
tion theory. This view holds that customers evaluate a
product or service performance and compare their evalua-
tion with their expectations prior to purchase or consump-
tion (Oliver 1980). In this approach to satisfaction as a
post-choice evaluative judgment regarding a specific pur-
chase selection, satisfaction is understood by its transaction-
specific component (Oliver 1981). Another approach sees
satisfaction as the customers’ evaluations of multiple
experiences with the same product or service provider over
time (Bolton and Drew 1991), and given that this cumula-
tive construct incorporates previous experiences, the cumu-
lative satisfaction construct will contain an element of
customer attitude (Westbrook and Oliver 1991). Subsequent
studies, however, have demonstrated that, in addition to the
cognitive view, customer satisfaction also contains emo-
tional components (Liljander and Strandvik 1997; Oliver
and Westbrook 1993; Straus and Neuhaus 1997). A recent
study (Martin et al. 2008) agrees with Zeelenberg and
Pieters (2004) in suggesting that emotionally based satis-
580
faction is a stronger predictor of future behavioral inten-
tions than traditional cognitive measures.
The level of customer satisfaction has an influence on
two purchase behaviors, namely, repurchase intentions and
WOM (Bearden and Teel 1983; Maxham and Netemeyer
2002a, b; Oliver 1980; Ranaweera and Prabhu 2003; Richins
1983). Specifically, the likelihood of customers spreading
WOM will depend on their satisfaction level for at least two
reasons. First, the extent to which the product or service
performance exceeds the customer’s expectations might
motivate him or her to tell others about his or her positive
experience. In the context of service recovery, for instance,
the salience and recency of the experience might explain
why satisfaction with the recovery prompts customers to tell
family and friends about their positive experience (Maxham
and Netemeyer 2002b). Second, to the extent that the
customer’s expectations are not fulfilled, possibly creating a
customer regret experience, this customer will engage in
WOM behavior as a form of “venting” his or her negative
emotions, such as anger and frustration, reducing anxiety,
warning others, and/or seeking retaliation (Anderson 1998;
Oliver 1997; Richins 1984; Sweeney et al. 2005).
Indeed, there are a number of studies supporting the
significant effect of satisfaction on WOM (Brown et al. 2005;
Heckman and Guskey 1998; Heitmann et al. 2007; Hennig-
Thurau et al. 2002; Mittal et al. 1999; Price and Arnould
1999; Söderlund 2006; Swan and Oliver 1989; Wangenheim
and Bayón 2007). Thus, our conceptual framework proposes:
H1a: There is a significant positive effect of satisfac-
tion on WOM activity.
Loyalty
Loyalty is defined in the marketing context as “an intention
to perform a diverse set of behaviors that signal a
motivation to maintain a relationship with the focal firm,
including allocating a higher share of the category wallet to
the specific service provider, engaging in positive word of
mouth (WOM), and repeat purchasing” (Sirdeshmukh et al.
2002, p. 20). Note that this conceptualization considers
positive WOM as a component of loyalty. This approach is
common in a great number of studies in the marketing
literature (Bloemer et al. 1999; Jones and Sasser 1995;
Jones and Taylor 2007; Lam et al. 2004; Zeithaml et al.
1996), and we found that it was employed in 40 studies
reviewed in our meta-analysis. These studies could not,
however, be included because they did not present specific
results for the WOM construct.
However, a recent study has questioned this “cocktail
approach” in which loyalty is measured by an aggregated
mix of items that form different components of loyalty
(Söderlund 2006). Söderlund (2006) states that this ap-
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2008) 36:578–596
proach is commonly used to include repatronage intentions
and WOM intentions as items of a unidimensional loyalty
construct. Two empirical studies conducted by Söderlund
(2006) support the argument that repurchase intentions and
WOM should be considered as separate constructs and the
“cocktail approach” should be avoided. There are also other
authors modeling repurchase intentions and WOM as
independent constructs, including Blodgett et al. (1993),
Gruen et al. (2006), Jones and Reynolds (2006), Maxham
(2001), and Maxham and Netemeyer (2002a, b).
Dick and Basu (1994) called attention to the fact that
there were few studies investigating the influence of loyalty
on WOM. Yet, even after a decade, there have been very
few studies which have empirically tested the unidirectional
effect of loyalty on WOM (Carpenter and Fairhurst 2005;
Gounaris and Stathakopoulos 2004; Reynolds and Arnold
2000; and Sichtmann 2007). It is more common to measure
the bi-directional association (correlation) between these
two constructs when considering them as behavioral
outcomes, especially of customer satisfaction (Arnett et al.
2003; Gremler and Gwinner 2000; Jones and Reynolds
2006; Macintosh 2007; Maxham and Netemeyer 2002a, b,
2003; Price and Arnould 1999; Reynolds and Beatty 1999;
Söderlund 1998). Thus, because of the availability of the
correlations between loyalty and WOM, we could test the
effects of loyalty on WOM in our meta-analysis.
Loyalty is hypothesized as an antecedent of WOM
because to the extent customers are more loyal to a given
provider, they are also more likely to (1) give positive
recommendations of the company to the individuals in their
reference group (friends and relatives), (2) have greater
motivation for processing new information about the
company, and (3) have stronger resistance to being
persuaded by contrary information (Dick and Basu 1994,
p. 107). Moreover, in a disloyalty situation, in which
customers switch providers, they are also likely to spread
negative WOM about the provider in order to reduce their
cognitive dissonance (Wangenheim 2005). In other words,
they try to convince themselves about their decision by
convincing others, which is one of the strategies often used
for reducing post-decision dissonance. As mentioned
before, customers might also engage in negative WOW
for other reasons such as to release negative emotions, to
warn others, and/or to retaliate (Richins 1984; Sweeney et
al. 2005). Based on this rationale, we propose:
H1b: There is a significant positive effect of loyalty on
WOM activity.
Quality
Our framework focuses on quality of services, rather than
that of products, because the available studies do so. Only
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2008) 36:578–596
one of the observations investigated a product, namely an
e-CRM software. We show in the “Results” section that this
observation produced findings similar to those studies
investigating services.
Different models have been proposed to measure and
evaluate the determinants of service quality. Parasuraman et
al. (1985, 1988) developed the SERVQUAL model in
which quality is evaluated from the eyes of the customers
and defined as the discrepancy between customers’ expect-
ations or desires and their perceptions. In other words,
quality is understood as the ability to meet or exceed
customers’ expectations. The instrument proposed by these
authors (SERVQUAL) suggests that service quality is
composed of five dimensions—tangibles, reliability, re-
sponsiveness, assurance, and empathy.
Customers’ perceptions of service quality have an
important relationship with their behavioral responses,
especially loyalty and WOM. For WOM, when evaluations
of service quality are high, the customer’s behavioral
intentions in terms of recommendations are favorable,
strengthening the relationship between customers and the
company (Parasuraman et al. 1988; Zeithaml et al. 1996).
On the other hand, when customers perceive service
performance as inferior, they are likely to manifest
complaining behavior, including private responses (nega-
tive WOM) and/or defection (Zeithaml et al. 1996). Hence,
customers recommend the company to others when they
perceive high service quality and spread negative WOM
when they perceive low service quality.
Empirical studies have demonstrated that service quality
is a relevant predictor of WOM (Bloemer et al. 1999;
Boulding et al. 1993; Harrison-Walker 2001; Zeithaml et al.
1996). A positive relationship presented in these studies
demonstrates that the higher (lower) the perceived quality,
the higher (lower) the WOM activity of the customers.
Based on this discussion, we propose:
H1c: There is a significant positive effect of quality on
WOM activity.
Commitment
Commitment can be defined as “an enduring desire to
maintain a valued relationship” (Moorman et al. 1992,
p. 316). This definition is in agreement with Dwyer et al.
(1987) conceptualization of buyer-seller relationships and is
also consistent with Morgan and Hunt’s (1994, p. 23)
definition of commitment as “an exchange partner believing
that an ongoing relationship with another is so important as
to warrant maximum efforts at maintaining it.” Commit-
ment is measured in the marketing literature either as a
multidimensional construct (Gruen, Summers, and Acito
2000) or a unidimensional construct (Morgan and Hunt
581
1994). In the multidimensional approach, commitment is
composed of “affective” (positive emotional attachment),
“continuance” (perceived costs associated with leaving the
organization), and “normative” (perceived moral obligation
toward the organization) commitment. Some authors
consider two dimensions, namely “affective” and “high-
sacrifice (calculative) commitment” (Fullerton 2003; Harrison-
Walker 2001; Jones et al. 2007). While the former is related
to the customer identification with, and involvement in, a
particular organization, the latter refers to the customer’s
sense of being “locked in” to the service provider, due to
constraints like loss of benefits and costs for switching
provider. On the other hand, the unidimensional approach
measures commitment as an overall evaluation of the
customers’ engagement with the organization.
Higher commitment customers (relationship-oriented
customers) are those who also present higher identification
with the company and hold feelings of attachment to
maintaining valued relationships, reflecting the affective
dimension of the construct (Harrison-Walker 2001). More-
over, customers are more likely to increase their commit-
ment with companies that recognize and reward their status
of special customer (Lacey et al. 2007). Therefore, these
customers are likely to provide favorable WOM about the
company as a need to reinforce their decision to enter the
relationship as a good one. Even when experiencing lower
levels of satisfaction, these customers are likely to endorse
the company in order to keep cognitive consistency and
justify their favorable attitude and strong identification with
the company (Brown et al. 2005).
Indeed, Brown et al. (2005) have demonstrated in their
longitudinal study that for higher-commitment customers,
positive WOM behavior is less dependent on the satisfac-
tion level. The reason is that high-commitment customers
talk positively about the company regardless of their
satisfaction level, whereas low-commitment customers will
provide favorable recommendations to the extent that they
are satisfied. This finding is in agreement with other studies
which establish that commitment has a positive relationship
with WOM (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2002; Lacey et al. 2007).
Based on the above discussion, we expect that customers
with higher commitment would have a greater likelihood of
spreading positive WOM because their WOM behavior is
stimulated by either (1) a high satisfaction condition (when
satisfaction stimulates WOM) or (2) a low satisfaction state
(when a cognitive consistency mechanism prompts the
customer to endorse the company in order to reduce
cognitive dissonance). Hence, we propose:
H1d: There is a significant positive effect of commit-
ment on WOM activity.
We noticed in our review that some studies related only
the dimensions of commitment (affective and continuance)
582
with WOM without providing a relationship between
overall commitment and WOM (Fullerton 2003; Harrison-
Walker 2001). Since the meta-analysis had to combine
similar studies, we included only those studies that related
overall commitment with WOM.
Trust
Trust refers to “a willingness to rely on an exchange partner
in whom one has confidence” (Moorman et al. 1993, p. 82).
For Morgan and Hunt (1994, p. 23), trust exists “when one
party has confidence in an exchange partner’s reliability and
integrity.” Thus, confidence and reliability are two important
factors for conceptualizing trust in the marketing context. Re-
search in this field has demonstrated that customers’ trust—
either in the overall organization or in the employees—is
significantly influenced by customers’ satisfaction (Kau and
Loh 2006; Morgan and Hunt 1994; Ranaweera and Prabhu
2003; Singh and Sirdeshmukh 2000). These findings show
that the higher (lower) the customer’s satisfaction with the
organization, the higher (lower) his or her trust in it.
Trust also has an important effect on behavioral constructs,
especially on the customer’s propensity to leave or stay with
the same service provider (Garbarino and Johnson 1999;
Morgan and Hunt 1994; Singh and Sirdeshmukh 2000).
Indeed, empirical findings have shown that higher levels of
trust are associated with a greater tendency to offer favorable
WOM (Garbarino and Johnson 1999; Gremler et al. 2001;
Ranaweera and Prabhu 2003). This is based on the rationale
that customers mostly provide recommendations to other
individuals of their reference group, such as a friend or a
relative, and, thus, a customer will be more likely to endorse
a provider that he or she has previous experience with and
confidence in (Gremler, Gwinner, and Brown 2001). But even
when customers are offering advice to others, no matter
who the receiver is, there is a risk of being wrong and a WOM
giver would not like to be wrong (Mazzarol et al. 2007).
Another possible reason for the influence of trust on
WOM is an indirect effect through satisfaction. Trust
creates benefits for customers such as lower anxiety,
uncertainty, and vulnerability about the transaction. These
benefits influence satisfaction, which in turn affects WOM,
especially in a service context that is relatively more
complex (Garbarino and Johnson 1999; Hennig-Thurau et
al. 2002). Based on this discussion, we propose:
H1e: There is a significant positive effect of trust on
WOM activity.
Perceived value
Customer-perceived value is the “consumer’s overall
assessment of the utility of a product based on perceptions
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2008) 36:578–596
of what is received and what is given” (Zeithaml 1988,
p. 14), or in other words, a trade-off between benefits or
