MODELING ELECTRONIC WORD OF MOUTH AND COMPLAINT
BEHAVIOR FOR ELECTRONIC CRM SYSTEMS
Charles V. Trappey, National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan
trappey@faculty.nctu.edu.tw
Conna Yang, National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan
conna.yang@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Word of mouth is one of the quickest and most efficient ways to increase a product’s
awareness among consumers. Nowadays, people access to the Internet as a ubiquitous
channel for information and experience sharing. In addition to traditional word of mouth,
electronic word of mouth is an extremely important issue due to the heavy use of the Internet
in modern society. This research studies the use of electronic word of mouth due to
willingness to communicate and individual trust. Furthermore, tie strength is used as a
construct to measure the interaction with electronic word of mouth. The SPSS statistical
analysis software was used to analyze the data retrieved. The research results supports the
hypothesis of a significant relationship between trust and willingness to communicate
( F(1,169) = 3.984, p = 0.048). In addition, willingness to communicate, electronic word of
mouth activity, and positive electronic word of mouth also have significant relationships. The
results support the proposition that willingness to communicate serves as a mediator between
trust and electronic word of mouth. The implications of these results for CRM systems are
presented as a strategic summary.
Keywords: Electronic Word of Mouth, Electronic CRM Systems, Trust, Willingness to
Communicate
RESEARCH BACKGROUND
The Internet provides a means of communication that substitutes traditional ways of
promoting products, brands, and services. Through Word of Mouth (WOM) communication,
passing information and shared experience is well known as an efficient way of spreading
commercial messages. Bone (1995) notes that there is a growing research interest in
measuring and influencing WOM effects since, “pre-usage attitudes about a product can be
influenced by WOM communications,” WOM effects have grown in importance with the
emergence of the Internet [3]. This research evaluates Internet based sources of WOM
communications and proposes a study to measure and influence WOM commercial
communications. Varying among different industries, the strength of WOM is hypothesized
to influence the purchase intentions of consumers. The Internet provides a platform for
electronic word of mouth. In comparison to traditional word of mouth where the information
is passed on from person to person, electronic word of mouth is spread among a larger
network of people where the geological distance and time barriers are eliminated. This study
analyzes the interaction between interpersonal trust, willingness to communicate, and the tie
strength among individuals. The research examines whether or not willingness to
communicate is the mediator between trust and electronic word of mouth. If this is shown to
be true, than the implications for the construction and altering of CRM systems are indicated.
Word of mouth communications which exist across different cultures and countries enables
information flow between people. Word of Mouth is still one of most familiar means by
which people spread and gain information on certain issues and topics and is defined as
“informal communication directed at other consumers about the characteristics, ownership, or
their sellers [24].” WOM is thought to be an outcome of customer experiences with a product
or services [5]. Both positive and negative Word of Mouth can influence consumer decision
making. A disappointed customer’s reactions can be categorized into three different actions.
The consumer might break the relationship, complain to others, or make their dissatisfaction
known to the suppliers or company [15]. Out of these three, complaining to others, which is
known in the literature as “negative WOM,” has the greatest impact on a company’s
reputation and sales. Consumer purchase intentions lead to the search of shared experience
which influences the outcome of purchase and complaint behavior. According to earlier
publications, individuals usually keep 10% of their emotional experiences, whether good or
bad, to themselves; the majority of the experience will be shared through the sharing of
conversation [9]. After acquiring word of mouth information, sometimes consumers may
exclude their own opinions and private information and adopt attitudes and opinions given by
others [10]. The word of mouth effect is stronger when consumers are faced with ambiguous
information requiring immediate or delayed decisions [3]. The advice from friends, family, or
other individuals with persuasive power serves as an important factor for consumer decision
making. “Word of mouth communications (WOM) is an interpersonal communication in
which none of the participants are marketing sources” [3]. Traditional word of mouth based
on experience is passed on from opinion leaders on to others [13]. Word of mouth does not
necessarily rely on opinion leaders to be transmitted since ordinary consumers can also
generate word of mouth.
