Word of Mouth

The Effects of Locus of Control onWord-of-mouth Communication

DESMOND LAM* & DICK MIZERSKI**

*Faculty of Business Administration, University of Macau, Taipa, Macau, China, **Department of

Information Management and Marketing, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia

ABSTRACT Word-of-mouth can be a powerful tool for and against marketing a brand. Theeffect of personality can have a significant effect on an individual’s word-of-mouth behaviour.One of the most popular personality constructs is the locus of control. This research studied theinfluence of the locus of control on consumer word-of-mouth communications. The results showedthat individuals who scored high on their internal locus of control were more likely to engage inword-of-mouth communication with their out-groups. In addition, individuals who scored high ontheir external locus of control were more likely to engage in word-of-mouth communication withtheir in-group. Out-groups are defined as people with a weaker ties relationship, while in-groupsare defined as people with a stronger ties relationship (i.e. close friends and family). Thesefindings would help marketers in directing their promotional programmes more effectively.

KEY WORDS: Word-of-mouth, locus of control, in-group, out-group

Introduction

There has been a considerable amount of documentation (see Katz and Lazarfeld,

1955) on the power of word-of-mouth since the 1960s. Word-of-mouth is generally

more credible than any salesperson and has the advantage of rapid diffusion and a

broad reach. It has been widely reported to be many times more influential than

information from newspapers and magazines, personal selling and radio advertising

(Katz and Lazarfeld, 1955; Herr et al., 1991). Despite the importance and influence

of word-of-mouth it has remained one of the most neglected marketing areas

(Silverman, 2001). In fact many companies are still struggling to develop effective

marketing programmes that encourage consumer word-of-mouth communication

(Gremler et al., 2001). According to Mangold et al. (1999) only a small percentage of

word-of-mouth communications were stimulated by active corporate promotional

efforts. To date relatively few companies have tried to harness the full potential of

Correspondence Address: Desmond Lam, Faculty of Business Administration, University of Macau,

Av. Padre Tomas Pereira S. J., Taipa, China. Fax: +853 838320; Tel.: +853 397 4880. Email:

[email protected]

Journal of Marketing Communications

Vol. 11, No. 3, 215–228, September 2005

1352-7266 Print/1466-4445 Online/05/030215–14 # 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd

DOI: 10.1080/1352726042000333180

the power of word-of-mouth communication (Buttle, 1998). It is a common belief

among many companies that consumer word-of-mouth communication is uncontrol-

lable (Wilson, 1994; Lovelock, 2001) and that it is sufficient to stimulate positive

word-of-mouth behaviour simply by positive product experiences (Gremler et al.,

2001). This study refutes these misconceptions. The authors of this current study

believe that a sound understanding of the factors influencing word-of-mouthcommunication may help to create more proactive and targeted promotional

programmes towards stimulating consumer word-of-mouth communication.

Generally, the reasons why an individual engages in word-of-mouth communica-

tion have been extensively researched (e.g. Arndt, 1967; Brown and Reingen, 1987;

Wilson and Peterson, 1989; Bansal and Voyer, 2000; Ennew et al., 2000). Previous

research has found that consumers engage in word-of-mouth communication for

altruistic motives, anxiety reduction, advice seeking, product involvement and self-

enhancement reasons (Sundram et al., 1998). Word-of-mouth communicationamong consumers is also affected by other external factors, such as incentives,

social network structures, business climates, cultures and individual personalities

(Buttle, 1998). The influence of individual personality in particular is often cited as a

very important factor.

One of the most intensively and consistently studied individual personality

constructs is the concept of locus of control (see Matsumoto, 2000; Hoffman et al.,

2003). The locus of control construct captures individuals’ general and daily

expectancies about the causes of their reward and punishment (Rotter, 1966).Original research into the construct discovered two basic dimensions, namely

internal and external. Individuals with a high internal locus of control generally

believe they are in control of their lives and events affecting their lives, while those

with a high external locus of control see the outcomes of events as being due to

uncontrollable external variables such as luck, fate and powerful others. This study

will explore whether individuals’ locus of control can affect their word-of-mouth

communications with others. An important part of this study is to investigate

individuals’ word-of-mouth communications with their in-groups and out-groups.In-group word-of-mouth communication is communication between people who

share a close relationship or strong ties such as between close friends and family,

whereas out-group word-of-mouth communication is communication between

people with weaker ties such as people other than friends and family (Matsumoto,

2000). Ultimately, it is the intention of this study to help companies in identifying

communities, markets or societies that may be more receptive to word-of-mouth

marketing. The following sections will examine each construct in greater detail and

then develop and test research hypotheses.

