6.2 Mechanisms/ Processes

6.2.1 Impression Management

Consumers buy to signal their derived identities to achieve desired impressions (J. Berger & Heath, 2007)

Interpersonal communication (WOM) influences impression management in 3 ways: (1) self-enhancement, (2) identity -signaling, and (3) filling conversational space.

  • Self-enhancement: human has a tendency to self-enhance (Markus, 1987). Hence, people like to share things to help them look good (Chung & Darke, 2006; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004). Since bragging too much about oneself might have an opposite effect. People sometimes engage in” humblebragging”: brag but self-deprecating at the same time (Sezer et al., 2018). Wojnicki and Godes (2017) found people share content for self-enhancement.
  • Identity-signalling: they talk about themselves to signal they have certain traits or expertise (G. Packard & Wooten, 2013), such as opinion leaders talk to signal their identity (share to show their knowledge).
  • Filling conversational space: (small talk) people engage in small talk to avoid pauses and silence in between conversations so that the other party would not make lousy inferences about the person. (Berger 2014)

Hence impression management induces people to share things that are

  • Entertaining (i.e., interesting, surprising, funny or extreme) so that they shared look more interesting, and in-the-know. Interesting products get more word of mouth (Berger and Iyengar 2013; Berger and Schwartz 2011; Berger and Milkman 2012). Moderate controversy is a catalyst for word of mouth to spread (Chen & Berger, 2013). And sometimes, people even exaggerate stories to make things more interesting (C. Heath, 1996); around 60% of the stories are distorted (E. J. Marsh and Tversky 2004). Things that can be considered interesting are those that are either novel, exciting, or violate previous expectations (i.e., surprise) (Berlyne, 2006; Silvia, 2008). Nevertheless, comprehensibility can be a moderate of whether a novel thing is interesting: novel and comprehensible equals interesting, while novel and incomprehensible equal confusing (Silvia, 2008). Novelty refers to things that are new, surprising, exciting, or complex (Berlyne 1960). Comprehensibility refers to the fact that the novelty must be understandable.

    • (Vosoughi, Roy, and Aral 2018) found that false news are spread faster, farther, deeper and more broadly because they are more novel where true or false based on 6 independent fact-checking organizations. This effect is greater about terrorism, natural disasters, science, urban legends, or financial information. False stories inspire fear, disgust and surprise replies, where as true stories inspire anticipation, sadness, joy and trust. Even after controlling for bots account, their results still hold, which means that most of false stories are driven by humans, not bots.
  • Useful: because it makes the sharer smart and helpful. Empirical evidence show that useful stories(J. Berger & Milkman, 2012) and higher quality brands (Lovett et al., 2013) are more likely to be shared.

  • Self-concept relevant: different people see different domain as the optimal signal amplifier such as politics, economics, etc. hence symbolic products are more likely to be shared than utilitarian ones (Chung & Darke, 2006) (even though useful information is helpful, but the signal to be smart and helpful are not appreciated as being interesting and entertaining).

  • Status related: premium brands are talked about more (Lovett et al., 2013). Knowledge is can also be considered as a status symbol, and people share to signal that they re in the know (Ritson & Elliott, 1999)

  • Unique: unique products are more likely to be shared, but people with a high need for uniqueness will be less likely to share positive WOM because they do not want people to adopt the product and reduces their uniqueness (Cheema & Kaikati, 2010). Sometimes they even scare others by citing product complexity (Moldovan et al., 2015)

  • Common ground: sharing common things induces listener to convey that there is interpersonal similarity and facilitates conversation.

  • Emotional valence: people prefer to share positive things than negative news (Berger and Milkman 2012). However, in some special cases, negative WOM can be perceived as a desired component such as reviewers are seen as more intelligent (Amabile 1983). Which is moderated by whether people are refereeing to themselves or others will affect WOM valence (positive vs. negative) (Kamins et al., 1997). Positive WOM when talking oneself conveys a positive image, while negative WOM about others convey that they are relatively better than the other party.

  • Incidental arousal: unrelated arousal (e.g., running in place) can increase sharing in general Berger and Schwartz (2011) because of the increase in arousal levels.

  • Accessible things: products with more cued or triggered will be discussed more (J. Berger & Schwartz, 2011). Hence, more advertised products generate more WOM (Onishi and Manchanda 2012). “top of mind” and “tip of the tongue.” Availability bias means that the easier we can recall something, the more likely we are going to talk bout it. Publicly visible products also have more WOM (J. Berger & Schwartz, 2011)

6.2.2 Emotion regulation

WOM help consumers regulate their emotions. Emotion regulation refers to “a person’s ability to effectively manage and respond to an emotional experience” (Rolston & Lloyd-Richardson, 2017). and sharing with other (WOM) can facilitate emotion regulation by:

  • Generating social support: sharing can give you comfort and consolation (Rimé, 2009). For example, after a negative emotional experience, sharing can help increase well-being through perceived social support (Buechel and Berger 2017)
  • Venting: WOM (sharing) helps people achieve catharsis when experiencing negative experiences(Alicke et al., 1992): consumers express when they are angry (Wetzer et al., 2007) or dissatisfied (Anderson, 1998).
  • Sensemaking: “talking can help people understand what they feel and why” (J. Berger, 2014)
  • Reducing dissonance: even after making a decision, we want to make sure we make the right choice by talking to others tot reduce feelings of doubt (Rosnow, 1980)
  • Taking vengeance: to punish the company (different from venting, which makes you feel better), consumers share negative consumption experience (Ward & Ostrom, 2006)
  • Rehearsal: people talk to relive positive experiences (Rimé, 2009)

Emotion regulation drives people to share (1) emotional content (2) influence the valence of the content shared, (3) lead people to share more emotionally arousing content:

  • Emotionality: more emotional intensity, more sharing (J. Berger & Milkman, 2012), people share more emotional social anecdotes (Peters et al., 2009). But not all emotions increase sharing: for example, shame and guilt decreases sharing (Finkenauer & Rimé, 1998) since sharing those things makes people look bad.