gets (quality, convenience, volume, etc.) and costs or gives
(money, time, efforts, etc.).
Previous studies have investigated the influence of service
quality on customers’ behavioral intentions (Boulding et al.
1993; Zeithaml 1988). Based on this literature, Hartline and
Jones (1996) proposed that perceived value also has an
influence on customers’ behavioral intentions, especially on
WOM. One explanation is that customers who perceive that
they receive relatively high value tend to become more
committed to the organization and seek to recommend
others of the reference group to become loyal to the same
organization (McKee et al. 2006).
Also, perceived value might have an influence on WOM
because it is a more tangible signal in the service encounter
since it includes price in the “give” component, and price
can be considered a more extrinsic and tangible attribute
when compared to other cues used to infer service quality
by customers, such as competence and responsiveness of
employees (Hartline and Jones 1996).
Consistent with the above rationale, perceived value has
been hypothesized as a predictor or a correlate of WOM in
a number of studies (Durvasula et al. 2004; Gruen et al.
2006; Hartline and Jones 1996; Keiningham et al. 2007;
McKee et al. 2006). Given that the majority of these studies
are in the services context—only one of the ten observa-
tions was related to a product context—our investigation as
well focuses on the service context.
Based on the above rationale, we propose:
H1f: There is a significant positive effect of perceived
value on WOM activity.
Moderators
The different effects found across studies could be due to
different approaches to WOM. For example, there are
studies measuring positive WOM, others measuring nega-
tive WOM, and yet others using both negative and positive
items in the WOM construct. There are studies that work
with intentions of WOM and others measuring WOM
informed behavior. Moreover, studies’ characteristics in
terms of methodological designs could also have an
influence on the results. These effects are discussed next.
WOM valence
In an effort to develop a scale to measure WOM, Harrison-
Walker (2001) conceptualized WOM as being composed by
the factors of frequency, number of contacts, detail of the
shared information, and praise (valence). Harrison-Walker’s
(2001) study eventually showed two dimensions of WOM
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2008) 36:578–596
communications. The first was “WOM activity,” which
included aspects of how often the WOM communication
takes place, the number of people told, and the quantity of
information provided by the sender. The second was
“WOM praise,” reflecting the valence of the WOM
communication (positive, negative, or neutral). This dis-
tinction between WOM activity and WOM valence is a
relevant contribution by Harrison-Walker (2001) to the
WOM literature, and she proposes that researchers should
measure not only the WOM activity but also the WOM
valence, which is in agreement with earlier investigations
about WOM (Halstead 2002; Halstead and Dröge 1991;
Swan and Oliver 1989) as well as with more recent research
(Heitmann et al. 2007).
However, most of the studies in the WOM literature
measure WOM as a single unidimensional construct,
addressing WOM valence only indirectly by measuring the
likelihood of positive or negative recommendations. In some
instances, studies work with a neutral position, mixing
positive and negative measures among the construct.
In our theoretical framework, we follow Harrison-
Walker’s (2001) conceptualization of WOM by establishing
WOM activity as the outcome variable and WOM valence
as a moderator (see Fig. 1). The reason for doing this is that
the focus of the reviewed WOM literature is on the aspects
of WOM activity, including frequency, number of people
told, and amount of shared information (WOM valence is
considered only indirectly, as discussed before). In taking
this position, we recognize that WOM is not a unidimen-
sional construct, and that we will include under WOM
activity studies that measure frequency, relative number of
people told or relative quantity of information shared, since
these were the facets of WOM activity supported by
Harrison-Walker’s (2001) study. WOM valence will be
addressed as a moderator by categorizing WOM as
positive, negative, or mixed. In the test of this moderation,
we evaluate whether the effect of the antecedent on WOM
activity differs with the categories of positive, negative, and
mixed WOM valence.
This is a common approach for a test of moderators in a
meta-analysis (Lipsey and Wilson 2001). In other words, if
the effect of a given predictor, such as satisfaction, in the
outcome variable (WOM activity) is contingent on a third
variable (WOM valence as positive, negative, or neutral),
then the predictor-outcome relationship should be analyzed
for each condition of the third variable (moderator).
WOM valence has been receiving more attention in
recent investigations about WOM, and there is evidence
that extremely positive and extremely negative WOM are
the most common examples of WOM (Chevalier and
Mayzlin 2006; Duan et al. 2008; Mazzarol et al. 2007;
Sweeney et al. 2005; Zeelenberg and Pieters 2004). The
rationale, as shown in Oliver (1997) and Anderson (1998),
583
is that customers in the extremes of high or low satisfaction
are more likely to spread WOM. Indeed, as discussed
earlier, research has shown that highly satisfied customers
have a desire to tell others about their positive experience
(Brown et al. 2005; Söderlund 2006; Swan and Oliver
1989; Wangenheim and Bayón 2007). Thus, we expect that
customers spreading positive WOM are those customers
who have high satisfaction and, hence, when WOM
assumes a positive valence, there will be a direct relation-
ship between satisfaction and WOM (higher satisfaction is
associated with higher positive WOM).
On the other hand, we also expect that customers
spreading negative WOM are those with the lowest
satisfaction levels, such as those experiencing a service
failure followed by an unsatisfactory recovery. The reason
is that disappointed customers (those with unsatisfied
expectations) often experience negative emotions such as
regret, frustration, and anger (Bonifield and Cole 2007;
Sweeney et al. 2005). As a consequence, they use negative
WOM as a way of “venting” their negative emotions and
achieving a feeling of relief after commenting on the
incident (Sundaram, Mitra, and Webster 1998; Sweeney et
al. 2005; Wetzer et al. 2007). Therefore, we expect that
customers spreading negative WOM are those with lower
satisfaction and, thus, when WOM assumes a negative
valence, there will be an inverse relationship between
satisfaction and WOM (lower satisfaction is associated with
higher negative WOM).
Based on the above discussion, we propose:
H2a: Under the condition of positive (negative) WOM
valence, there is a direct (inverse) relationship between
satisfaction and WOM activity.
The same justification is extended to the relationship
between loyalty and WOM. As we discussed in H1b,
customers who are more loyal to a company are more likely
to spread positive recommendations about this company,
either as a cognitive consistency mechanism (Wangenheim
2005) or as part of a self-enhancement motivation, in
which customers provide WOM to praise what they have a
strong relationship/identification with (Brown et al. 2005;
Sundaram et al. 1998). Thus, we expect that customers
spreading positive WOM are those who have higher
loyalty, which suggests a direct relationship between
loyalty and WOM activity for positive WOM valence.
In contrast, we expect that customers spreading negative
WOM are those with lower loyalty or in a disloyalty
situation, such as those in a condition of complaint with no
recovery or dissatisfactory recovery (Voorhees et al. 2006),
or those customers who have switched providers and who
spread negative WOM about the former provider as a
means of reducing cognitive dissonance (Wangenheim
2005). Therefore, if customers spreading negative WOM
584
are those with low or no loyalty, we can propose that when
WOM assumes a negative valence, an inverse relationship
is expected between loyalty and WOM (lower loyalty is
associated with higher negative WOM). Based on this
rationale, we propose:
H2b: Under the condition of positive (negative) WOM
valence, there is a direct (inverse) relationship between
loyalty and WOM activity.
WOM incidence
The relationship between an antecedent and WOM can also
vary across studies investigating WOM intention and
WOM informed behavior. Brown et al. (2005), for example,
report a correlation of .74 between satisfaction and WOM
when measuring WOM intentions and .35 when measuring
WOM informed behavior. Studies measuring WOM inten-
tions might present higher correlations because of the
attitudinal nature of the measures. In other words, respond-
ents usually try to keep their responses coherent and those
manifesting high (low) satisfaction will be more likely to
provide high (low) intentions of behavior. But studies that
combine different measures (satisfaction as an evaluation
but WOM as a performed behavior) are more likely to
capture the “inconsistencies” of customer behavior. For
instance, some customers are satisfied, have intentions to
provide favorable recommendations, but do not convert this
plan into practice because of a lack of opportunity. This is
in agreement with previous meta-analyses showing signif-
icant differences between measures of intention (intentions
vs. estimates of performance) for the link between attitude
and behavior (Sheppard et al. 1988). In this review, studies
measuring intentions provided stronger correlations, while
those measuring estimates of behavior provided weaker
correlation. Based on this rationale, we propose:
H3a: The relationship between satisfaction and WOM
activity is stronger (weaker) when the study measures
intentions (reported behavior) of WOM activity.
H3b: The relationship between loyalty and WOM
activity is stronger (weaker) when the study measures
intentions (reported behavior) of WOM activity.
Study characteristics
Differences across studies can also be explained by
variations in studies’ characteristics in terms of survey or
experiment approach, cross-sectional or longitudinal meas-
ures, student or non-student subjects, scenario or non-
scenario-based research, and the product or service context.
Assmus et al. (1984) suggest that four categories of
characteristics might contribute to identifying systematic
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2008) 36:578–596
patterns in a meta-analysis: research context, model specifi-
cation, measurement methods, and estimation procedure. But
since our unit of analysis was bivariate correlations, we
looked for systematic differences in the study characteristics.
This is a common procedure in meta-analyses using
correlations (Henard and Szymanski 2001; Pan and Zinkhan
2006). We propose four characteristics as potential moder-
ators in our framework: method (survey or experiment),
design (cross-sectional or longitudinal), subject (student or
non-student), and context (product or service).
Experimental versus survey method The use of experimen-
tal or non-experimental investigation might contribute to
explaining the variability in the effect sizes. Given that in
an experimental context the researcher is able to randomly
assign subjects to the different conditions and control the
covariates that might influence the results, there is a greater
chance of less error variance in the denominator of the
effect size and, consequently, there are larger effect sizes
(Crosno and Dahlstrom 2008; Geyskens et al. 1998; Pan
and Zinkhan 2006). Based on this rationale, we propose:
H4a: The relationship between satisfaction and WOM
activity is stronger (weaker) for experimental (non-
experimental) studies.
H4b: The relationship between loyalty and WOM
activity is stronger (weaker) for experimental (non-
experimental) studies.
Cross-sectional versus longitudinal design The strength of
the relationships between satisfaction, loyalty, and WOM
might vary over time, just like consumers’ perceptions
may change over time (Maxham and Netemeyer 2002a).
Hence, a study that asks the customer to recall the
consumption experience or approaches the participant just
after the consumption experience is likely to produce
associations (between satisfaction time 1 and WOM time 1,
for instance) that are stronger when compared to a study
that uses measures from different time frames (between
satisfaction time 1 and WOM time 2). The rationale is that
measuring predictors and criterion variables at the same
point in time may produce artifactual covariance indepen-
dent of the content of the constructs themselves (Podsakoff
et al. 2003). Moreover, another common method bias is the
respondents’ tendency to maintain consistency in their
responses. Hence, if respondents are highly satisfied they
will manifest a high propensity toward positive WOM as
well as manifested WOM behavior. But if satisfaction is
measured in, say, time 1 and WOM in time 2, it is likely
that there will be greater heterogeneity in responses.
Therefore, this greater heterogeneity is more likely to
increase error variance and produce lower effect sizes (Fern
and Monroe 1996).
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2008) 36:578–596
Even when the longitudinal study uses measures that are
taken from the same point in time, it is likely that
intercorrelations will be different when compared to the
ones from the first attempt, just because participants have
provided answers before and some time has passed. For
instance, Brown et al.’s (2005) longitudinal study presented
lower correlations between satisfaction, commitment, and
WOM in their second survey. The possible reason might be
a dissipation effect because of the time that had elapsed
since the consumption experience.
Based on this discussion, we propose:
H5a: The relationship between satisfaction and WOM
activity is stronger (weaker) for cross-sectional (longi-
tudinal) studies.
H5b: The relationship between loyalty and WOM activity
is stronger (weaker) for cross-sectional (longitudinal)
studies.
Student versus non-student subjects Sample homogeneity
might have an influence on the magnitude of the effect
sizes. Student samples are likely to be more homogeneous,
while non-student samples are usually heterogeneous.
Given that a homogeneous sample tends to give responses
that vary less across the scale values, there might be a
problem of restricted ranges and attenuated effect sizes
(Fern and Monroe 1996). On the other hand, a non-student
sample, as a more heterogeneous sample, is more likely to
increase error variance, which would also produce weaker
effect sizes (Fern and Monroe 1996). However, it is
difficult to predict which of these sources of error is bigger
