Effects of Word-of-Mouth and Product-Attribute Information on Persuasion: An Accessibility-Diagnosticity Perspective

Tapping the grapevine: A closer look at word-of-mouth as a recruitment source.

“…This is in line with the accessibility-diagnosticity model, which suggests that information provided through word-of-mouth affects potential applicants' evaluations of the organization because of its accessibility in memory and its diagnosticity (Feldman & Lynch, 1988;Herr et al, 1991). This finding is also consistent with previous recruitment research demonstrating a positive impact of receiving positive word-of-mouth on organizational attraction in student samples (Collins & Stevens, 2002;Van Hoye & Lievens, 2005).…”

“…Extending this previous research, we further found that time spent receiving word-of-mouth explained incremental variance in perceived attractiveness and actual application decisions beyond potential applicants' exposure to recruitment adver- Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step tising, the recruitment website, recruitment events, and publicity. This further corroborates the accessibility-diagnosticity model, which posits that word-of-mouth's unique characteristics as a company-independent experiential recruitment source increase its accessibility and diagnosticity, allowing it to influence potential applicants' perceptions and decisions beyond company-dependent and informational sources (Bone, 1995;Cable & Turban, 2001;Herr et al, 1991;Pornpitakpan, 2004). Whereas the current field study found that time spent receiving negative word-of-mouth early in the recruitment process did not significantly predict potential applicants' perceived organizational attractiveness and application decisions, Van Hoye and Lievens (2007) observed a large negative impact on students' perceptions of organizational attractiveness in their lab study.…”

“…Similar to product-related word-of-mouth, job-related word-of-mouth can vary with respect to its medium (e.g., face-to-face vs. internet), source (e.g., friend vs. acquaintance), motives (e.g., uncertainty reduction of the recipient vs. vengeance of the source), and valence (e.g., positive vs. negative; J. J. Brown & Reingen, 1987;Cable & Turban, 2001;Herr et al, 1991;Mangold et al, 1999;Smith & Vogt, 1995).…”

What makes a useful online review? Implication for travel product websites

“…Along with the theory of information diagnosticity that refers to the extent to which the consumer believes the product information is helpful to understand and evaluate products (Herr, Kardes, & Kim, 1991), the findings of this research sheds light on the multi-aspects of information attributes to improve the perceived diagnosticity. In the online environment where consumers have limited capability to diagnose the integrity of the product information, especially for the experience goods, the information about reviewer's identity and previous experiences in the online community and also message related attributes (such as the quantitative elements and features representing the quality of online reviews) improves the perceived usefulness (i.e., perceived information diagnosticity) (Mudambi & Schuff, 2010).…”

An Exploratory Study on the Adaptive Word-of-Mouth Communication in Seeker-initiated Context

“…According to Derbaix and Vanhamme, people will actively share about 90% of their emotional experiences. Since WOM information is related to personal experience and contains emotional sentences, it can be more vivid and stir response from the receiver that is more emotional (Herr et al, 1991). Therefore, it can have a greater effect on the receivers' buying decision.…”