Word-of-mouth Communications

The research literature on word-of-mouth communications largely began after the

Second World War (e.g. Katz and Lazarsfeld, 1955;Arndt, 1967). Previous research

on word-of-mouth communications has primarily focused on the antecedents and

consequences of communication, in particular on negative information (Wilson and

Peterson, 1989; Mangold et al., 1999). This study will focus on both negativeand positive information about products or brands.

216 D. Lam & D. Mizerski

Generally, word-of-mouth communication can be defined as an oral, person-to-

person communication between a receiver and a communicator whom the receiver

perceives as non-commercial regarding a brand, product or service (Arndt, 1967). It

is a group phenomenon, an exchange of thoughts or ideas among two or more

individuals (Bone, 1992). Word-of-mouth activity has been shown to influence

a variety of buyer conditions, including awareness, expectations, perceptions,attitudes, behavioural intentions and behaviours (Reingen, 1987). According to a

study conducted by Herr et al. (1991), face-to-face word-of-mouth communication

was much more persuasive than printed advertising. It is the most important source

of influence in the purchase of household goods and food products (Katz and

Lazarsfeld, 1955). Because consumers generally cannot process all of the informa-

tion that is available to them for purchase decisions, they often engage in simple

guides for simplifying their information-seeking and decision-making processes.

Word-of-mouth communication helps to reduce the amount of information thatmust be processed in order to make a decision (Duhan et al., 1997).

Sundram et al. (1998) found that consumers engaged in word-of-mouth communica-

tions for altruistic, product involvement and self-enhancement reasons. For example, a

consumer may make a product recommendation to a friend out of goodwill and a desire

to help or because of their positive product consumption experience with the product.

On the other hand, he or she may also complain (negative word-of-mouth) to other

consumers if he or she is dissatisfied with their consumption experience with a product

or company. Others may engage in positive word-of-mouth communications in order toshow their expertise in a certain product area such as computers and fashion or negative

word-of-mouth communications in order to project their social status and power.

Gatignon and Robertson (1986) cited decision support, decision justification, social

status and social power as the main factors that motivated word-of-mouth

communications. The need for information and a relief of decision anxiety motivated

word-of-mouth seeking. Another study performed by Mangold et al. (1999) found the

three key factors most likely to stimulate word-of-mouth communications were a

strongly felt need on the part of the word-of-mouth receiver, coincidental communica-tion between word-of-mouth communicator and receiver relating to a broader subject

and a high level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the product on the part of

the word-of-mouth communicator. This study attempts to investigate individuals’

general word-of-mouth communication, which may include both positive and nega-

tive information about products or brands and examine it in the context of both

word-of-mouth giving and seeking.

The frequency and intensity of word-of-mouth communications may also depend

on the situation, type of products and markets, social network, individualpersonality, availability of a physical infrastructure and culture of individuals

(Buttle, 1998). In terms of social network consumers in general interact with people

that are associated with them with varying degrees of tie strength, ranging

from strong (e.g. family and close friends or in-groups) to weak (e.g. acquaintances

or out-groups). According to Triandis (1995), in-groups are

groups of individuals about whose welfare a person is concerned, with whom

that person is willing to cooperate without demanding equitable returns, andseparation from whom leads to anxiety (p. XX).

