Consumers’ Responses to Negative Word-of-Mouth Communication: An Attribution Theory Perspective

By R. Laczniak, Thomas E. Decarlo, S. Ramaswami. 2001

566 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Research on negative word-of-mouth communication (WOMC) in general, and the process by which negative WOMC affects consumers’ brand evaluations in particular, has been limited. This study uses attribution theory to explain consumers’ responses to negative WOMC. Experimental results suggest that (a) causal attributions mediate the negative WOMC-brand evaluation relation, (b) receivers’ attributions depend on the manner in which the negative WOMC is conveyed, and (c) brand name affects attributions. Results also suggest that when receivers attribute the negativity of the WOMC message to the brand, brand evaluations decrease; however, if receivers attribute the negativity to the communicator, brand evaluations increase.

Subfields: Gender Studies, Marketing, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/67b8d6d2cb315cc0fdae6b2b00c5a780b2d311ee

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Gender Studies

In Marketing

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

The NPV of bad news (2007, background): “While the extent may vary, there is general agreement in the literature that a dissatisfied customer influences others more than a satisfied one (Herr, Kardes, & Kim, 1991; Laczniak, DeCarlo, & Ramaswami, 2001 ).”
Curvilinear Effects of User-Generated Content on Hotels’ Market Share (2013, methodology): “An experiment by Laczniak, DeCarlo, and Ramaswami (2001) focused on the influence of negative eWOM on purchase decisions for personal computers.”
The impact of word-of-mouth communication on attribute evaluation (2011, background): “For example, Laczniak et al. (2001) find that negative WOM decreases brand evaluation only when the WOM recipients attribute the negativity of the message to the brand and not to the WOM giver.”
When does electronic word-of-mouth matter? A study of consumer product reviews☆ (2010, background): “This research does not examine the effects of review valence on consumers' product attitude (e.g., Laczniak et al., 2001), product choice (e.g., Gupta and Harris, in press), or post-purchase attitude (e.g., Bone, 1995).”
What We Know and Don't Know about Online Word-of-Mouth: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature (2014, background): “This is also observed when a consumer has had previous interactions with a product or brand (Bone 1995; Herr, Kardes, and Kim 1991) and when the message is congruent with the receiver's current knowledge (Laczniak, DeCarlo, and Ramaswami 2001).”
Delineating the outcomes of sponsorship (2009, background): “Word of mouth is a highly desirable sponsorship outcome, since it is widely recognized today as one of the most effective communication tools (Laczniak et al., 2001).”
WOM and social media: Presaging future directions for research and practice (2014, background): “…of negative information increases its usefulness or value of its diagnostic information (Feldman and Lynch 1988; Lynch, Marmorstein, and Weigold 1988) and may draw more attention because its infrequency makes NWOM instances more surprising (Laczniak, DeCarlo, and Ramaswami 2001; Mizerski 1982).”
Helpful Reviewers in TripAdvisor, an Online Travel Community (2011, background): “However, Cheng et al. (2006) and Laczniak, DeCarlo, and Ramaswami (2001) found that negative WOM has the strongest effect on consumer attitudes and evaluations.”
Negative Reviews, Positive Impact: Consumer Empathetic Responding to Unfair Word of Mouth (2020, background): “For instance, attributing negative WOM to a reviewer’s internal disposition is associated with fewer negative consequences for brand perception, resulting in a null effect because consumers do not incorporate the negative information cues in their judgments (Laczniak, DeCarlo, and Ramaswami 2001).”