than the other. Thus, based exclusively on these influences,
we might not be sure about which type of sample would
have a weaker or stronger mean effect.
Considering the particular context of WOM activity and
the influence of satisfaction and loyalty as antecedents, we
could argue that students have greater dependence on their
satisfaction and loyalty levels in order to provide recommen-
dations. The reason is that students are more susceptible to
reference group influences (Park and Lessig 1977), with
greater chance that they actively search for information from
opinion leaders. In consequence, students will be more likely
to provide WOM when this recommendation is driven by
satisfaction and loyalty, given that they have less-solidified
cognitive structures than more mature individuals (Park and
Lessig 1977). Given this influence in the WOM context, there
is a potential consequence of a bias toward stronger effects of
satisfaction and loyalty in a student sample when compared
to a non-student sample. Based on this rationale, we propose:
H6a: The relationship between satisfaction and WOM
activity is stronger (weaker) for studies using a student
(non-student) sample.
585
H6b: The relationship between loyalty and WOM
activity is stronger (weaker) for studies using a student
(non-student) sample.
Product versus service context Services are known as being
intangible, perishable, and requiring higher involvement
between customers and sellers during the production and
consumption process (Parasuraman et al. 1985). As
suggested by Palmatier et al. (2006), this close interaction
between customers and sellers might make relationships
more critical for services. This might also be the case for
WOM behavior and its relationship with customer satisfac-
tion and loyalty, since the process of spreading WOM
involves relationships between customers and sellers and
customers with other customers. Szymanski and Henard
(2001), for instance, have found a stronger correlation
between satisfaction and repeat purchasing when services
rather than products are investigated. Likewise, Grinstein
(2008) as well has found a stronger effect for the link
between market orientation and innovation consequences
for service firms rather than for manufacturing ones. Based
on this discussion, we propose:
H7a: The relationship between satisfaction and WOM
activity is stronger (weaker) for studies in the service
(product) context.
H7b: The relationship between loyalty and WOM
activity is stronger (weaker) for studies in the service
(product) context.
The different roles of satisfaction and loyalty for favorable
and unfavorable WOM
In the previous section, we proposed WOM valence as a
moderator, suggesting that for positive WOM the effect of
the antecedents would be a direct one, whereas for negative
WOM the effect would be an inverse one. But we also have
reason to expect that the antecedent with the strongest
effect on WOM differs for positive and negative WOM.
Specifically, research by Sweeney et al. (2005) has
empirically demonstrated that positive WOM is more
cognitive, more carefully considered, and more associated
with service quality-related comments. Conversely, nega-
tive WOM is more emotionally based and is passed on
more immediately. Thus, negative WOM might be more
related to behavioral intentions (has a conative aspect) and
positive WOM could have a stronger evaluative (attitudi-
nal) component, driven by careful rational evaluation.
Considering that satisfaction is often approached by its
cognitive mechanisms and it often has an attitudinal
component (Oliver 1980; Westbrook and Oliver 1991),
especially when authors measure cumulative satisfaction, it
586
is reasonable to expect that satisfaction (instead of loyalty)
will have a stronger relationship with positive WOM, since
this type of WOM also depends on cognitive evaluations
and is carefully considered before being spread.
On the other hand, negative WOM is passed on more
immediately and to a greater number of people. Because of
the emotional nature of negative WOM (Schoefer and
Diamantopoulos 2008; Sweeney et al. 2005) and its greater
correspondence with intentions and behavior, we could expect
that (dis)loyalty, instead of (dis)satisfaction, has a stronger
relationship with negative WOM. This view is consistent
with Samson’s (2006) argument that brand loyalty should
have a greater association with negative WOM because
negative experiences with a brand usually have a greater
impact on repurchase intentions than do positive experiences.
Based on this discussion, we propose:
H8: Satisfaction has a stronger relationship with
positive WOM than loyalty, while (dis)loyalty has a
stronger relationship with negative WOM than does
(dis)satisfaction.
Method
Search process and coding of studies
We employed a literature search in different scientific
databases in order to identify the studies relevant to our
research. First, we searched for “word of mouth” and
“recommendation” in abstracts and keywords in each of the
28 marketing-related journals that are included in the Web
of Science Journal Citation Reports impact factor (JCR
2006). This journal-by-journal search used Ebsco, Proquest,
and Elsevier Science Direct scientific search engines. After
that, we conducted a search on Proquest, Ebsco, and
Emerald using the phrase “word of mouth” to look in
abstracts and keywords. Then we searched for articles and
working papers on the internet, using Google Scholar.
Finally, we searched for dissertations and theses in Proquest
and sent e-mails to the researchers in the domain asking for
their published and unpublished works. After completing
our search process in November 2007, we obtained a total
of 591 studies done in 1955–2007. Of these 591 studies,
there was a body of 349 that included theoretical papers,
qualitative investigations, quantitative studies that merely
cited “word of mouth,” and studies using WOM items
inside a loyalty construct (the “cocktail approach”), which
left 242 papers. From this amount (242 quantitative studies
measuring WOM), we selected 127 (53%) studies, which
produced 162 independent samples, 348 effect sizes, and a
cumulated N of 64,364 subjects. A list of the studies used in
our empirical meta-analysis is available on request.
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2008) 36:578–596
The remaining 115 studies (242–127) could not be
included for several reasons: (1) results were originated
from logit/probit models and no correlations were presented
(17 studies); (2) WOM was cited/measured in the context of
consumer complaining behavior, but it was not related to
any of the variables of the proposed model (17 studies); (3)
results were reported only in terms of number of recom-
mendations (11 studies); (4) results for WOM were
integrated with customer lifetime value and no correlation
was presented (five studies); and (5) WOM was measured
but it was not related to any of the constructs of the
proposed model (65 studies). The inclusion rate of 53%
is comparable to other meta-analyses in marketing by
Szymanski and Henard (2001; 59%) and Pan and Zinkhan
(2006; 56%).
We evaluated each study for measures of the relationship
between WOM, its antecedents, and the moderators. Two
criteria were used for inclusion: (1) correlational studies
had to present the correlation coefficient (r) or the
standardized regression coefficient between WOM and
any antecedent of the theoretical model and (2) studies of
group contrasts had to present the related statistic (t test,
F-ratios with one df in the numerator) for the relationship
between WOM and any antecedent. We could convert these
statistics to r coefficients using common guidelines in meta-
analysis (see Lipsey and Wilson 2001, p. 198; Peterson and
Brown 2005).
We selected the correlation coefficient r as the primary
effect size metric because it is easier to interpret and is a
scale-free measure, a common approach for meta-analytical
review in the marketing literature (DelVecchio et al. 2006;
Eisend 2006, 2004; Franke and Park 2006; Janiszewski et
al. 2003; Palmatier et al. 2006; Pan and Zinkhan 2006). In
following Peterson and Brown’s (2005) recommendations
that a meta-analysis should include the maximum number
of effect sizes to make the results more generalizable, we
also incorporated those studies that provided only the
standardized regression (beta) coefficients. We used the
formula suggested by Peterson and Brown (2005) to
estimate the correlations from the beta coefficients. The
formula used is r ¼ :98b þ :05l, where λ is a variable that
equals 1 when β is non-negative and 0 when β is negative.
We found that from the 162 observations in the data set,
105 (65%) provided the Pearson correlation coefficients, 19
(12%) supplied a t or F statistic of a group contrast, and 38
(23%) were completed with the correlation derived from the
beta coefficient. Since the studies we reviewed had a broad
array of research designs, using r as the common effect size
enabled us to integrate the various research designs. Before
pooling the samples, we tested whether studies providing
correlations would be different from those in which
correlations were derived from beta coefficients but no
significant difference was found for the link between
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2008) 36:578–596
satisfaction and WOM (mean r=.39; mean converted
r=.22; F=2.57; p<.112) and between loyalty and WOM
(mean r=.31; mean converted r=.43; F=.41; p<.526).
All identified studies were then examined in terms of the
following relevant variables: authors, year, journal, method
(survey vs. experiment), design (cross-sectional vs. longitu-
dinal), subjects (students vs. non-students), context (product
vs. service), WOM valence (positive, negative, or mixed),
WOM communication (sent, received, or both), WOM
incidence (intention vs. behavior), scenarios (used vs. non-
used), total sample size, number of items used to measure
each variable, reliability of each variable, and effect sizes.
From our 162 observations, 76 (47%) used the term
“repurchase intentions,” 33 (20%) used “loyalty,” two (1%)
measured real behavior, and 51 (32%) did not measure this
construct. Because most of these studies measured inten-
tions of loyalty, we considered repurchase intentions and
loyalty intentions together, naming the construct “loyalty.”
Procedures for effect size integration
The developed database integrated the effect sizes accord-
ing to common guidelines in the meta-analysis literature
(Lipsey and Wilson 2001). Since the true relationship
between variables is mainly influenced by sampling and
measurement error, correlations were first weighed by the
inverse variance and then by the inverse variance corrected
for measurement error (cf. Lipsey and Wilson 2001, p. 110).
We first converted the original correlations to Fisher’s Z
statistic before applying the variance weight and reliability
adjustment. After computing the mean values and confi-
dence intervals for Fisher’s Z values, we converted them
back to r using the appropriate formulas (cf. Lipsey and
Wilson 2001, p. 63–64). We adjusted the effect sizes for
unreliability by applying the reliability weight directly to
the inverse variance using w’= w ×(rxx) × (ryy). In this
approach, the effect size is corrected both for sampling
and measurement error (Lipsey and Wilson 2001, p. 110).
In view of this approach, we present our effect size
integration in three stages, based first on observed
correlations, then on correlations weighed by sampling
error, and finally on correlations weighed by both sampling
and measurement error.
A confidence interval is presented for each effect size
and it is significant when it does not include zero. When the
mean effect size is significant, a fail safe N is calculated,
estimating the number of non-significant and unavailable
studies that would be necessary to bring the cumulative
effect size to a non-significant value (known as the “file
drawer problem;” Rosenthal 1979). This statistic is an
indication of the robustness of the results. The formula used
is k×(r−rc)/rc, where k is the number of studies, r is the
mean effect size, and rc is the “just significant” level or
587
critical effect size (see Lipsey and Wilson 2001, p. 166;
Hunter and Schmidt 2004, p. 501). We used a level of .05
as “just significant,” similar to Grewal et al. (1997).
Homogeneity of the effect size distribution was tested by
the Q statistic, distributed as a chi-square (see Lipsey and
Wilson 2001, p. 115). If the null hypothesis of homogeneity
is rejected, differences in effect sizes may be attributed to
factors other than sampling error alone, like moderating
variables related to studies’ characteristics.
In each relationship in which the Q statistic was
significant (heterogeneity evidence), a moderator analysis
was performed, considering the studies’ characteristics that
were coded based on information provided in the articles.
These moderators included method (survey vs. experiment),
design (cross-sectional vs. longitudinal), subjects (students
vs. non-students), context (products vs. services), WOM
valence (positive vs. negative), and WOM incidence
(intention vs. behavior).
When studies measured the constructs using single items
(141 cases, or 32% of the 442 measurement situations) or
when reliability values were unavailable (28, or 9% of the
total of 301 situations using two or more items in the
measured variables), the reliabilities were estimated using
the Spearman–Brown procedure suggested by Hunter and
Schmidt (2004, p. 311), which has been used in other meta-
analyses in marketing (Franke and Park 2006; Grewal et al.
1997). For instance, of the 162 observations providing
effect sizes for WOM, 58 (36%) were based on single items
and had an estimated reliability of .711; 9 (6%) observa-
tions were based on two items and had an estimated
reliability of .831; three (2%) observations were based on
three items and had an estimated reliability of .88; and two
(1%) observations were based on four items and had an
estimated reliability of .908. This same procedure was
applied to the other constructs of the model. The advantage
of the Spearman–Brown procedure is that the estimated
reliability takes into account the number of items used to
measure the construct, so that constructs with a greater
number of items have higher estimated reliabilities.
Results
Descriptive statistics
After reviewing the sample size of each of the 162
observations in the data set, we identified three outliers.
While the sample size of the remaining studies varied from
40 to 1,405, the outliers had sample sizes of 6,201, 3,206,
and 1,986 respondents. The distortion of these outliers
would be greater for the link between perceived value and
WOM, which would be .48 with the inclusion of the
outliers and .59 after the exclusion. This difference was
588 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2008) 36:578–596