The Effects of Locus of Control on Word-of-mouth Communication 217

In-group relationships are characterized by a good degree of belongingness,

familiarity, intimacy and, very importantly, trust (Watkins and Liu, 1996;

Matsumoto, 2000). These characteristics create strong ties between members of in-

groups. On the other hand, out-group relationships lack the above characteristics,

thereby leading to weaker ties between its members (Matsumoto, 2000). Previous

research has shown that strong ties are more likely to be activated for information

flow than weak ties (Reingen and Kernan, 1986; Brown and Reingen, 1987).

Moreover, the amount of word-of-mouth communication generated is generally

higher within groups with many strong tie relations than within groups with many

weak tie relations (Bone, 1992). These studies seem to suggest that individuals in

general engage in more word-of-mouth communication with their strong ties (i.e. in-

groups) than with their weak ties (i.e. out-groups).

While the influence of social networks on word-of-mouth communications has

been investigated in much detail in previous studies, relatively little research (e.g.

Rubin and Rubin, 1989) has examined the influence of individuals’ locus of control

on the subject area. This study hopes to take the issue a step further by examining the

influence of individuals’ locus of control on their product or brand word-of-mouth

communication with both their in-groups and out-groups. The next section will

review the construct of locus of control and develop the research hypotheses in this

study.

The Locus of Control and Research Hypotheses

The locus of control is an important construct describing individual differences. It is

one of the most widely studied personality concepts (Matsumoto, 2000) and has

often been used for predicting employees’ behaviour (Spector, 1988; Spector et al.,

2002) in organizations. The locus of control can be defined as

the degree to which the individual perceives that the reward (obtained)

follows from or is contingent upon his own behavior or attributes (Rotter,

1966).

First operationalized by Rotter (1954, 1966) and with many subsequent studies

adopting its use (Lefcourt, 1981), the construct was originally conceptualized as uni-

dimensional, with the internal and external loci of control on either end of its axis. In

fact, previous research has found the internal and external loci of control to be

mutually exclusive (Rotter, 1966). Since its initial development Rotter’s (1966) locus

of control scale has undergone several changes. For example, Levenson (1974)

developed a multi-dimensional scale as an alternative to Rotter’s (1966) scale. This

scale, which is now widely accepted as an alternative, includes three dimensions:

internal, powerful others and chance. Generally, people differ in terms of the amount

of control they believe they have over their own behaviour and environment

(Lefcourt, 1966; Rotter, 1966; Levenson, 1974). Those with a high internal locus of

control or internals believe they have control over their own behaviour and

environment. These people believe they have considerable influence over the

outcomes in their lives. Those with a high external locus of control or externals


believe they are dominated by external forces such as fate, luck or powerful others,

factors that are beyond their control.

Demographically there are some differences between internals and externals as

documented by previous studies. According to previous research internals tended to

be more educated (Lachman and Leff, 1989) and have higher household incomes

(Rotter, 1969; Hoffman et al., 2003) than externals. In addition, men and those insenior positions were found to be more internal than females and those in junior

positions, respectively (Smith et al., 1997).

Hoffman et al. (2003) stated that internals are more action oriented than externals.

In line with this statement, the research of Brockhaus (1975) found internals to be

more oriented towards activities and more likely to possess entrepreneurial qualities

such as risk taking. Internals tend to initiate new activities and undertake efforts or

actions in order to manage events around them actively and, hence, are more action

oriented. At work internals often perform beyond their basic job requirements suchas by actively taking initiatives for controlling outcomes (Spector, 1982; Blau, 1993).

Internals are likely to take up more risk in businesses (Miller et al., 1982; Howell and

Avolio, 1993) and engage in a greater degree of information search than externals

(Srinivasan and Tikoo, 1992), which they use for making their decisions (Lefcourt,

1982). Internals’ risk-taking aptitude in businesses and corporate settings generally

reflect their beliefs in controlling the outcomes of their lives and events around them.

This risk-taking nature of the internals in controlling outcomes can affect how they

communicate with others. Generally, communication among people often involvestaking some risks such as the risk of information transmitted uncontrollably and the

social risk of a negative remark made by the sender. Given the activity-oriented and

risk-taking characteristics of internals, one may naturally expect internals to seek out

and engage actively in word-of-mouth communication with people around them.

