4.6 Article

The Paradoxes of Word of Mouth in Electronic Commerce

期刊

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS
卷 32, 期 4, 页码 246-284

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/07421222.2015.1138572

关键词

econometric analysis; electronic commerce; e-tail; eWoM; product network; product review; word of mouth

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71502079]
  2. Singapore Ministry of Education [R-253-000-105-112]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Challenging conventional wisdom, we unravel three paradoxes of word of mouth (WOM) in e-commerce. Specifically, the WOM valence paradox contends that higher WOM valence of a product results in a larger subsequent decrease in the WOM valence of the product, the WOM volume paradox propounds that higher WOM volume of a product results in a smaller subsequent increase in the WOM volume of the product, and the WOM spillover paradox proposes that an improvement in the WOM of a product also improves the WOM of connected products in a product network. These paradoxes caution online retailers that superior WOM may at times backfire and not boost further sales. Drawing theoretical support from expectation-confirmation theory and network theory, we collect data from China's largest business-to-consumer platform, Tmall. com, and use linear panel data models to examine WOM evolution in a product network, controlling for relevant factors at the individual product, product network, and time unit levels. Importantly, we base our identification strategies on the use of instrumental variables and the differencein- differences estimation approach. Numerous statistical checks confirm the robustness and consistency of our findings. We contribute to a much richer theoretical understanding of WOM, by extending the applicability of expectation-confirmation theory and network theory to novel predictions and contexts, adding a dynamic perspective, unveiling three important WOM paradoxes, and offering practical insights.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据