Marketing Letters

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 269–279 | Cite as

The consumer as advocate: Self-relevance, culture, and word-of-mouth

Abstract

This research examined the relation between self-relevance and word-of-mouth (WOM). The results of two studies suggest consumers are more likely to provide WOM for products that are relevant to self-concept than for more utilitarian products. There was also some indication that WOM was biased, in the sense that consumers exaggerated the benefits of self-relevant products compared to utilitarian products. Finally, self-relevance had a greater impact on WOM in individualist cultures than collectivist cultures, consistent with differences in the way self-concept is typically construed by these groups. Implications for marketing strategies concerning WOM are discussed.

Keywords

Word of-mouth Motivation Self-concept Culture 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allport, G.W., & Postman, L.J. (1946). The Psychology of Rumor. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  2. Alsop, R. (1984). Study of Olympics Ads Casts Doubts on Value of Campaigns. Wall Street Journal, December 6.Google Scholar
  3. Barone, M.J., Shimp, T.A., & Sprott, D.E. (1999). Product Ownership as a Moderator of Self-Congruity Effects. Marketing Letters, 10(1), 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belk, R.W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(September), 139–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bem, D.J., & Allen, A. (1974). On Predicting Some of the People Some of the Time: The Search for Cross-Situational Consistencies in Behavior. Psychological Review, 81(6), 506–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York, NY: Guilford Press, xiii.Google Scholar
  7. Chen, S., Shechter, D., & Chaiken, S. (1996). Getting at the Truth or Getting Along: Accuracy—-Versus Impression-Motivated Heuristic and Systematic Information Processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 262–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Day, G.S. (1971). Attitude Change, Media and Word of Mouth. Journal of Advertising Research, 11(6), 31–40.Google Scholar
  9. Dichter, E. (1966). How Word-of-Mouth Advertising Works. Harvard Business Review, November-December, 147–166.Google Scholar
  10. Fazio, R. H., & Towles-Schwen, T. (1999). The MODE model of attitude-behavior processes. In S. Chaiken and Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process Theories in Social Psychology. (pp. 97–116). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gitelson, R., & Crompton, J. (1983). The Planning Horizons and Sources of Information used by Pleasure Vacationers. Journal of Travel Research, 21(3), 2–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heine, S. J., et al. (1999). Is There a Universal Need for Positive Self-Regard?. Psychological Review, 106(4), 766–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture and Organizations —- Software of the Mind. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  14. Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. (1982). The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 132–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holmes, J.H., & Lett, Jr., J.D. (1977). Product Sampling and Word of Mouth. Journal of Advertising Research, 17(5), 35–40.Google Scholar
  16. Leary, M.R., & Kowalski, R.M. (1990). Impression Management: a Literature Review and Two-Component Model. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 34–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lutz, R., & Reilly, P. (1973). An Exploration of the Effects of Perceived Social and Performance Risk on Consumer Information Acquisition. In Proceedings, Fourth Annual Conference, The Association for Consumer Research, pp. 393–405.Google Scholar
  18. Markus, H.R. & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation. Psychological Review, 20, 224–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Markus, H.R., Kitayama and Nurius, P. (1986). Possible Selves: The Interface between Motivation and the Self-Concept. In K. Yardley and T. Honess (Eds.), Self and Identity. (pp. 157–172). New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
  20. Mizerski, R.W. (1982). An Attribution Explanation of the Disproportionate Influence of Unfavorable Information. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(December), 301–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Richins, M.L. (1994). Special Possessions and the Expression of Material Values. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(December), 522–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schlenker, B.R. (1980). Impression Management: The Self-Concept, Social Identity, and Interpersonal Relations, Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  23. Sengupta, J., Dahl, D.W., & Gorn, G.J. (2002). Misrepresentation in the consumer context. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(2), 69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Silverman, G. (1997). How to harness the awesome power of word of mouth. Direct Marketing, 60(7), 32–37.Google Scholar
  25. Swan, J.E., & Richard L.O. (1989). Postpurchase communications by consumers. Journal of Retailing, 65(4), 516–533.Google Scholar
  26. TARP (1979). Measuring the Grapevine: Consumer Response and Word-of-Mouth. Atlanta, GA: The Coca-Cola Co.Google Scholar
  27. Walker, C.J. & Beckerle C.A. (1987). The Effect of State Anxiety on Rumor Transmission. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 2(3), 353–360.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Marketing and International Business DivisionNanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological UniversitySingapore
  2. 2.Marketing Division, Sauder School of BusinessUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  3. 3.The Florida State University

Personalised recommendations