  • Valence: “Emotion regulation tends to focus on the management of negative emotions” (J. Berger, 2014), but a counter vailing effect is that under impression management, people avoid sharing negative stories since it might reflect on the shares. Sharing negative things can decrease willingness to share (Chen & Berger, 2013)

  • Emotional arousal:

    • Negative side: low arousal emotion (sadness), high arousal (anger or anxiety) should increase the need to vent.
    • Positive side: low arousal (contentment), high arousal (awe, excitement or amusement) increase desires for rehearsal.

6.2.3 Information acquisition

WOM helps acquire information.

  • Seeking advice: (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004; Rimé, 2009). Rather than trial and error, or direct observation, gossip serves as another form of learning (Baumeister et al., 2004)
  • Resolving problems: online forums or other online opinion platforms help customers find a solution quickly from others (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004)

Hence the process of information acquisition would induce to talk more about

  • Risky, important, complex, or uncertainty-ridden decision: talking to others can reduce risk, simplify complexity, and increase consumer’s confidence (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004)
  • Lack of (trustworthy) information:

6.2.4 Social bonding

“people have a fundamental desire for social relationships (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), and interpersonal communication fills that need (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004)”. Empirically, people in brand communities because want to connect with others like them (Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001). Sharing facilitates social bonding through

  • Reinforce shared views: group memberships, and one’s place in the social hierarchy. WOM (sharing) allows people to fit in as a group member (J. Berger & Heath, 2007; Ritson & Elliott, 1999)
  • Reducing loneliness and social exclusion: sharing decrease interpersonal distance and decreases loneliness and exclusion (Maner et al., 2007)

Social bonding drives what people share: people share things are :

  • Common ground: social bonding drives people to talk about things they have in common because it makes them feel socially connected (Clark & Kashima, 2007)
  • Emotionality: “sharing an emotional story or narrative increases the chance that others will feel similarly” (J. Berger, 2014). Emotional similarity increase group cohesiveness (Barsade & Gibson, 2007). And emotion sharing and social bonding can be a simultaneous process since previous works found that emotion sharing bonds people (Peters & Kashima, 2007) and high arousal emotion increase social bonding needs (Chen & Berger, 2013)

6.2.5 Persuading others

people use WOM to persuade others to affect their satisfaction or choices (J. Berger, 2014). Persuasive drive people to share things that are

  • Emotionally polarized (polarized valence): since the goal is to convince something is good or bad (i.e., people share extremely rather than moderately positive(negative) information
  • Arousing content: “people who want to persuade others may find shared arousing content to incite others to take desired actions” (J. Berger, 2014)

References

Amabile, Teresa M. 1983. “A Consensual Technique for Creativity Assessment.” In, 37–63. Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5533-8_3.
Berger, Jonah. 2014. “Word of Mouth and Interpersonal Communication: A Review and Directions for Future Research.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 24 (4): 586–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.05.002.
Berger, Jonah, and Raghuram Iyengar. 2013. “Communication Channels and Word of Mouth: How the Medium Shapes the Message.” Journal of Consumer Research 40 (3): 567–79. https://doi.org/10.1086/671345.
Berger, Jonah, and Katherine L. Milkman. 2012. “What Makes Online Content Viral?” Journal of Marketing Research 49 (2): 192–205. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.10.0353.
Berger, Jonah, and Eric M. Schwartz. 2011. “What Drives Immediate and Ongoing Word of Mouth?” Journal of Marketing Research 48 (5): 869–80. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.48.5.869.
Berlyne, D. E. 1960. “Toward a Theory of Exploratory Behavior: I. Arousal and Drive.” In Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity., 163–92. McGraw-Hill Book Company. https://doi.org/10.1037/11164-007.
Buechel, Eva C., and Jonah Berger. 2017. “Microblogging and the Value of Undirected Communication.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 28 (1): 40–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1013.
Marsh, Elizabeth J., and Barbara Tversky. 2004. “Spinning the Stories of Our Lives.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 18 (5): 491–503. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1001.
Onishi, Hiroshi, and Puneet Manchanda. 2012. “Marketing Activity, Blogging and Sales.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 29 (3): 221–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2011.11.003.
Vosoughi, Soroush, Deb Roy, and Sinan Aral. 2018. “The Spread of True and False News Online.” Science 359 (6380): 1146–51. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559.
Wojnicki, Andrea C., and David Godes. 2017. “Signaling Success: Word of Mouth as Self-Enhancement.” Customer Needs and Solutions 4 (4): 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40547-017-0077-8.