Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The influence of the source and valence of word-of-mouth information on post-failure and post-recovery evaluations

  • Empirical Article
  • Published:
Service Business Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this paper was to better understand the impact that word-of-mouth recommendations (WOM) source (i.e., personal vs. impersonal sources) and WOM valence (average vs. excellent) have on satisfaction and trust following a failure and recovery event. Our results showed that customers who received WOM recommendations from personal rather than impersonal sources (WOM source) were less dissatisfied with the organization when severe versus mild failures occurred. Likewise, failure severity had less negative impact on customer satisfaction evaluations when the valence of WOM information was excellent versus average. These results were more pronounced for severe failures. In addition, WOM source and WOM valence both moderated the relationship between recovery quality and trust with the organization. Specifically, excellent recovery quality had a much greater influence on trust when WOM information was obtained from personal versus impersonal sources (WOM source). Finally, when customers received WOM information that rated the service organization as excellent (WOM valence), customers also considered recovery quality to have a greater impact on their perceptions of trustworthiness than if these recommendations were average.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson E, Sullivan M (1993) The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for firms. Mark Sci 12:125–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bitner M (1990) Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and employee responses. J Mark 54(2):69–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bitner M, Booms BH, Tetreault MS (1990) The service encounter: diagnosing favorable and unfavorable incidents. J Mark 54:71–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blodgett JG, Hill DJ, Tax SS (1997) The effects of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice on post-complaint behavior. J Retail 73(2):185–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bone PF (1995) Word-of-mouth effects on short-term and long-term product judgments. J Bus Res 32:213–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JJ, Reingen PH (1987) Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior. J Consum Res 14:350–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browne MW, Cudeck R (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JS (eds) Testing structural equation models. Sage Publications, Inc., Newbury Park, pp 136–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Bughin J, Doogan J, Vetvik OJ (2010) A new way to measure word-of-mouth marketing. McKinsey Q 2:113–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson KD, Wu J (2012) The illusion of statistical control: control variable practice in management research. Organ Res Methods 15(3):413–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chevalier J, Mayzlin D (2006) The effect of word of mouth on sales: online book reviews. J Mark Res 43(3):345–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darby MR, Karni E (1973) Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. J Law Econ 16:67–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duhan DF, Johnson SD, Wilcox JB, Harrell JD (1997) Influences on consumer use of word-of-mouth of recommendation sources. J Acad Mark Sci 25(4):283–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunning J, Pecotich A, O’Cass A (2004) What happens when things go wrong? Retail sales explanations and their effects. Psychol Mark 21(7):553–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisingerich AB, Chun HH, Liu Y, Jia HM, Bell SJ (2015) Why recommend a brand face-to-face but not on Facebook? How word-of-mouth on online social sites differs from traditional word-of-mouth. J Consum Psychol 25:120-128

  • Feldman JM, Lynch JG (1988) Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. J Appl Psychol 73(3):421–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Floyd K, Freling R, Alhoqail S, Cho HY, Freling T (2014) How online product reviews affect retail sales: a meta-analysis. J Retail 90(2):217–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilly M, Gelb B (1982) Post-purchase consumer processes and the complaining customer. J Consum Res 9(3):323–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant RA (1989) Building and testing a model of an information technology’s impact. In: DeGross JI, Henderson JC, Konsynski BR (eds) Proceedings of the tenth international conference on information systems. ACM Association for Computing Machinery, Boston, pp 173–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Gronroos C (1988) Service quality: the six criteria of good perceived service quality. Rev Bus 9(Winter):10–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta P, Harris J (2010) How e-WOM recommendations influence product consideration and quality of choice: a motivation to process information perspective. J Bus Res 63:1041–1049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (1998) Multivariate analysis. Prentice Hall International, Englewood