This behaviour is in essence manifested by internals’ desire to take initiatives in

controlling their lives despite the possibility of any associated risks. Therefore, it

seems unlikely that internals will engage solely in active communication with their in-

groups. Based on their nature and craving for information, they may be more likelyto engage in communication with their out-groups than the externals. Hence, the

following hypotheses were formulated for this study.

H1: Individuals who score high on their internal locus of control are more likely

to engage in word-of-mouth communications with their out-groups compar-

ed to individuals who score low on their internal locus of control.

H2: Individuals who score high on their internal locus of control are less likely to

engage in word-of-mouth communications with their in-groups compared

to individuals who score low on their internal locus of control.

Externals, on the other hand, often engage in avoidance behaviour (Janssen and

Carton, 1999) such as withdrawal (Storms and Spector, 1987). According to Steinfatt

(1987) externals also have greater needs for affiliation. As such they are more likely

to engage in companionship and entertainment behaviour compared to internals(Flaherty et al., 1998). Externals often feel a lack of personal control and believe


their actions do not necessarily lead to their desired results. As such they are likely to

fall back on their in-group members, who provide a sense of ‘safe’ companionship

and certainty. Due to their avoidance attitudes and needs for relationship, externals

may be more likely to engage in word-of-mouth communication with their in-

groups. At the same time, aggravated by their risk-avoiding nature, externals would

feel uncomfortable with the unfamiliar and unknown associated with their out-group

members. Thus, they may also be less likely to engage in word-of-mouth

communication with their out-groups. Hence, the following two hypotheses were

formulated.

H3: Individuals who score high on their external locus of control are more

likely to engage in word-of-mouth communications with their in-groups

compared to individuals who score low on their external locus of control.

H4: Individuals who score high on their external locus of control are less likely to

engage in word-of-mouth communications with their out-groups compared

to individuals who score low on their external locus of control.

Research Methodology

Sample and Data Collection

In order to test the hypotheses, a set of 200 questionnaires was distributed to a

convenience sample consisting of business undergraduates at a university in Perth,

Australia. Incomplete data reduced this sample to 197. The age of the respondents

ranged from 18 to 34 years old, with a median age of 21 years. Approximately 20%

of the respondents were working adults studying their first degree and 43% of the

respondents were male.

Questionnaire

Altogether there were 20 items in this study. The word-of-mouth communication

construct was operationalized using eight items, with four items each for the in-

group and out-group word-of-mouth communications, respectively. For exploratory

purposes the original items comprised two items each for word-of-mouth seeking

and giving, each with an attitudinal and a behavioural component. These items were

pre-tested for validity during the preliminary study on a focus group of 15

individuals (mostly undergraduates and postgraduates) prior to the main survey. A

few of the items were reworded for clarity through feedback. Very importantly, the

focus group participants did not find any differences between the seeking, giving,

attitude and behaviour items beyond the in-group/out-group partition. As such the

original items were retained for the main survey.

Nine items on the locus of control were chosen from Levenson’s (1974) original

scale. Three of these items measured the internal locus of control, while the others

measured the external (i.e. powerful others and chance) locus of control (see the


Appendix). All of the above items were measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging

from 1 representing strongly disagree to 5 representing strongly agree. Three

additional items were questions about age, gender, nationality and the number of

years spent in Australia.

Data Analysis and Results

A factor analysis with principal components extraction and varimax rotation was

performed on the eight items that were used for measuring word-of-mouth

communications. The process only yielded two factors successfully: in-group

word-of-mouth communication and out-group word-of-mouth communication.

This result was in accordance with the focus group findings, where the participants

did not find significant differences between the various word-of-mouth items beyond

the in-group/out-group partition. In essence, the respondents to the survey did notfind significant differences in items for either category (i.e. in-group word-of-mouth

communication and out-group word-of-mouth communication).