caused by the observed effect size of .35 for the link
between perceived value and WOM in the outlier with a
greater sample size (6,201). All analyses of effect size
integration were performed after the outliers were excluded.
Because one of the three outliers came from a study that
provided more than one observation in the data set, the
number of observations, after excluding the outliers,
reduced from 162 to 159, but the number of studies from
127 to 125. Thus, the analyses were based on 159
observations from 125 studies.
Table 1 presents the results for the integration of effect
sizes of the antecedents of WOM. As we show in Table 1,
the correlates of WOM with greater frequency in the
literature are satisfaction and loyalty, with 113 and 75
observations respectively. Following Lipsey and Wilson’s
(2001) suggestion for analyzing the magnitude of effect
sizes (r<.10 as small; r=.25 as medium, and r>.40 as large
effect size), we can see in Table 1 that the antecedents of
WOM have medium-to-large mean effects for the integrated
effect size (corrected for sampling and measurement error),
with the relationships varying from .39 (loyalty–WOM) to
.66 (commitment–WOM). All the proposed relationships
were found to be significant, irrespective of the number of
observations. Thus, hypotheses H1a, H1b, H1c, H1d, H1e,
and H1f were supported.
We note that only one of the 15 observations in the
relationship between quality and WOM dealt with the
quality of a product (an e-CRM software). This observation
presented a correlation of .53 and a sample of 143 in the
dataset. Table 1 shows that the simple average r was .50
while the adjusted r was .53, demonstrating that the only
study about products presented a relationship for the link
quality-WOM very similar to that of studies investigating
services.
Examining the confidence intervals of the antecedents of
WOM, we notice that the links satisfaction–WOM and
loyalty–WOM have the lowest dispersion around the mean
effect. The file drawer N was also higher (greater than 510)
for these links, indicating that a higher number of studies
with non-significant effect size would be needed in order to
reduce the mean effect size to a level of “just significant.”
In other words, this result is an indication that the mean
effect sizes of satisfaction–WOM and loyalty–WOM are
more unlikely to be null, as the greater the file drawer
number, the greater our confidence that the mean effect size
is not null. For example, to bring the significant link
satisfaction–WOM down to the level of .05 (used as the
“just significant” level), it would be necessary to find 844
studies with null-results to be included in our analysis. Even
the lower file drawer N of 91 studies for the antecedent trust
suggests that it is unlikely there is this number of studies
finding null results for the effects of trust on WOM.
But a highly heterogeneous subset of effect sizes in the
links satisfaction–WOM and loyalty–WOM—as indicated
by the Q statistic (see Table 1) and the greater ranges (see
columns of minimum and maximum)—also indicates that
moderating variables might contribute to explaining the
variance in these effect sizes. The analysis of moderators is
presented next.
Moderating effects
In order to test if the studies’ characteristics could
contribute to explaining the variability in the effect sizes,
we conducted an analysis of moderation using regression
analysis, with effect sizes as dependent variables (correla-
tions corrected for reliability) and moderators as indepen-
dent dummy-coded variables, a common approach for

