Direct and indirect negatively valenced engagement behavior

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to show the impact of direct and indirect customers’ negatively valenced influencing behavior (NVIB) on other actors in online social networks. Design/methodology/approach Four experiments were conducted in an online review setting that encompasses both restaurant and hotel reviews. The first study compares the impact of direct and indirect NVIB. The second, third and fourth studies measure this impact moderated by aggregate ratings, the volume of positive reviews and managerial responses. Findings Drawing on recent literature of customer engagement behavior, online reviews and social influence theory, this paper provides the first empirical results of the impact of direct and indirect NVIB, revealing the significant difference in their impact and the moderating role of the aggregate ratings, number of positive reviews and managerial responses on the cause-effect relationship between direct and indirect NVIB and other actors’ attitudes and behavioral intentions toward service providers. Research limitations/implications TripAdvisor reviews were selected for the reason of appropriateness rather than representativeness, using two service providers, hotels and restaurants. Practical implications This paper provides managers with new insights, which capture not only what customers say about service providers but also the impact of how they say it, suggesting that managers move beyond framing NVIB in generalized terms to considering the differences in the impact of its direct and indirect facets. Originality/value This paper is the first to provide empirical results about the significant difference in the impact of direct and indirect NVIB on other actors’ attitudes and behavioral intentions toward service providers, moderated by different heuristics, namely, ratings, volume of positive reviews and managerial responses.

A meta‐analysis of customer engagement behaviour

“…Although this research focuses on the positive side of engagement behaviour, this behaviour is not always beneficial for the focal firm (Azer & Alexander, 2020b; Naumann, Bowden, & Gabbott, 2020). Thus, positively and negatively valenced engagement co‐exist in the customer relationship with the focal brand (Azer & Alexander, 2018; Bowden, Conduit, Hollebeek, Luoma‐Aho, & Solem, 2017) in which a customer may positively and/or negatively engage with different aspects of the focal firm (Azer & Alexander, 2020a; Naumann, Bowden, & Gabbott, 2017). Further, “toward the focal form” suggests that engagement behaviours contribute to a firm's marketing activities (Harmeling et al., 2017) and exclude customer behaviours such as product consumption or disposal.…”

Fifteen years of customer engagement research: a bibliometric and network analysis

“…CE's impact on the individual's brand loyalty/attachment; Loureiro et al, 2017;So et al, 2016;. However, more recently, authors including Fujita et al (2020), Clark et al (2020) and Azer and Alexander (2020b) distil CE's effect on other actors (e.g. fellow customers).…”

COVID-19 vaccination: engagement behavior patterns and implications for public health service communication

“…Prior engagement research has focused on conceptualizing behavioral manifestations of engagement (e.g., Azer and Alexander, 2018;Blasco-Arcas et al, 2020;Bowden et al, 2017;Brodie et al, 2013;Jaakkola and Alexander, 2014;Naumann et al, 2020) and identifying its various antecedents and outcomes (e.g., Azer and Alexander, 2020b;Blasco-Arcas et al, 2016;Dessart et al, 2016;Dolan et al, 2019;Harrigan et al, 2017;Hollebeek and Chen, 2014). However, engagement literature has, hitherto, generally focused on engagement interactions that occur between customers and brands (e.g., Brodie et al, 2013;Hollebeek et al, 2019) or interactions among customers but still retaining the brand as the main focal object of engagement (e.g., Azer and Alexander, 2018;2020a;Vivek et al, 2012). It is unclear how behavioral manifestations might differ when the engagement object is the Covid-19 vaccination.…”

“…Brodie et al , 2013; Hollebeek et al , 2019) or interactions among customers but still retaining the brand as the main focal object of engagement (e.g. Azer and Alexander, 2018, 2020a; Vivek et al , 2012). It is unclear how behavioral manifestations might differ when the engagement object is the COVID-19 vaccination.…”