Another factor analysis on the nine items for the locus of control discovered two

factors instead of the expected three dimensions: internal, powerful others and

chance (Levenson, 1974). These factors were renamed the internal locus of control

and the external locus of control. An item reliability test was also conducted, yielding

satisfactory Cronbach’s a coefficient values for all factors (see Table 1). According to

Nunnally (1967), reliabilities in the range of 0.5–0.6 are satisfactory in the earlystages of research. Hence, the coefficients obtained were deemed sufficient given the

exploratory nature of this study. Finally, all variables were created by weighted

summation based upon their respective rotated factor loading scores. The results of

the factor and reliability analysis are shown in Table 1 along with their items.

A preliminary analysis of the sample using paired-sample t-tests found that the

mean internal locus of control score (M53.74) of the respondents was significantly

(t517.94, df5193 and p,0.001) higher than their mean external locus of control

score (M52.44). This was consistent with previous research on higher educationstudents, who tended to have higher internal locus of control scores (Rotter, 1966).

Moreover, there was a significant negative correlation (R520.208 and p,0.01)

between the internal locus of control and the external locus of control.

Next, a multi-regression analysis was conducted with in-group and out-group

word-of-mouth communications as the dependent variables and the internal as well

as external loci of control as the predictors. Referring to Table 2, the results showed a

significant relationship between the internal locus of control and out-group word-of-

mouth communications (p,0.001). At the same time, the external locus of controlappeared to predict the in-group word-of-mouth communications (p,0.001). Given

the findings, is it possible that simple demographics could explain the results more

readily than the locus of control variables? To test for the effects of demographics,

age and number of years in Australia were added as predicted variables in a second

multi-regression model (see Table 2). The results showed that, despite adding these

two variables, the overall predictive abilities of the locus of control variables

remained strong (p,0.001).

The results in Table 3 showed that the higher the internal locus of control,the higher the out-group word-of-mouth communications (R250.280). Contrary to


Table 1. Factor and reliability tests results

Variables Cronbach’s a ItemsRotated factor

loading Eigenvalue

Word-of-mouthIn-group 0.697 I like introducing new brands and products only to my close friends

or family0.667 2.199

I only provide information about new brands and products to myclose friends or family

0.726 2.199

I like to seek advice or information only from my close friends orfamily when making purchase decision

0.707 2.199

I only gather information about a product before I buy from myclose friends or family

0.737 2.199

Out-group 0.699 I like to provide people other than my close friends or family withinformation about new brands or products

0.779 2.132

I share information about new brands and products with peopleother than my close friends or family

0.775 2.132

I seek out the advice of people other than my close friends or familyregarding which brand to buy

0.643 2.132

I like to seek information and advice of people other than my closefriends or family before making a purchase decision

0.650 2.132

Locus of controlInternal locus of control 0.612 My life is determined by my own actions 0.630 2.356

When I get what I want it is usually because I worked hard for it 0.781 2.356I can pretty much determine what will happen in my life 0.481 2.356

External locus of control 0.717 To a great extent my life is controlled by accidental happenings 0.646 1.518When I get what I want it is usually because I am lucky 0.561 1.518It is not always wise for me to plan too far ahead because many

things turn out to be a matter of good or bad luck0.484 1.518

I feel like what happens in my life is mostly determined by powerfulpeople

0.798 1.518

My life is chiefly controlled by powerful others 0.761 1.518

22

2D

.L

am

&D

.M

izerski

expectation, the relationship between the internal locus of control and in-group

word-of-mouth communications was positive, although the strength was not

statistically significant (p.0.05). Hence, hypothesis 1 is supported but hypothesis

2 is not. In addition, the study found that the higher the external locus of control, the

higher the in-group word-of-mouth communications (R250.352 and p,0.001).

However, there was no significant relationship between the external locus of control

and out-group word-of-mouth communications (p.0.05). Hence, hypothesis 3 is

supported but hypothesis 4 is not. Interestingly, the number of years spent in

Australia had an effect on the in-group word-of-mouth communications. Generally,

the shorter the duration of stay in Australia, the higher the in-group word-of-mouth

communications. Perhaps uncertainty associated with being in a less familiar

environment (i.e. measured by the number of years spent) promoted or encouraged

more in-group communication and sharing.