Table 1 Descriptive statistics for effect size integration of the antecedents of WOM

Antecedents ka Ob Nc Min. Max. Simple Sample- Sample- Sig. LCI UCI Q testd Sig File
average weighed weighed drawer
r adjusted reliability N
average r adjusted r

Satisfaction 89 113 34,828 −.76 .95 .44 .42 .42 .000 .41 .43 9,945.65 .000 844
Loyalty 62 75 25,872 −.83 .93 .38 .37 .39 .000 .38 .40 5,811.34 .000 510
Quality 9 15 2,797 −.31 .74 .50 .53 .53 .000 .50 .56 225.65 .000 144
Commitment 8 12 5,391 .21 .78 .54 .60 .66 .000 .64 .68 245.38 .000 146
Trust 9 11 4,659 .18 .76 .44 .45 .46 .000 .44 .49 137.36 .000 91
Perceived 10 10 5,096 .11 .97 .66 .56 .59 .000 .57 .61 716.87 .000 108
Value

File Drawer number was attenuated at .05

LCI lower confidence interval, UCI upper confidence interval, Sig. significance, Min. minimum, Max. maximum, WOM word-of-mouth
a
Number of studies
b
Number of observations
c
Combined N
d
Test of homogeneity
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2008) 36:578–596 589

testing moderators (Eisend 2006; Szymanski and Henard
2001). An advantage of the regression approach is that it
takes into account the variability in the other moderators as
well. This procedure is not recommended if there are few
effect sizes, namely, a ratio of less than five observations
per independent variable, because results might be biased
by low statistical power and capitalization on sampling
error (Hunter and Schmidt 2004, p. 70). Because the links
satisfaction–WOM and loyalty–WOM are the ones with the
greater number of observations (90 and 66, respectively),
we conducted a separate regression for each of them. The
results are presented in Table 2.
Given that WOM valence had three categories (negative,
positive, and mixed), one alternative was to use two
dummies in the regression model, namely (1) WOM
positive (1 for positive WOM and 0 otherwise) and (2)
WOM negative (1 for negative WOM and 0 otherwise).
However, this procedure would bias the results because
mixed WOM was more similar to positive WOM (both
presented a positive mean for satisfaction–WOM). Thus,
we decided to drop the “mixed WOM” category and use
one dummy considering only negative vs. positive WOM.
We see from the findings in Table 2 that the regression
models are relatively free of collinearity, since the maxi-
mum variance inflation factor (VIF) was below the
recommended threshold of 10 (Hair et al. 1998). The
models for the satisfaction–WOM and loyalty–WOM
relationships presented a high proportion (about 77%) of
variance explained by the predictors. These two models
were statistically significant at .001 (see Model F and p
level).
For the satisfaction–WOM relationship, we see from
Table 2 that two moderators were significant predictors.
The first significant moderator was the WOM valence
(negative vs. positive). The significant positive coefficient
(β=.90, p<.001) means that studies measuring positive
(negative) WOM presented a direct (inverse) effect of
satisfaction on WOM, supporting H2a. The second signif-
icant moderator was study design, supporting H5a. The
negative coefficient (β=−.10, p<.071) reveals that the
effect of satisfaction on WOM was stronger for cross-
sectional studies (.42) than for longitudinal studies (.38). A
total of 90 observations presented completed information
for all predictors and the dependent variable.

Table 2 Regression results for the moderator analysis

Hypotheses Moderator Variable Antecedent of WOM

Satisfaction Loyalty

H2a, H2b WOM valence (0 = negative; 1 = positive)

Beta .90*** .88***
Number of correlations: negative, positive 19, 71 12, 54
Mean effect size: negative WOM; positive WOM −.51; .62 −.58; .54
H3a, H3b WOM incidence (0 = intention; 1 = behavior)
Beta −.05 −.13**
Number of correlations: intention, behavior 84, 6 57, 9
Mean effect size: WOM intention; WOM behavior – .42; .18
H4a, H4b Method (0 = experiment; 1 = survey)
Beta .01 −.05
Number of correlations: experiment, survey 11, 79 2, 64
H5a, H5b Design (0 = cross-sectional; 1 = longitudinal)
Beta −.10* −.14**
Number of correlations: cross-sectional, longitudinal 81, 9 58, 8
Mean effect size: WOM cross-sectional; WOM longitudinal .42; .38 .39; .29
H6a, H7b Subjects (0 = students; 1 = non-students)
Beta .01 −.03
Number of correlations: students, non-students 20, 70 10, 56
H7a, H7b Context (0 = product; 1 = service)
Beta −.05 .01
Number of correlations: product, service 11, 79 8, 58
R2 adjusted (n listwise) .784 (90) .768 (66)
Model F (p level) 54.79 (.000) 36.8 (.000)
Maximum variance inflation factor 1.81 1.24

Standardized coefficients are presented; mean effect sizes are displayed for each category of the significant moderators
*p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.01
590 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2008) 36:578–596

The link loyalty–WOM presented a similar pattern when
considering that (1) studies measuring positive (vs. nega-
tive) WOM presented a direct (inverse) mean effect of
loyalty on WOM (β=.88, p<.001) and (2) longitudinal
studies presented a lower mean effect size (.29) than cross-
sectional investigations (.39), with a significant regression
coefficient (β=−.14, p<.031). These findings support H2b
and H5b. Furthermore, WOM incidence was significant for
loyalty–WOM (β=−.13, p<.037), with the negative coef-
ficient indicating that the association between loyalty and
WOM was stronger (.42) for the studies measuring
intention of WOM and weaker (.18) for those measuring a
reported behavior of WOM, supporting H3b. However, the
WOM incidence moderator was not significant in the
satisfaction–WOM relationship, not supporting H3a.
We can also see from Table 2 that the influence of
satisfaction and loyalty on WOM was not different between
studies (1) using experimental versus survey method (no
support for H4), (2) researching students or non-student
subjects (no support for H6), and (3) investigating the
product or the service context (no support for H7).
It is interesting to note that for both the satisfaction–
WOM and loyalty–WOM relationships there were strong
differences between conditions of positive and negative
WOM. These analyses supported the relevant role of WOM
valence as a moderator. Next we test whether a change in
the WOM valence changes the antecedent that is most
strongly associated with WOM activity (H8).
The different roles of satisfaction and loyalty
From the total of 159 observations, 101 (63%) dealt with
positive WOM, 31 (20%) with mixed WOM, and 27 (17%)
with negative WOM. We proposed in H8 that satisfaction
has a stronger relationship with positive WOM than loyalty,
while (dis)loyalty has a stronger relationship with negative
WOM than does (dis)satisfaction. The segmented results
are presented in Table 3.
We can see in Table 3 that for positive WOM, the effects
of both antecedents are positive, although satisfaction has a
stronger effect (r=.62) when compared to loyalty (r=.54),
with a significant difference (z=6.82, p<.001). Conversely,
for negative WOM conditions, the effects of loyalty on
WOM are stronger (r = −.58) when compared to the
influence of satisfaction (r= −.51), with a significant
difference (z=2.76, p<.003). These findings support H8.
An additional finding, which is in agreement with the
previous findings, is that the condition of mixed WOM
produced a positive mean effect size for both satisfaction
and loyalty, and the effect of satisfaction was stronger
(r=.42) when compared to loyalty (r=.30), with a significant
difference (z=3.30, p<.001).
Even if we applied a Bonferroni correction and lowered
the alpha level of .05 by the number of comparisons, which
would set the alpha for significance at .017 (.05/3=.017),
the findings would still support the difference between
satisfaction–WOM and loyalty–WOM for both positive
WOM (p<.001) and negative WOM (p<.003). We discuss
these findings next.
Discussion and conclusion
The meta-analysis we report in this study provides a
quantitative integration of the main constructs that are
associated with WOM and a summary of the relationships
between these constructs and WOM. Although there have
been a great number of studies investigating WOM, there is
still a lack of integration for the bivariate relationships
involving WOM. Thus, the present meta-analysis seeks to

Table 3 Relative strength of satisfaction and loyalty for different conditions of WOM valence

WOM Antecedent ka Ob Nc Min. Max. Simple Sample- Sample- Sig. LCI UCI Q Testd Sig File
valence average weighed weighed drawer
r adjusted reliability N
average r adjusted r