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison-Walker LJ (2001) The measurement of word-of-mouth communication and an investigation of service quality and customer commitment as potential antecedents. J Serv Res 4(1):60–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes AF (2013) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. The Guilford Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennig-Thurau T, Gwinner KP, Walsh G, Gremler DD (2004) Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the internet. J Int Mark 18(1):38–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herr PM, Kardes FR, Kim J (1991) Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute information on persuasion: an accessibility–diagnosticity perspective. J Consum Res 17:454–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heskett JL, Jones TO, Loveman GW, Sasser EW, Schlesinger LA (1994) Putting the service-profit chain to work. Harv Bus Rev 72(2):164–171

  • Hess RL Jr (2008) The impact of firm reputation and failure severity on customers’ responses to service failures. J Serv Mark 22(5):385–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess RL Jr (2010) Failures, losses, and fairness: the customer’s perspective. In: Schminke M (ed) Managerial ethics: managing the psychology of morality. Psychology Press/Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, New York, pp 155–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess R Jr, Ganesan S, Klein N (2003) Service failure and recovery: the impact of relationship factors on customer satisfaction. J Acad Mark Sci 31(2):127–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess R Jr, Ganesan S, Klein N (2007) Interactional service failures in a pseudo relationship: the role of organizational attributions. J Retail 83(1):79–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman K, Bateson J (1997) Essentials of services marketing. The Dryden Press, Fort Worth

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J 6(1):1–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley S, Davis M (1994) Antecedents to customer expectations for service recovery. J Acad Mark Sci 22:52–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley SW, Hoffman KD, Davis MA (1993) A typology of retail failures and recoveries. J Retail 69(4):429–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim J, Gupta P (2012) Emotional expressions in online user reviews: how they influence consumers’ product evaluations. J Bus Res 65:985–992

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim AJ, Ko E (2012) Do social media marketing activities enhance customer equity? An empirical study of luxury fashion brand. J Bus Res 65:1480–1486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King RA, Racherla P, Bush VD (2014) What we know and don’t know about online word-of-mouth: a review and synthesis of the literature. J Int Mark 28(3):167-183

  • Li X, Hitt LM (2008) Self-selection and information role of online product reviews. Inf Syst Res 19:456–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Manag Rev 20(3):709–734

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan RM, Hunt SD (1994) The commitment–trust theory of marketing relationships. J Mark 58(3):20–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowday RT, Porter LW, Steers RM (1982) Organizational linkages: the psychology of commitment. J Vocat Behav 14(4):224–247

    Google Scholar 

  • Mudambi SM, Schuff D (2010) What makes a helpful online review? A study of customer reviews on Amazon.com. MIS Q 34(1):185–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson P (1974) Advertising as information. J Polit Econ 81:729–754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver RL (1980) A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. J Mark Res 17:460–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver R, Swan J (1989) Equity and disconfirmation perceptions as influences on merchant and product satisfaction. J Consum Res 16:372–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park C, Lee TM (2009) Information direction, website reputation and eWOM effect: a moderating role of product type. J Bus Res 62:61–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richens M (1983) Negative word-of-mouth by dissatisfied customers: a pilot study. J Mark 47(4):68–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith A, Bolton R (1998) An experimental investigation of customer reactions to service failure and recovery encounters. J Serv Res 1(1):65–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith A, Bolton R (2002) The effect of customers’ emotional responses to service failures on their recovery effort evaluations and satisfaction judgments. J Acad Mark Sci 30(1):5–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith A, Bolton R, Wagner J (1999) A model of customer satisfaction with service encounters involving failure and recovery. J Mark Res 33(3):356–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonnier GP, McAlister L, Rutz OJ (2011) A dynamic model of the effect of online communications on firm sales. Mark Sci 30(4):702–716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun M (2012) How does the variance of product ratings matter? Manag Sci 58(4):696–707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tax S, Brown S, Chandrashekaran M (1998) Customer evaluations of service complaint experiences: implications for relationship marketing. J Mark 62(2):60–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang JQ, Cracium G, Shin D (2010) When does electronic word-of-mouth matter? A study of consumer product reviews. J Bus Res 63:1336–1341

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marketing, Raymond A. Mason School of Business Administration, College of William & Mary, P.O. Box 8795, Williamsburg, VA, 23187-8795, USA

    Ronald L. Hess Jr.