Discussion and Implications

The major finding in this study was that word-of-mouth communication was

influenced by an individual’s locus of control. The study found that individuals with

a high internal locus of control were more likely to engage in word-of-mouth

communications with their out-groups. Conversely, individuals with a high external

locus of control were more likely to engage in word-of-mouth communications with

Table 2. The effects of locus of control on word-of-mouth dependent variables

Predictor variable

Dependent variable

In-group word-of-mouth Out-group word-of-mouth

Internal locus of control 0.054 0.259**External locus of control 0.374** 20.019Model adjusted R2 0.125 0.060

Standardized regression coefficients are shown: *p,0.05, **p,0.001.

Table 3. The effects of locus of control and other predictors on word-of-mouth dependent

variables

Predictor variable

Dependent variable

In-group word-of-mouth Out-group word-of-mouth

Internal locus of control 0.082 0.280**External locus of control 0.352** 0.000Age 20.092 20.147Years in Australia 20.172* 20.078Model adjusted R2 0.135 0.065

Standardized regression coefficients are shown: *p,0.05, **p,0.001.


their in-groups. Previous research has found that externals are more risk averse and

desire companionship, while internals are more action oriented and engage in more

information search. These characteristics of internals and externals appeared to have

a significant influence on the individuals (i.e. in-group versus out-group) with which

they shared product or brand information.

The findings are interesting and insightful. The results from this study haveenhanced our existing knowledge of consumer behaviour. It provides valid support

for the use of the locus of control as the means for market segmentation. As

mentioned earlier, previous research on the locus of control has found externals to be

less educated, have a low income, tend to be women and hold lower corporate

positions, whereas internals, on the other hand, have a higher income, are more

educated, tend to be men and hold higher corporate positions. Inferring from the

current findings, the former groups of individuals (i.e. externals) may be more likely

to engage in product or brand word-of-mouth communications with their closefriends and families (i.e. in-groups) while the latter groups of individuals (i.e.

internals) may be more likely to engage in communication with people other

than their in-groups (i.e. out-groups). The knowledge of the locus of control

characteristics of these groups of individuals may become highly valuable for

companies, potentially enabling alternative promotional strategies. For example,

when directly targeting less educated or lower income consumers, marketers may

find a new product diffusion process slower and less effective because these groups of

consumers tend not to engage in product word-of-mouth communication beyondtheir in-groups. As such markets may have to choose to create awareness of their

new products by promoting through the families of these market segments. On the

other hand, when targeting more educated or higher income consumers, less

promotional efforts may be needed in order to reach the desired awareness since

their groups of consumers tend to engage in substantial word-of-mouth commu-

nication beyond their in-groups. For companies who can successfully identify,

estimate or measure the locus of control characteristics of their target markets,

targeted word-of-mouth marketing can be incorporated into their marketingcampaign as a highly viable promotion tool.

Both word-of-mouth communications and mass media influence the diffusion of

innovation. Knowing the potential impacts of the locus of control may also enable

multinational companies to understand their global markets better and take that into

account when planning their marketing strategies. Quite interestingly, a number of

research studies on the locus of control have found that Americans often score

higher on their internal locus of control, whereas non-Americans such as Asians

tended to score higher on their external locus of control (Chiu, 1986; Lee andDengerink, 1992). Ralston and Gustafson (1993) conducted a study on the

differences in managerial values between subjects from the USA, Hong Kong and

the People’s Republic of China. They found that the subjects from the People’s

Republic of China and Hong Kong scored higher on their external locus of control

than the USA subjects. Since the external locus of control relates positively to in-

group word-of-mouth communication, one may then infer that in-group word-of-

mouth communication may be more proliferate in Asian societies than in Western

societies. Past research has consistently found that personal sources play aninfluential role in affecting purchases. Opinion leaders in particular are often


believed to be highly influential and help generate word-of-mouth communications

(Dawar et al., 1996). This has led many marketers to focus their promotional efforts

on opinion leaders in a bid to encourage product information diffusion. The results

from this study and research on cross-cultural differences in the locus of control may

yield some insights for international marketers. For marketers targeting the Asian

markets such as the People’s Republic of China additional promotional efforts at the

families and friends of opinion leaders may greatly enhance the overall effectiveness

of product information diffusion and, ultimately, their marketing campaign.