Positive Sat 54 71 22,208 −.11 .95 .62 .61 .62 .000 .61 .63 2,332.72 .000 816
Loy 44 54 20,523 −.01 .93 .57 .52 .54 .000 .53 .55 1,942.33 .000 532
Negative Sat 17 19 5,900 −.76 −.14 −.45 −.49 −.51 .000 −.53 −.48 272.98 .000 173
Loy 10 12 3,676 −.83 .14 −.59 −.55 −.58 .000 −.60 −.55 312.38 .000 126
Mixed Sat 18 23 6,720 −.36 .85 .42 .41 .42 .000 .39 .45 907.98 .000 170
Loy 8 9 1,673 −.46 .77 .33 .25 .30 .000 .24 .35 221.83 .000 45

LCI lower confidence interval, UCI upper confidence interval, Sig. significance, Min. minimum, Max. maximum, Sat satisfaction, Loy loyalty
a
Number of studies
b
Number of observations
c
Combined N
d
Test of homogeneity
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2008) 36:578–596
fill this gap by presenting a conceptual framework of the
antecedents and moderators of WOM and empirically
investigating the hypotheses of this model. Our contribu-
tions are derived from this meta-analytic review.
First, the direct-effect analysis reveals that commitment
is the main correlate of WOM (r=.66), followed by
perceived value (.59), quality (.53), trust (.46), satisfaction
(.42), and loyalty (.39). Most of these mean effects can be
interpreted as a large effect (greater than .40, Lipsey and
Wilson 2001). These findings support the relevant role of
the commitment variable in the customer’s propensity to
spread recommendations (positive or negative) about the
provider, in agreement with Brown et al. (2005), Fullerton
(2003), and Lacey et al. (2007).
Second, findings from the multiple regression support
the moderating role of WOM valence (H2) because for
positive WOM valence, a direct relationship is found
between the antecedents (satisfaction and loyalty) and
WOM activity. On the other hand, for negative WOM
valence, an inverse association was found. This finding
supports Szymanski and Henard’s (2001) finding of a link
between satisfaction and negative WOM and extends their
results to the association between loyalty and WOM.
Third, WOM incidence (intention or behavior) was a
significant moderator in the loyalty–WOM relationship
(H3b). As expected, evidence from the analysis shows that
the influence of loyalty on WOM is significantly lower for
studies measuring reported behavior of WOM activity
when compared to those measuring intentions of WOM
activity. Brown et al.’s (2005) study found a similar result
when measuring the influence of satisfaction on WOM
activity. This difference in the level of influence can be
explained by the attitudinal nature of the WOM intentions
measure. So, it is more likely that researchers measuring
WOM as the intention to recommend will find a stronger
relationship between WOM and other measures, such as
loyalty intentions, because respondents often try to main-
tain a cognitive consistency when answering questionnaire
items (Podsakoff et al. 2003).
Fourth, the moderator analysis also revealed that the
studies’ design (cross-sectional vs. longitudinal) also had a
significant influence in both satisfaction–WOM and loyalty–
WOM associations (H5). As hypothesized, cross-sectional
studies presented stronger mean effects than longitudinal
ones. A possible explanation is that the influence of
satisfaction and loyalty on WOM may dissipate over time
and if variables are measured just after the consumption
experience, they might capture a stronger association between
the variables. Another possibility is that the cross-sectional
studies could suffer from common-method bias, which would
increase the estimated correlations (Podsakoff et al. 2003).
Fifth, there was no difference in the effects of satisfac-
tion and loyalty on WOM when comparing experimental
591
and non-experimental studies (H4), student-based versus
non-student-based research (H6), and the service versus the
product context (H7). Although the differences between
these conditions have been proposed in previous meta-
analyses (Crosno and Dahlstrom 2008; Geyskens et al.
1998; Pan and Zinkhan 2006; Szymanski and Henard
2001), the findings from this literature have not provided
manifest differences. Our findings show that when control-
ling for the influence of the other methodological moder-
ators, the effects of satisfaction and loyalty on WOM tend
to be similar whether the researcher conducts an experiment
or a survey, uses students or not in the sample, and
investigates services or products. What does have an effect
is the decision to investigate negative or positive WOM,
measure WOM intention or behavior, and use a cross-
sectional or a longitudinal design.
Sixth, our findings supported the hypothesis that
satisfaction has a stronger relationship with positive
WOM than loyalty, whereas (dis)loyalty has a stronger
relationship with negative WOM than does (dis)satisfaction
(H8). This effect can be explained by the differences
between behavioral intentions and attitudes. In other words,
given that (1) positive WOM is more strongly related to
cognitive evaluations and it is carefully considered before
being spread (Sweeney et al. 2005), and that (2) satisfaction
is often interpreted by its cognitive mechanisms and it often
has an attitudinal component (Oliver 1980; Westbrook and
Oliver 1991), we could expect satisfaction to have a
stronger relationship with WOM activity for positive
WOM valence.
On the other hand, because negative WOM is more
emotionally based, is passed on more immediately, and
therefore has a greater association with an intentional/
behavioral component (Schoefer and Diamantopoulos
2008; Sweeney et al. 2005), we can predict that (dis)loyalty
is more strongly associated with WOM activity for negative
WOM valence than is (dis)satisfaction. This finding is
consistent with the notion that negative WOM is usually a
behavior of customers who have switched providers (a
disloyalty behavior), and then spread negative evaluations
of the former provider as a means to reduce cognitive
dissonance, to vent negative emotions, to warn others, and/
or to seek retaliation (Richins 1984; Sweeney et al. 2005;
Wangenheim 2005).
This support for H8 is consistent with a recent study
which shows that emotionally based satisfaction is a
stronger predictor of future behavioral intentions than
traditional cognitive measures (Martin et al. 2008). It is
also consistent with the proposition that consumers are
more likely to engage in WOM when they experience
significant emotional experiences (Dick and Basu 1994;
Söderlund and Rosengren 2007). Our meta-analytic review
empirically confirms that more emotionally based WOM
592
presents a stronger association with customers’ behavioral
intentions.
As the main contribution for managers, the present meta-
analysis shows that satisfaction is more associated with
positive WOM than loyalty, whereas (dis)loyalty is more
associated with negative WOM than is (dis)satisfaction.
This finding reinforces the notion that satisfied customers
are not necessarily loyal (Matos et al. 2007; Reichheld
1994) and it expands this knowledge by empirically
demonstrating that negative and positive WOM are differ-
ently associated with key marketing variables (satisfaction
and loyalty). While negative WOM has a strong behavioral
component, positive WOM is more evaluative and attitudi-
nal-based. An implication of this finding is that managers
might “reap” the benefits of positive WOM in the middle or
long term as customer satisfaction is “sown.” On the other
hand, the damages of negative WOM can be experienced in
the short term if customers are dissatisfied and switch
providers.
The study’s support for the significant role of customer
commitment as an important predictor of WOM activity is
another of its contributions to managerial practice. After
combining studies and controlling for the effects of
sampling and measurement error, the strongest effect of
commitment (.66) on WOM indicates that the most
important way for managers to increase customers’ likeli-
hood of favorable recommendations could be to increase
customers’ commitment to the organization. Fullerton
(2003) has demonstrated that the positive effect of
commitment on retention is more pronounced when
customers are committed through shared values and
identification rather than dependence and switching costs.
Thus, managers could increase customers’ commitment by
improving the identification and the values shared between
customers and the company as an incentive for customers’
advocacy.
Limitations and future research directions
Several limitations that are common to meta-analytic
reviews in the marketing literature are also present here.
For instance, we could not include studies that measured
WOM as a component of a broader loyalty or behavioral
intentions construct because of the “cocktail approach”
used in measurement (Söderlund 2006). We were also not
able to include the type of WOM (sent vs. received) as a
moderator in the regression because the few cases of
received WOM were from studies that did not have
complete information for the other moderators (the variable
became a constant in the listwise procedure and had to be
excluded). Also, our analysis is limited to moderators used
in existing studies, and other variables that have been
suggested as moderators for WOM, such as switching costs
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2008) 36:578–596
and customer experience, could not be included in our
analysis, as is the case in other meta-analyses (see for example
Kirca et al. 2005). Moreover, our moderating analysis could
be performed only for the antecedents of WOM with the
greatest number of observations (satisfaction and loyalty).
Another possible limitation is the fact that the reviewed
studies might have methodological weaknesses other than
the sample size and the measurement error taken into
account in our meta-analysis. Considering, for example,
that studies come from different sources, such as disserta-
tions and papers published in journals of different quality,
decisions related to design, data collection, and analyses
could have an influence on the obtained results. These
extraneous sources of error might also contribute to the
variability in the effect sizes across studies. Unfortunately,
these factors are difficult, if not impossible, to control in the
context of a meta-analysis.
Future research should further develop the WOM
literature by integrating the perspectives of the WOM
recipient and WOM giver, as conducted by Gilly et al.
(1998). An extension to this approach could include those
(moderating) variables that are relevant to communication
theory (Hovland et al. 1953) but which have been omitted
in WOM research, such as source credibility, source
attractiveness, message congruence, message repetition,
situational involvement of the recipient, and risk perceived
by the recipient. These variables should be relevant in
understanding how the received WOM influences custom-
ers’ propensity to pass the information to others.
Another aspect worthy of future investigation is the
affective mechanisms related to the situations in which
customers provide either positive or negative WOM, since
commitment presented a significant association with WOM,
and commitment usually reflects a positive affect towards
the organization. Correspondingly, future investigations
about WOM and its relationship with satisfaction and
loyalty could be extended to include specific emotions,
such as anger, regret, frustration, and disappointment, in
order to understand the likely emotional and behavioral
aspect of negative WOM when compared to the more
cognitive positive WOM.
Moreover, longitudinal research could examine whether
the influence of satisfaction and loyalty on WOM dissipates