For this research, word of mouth uses three dimensions to model Internet based positive and
negative word of mouth. These three constructs are seen as different aspects to a single and
more generalized measurement of WOM that can be independently studied [12]. Word of
mouth activity is the level of enthusiasm and detail of conversational content exchanged
between consumers about products. The content and frequency of electronic word of mouth
sharing influences whether individuals will choose according to their own preference,
character, and other antecedents. Richins (1983) argued that people are more likely to spread
negative attitudes rather than positive attitudes. When dissatisfied or disappointed with a
certain product, customers tend to reveal their experience to friends and advise them not to
make the same purchase.
The traditional CRM has been taken into the next level known as e-CRM (electronic CRM)
which integrates technologies of new channels such as the internet into the corporation’s
CRM strategy [21]. With the help of e-CRM, consumer complaints can be collected and
responded to using retention orientation approach. An important motivational concept is to
focus on a consumer’s lifelong value and an important key is avoiding negative word of
mouth circulating on the Internet [25]. Instead, these negative word of mouth should be
viewed as a remedy to repairs the consumer’s satisfaction and the consumer will not be lost.
The behavior of electronic word of mouth and complaints should therefore be further
examined to have a better understanding of how e-CRM systems should function.
New media platforms such as the Internet offer different ways to spread word of mouth. The
Internet in particular is the main portal for electronic word of mouth and has greatly changed
marketing communications. Similar to traditional word of mouth, electronic word of mouth
has higher reliability for changing attitudes than other forms of marketing information and
strategies on the web [2]. The Internet enables different choices for consumers to
communicate including blogs, forums, and websites. The traditional spread of word of mouth
is limited by barriers such as distance, time, and cost of disseminating information. The
Internet enables consumers to share their opinions and experiences with a multitude of other
consumers [14]. In addition, consumers form social communities and exchange opinions and
share advice when the flow of content is free. Consumers gather shared experiences posted
on websites to learn more about a product before making a purchase [7]. Electronic word of
mouth not only benefits consumers, but is also a new tool for the advertising industry. Media
providers freely interact with consumers and advertise through the Internet. Electronic word
of mouth shortens the distance between consumers and corporations and enables companies
to reach out to a larger target audience [16].
For traditional word of mouth, the source of information is more tangible and people
communicate in person whereas for electronic word of mouth, there are more channels and
formats for information communication. Weblogs, often called “blogs,” are personal web
pages that are frequently updated with new articles and include photos, music, and links to
other Internet sites [20]. New forms of micro-blogging simplify functions and make it easier
for users to share their status, post short messages, or upload pictures through mobile phones
or the internet. The difference between traditional blogging and micro-blogging is that the
later offers a faster way of sharing information by encouraging users to keep their posts short.
In addition, instant messaging is a type of technology on the Web that allows users to send
and receive short text based messages and check the status of their friends who are online and
available [6].
Each person has different tendencies to speak, write, or communicate with other people. The
willingness to communicate is a personality trait that underlies the communication process
[17]. The tendency to avoid communication originated from Burgoon’s 1976 research which
was based on factors such as introversion, lack of communication competence, alienation,
low self-esteem, and communication apprehension [4]. Mortenson, Arntson, and Lustig (1977)
used this construct to further develop the construct “willingness to communicate” which
measures predisposition towards verbal communication. McCroskey and Baer define this
construct as “the intention to initiate communication when given the opportunity.”
Trust defines whether one chooses to believe another person’s words or advice. Therefore,
trust can be used as a variable to model whether word of mouth is accepted by consumers or
not. One of the classical definitions of trust is that it is “a generalized expectancy held by an
individual that the word of another can be relied on [23]” When reliable information is
consistently provided by others, our trust is strengthened. The willingness to share
information and the expectancies underlying the communication are the foundation of trust.
Schurr and Ozanne (1985) describe trust as “the belief that one party’s word is reliable and
that it will fulfill its obligation in an exchange.” A feeling of fear for negative outcomes or
loss may occur if there is no trust.
According to research done by Rempel, Holmes, and Zanna (1985), there are many
definitions that define the features of trust. First, it is built upon past experience and a series
of events that strengthen the feeling of trust. Second, dispositional characteristics are made
towards the trustor, including attributes such as reliability, dependability, and predictability.
The third conclusion is that one must be willing to be put at risk, whether it is the risk of
being hurt, or loss of something either abstract or tangible. The last conclusion is that trust
can be defined by the sense of security and confidence in the responses given and the
intimacy and strength of the relationship.
This research focuses on a feature of trust called interpersonal trust, which is “the expectancy
held by an individual or a party that the word, promise, verbal, promise, or written statement
of another individual or party can be relied on” [22]. Interpersonal trust is chosen as one of
the research constructs because different from the more general definition of trust and focuses
on the interaction between two individuals.
The social relationship of individuals can be categorized according to the frequency of
contact, and how well others are known and are defined as the “potency of a bond between
members of a network [11],” or “tie strength.” Strong tie sources are friends and family,
whereas weak ties are acquaintances and strangers [8]. The influence of tie strength can affect
consumer decision making, word of mouth, and intergroup interactions [19]. Word of mouth
communication is a social behavior that includes the exchange of information between
individuals. Past research shows that tie strength influences the flow of information.
According to past research, individuals who are strongly tied relationship have more
opportunities to interact and share information. If the Internet is used for communication
between people, then these individuals logically have weaker ties. On the contrary, a weakly
tied relationship offers few chances for individuals to spread information. Thus, strong ties
should lead to the positive spread of word of mouth information and vice versa.
METHODOLOGY
This research explores the interaction between electronic word of mouth, willingness, trust,
and tie strength. Past research supports a relationship between these constructs. In Ben-Ner
and Putterman’s 2009 study on trust and communication, the results show that if one desires
to establish a relationship, then individuals must take the communication process seriously.
Thus, the depth of communication promotes trustworthy behaviors. Other researchers have
shown the interaction between trust and communication in different fields of study.
“Communication is critical to building a trusting relationship which will create stability [1].”
However, few studies explore the relationship between the level of interpersonal trust,
willingness to communicate, and the impact on CRM systems. Although the content of
communication is not completely associated with personal privacy or other matters, it is
reasonable to believe that the more one is willing to be exposed, the more willing they are to
share information with others. Therefore this study proposes that interpersonal trust will have
a positive effect on willingness to communicate.
Word of mouth is an initiative action where an individual chooses to express his opinions or
share past experiences with others. Word of mouth is an action that depends on the
individual’s intention to communicate so an individual’s willingness to communicate with
another person should be positively related with it. Therefore “willingness to communicate”
is used as the third construct in the research framework. The strength of social relationships
between individuals, or “tie strength,” relates to the way the Internet expands our social
networks. Those that we communicate with on the Internet do not necessarily have strong ties
with others. Granovetter’s research in 1983 shows that individuals with strong ties would
more often communicate with individuals that are similar to themselves. When exploring the
interaction between tie strength and electronic word of mouth, Granovetter’s research implies
that there should be a negative relationship between tie strength and electronic word of mouth.
We derive from this literature review ten hypotheses. Trust has a positive effect on
willingness to communicate, electronic word of mouth has a positive effect on willingness to
communicate and acts as the mediator between trust and eWOM. Finally, tie strength has a
negative and significant effect on eWOM.
Hypothesis 1: Trust has a significant and positive relationship with an individual’s
willingness to communicate.
Hypothesis 2: Trust has a significant and positive relationship with an individual’s electronic
word of mouth.
Hypothesis 3: Willingness to communicate will mediate the relationship between trust and
electronic word of mouth.
Hypothesis 4: An individual’s willingness to communicate has a significant and positive
relationship with an individual’s electronic word of mouth.
Hypothesis 5: An individual’s tie strength with another individual on the internet has a
significant relationship with electronic word of mouth.
In this study, questionnaires were handed out in campus classrooms with the help of friends.
All data was collected using paper-based questionnaires. Most items utilized a five-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 being “strongly disagree” and 5 being “strongly
agree.” Willingness to communicate to others is a self-report scale which is scored by the
participants themselves. All the original items were designed in English and then translated
into Traditional Chinese by a native speaker who is fluent in both languages to ensure the
content and meaning remained the same during the translation.