Limitations and Future Research

One of the major limitations in this study was the use of a student sample. Nevertheless,

the selected sample frame provided a pool of individuals who shared a common life-

cycle background for the testing of the research hypotheses, hence resulting in better

validity. Future research should attempt to replicate the same study by expanding the

sample frame and sizes for better generalization. In addition, the current research only

focused on one of the many personality constructs and did not examine other external

factors that may potentially affect word-of-mouth communication. Consumers’ cultural

values in particular may influence word-of-mouth behaviour (Dawar et al., 1996; Buttle,

1998). In this case, the personality effects on individuals’ word-of-mouth communica-

tion could be moderated by their cultural values. Future research should investigate

these areas for a better and more complete understanding of the subject area.

Conclusion

Word-of-mouth communication is indeed a major force in the marketplace that

cannot be taken for granted. While many studies have investigated its antecedents

and consequences, few have actually examined the influence of the locus of control

on word-of-mouth communication. This study found that individuals with a high

internal locus of control were more likely to engage in word-of-mouth communica-

tion with their out-groups. At the same time, those with a high external locus of

control were more likely to engage in word-of-mouth communication with their in-

groups. The findings will help marketers in better identifying and promoting

segments within their markets that may be more receptive to word-of-mouth

marketing.

References

Arndt, J. (1967) Role of product-related conversations in the diffusion of a new product, Journal of

Marketing Research, 4, pp. 291–295.

Bansal, H. S. & Voyer, P. A. (2000) Word-of-mouth processes within a services purchase decision context,

Journal of Service Research, 3(2), pp. 166–177.

Blau, G. (1993) Testing the relationship of locus of control to different performance dimensions, Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66(2), pp. 125–138.

Bone, P. F. (1992) Determinants of word-of-mouth communications during product consumption,

Advances in Consumer Research, 19, pp. 579–583.

Brown, J. J. & Reingen, P. H. (1987) Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior, Journal of Consumer

Research, 14, pp. 350–362.


Buttle, F. A. (1998) Word of mouth: understanding and managing referral marketing, Journal of Strategic

Marketing, 6, pp. 241–254.

Chiu, L. H. (1986) Locus of control in intellectual situations in American and Chinese school children,

International Journal of Psychology, 21, pp. 167–176.

Dawar, N., Parker, P. M. & Price, L. J. (1996) A cross-cultural study of interpersonal information

exchange, Journal of International Business Studies, 27(3), pp. 497–516.

Duhan, D. F., Johnson, S. D., Wilcox, J. B. & Harrell, G. D. (1997) Influence of consumer use of word-of-

mouth recommendation sources, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25, pp. 283–295.

Ennew, C. T., Banerjee, A. K. & Li, D. (2000) Managing word of mouth communication: empirical

evidence from India, The International Journal of Bank Marketing, 18(2), pp. 75–83.

Flaherty, L. M., Pearce, K. J. & Rubin, R. B. (1998) Internet and face-to-face communication: not

functional alternatives, Communication Quarterly, 46, pp. 250–268.

Gatignon, H. & Robertson, T. S. (1987) An exchange theory model of interpersonal communication,

Advances in Consumer Research, 13(1), pp. 534–538.

Gremler, D. D., Gwinner, K. P. & Brown, S. W. (2001) Generating positive word-of-mouth

communication through customer–employee relationships, International Journal of Service Industry

Management, 12(1), pp. 41–59.

Herr, P. M., Kardes, F. R. & Kim, J. (1991) Effects of word-of-mouth and product information on

persuasion: an accessibility–diagnosticity perspective, Journal of Consumer Research, 17, pp. 454–462.

Hoffman, D. L., Novak, T. P. & Schlosser, A. E. (2003) Locus of control, web use, and consumer attitudes

toward Internet regulation, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 22(1), pp. 41–57.

Howell, J. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1993) Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of

control, and support for innovation: key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance,

Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, pp. 891–902.

Janssen, T. & Carton, J. S. (1999) The effects of locus of control and task difficulty in on procrastination,

Journal of Genetic Psychology, 160, pp. 436–442.