over time or if the stronger relationships found for the
cross-sectional studies are related to the predictor and
outcome variables being measured at the same point in time
(common-method bias). Considering that WOM researchers
are often investigating customers’ relationships with pro-
viders, collecting data at more than one point in time might
help in producing a more realistic picture of the relation-
ships between customers and companies.
In addition, future research should also test whether the
practice of measuring WOM as an intention of recommen-
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2008) 36:578–596
dation (instead of a manifested real behavior) is leading
researchers to believe in a stronger effect when in fact the
effect is smaller. Indeed, most consumer researchers grapple
with the question of whether to use intentions or behavior
in measuring behavioral constructs like WOM. Our review
suggests a large and significant difference (.42 versus .18)
between these approaches in the WOM context. Hence,
researchers should be aware of the serious limitation of
measuring only intentions and make efforts to measure real
behavior, or even use both intention and behavior measures
in order to assess the differences between them.
Furthermore, researchers must ask whether the effects
suggested above are influenced by the context of online
WOM. Although previous studies have investigated elec-
tronic WOM (Gruen et al. 2006; Hennig-Thurau et al.
2004; Stewart and Pavlou 2002), more research is needed to
investigate the issues presented here in the online WOM
context. It is possible that the differential effect of
satisfaction and loyalty on negative and positive WOM is
even more pronounced in an online environment, given the
great power of dissatisfied customers to use the Internet to
vent negative emotions, to warn other customers, or to seek
retaliation.
In summary, we provide insight into the antecedents of
WOM activity, the approaches and studies’ characteristics
that moderate these relationships, and how the influence of
satisfaction is more pronounced for positive WOM and
(dis)loyalty for negative WOM. We hope these findings
provide renewed insights for WOM researchers and
advance the theory of WOM communications in marketing.
Acknowledgments We thank the Brazilian Funding Council for
Research (CNPq and CAPES) and the Graduate School of Manage-
ment (PPGA-EA-UFRGS) for their financial support. We are also
thankful to the editor, David W. Stewart, and the three anonymous
JAMS reviewers for their insightful comments.
References
Anderson, E. W. (1998). Customer satisfaction and word-of-mouth.
Journal of Service Research, 1(1), 1–14.
Arndt, J. (1967). Word-of-mouth advertising and informal vommuni-
cation. In D. Cox (Ed.), Risk taking and information handling in
consumer behaviour. Boston: Harvard University.
Arnett, D. B., German, S. D., & Hunt, S. D. (2003). The identity
salience model of relationship marketing successes: the case of
nonprofit marketing. Journal of Marketing, 67, 89–105 April.
Assmus, G., Farley, J. U., & Lehmann, D. R. (1984). How advertising
affects sales: meta-analysis of econometric results. Journal of
Marketing Research, 21(1), 65–74.
Bearden, W. O., & Teel, J. E. (1983). Selected determinants of
consumer satisfaction and complaint reports. Journal of Market-
ing Research, 20(1), 21–28.
Blodgett, J. G., Granbois, D. H., & Walters, R. G. (1993). The effects
of perceived justice on complainants’ negative word-of-mouth
593
behavior and repatronage intentions. Journal of Retailing, 69(4),
399–428.
Bloemer, J., de Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M. (1999). Linking perceived
service quality and service loyalty: a multi-dimensional perspec-
tive. European Journal of Marketing, 33(11/12), 1082–1106.
Bolton, R. N., & Drew, J. H. (1991). A longitudinal analysis of the
impact of service changes on customer attitudes. Journal of
Marketing, 55(1), 1–10.
Bonifield, C., & Cole, C. (2007). Affective responses to service
failure: anger, regret, and retaliatory versus conciliatory
responses. Marketing Letters, 18(1), 85–99.
Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1993). A
dynamic process model of service quality: from expectations to
behavioural intentions. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(1), 7–
27.
Brown, T. J., Barry, T. E., Dacin, P. A., & Gunst, R. F. (2005).
Spreading the word: investigating antecedents of consumers’
positive word-of-mouth intentions and behaviors in a retailing
context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(2),
123–138.
Carpenter, J. M., & Fairhurst, A. (2005). Consumer shopping value,
satisfaction, and loyalty for retail apparel brands. Journal of
Fashion Marketing and Management, 9(3), 256–269.
Chevalier, J., & Mayzlin, D. (2006). The effect of word of mouth on
sales: online book reviews. Journal of Marketing Research, 43
(3), 345–354.
Crosno, J. L., & Dahlstrom, R. (2008). A meta-analytic review of
opportunism in exchange relationships. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 36(2), 191–201.
DelVecchio, D., Henard, D. H., & Freling, T. H. (2006). The effect of
sales promotion on post-promotion brand preference: a meta-
analysis. Journal of Retailing, 82(3), 203–213.
Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: toward an
integrated conceptual framework. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 22(2), 99–113.
Duan, W., Gu, B., & Whinston, A. B. (2008). The dynamics of online
word-of-mouth and product sales – an empirical investigation of
the movie industry. Journal of Retailing, 84(2), 233–242.
Durvasula, S., Lysonski, S., Mehta, S. C., & Tang, B. P. (2004).
Forging relationships with services: the antecedents that have an
impact on behavioral outcomes in the life insurance industry.
Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 8(4), 314–326.
Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer-seller
relationships. Journal of Marketing, 51, 11–27 April.
Eisend, M. (2004). Is it still worth to be credible? A meta-analysis
of temporal patterns of source credibility effects in marketing.
In B. Kahn, & M. F. Luce (Eds.), Advances in consumer
research, vol. 31 (pp. 352–357). Urbana: Association of
Consumer Research.
Eisend, M. (2006). Two-sided advertising: a meta-analysis. Interna-
tional Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(2), 187–198.
Engel, J. F., Blackwell, R. D., & Miniard, P. W. (1995). Consumer
behavior (8th ed.). Orlando: Dryden.
Fern, E. F., & Monroe, K. B. (1996). Effect-size estimates: issues and
problems in interpretation. Journal of Consumer Research, 23,
89–105 September.
Franke, G. R., & Park, J.-E. (2006). Salesperson adaptive selling
behavior and customer orientation: a meta-analysis. Journal of
Marketing Research, 43(4), 693–702.
Fullerton, G. (2003). When does commitment lead to loyalty? Journal
of Service Research, 5(4), 333–344.
Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The different roles of
satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships.
Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 70–87.
Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Kumar, N. (1998). General-
izations about trust in marketing channel relationships using
594
meta-analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing,
15(3), 223–249.
Gilly, M. C., Graham, J. L., Wolfinbarger, M. F., & Yale, L. J. (1998).
A dyadic study of interpersonal information search. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 26(2), 83–100.
Gounaris, S., & Stathakopoulos, V. (2004). Antecedents and con-
sequences of brand loyalty: an empirical study. Journal of Brand
Management, 11(4), 283–306.
Gremler, D. D., & Gwinner, K. P. (2000). Customer-employee rapport
in service relationships. Journal of Service Research, 3(1), 82–
104.
Gremler, D. D., Gwinner, K. P., & Brown, S. W. (2001). Generating
positive word-of-mouth communication through customer-
employee relationships. International Journal of Service Industry
Management, 12(1), 44–59.
Grewal, D., Kavanoor, S., Fern, E. F., Costley, C., & Barnes, J.
(1997). Comparative versus noncomparative advertising: a meta-
analysis. Journal of Marketing, 61(4), 1–15.
Grinstein, A. (2008). The effect of market orientation and its
components on innovation consequences: a meta-analysis.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(2), 166–173.
Gruen, T. W., Osmonbekov, T., & Czaplewski, A. J. (2006). eWOM:
the impact of customer-to-customer online know-how exchange
on customer value and loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 59
(4), 449–456.
Gruen, T. W., Summers, J. O., & Acito, F. (2000). Relationship
marketing activities, commitment, and membership behaviors in
professional associations. Journal of Marketing, 64(3), 34–49.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998).
Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Halstead, D. (2002). Negative word of mouth: Substitute for or
supplement to consumer complaints? Journal of Consumer
Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 15(1),
1–12.
Halstead, D., & Dröge, C. (1991). Consumer attitudes toward
complaining and the prediction of multiple complaint responses.
Advances in Consumer Research, 18, 210–216.
Harrison-Walker, L. J. (2001). The measurement of word-of-mouth
communication and an investigation of service quality and
customer commitment as potential antecedents. Journal of
Service Research, 4(1), 60–75.
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(3), 207–215.
Heckman, R., & Guskey, A. (1998). The relationship between alumni
and university: toward a theory of discretionary collaborative
behavior. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 6(2), 97–
112.
Heitmann, M., Lehmann, D. R., & Herrmann, A. (2007). Choice goal
attainment and decision and consumption satisfaction. Journal of
Marketing Research, 44, 234–250 May.
Henard, D. H., & Szymanski, D. M. (2001). Why some new products
are more successful than others. Journal of Marketing Research,
38(3), 362–375.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., & Gremler, D. D. (2002).
Understanding relationship marketing outcomes: An integration
of relational benefits and relationship quality. Journal of Service
Research, 4(3), 230–247.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D.
(2004). Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion plat-
forms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the
internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1), 38–52.
Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication
and persuasion: psychological studies of opinion change. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2008) 36:578–596
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis:
correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Beverly
Hills: Sage.
Janiszewski, C., Noel, H., & Sawyer, A. G. (2003). A meta-analysis of
the spacing effect in verbal learning: implications for research on
advertising repetition and consumer memory. Journal of Con-
sumer Researcher, 30(1), 138–149.
Jones, M. A., & Reynolds, K. E. (2006). The role of retailer interest
on shopping behavior. Journal of Retailing, 82(2), 115–126.
Jones, M. A., Reynolds, K. E., Mothersbaugh, D. L., & Beatty, S. E.
(2007). The positive and negative effects of switching costs on
relational outcomes. Journal of Service Research, 9(4), 335–355.
Jones, T. O., & Sasser, W. E., Jr. (1995). Why satisfied customers
defect. Harvard Business Review, 73, 88–99 November-December.
Jones, T., & Taylor, S. F. (2007). The conceptual domain of service