The official questionnaire is divided into 5 sections, electronic word of mouth, trust,
willingness to communicate, tie strength, and demographic variables. Electronic word of
mouth activities were measured using Churchill’s word of mouth scale which was modified
by Harrison-Walker in 2001. Positive electronic word of mouth was measured by 3 items
from the loyalty scale and electronic negative word of mouth used the scale from Liu and
McClure’s research on cross-cultural customer complaint behavior study. To improve the
efficiency and increase the unity of the questionnaire, scales were modified from 7 points to 5
points. Rotter’s Interpersonal Trust scale, which was developed in 1967, was used in the
study to measure trust. In 1985, McCroskey proposed a scale to measure willingness to
communicate which is a personality-based trait like scale that is consistent across different
receivers and different communication contexts. This scale has 20 items, with 8 items being
filler items. The willingness to communicate scale includes four communication contexts and
three different receivers. The study measured each individual’s general willingness to
communicate. Hansen’s 1999 two item scale measured the closeness of a working
relationship and frequency of contact and is used to the measure of tie strength.
RESEARCH RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS
A reliability analysis for the 4 different variables showed that each constructs’ alpha was
above 0.70. Electronic word of mouth activity reached a Cronbach α of 0.78, positive
electronic word of mouth 0.78 and negative electronic word of mouth 0.81. The trust scale
has a Cronbach α of 0.76, scoring much higher than the 2 pretests conducted. Furthermore,
the 12 items of willingness to communicate had an internal consistency of 0.81, while tie
strength had the highest internal consistency with an alpha of 0.92.
Performing a Regression Analysis on the retrieved data, we conclude that the R-square for
several models was quite low. Yet, the most crucial part of this study is established with the
predictive power of trust on willingness to communicate passing the P-value standard of 0.05,
(F (1,169) = 3.984, p = 0.048). The regression results for willingness to communicate on both
electronic word of mouth activity and positive electronic word of mouth is highly significant
with P-values of (F (1,169)=10.643, p = 0.001) and (F (1,169) = 9.113, p = 0.003). The
predictive powers and relationships of tie strength on all three dimensions of Electronic Word
of Mouth Activity are significant.
The results imply that the stronger the relationship between two individuals, the more likely
they are to share their experiences of good product purchases. Also, the higher the degree of
communication willingness, the more an individual will use positive word of mouth.
Negative electronic word of mouth is the only dimension that does not have a significant
relationship with willingness to communicate. Therefore, even if one is willing to
communicate and trusts other individuals, this does not mean that they will share their
negative experiences with others.
Tie strength has a positive and significant relationship with both positive and negative
electronic word of mouth, yet the relationship is not supported by electronic word of mouth
activity. Hypotheses 2 is rejected since there is no significant positive relationship between
Trust and Electronic Word of Mouth. However, trust does have a significant relationship with
willingness to communicate. This supports the argument that the higher the degree of
interpersonal trust, then the more willing consumers are to communicate and talk with others.
STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS FOR CRM SYSTEMS
This research provides several new insights on how corporations can use electronic word of
mouth as part of their strategic CRM design to attract and hold consumers. One of the most
important management steps in e-CRM is to be able to take the consumer’s point of view
instead of a marketer’s [21]. If the corporation can take use of the consumer behavior and
encourage consumers to give feedback on the products, the chances of stopping an unsatisfied
consumer from switching brands will help increase the consumer’s lifelong value to the
company. The results point out that individuals in this study are more reluctant to share
negative word of mouth online even when they have a high degree of interpersonal trust with
the communicator. Corporations can learn how to increase the consumers trust towards the
company so that consumers will be willing to interact.
Analyzing the common goals of CRM in Table 1, several conclusions related to this research
can be derived. Electronic word of mouth should not be generalized to a single target
audience. Corporations should divide the consumers into groups by the consumer’s level of
tie strengths when managing CRM systems. Since some customers feel a lack of desire to
share negative purchasing experiences, they should be encouraged by the corporation that any
form of feedback on the product is welcome. Also, traditional word of mouth is important for
marketing events and may be combined with these findings. Marketers can manipulate the
level of trust between initial consumers so that they are more willing to discuss the
company’s products with other people.
Table 1: Common CRM Goals and Strategic Implications.
