What We Know and Don't Know about Online Word-of-Mouth: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature

By R. King, Pradeep Racherla, Victoria D. Bush. 2014

1,000 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Communication, Sociology and Political Science, Human-Computer Interaction

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d7729f788ebe724c06803592d2964387feaa9349

How researchers see this paper

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

In Communication

In Sociology and Political Science

In Human-Computer Interaction

Citations in the corpus

Of “Likes” and “Pins”: The Effects of Consumers’ Attachment to Social Media (2015, background): “This would extend the negative word-of-mouth literature (Edison and Geissler 2011; Mattila and Wirtz 2004; Zhang, Feick, and Mittal 2014) directly in the social media context (King, Racherla, and Bush 2014).”
Role of electronic word-of-mouth content and valence in influencing online purchase behavior (2018, background): “However, previous studies did not analyze the roles of rich eWOM content in influencing online behavior (King, Racherla, and Bush 2014).”
What does the brand say? Effects of brand feedback to negative eWOM on brand trust and purchase intentions (2018, background): “Valence is a key concept used in eWOM studies (King, Racherla, and Bush 2014).”
Effects of brand attitude and eWOM on consumers’ willingness to pay in the banking industry: Mediating role of consumer-brand identification and brand equity (2018, background): “Customers often rely on word-of-mouth recommendations (Hess and Ring, 2016) and the continued growth of social media make eWOM increasingly important (King et al., 2014).”
The effects of hotel attribute performance on electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) behaviors (2019, background): “Electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) has become a major source of information because of its (1) enhanced volume, (2) dispersion, (3) persistence and observability, (4) anonymity and deception, (5) salience of valence, and (6) community engagement (King et al., 2014).”
Too good to be true: the role of online reviews’ features in probability to buy (2017, background): “However, as Table 1 shows, the results of past studies are equivocal (King, Racherla, and Bush 2014; Zhang et al. 2010).”
Adolescent's eWOM intentions: An investigation into the roles of peers, the Internet and gender (2017, neutral): “…Gwinner, Walsh, & Gremler, 2004; King, Racherla, & Bush, 2014), research on the antecedents and culture-speci ﬁ c factors that in ﬂ uence participation of adolescents, especially in emerging economies (e.g., India and China) needs more attention and coverage (King et al., 2014, p. 175).”
Effect of eWOM stimuli and eWOM response on perceived service quality and online recommendation (2020, methodology): “(King et al., 2014) are used for evaluating products and services by the online as well as offline customers.”