loyalty: how many dimensions? Journal of Services Marketing,
21(1), 36–51.
Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal influence. Glencoe:
Free.
Kau, A.-K., & Loh, E. W.-Y. (2006). The effects of service recovery
on consumer satisfaction: a comparison between complainants
and non-complainants. Journal of Services Marketing, 20(2),
101–111.
Keiningham, T. L., Cooil, B., Aksoy, L., Andreassen, T. W., &
Weiner, J. (2007). The value of different customer satisfaction
and loyalty metrics in predicting customer retention, recommen-
dation, and share-of-wallet. Managing Service Quality, 17(4),
361–384.
Kirca, A. H., Jayachandran, S., & Bearden, W. O. (2005). Market
orientation: a meta-analytic review and assessment of its
antecedents and impact on performance. Journal of Marketing,
69, 24–41 April.
Lacey, R., Suh, J., & Morgan, R. M. (2007). Differential effects of
preferential treatment levels on relational outcomes. Journal of
Service Research, 9(3), 241–256.
Lam, S. Y., Shankar, V., Krishna Erramilli, M., & Murthy, B. (2004).
Customer value, satisfaction, loyalty, and switching costs: an
illustration from a business-to-business service context. Journal
Academy of Marketing Science, 32(3), 293–311.
Liljander, V., & Strandvik, T. (1997). Emotions in service satisfaction.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8(2),
148–169.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis.
Beverly Hills: Sage.
Macintosh, G. (2007). Customer orientation, relationship quality, and
relational benefits to the firm. Journal of Services Marketing, 21
(3), 150–159.
Martin, D., O’Neill, M., Hubbard, S., & Palmer, A. (2008). The role
of emotion in explaining consumer satisfaction and future
behavioural intention. Journal of Services Marketing, 22(3),
224–236.
Matos, C. A., Henrique, J. L., & Rossi, C. A. V. (2007). Service
recovery paradox: a meta-analysis. Journal of Service Research,
10(1), 60–77.
Maxham, J. G., III (2001). Service recovery’s influence on consumer
satisfaction, positive word-of-mouth, and purchase intentions.
Journal of Business Research, 54(1), 11–24.
Maxham, J. G., III, & Netemeyer, R. G. (2002a). A longitudinal study
of complaining customers’ evaluations of multiple service
failures and recovery efforts. Journal of Marketing, 66(4), 57–71.
Maxham, J. G., III, & Netemeyer, R. G. (2002b). Modeling customer
perceptions of complaint handling over time: the effects of
perceived justice on satisfaction and intent. Journal of Retailing,
78(4), 239–252.
Maxham, J. G., III, & Netemeyer, R. G. (2003). Firms reap what they
sow: the effects of shared values and perceived organizational
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2008) 36:578–596
justice on customers’ evaluations of complaint handling. Journal
of Marketing, 67, 46–62 January.
Mazzarol, T., Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2007). Conceptualizing
word-of-mouth activity, triggers and conditions: an exploratory
study. European Journal of Marketing, 41(11/12), 1475–1494.
McKee, D., Simmers, C. S., & Licata, J. (2006). Customer self-
efficacy and response to service. Journal of Service Research, 8
(3), 207–220.
Mittal, V., Kumar, P., & Tsiros, M. (1999). Attribute-level performance,
satisfaction, and behavioral intentions over time: a consumption-
system approach. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 88–101.
Moorman, C., Deshpandé, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors affecting
trust in market research relationships. Journal of Marketing, 57
(1), 81–101.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpandé, R. (1992). Relationships
between providers and users of market research: the dynamics of
trust within and between organizations. Journal of Marketing
Research, 29(3), 314–339.
Morgan, R., & Hunt, S. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of
marketing relationships. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.
Murray, K. B. (1991). A test of services marketing theory: consumer
information acquisition activities. Journal of Marketing, 55, 10–
25 January.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and
consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing
Research, 17(4), 460–469.
Oliver, R. L. (1981). Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction
processes in retail settings. Journal of Retailing, 57(3), 25–48.
Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: a behavioral perspective on the
consumer. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, R. L., & Westbrook, R. A. (1993). Cognitive, affective, and
attribute bases of the satisfaction response. Journal of Consumer
Research, 20(3), 418–430.
Palmatier, R. W., Dant, R. P., Grewal, D., & Evans, K. R. (2006).
Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship marketing: a
meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 136–153.
Pan, Y., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2006). Determinants of retail patronage: a
meta-analytical perspective. Journal of Retailing, 82(3), 229–243.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual
model of service quality and its implications for future research.
Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41–50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: a
multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perception of service
quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–41.
Park, C. W., & Lessig, V. P. (1977). Students and housewives:
differences in susceptibility to reference group influence. Journal
of Consumer Research, 4, 102–110 September.
Peterson, R. A., & Brown, S. P. (2005). On the use of beta coefficients
in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 175–181.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P.
(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical
review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Price, L., & Arnould, E. J. (1999). Commercial friendships: service
provider-client relationships in context. Journal of Marketing, 63,
38–56 October.
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), 82–90.
Reichheld, F. F. (1994). Loyalty and the renaissance of marketing.
Marketing Management, 2(4), 10–21.
Reynolds, K. E., & Arnold, M. J. (2000). Customer loyalty to the
salesperson and the store: examining relationship customers in an
upscale retail context. The Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 20(2), 89–98.
595
Reynolds, K. E., & Beatty, S. E. (1999). Customer benefits and
company consequences of customer-salesperson relationships in
retailing. Journal of Retailing, 75(1), 11–32.
Richins, M. L. (1983). Negative word-of-mouth by dissatisfied
consumers: a pilot study. Journal of Marketing, 47(1), 68–
78.
Richins, M. L. (1984). Word-of-mouth communications as negative
information. In T. C. Kinnear (Ed.), Advances in consumer
research (vol. 11, (pp. 697–702)). Ann Arbor: Association for
Consumer Research.
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The ‘file drawer problem’ and tolerance for null
results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641.
Samson, A. (2006). Understanding the buzz that matters: negative vs
positive word of mouth. International Journal of Market
Research, 48(6), 647–657.
Schoefer, K., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2008). The role of emotions in
translating perceptions of (in)justice into postcomplaint behav-
ioral responses. Journal of Service Research, Available at:
<http://jsr.sagepub.com/cgi/rapidpdf/1094670508319091v1>.
Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of
reasoned action: a meta-analysis of past research with recom-
mendation for modifications and future research. Journal of
Consumer Research, 15(3), 325–343.
Sichtmann, C. (2007). An analysis of antecedents and consequences
of trust in a corporate brand. European Journal of Marketing, 41
(9/10), 999–1015.
Singh, J., & Sirdeshmukh, D. (2000). Agency and trust mechanisms in
consumer satisfaction and loyalty judgments. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 150–167.
Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. (2002). Consumer trust,
value, and loyalty in relational exchanges. Journal of Marketing,
66(1), 15–37.
Söderlund, M. (1998). Customer satisfaction and its consequences on
customer behaviour revisited. International Journal of Service
Industry Management, 9(2), 169–188.
Söderlund, M. (2006). Measuring customer loyalty with multi-item
scales—a case for caution. International Journal of Service
Industry Management, 17(1), 76–98.
Söderlund, M., & Rosengren, S. (2007). Receiving word-of-mouth
from the service customer: An emotion-based effectiveness
assessment. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 14(1),
123–136.
Stewart, D. W., & Pavlou, P. A. (2002). From consumer response to
active consumer: measuring the effectiveness of interactive
media. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(4),
376–396.
Straus, B., & Neuhaus, P. (1997). The qualitative satisfaction model.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8(3),
236–249.
Sundaram, D. S., Mitra, K., & Webster, C. (1998). Word-of-mouth
communications: a motivational analysis. Advances in Consumer
Research, 25, 527–531.
Swan, J. E., & Oliver, R. E. (1989). Postpurchase communications by
consumers. Journal of Retailing, 65(4), 516–533.
Sweeney, J. C., Soutar, G. N., & Mazzarol, T. (2005). The difference
between positive and negative word-of-mouth—emotion as a
differentiator. In Proceedings of the ANZMAC 2005 Conference:
Broadening the Boundaries (pp. 331–337). Perth, Australia:
University of Western Australia.
Szymanski, D. M., & Henard, D. H. (2001). Customer satisfaction: a
meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 29(1), 16–35.
Voorhees, C. M., Brady, M. K., & Horowitz, D. M. (2006). A voice
from the silent masses: an exploratory and comparative analysis
of noncomplainers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 34(4), 514–527.
596
Wangenheim, F. v. (2005). Postswitching negative word of mouth.
Journal of Service Research, 8(1), 67–78.
Wangenheim, F. v., & Bayón, T. (2007). The chain from customer
satisfaction via word-of-mouth referrals to new customer acqui-
sition. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(2), 233–
249.
Westbrook, R. A. (1987). Product/consumption based affective
responses and postpurchase processes. Journal of Marketing
Research, 24(3), 258–270.
Westbrook, R. A., & Oliver, R. L. (1991). The dimensionality of
consumption emotion patterns and consumer satisfaction. Jour-
nal of Consumer Research, 18(1), 84–91.
Wetzer, I. M., Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2007). ‘Never eat in that
restaurant, I Did!’: exploring why people engage in negative
View publication stats
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2008) 36:578–596
word-of-mouth communication. Psychology & Marketing, 24(8),
661–680.
Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2004). Beyond valence in customer
dissatisfaction: a review and new findings on behavioral
responses to regret and disappointment in failed services. Journal
of Business Research, 57(4), 445–455.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and
value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of
Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1993). The nature
and determinants of customer expectations of service. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(1), 1–12.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral
consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31–47.