Common Goals
Strategic Implications
1. Adapt processes to satisfy specific Enforce the level of consumer trust
customer preferences
towards the company
2. Preserve the value of customers,
target profitable segments, and
cultivate high-quality relationships to
ensure customer loyalty
Corporations
should
aim
to
encourage customer feedback through
the boosting of willingness to
communicate
3. Customer segmentation is a core
function of CRM and frequently uses
geographical data, demographic data,
and behavioral variables to group
customers
Not all unsatisfied customers choose
to voice their complaints. These types
of customers should be approached
and encouraged to voice their
opinions
4. To analyze customer segments,
customer preferences, and provide Consumers can be offered incentives
best case service models
for posting or blogging word of mouth
via Internet. Potential consumers who
have strong ties with these individuals
will then be stimulated to learn more
about the product
5. To gain customer knowledge
Through the building of trust and
willingness
to
communicate,
corporations
can
activate
its
consumers to share their purchase
experiences and advice.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Anderson, E., & Weitz, B. (1989). Determinants of Continuity in Conventional
Industrial Channel Dyads. Marketing Science, 8(4), 310-323.
Bickart, B., & Schindler, R. (2001). Internet Forums as Influential Sources of Consumer
Information. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15(3), 31-40.
Bone, P. (1995). Word-of-Mouth Effects on Short-Term and Long-Term Product
Judgments. Journal of Business Research, 32(3), 213-223.
Burgoon, J. (1976). The Unwillingness-to-Communicate Scale: Development and
Validation. Communication Monographs, 43(1), 60-69.
Buttle, F. (1998). Word of Mouth: Understanding and Managing Referral Marketing.
Journal of Strategic Marketing, 6(3), 241-254.
Cameron, A., & Webster, J. (2005). Unintended Consequences of Emerging
Communication Technologies: Instant Messaging in the Workplace. Computers in
Human Behavior, 21(1), 85-103.
Doh, S., & Hwang, J. (2009). How Consumers Evaluate Ewom (Electronic
Word-of-Mouth) Messages. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12(2), 193-197.
Duhan, D., Johnson, S., Wilcox, J., & Harrell, G. (1997). Influences on Consumer Use
of Word-of-Mouth Recommendation Sources. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 25(4), 283-295.
Flynn, L., Goldsmith, R., & Eastman, J. (1996). Opinion Leaders and Opinion Seekers:
Two New Measurement Scales. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(2),
137-147.
Godes, D., & Mayzlin, D. (2004). Using Online Conversations to Study Word-of-Mouth
Communication. Marketing Science, 23(4), 545-560.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology,
78(6), 1360-1380.
Harrison-Walker, L. (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.
Haywood, K. (1993). Managing Word of Mouth Communications. Journal of Services
Marketing, 3(2), 55-67.
Hennig Thurau, T., Gwinner, K., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. (2004). Electronic Word of
Mouth Via Consumer Opinion Platforms: What Motivates Consumers to Articulate
Themselves on the Internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1), 38-52.
Hirschman, A. (1970). Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms,
Organizations, and States: Harvard Univ Press.
Hung, K., & Li, S. (2007). The Influence of EWOM on Virtual Consumer Communities:
Social Capital, Consumer Learning, and Behavioral Outcomes. Journal of Advertising
Research, 47(4), 485-495.
MacIntyre, P. (1994). Variables Underlying Willingness to Communicate: A Causal
Analysis. Communication Research Reports, 11(2), 135-142.
18. McCroskey, J., & Baer, J. (1985). Willingness to Communicate: The Construct and Its
Measurement. Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association Convention,
Denver, CO.
19. Mittal, V., Huppertz, J., & Khare, A. (2008). Customer Complaining: The Role of Tie
Strength and Information Control. Journal of Retailing, 84(2), 195-204.
20. Nardi, B., Schiano, D., & Gumbrecht, M. (2004). Blogging as Social Activity, or, Would
You Let 900 Million People Read Your Diary?
21. Pan, S., & Lee, J. (2003). Using E-CRM for a Unified View of the Customer.
Communications of the ACM, 46(4), 95-99.
22. Rotter, J. (1967). A New Scale for the Measurement of Interpersonal Trust. Journal of
Personality, 35(4), 651-665.
23. Rotter, J. (1971). Generalized Expectancies for Interpersonal Trust. American
Psychologist, 26(5), 443-452.
24. Westbrook, R. (1987). Product/Consumption-Based Affective Responses and
Postpurchase Processes. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3), 258-270.
25. Zineldin, M. (2006). The Royalty of Loyalty: CRM, Quality and Retention. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 23(7), 430-437.