2020
DOI: 10.1080/08961530.2020.1800547
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Social and Demographic Predictors of Consumers’ Word of Mouth Engagement in Czechia

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
15
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 83 publications
1
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, both Brown and Reingen (1987) & Nitzan and Libai (2011) did not examine the role of WOM valence when investigating the influence of status homophily on the effectiveness of WOM received. More recently Mladenović et al (2021) found a negative relationship between status homophily and engagement in WOM but did not investigate the differential influence of PWOM and NWOM. Therefore, it is unclear if a similar pattern of results will emerge under PWOM and NWOM conditions.…”
Section: Offline Homophily and Offline Wommentioning
confidence: 94%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Moreover, both Brown and Reingen (1987) & Nitzan and Libai (2011) did not examine the role of WOM valence when investigating the influence of status homophily on the effectiveness of WOM received. More recently Mladenović et al (2021) found a negative relationship between status homophily and engagement in WOM but did not investigate the differential influence of PWOM and NWOM. Therefore, it is unclear if a similar pattern of results will emerge under PWOM and NWOM conditions.…”
Section: Offline Homophily and Offline Wommentioning
confidence: 94%
“…This research is important from a theoretical perspective. For instance, the bulk of offline WOM research has focused its research attention on understanding the influence of tiestrength between the WOM participants on the effectiveness of articulated WOM on either the sender (Chawdhary & Dall'Olmo Riley, 2015) or the receiver (Bansal & Voyer, 2000;Brown & Reingen, 1987;Hoye & Lievens, 2007;Mladenović et al, 2021;Nitzan & Libai, 2011) at the expense of understanding the influence of homophily. Furthermore, much of the recent research on WOMhomophily relationship is within the online context (Ladhari et al, 2020;Lin & Xu, 2017) neglecting to understand this vital relationship in the offline context.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Babić et al (2020) recently revised the definition of eWOM to include all "consumergenerated" and "consumption-related" communication that uses digital platforms and is directed at peer consumers. Since eWOM uses electronic communication platforms as a mediator (Mladenović, Bruni & Kalia, 2020), it transmits information more efficiently than traditional word of mouth (WOM) (Cheung, Pires & Rosenberger, 2020). It can be assumed that eWOM on SNSs has a far greater valence in comparison with face-to-face WOM (Hennig-Thurau & Walsh, 2003).…”
Section: 1theoretical Underpinningmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Given that opinion seekers consider their SNS contacts without hidden commercial intent (Chu & Choi, 2011;Cuevas, Chong, & Lim, 2020), they extensively seek information from opinion leaders on SNSs (Thiriot, 2018;Lee & Choi, 2019). Opinion passing implies the forwarding of user and marketer-generated content through social networks (Lee & Choi, 2019;Ladhari, Massa, & Skandrani, 2020), and it potentially mediates the relationship between opinion seekers and opinion leaders (Mladenović, Bruni, & Kalia, 2020).…”
Section: 2electronic Word Of Mouth On Snssmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It also develops the rise of technology, consumer to consumer communication with more effectiveness which is the best platform for marketers to engage customers more and they can exchange the information to the main content. All individual personalities are more linked with friends, relatives and other colleagues to share information regarding the non-local brands (Mladenovic et al, 2021).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%