  2. Department of Business Administration, Raymond A. Mason School of Business Administration, College of William & Mary, P.O. Box 8795, Williamsburg, VA, 23187-8795, USA

    Lawrence Ring

Authors
  1. Ronald L. Hess Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lawrence Ring
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ronald L. Hess Jr..

Appendices

Appendix 1: manipulations

1.1 Manipulation for word-of-mouth quality

1.1.1 Average quality

Opinion 1 he doesn’t know much about it, but has heard the service isn’t too bad. Opinion 2 Eden’s Auto is okay, and she’s heard acceptable things about their service and expertise.

1.1.2 Excellent quality

Opinion 1 he’s heard the service is great. He says all the mechanics know exactly what they’re doing and are supposedly very trustworthy.

Opinion 2 Eden’s Auto is great, and she’s heard good things about their service and expertise.

1.2 Manipulation for failure severity

1.2.1 Mild service failure

A week later as you’re out doing errands you notice a soft rattling sound that seems to be coming from somewhere inside the air vents of your car. You have never heard this sound before, and you only hear it when you have the air conditioning turned on.

1.2.2 Severe service failure

A week later as you’re out doing errands you notice a loud rattling sound that seems to be coming from somewhere inside the air vents of your car. You have never heard this sound before, and you only hear it when you have the air conditioning turned on. A few minutes later you feel the temperature in the car rising and realize that, once again, hot air is coming out of your car vents. To make things worse, the smell of burning rubber starts coming through the vents, forcing you to turn the air off.

1.3 Manipulation for recovery quality

1.3.1 Poor quality recovery

When you bring your car back, the lady you talk to gives you a suspicious look, and begins to ask if you might have done something to your car to cause the problem. She finally agrees to have the mechanics look at it again. She says they’ll be done in a few hours. You decide to sit in the waiting area and read a book till your car is ready. A few hours later a mechanic comes out and tells you that the problem is fixed. He says that they are going to charge you a service fee, because the problem was evidently bigger than they realized the first time you brought your car in. You argue, but the mechanic claims they’re actually giving you a deal. Just wanting to leave, you pay the bill, get your keys, and head home, hoping the car is fixed for good.

1.3.2 Excellent quality recovery

When you bring your car back, the lady you talk to is extremely friendly, and apologizes for the inconvenience. She says the mechanics will look at your car again, but you will have to leave it for a few hours so that they can re-evaluate the problem. You decide to sit in the waiting area and read a book until your car is ready. A few hours later a mechanic comes out and tells you that the problem is fixed. He says there will be no charge since they made a mistake the first time. He gives you back your keys and you head home, hoping the car is fixed for good.

Appendix 2: measures

Satisfaction with the organization after failure (adapted from Oliver and Swan 1989; coefficient α = 0.94).

SAT1:

Very pleased–Very displeased (R),

SAT2:

Very happy–Very unhappy (R),

SAT3:

Very dissatisfied–Very satisfied.

Trust with the organization after recovery (adapted from Mowday et al. 1982; coefficient α = 0.81).

TRUSTAR1:

I have good reason to doubt the competence of Eden’s Repair Shop (R).

TRUSTAR2:

I can rely on Eden’s Auto Repair to perform a thorough analysis of any problem that I may have with my car.

TRUSTAR3:

I cannot confidently depend on Eden’s Auto Repair because of its careless work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hess, R.L., Ring, L. The influence of the source and valence of word-of-mouth information on post-failure and post-recovery evaluations. Serv Bus 10, 319–343 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628-015-0272-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628-015-0272-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation