IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/iubhma/298847.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

WOM, eWOM and WOMachine: The evolution of consumer recommendations through a systematic review of 194 studies

Author

Listed:
  • Jansen, Thomas
  • Moura, Francisco Tigre

Abstract

Recommendation-based communication plays a pivotal role in consumer choices. From human sources to electronic word of mouth or different types of recommender systems, recommendations help consumers adopt or reject leads, and can be highly beneficial for organizations. In view of its relevance and the distinct characteristics the evolution of the topic, this paper aims to identify, summarize, and analyze the developments and impact of these recommendations on consumer decision making. To achieve this, 194 evidence-based studies were systematically reviewed. The results from a thematic synthesis showed that eWOM and recommender systems have a synergistic effect fueled by non-verbal cues of eWOM and accuracy of the system. Conversational recommender systems act similarly to WOM by encouraging explicit feedback. However, data privacy concerns make interactions towards these systems a difficult matter. Themes that emerged from WOM emphasized interpersonal relationships that are homophilous and with strong ties. Themes from eWOM focused on volume as a cue for popularity which increased credibility and trustworthiness. Finally, themes for automated recommendation center on usefulness and anthropomorphizing the recommender to build trust. Implications and future directions are provided.

Suggested Citation

  • Jansen, Thomas & Moura, Francisco Tigre, 2024. "WOM, eWOM and WOMachine: The evolution of consumer recommendations through a systematic review of 194 studies," IU Discussion Papers - Marketing & Communication 3 (Juni 2024), IU International University of Applied Sciences.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:iubhma:298847
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/298847/1/1891264192.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gruen, Thomas W. & Osmonbekov, Talai & Czaplewski, Andrew J., 2006. "eWOM: The impact of customer-to-customer online know-how exchange on customer value and loyalty," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(4), pages 449-456, April.
    2. De Angelis, Matteo & Tassiello, Vito & Amatulli, Cesare & Costabile, Michele, 2017. "How language abstractness affects service referral persuasiveness," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 119-126.
    3. Oliver, Richard L & Swan, John E, 1989. "Equity and Disconfirmation Perceptions as Influences on Merchant and Product Satisfaction," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(3), pages 372-383, December.
    4. Cheng, Yi-Hsiu & Ho, Hui-Yi, 2015. "Social influence's impact on reader perceptions of online reviews," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 883-887.
    5. Christian Hildebrand & Anouk Bergner, 2021. "Conversational robo advisors as surrogates of trust: onboarding experience, firm perception, and consumer financial decision making," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 49(4), pages 659-676, July.
    6. Talwar, Manish & Talwar, Shalini & Kaur, Puneet & Islam, A.K.M. Najmul & Dhir, Amandeep, 2021. "Positive and negative word of mouth (WOM) are not necessarily opposites: A reappraisal using the dual factor theory," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    7. Price, Linda L. & Feick, Lawrence F. & Higie, Robin A., 1989. "Preference heterogeneity and coorientation as determinants of perceived informational influence," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 227-242, November.
    8. Benlian, Alexander & Titah, R. & Hess, Thomas, 2010. "Provider- vs. User-generated Recommendations on E-Commerce Websites — Comparing Cognitive, Affective and Relational Effects," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 58037, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    9. Tan Hui Lee & Noor Ismawati Jaafar, 2011. "Investigating customer satisfaction, loyalty and web usability concerning the use of Word-of-Mouth as a means of referral among internet banking users in Malaysia," International Journal of Electronic Finance, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 5(4), pages 357-373.
    10. Elvira Ismagilova & Yogesh K. Dwivedi & Emma Slade & Michael D. Williams, 2017. "Electronic Word-of-Mouth (eWOM)," SpringerBriefs in Business, in: Electronic Word of Mouth (eWOM) in the Marketing Context, chapter 0, pages 17-30, Springer.
    11. Chrysanthos Dellarocas, 2003. "The Digitization of Word of Mouth: Promise and Challenges of Online Feedback Mechanisms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(10), pages 1407-1424, October.
    12. Bone, Paula Fitzgerald, 1995. "Word-of-mouth effects on short-term and long-term product judgments," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 213-223, March.
    13. Devkant Kala & D.S. Chaubey, 2018. "The effect of eWOM communication on brand image and purchase intention towards lifestyle products in India," International Journal of Services, Economics and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 9(2), pages 143-157.
    14. Leonard-Barton, Dorothy, 1985. "Experts as Negative Opinion Leaders in the Diffusion of a Technological Innovation," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 11(4), pages 914-926, March.
    15. Oliver, Richard L, 1993. "Cognitive, Affective, and Attribute BAses of the Satisfaction Response," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 20(3), pages 418-430, December.
    16. Yap, Kenneth B. & Soetarto, Budi & Sweeney, Jillian C., 2013. "The relationship between electronic word-of-mouth motivations and message characteristics: The sender’s perspective," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 66-74.
    17. Mizerski, Richard W, 1982. "An Attribution Explanation of the Disproportionate Influence of Unfavorable Information," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 9(3), pages 301-310, December.
    18. Zhang, Jason Q. & Craciun, Georgiana & Shin, Dongwoo, 2010. "When does electronic word-of-mouth matter? A study of consumer product reviews," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(12), pages 1336-1341, December.
    19. Gediminas Adomavicius & Jesse C. Bockstedt & Shawn P. Curley & Jingjing Zhangc, 2018. "Effects of Online Recommendations on Consumers’ Willingness to Pay," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 84-102, March.
    20. Wien, Anders Hauge & Peluso, Alessandro M., 2021. "Influence of human versus AI recommenders: The roles of product type and cognitive processes," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 13-27.
    21. David Godes & Dina Mayzlin, 2004. "Using Online Conversations to Study Word-of-Mouth Communication," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 545-560, June.
    22. Dellarocas, Chrysanthos, 2003. "The Digitization of Word-of-mouth: Promise and Challenges of Online Feedback Mechanisms," Working papers 4296-03, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    23. Bearden, William O & Etzel, Michael J, 1982. "Reference Group Influence on Product and Brand Purchase Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 9(2), pages 183-194, September.
    24. Berning, Carol A Kohn & Jacoby, Jacob, 1974. "Patterns of Information Acquisition in New Product Purchases," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 1(2), pages 18-22, Se.
    25. Gupta, Pranjal & Harris, Judy, 2010. "How e-WOM recommendations influence product consideration and quality of choice: A motivation to process information perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(9-10), pages 1041-1049, September.
    26. Elvira Ismagilova & Yogesh K. Dwivedi & Emma Slade & Michael D. Williams, 2017. "Electronic Word of Mouth (eWOM) in the Marketing Context," SpringerBriefs in Business, Springer, number 978-3-319-52459-7, September.
    27. Gediminas Adomavicius & Jesse C. Bockstedt & Shawn P. Curley & Jingjing Zhang, 2013. "Do Recommender Systems Manipulate Consumer Preferences? A Study of Anchoring Effects," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 956-975, December.
    28. Lutz, Richard J, 1975. "Changing Brand Attitudes through Modification of Cognitive Structure," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 1(4), pages 49-59, March.
    29. Ahn, Jungyong & Kim, Jungwon & Sung, Yongjun, 2022. "The effect of gender stereotypes on artificial intelligence recommendations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 50-59.
    30. Mareike Wieland & Gerret von Nordheim & Katharina Kleinen-von Königslöw, 2021. "One Recommender Fits All? An Exploration of User Satisfaction With Text-Based News Recommender Systems," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(4), pages 208-221.
    31. Rust, Roland T., 2020. "The future of marketing," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 15-26.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. King, Robert Allen & Racherla, Pradeep & Bush, Victoria D., 2014. "What We Know and Don't Know About Online Word-of-Mouth: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 167-183.
    2. Anshu Rani & H. N. Shivaprasad, 2021. "Revisiting the antecedent of electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) during COVID-19 Pandemic," DECISION: Official Journal of the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Springer;Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, vol. 48(4), pages 419-432, December.
    3. Kick, Markus, 2015. "Social Media Research: A Narrative Review," EconStor Preprints 182506, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    4. Lutz, Bernhard & Pröllochs, Nicolas & Neumann, Dirk, 2022. "Are longer reviews always more helpful? Disentangling the interplay between review length and line of argumentation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 888-901.
    5. Koji Ishida & Lisa Slevitch & Katia Siamionava, 2016. "The Effects of Traditional and Electronic Word-of-Mouth on Destination Image: A Case of Vacation Tourists Visiting Branson, Missouri," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-17, September.
    6. Juan Feng & Xin Li & Xiaoquan (Michael) Zhang, 2019. "Online Product Reviews-Triggered Dynamic Pricing: Theory and Evidence," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(4), pages 1107-1123, December.
    7. Sanjeev Dewan & Jui Ramaprasad, 2012. "Research Note ---Music Blogging, Online Sampling, and the Long Tail," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(3-part-2), pages 1056-1067, September.
    8. Zhen Li & Fangzhou Li & Jing Xiao & Zhi Yang, 2020. "Topic Features in Negative Customer Reviews: Evidence Based on Text Data Mining," The Review of Socionetwork Strategies, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 19-40, April.
    9. Akbari, Morteza & Foroudi, Pantea & Zaman Fashami, Rahime & Mahavarpour, Nasrin & Khodayari, Maryam, 2022. "Let us talk about something: The evolution of e-WOM from the past to the future," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 663-689.
    10. Yucheng Zhang & Zhiling Wang & Lin Xiao & Lijun Wang & Pei Huang, 2023. "Discovering the evolution of online reviews: A bibliometric review," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-22, December.
    11. Yani Wang & Jun Wang & Tang Yao, 2019. "What makes a helpful online review? A meta-analysis of review characteristics," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 257-284, June.
    12. Agnieszka Zablocki & Bodo Schlegelmilch & Michael J. Houston, 2019. "How valence, volume and variance of online reviews influence brand attitudes," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 9(1), pages 61-77, June.
    13. Ana Babić Rosario & Kristine Valck & Francesca Sotgiu, 2020. "Conceptualizing the electronic word-of-mouth process: What we know and need to know about eWOM creation, exposure, and evaluation," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 422-448, May.
    14. Rishikesh Bhaiswar & N. Meenakshi & Deepak Chawla, 2021. "Evolution of Electronic Word of Mouth: A Systematic Literature Review Using Bibliometric Analysis of 20 Years (2000–2020)," FIIB Business Review, , vol. 10(3), pages 215-231, September.
    15. Supratim Kundu & Swapnajit Chakraborti, 2022. "A comparative study of online consumer reviews of Apple iPhone across Amazon, Twitter and MouthShut platforms," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 925-950, September.
    16. Marchand, André & Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten & Wiertz, Caroline, 2017. "Not all digital word of mouth is created equal: Understanding the respective impact of consumer reviews and microblogs on new product success," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 336-354.
    17. Floyd, Kristopher & Freling, Ryan & Alhoqail, Saad & Cho, Hyun Young & Freling, Traci, 2014. "How Online Product Reviews Affect Retail Sales: A Meta-analysis," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 217-232.
    18. Pyle, Martin A. & Smith, Andrew N. & Chevtchouk, Yanina, 2021. "In eWOM we trust: Using naïve theories to understand consumer trust in a complex eWOM marketspace," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 145-158.
    19. Nisar, Tahir M. & Prabhakar, Guru & Ilavarasan, P. Vigneswara & Baabdullah, Abdullah M., 2020. "Up the ante: Electronic word of mouth and its effects on firm reputation and performance," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    20. Rahat Ullah & Wonjoon Kim & Naveen C. Amblee & Hyunjong Lee & Alice Oh, 2014. "Do Emotions Matter? Exploring The Distribution Of Emotions In Online Product Reviews," Working papers 156, Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    WOM; eWOM; WOMachine; Recommender Systems; Conversational Recommender System;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M31 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Marketing

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:iubhma:298847. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.iu.de/forschung/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.