Katz, E. & Lazarfeld, P. F. (1955) Personal Influence (Glencoe, IL: Free Press).

Lachman, M. E. & Leff, R. (1989) Perceived control and intellectual functioning in the elderly: a 5-year

longitudinal study, Developmental Psychology, 25, pp. 722–728.

Lee, V. K. & Dengerink, H. A. (1992) Locus of control in relation to sex and nationality: a cross-cultural

study, Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 23, pp. 288–397.

Lefcourt, H. M. (1966) Internal versus external control of reinforcement: a review, Psychological Bulletin,

64(4), pp. 206–220.

Lefcourt, H. M. (1981) The construction and development of the multidimensional/multiattributional

casuality scales, in: H. M. Lefcourt (Ed.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct, pp. 245–277

(New York: Academic Press).

Lefcourt, H. M. (1982) Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research (NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates).

Levenson, H. (1974) Activism and powerful others: distinctions within the concept of internal–external

control, Journal of Personality Assessment, 38, pp. 377–383.

Lovelock, C. H. (2001) Service Marketing: People, Technology, Strategy, 4th edn (Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Prentice Hall).

Mangold, W. G., Miller, F. & Brockway, G. (1999) Word-of-mouth communication in the service

marketplace, The Journal of Services Marketing, 13(1), pp. 73–83.

Matsumoto, D. (2000) Culture and Psychology: People Around the World (USA: Wadsworth).

Money, R. B. & Gilly, M. C. (1998) Explorations of national culture and word-of-mouth referral behavior

in the purchase of industrial services in the United States and Japan, Journal of Marketing, 62(4), pp.

76–87.

Nunnally, J. C. (1967) Psychometric Theory (New York: McGraw-Hill).

Ralston, D. A. & Gustafson, D. J. (1993) Differences in managerial values: a study of U.S., Hong Kong

and PRC managers, Journal of International Business Studies, 24(2), pp. 249–276.

Reingen, P. H. (1987) A word-of-mouth network, Advances in Consumer Research, 14(1), pp. 213–217.

Reingen, P. H. & Kernan, J. B. (1986) Analysis of referral networks in marketing: methods and

illustration, Journal of Marketing Research, 23, pp. 370–378.

Rotter, J. B. (1954) Social Learning and Clinical Psychology (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).


Rotter, J. B. (1966) Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement,

Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), pp. 1–28.

Rubin, A. M. & Rubin, R. B. (1989) Antecedents of interpersonal communication motivation,

Communication Quarterly, 40(3), pp. 305–317.

Ryff, C. D. (1989) Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-

being, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, pp. 1069–1081.

Silverman, G. (2001) The power of word of mouth, Direct Marketing, 64, pp. 47–52.

Smith, P. B., Dugan, S. & Trompenaars, F. (1997) Locus of control and affectivity of gender and

occupational status: a 14 nation study, Sex Roles, 36(1/2), pp. 51–77.

Spector, P. E. (1988) Development of the work locus of control scale, Journal of Occupational Psychology,

61(4), pp. 335–340.

Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., Sanchez, J. I., O’Driscoll, M., Sparks, K., Bernin, P., Bossing, A., Dewe, P.,

Hart, P., Lu, L., Miller, K., De Moraes, L. R., Ostrognay, G. M., Pagon, M., Pitariu, H. D.,

Poelmans, S. A. Y., Radhakrishnan, P., Russinova, V., Salamatov, V. & Salgado, J. F. (2002) Locus

of control and well-being at work: how generalizable are Western findings?, Academy of Management

Journal, 45(2), pp. 453–466.

Srinivasan, N. & Tikoom, S. (1992) Effect of locus of control on information search behavior, Advances in

Consumer Behavior, 19, pp. 498–504.

Steinfatt, T. M. (1987) Personality and communication: classical approaches, in: J. C. McCroskey & J. A.

Daly (Eds) Personality and Interpersonal Communication, pp. 42–126 (Newbury Park, CA: Sage).

Storms, P. L. & Spector, P. E. (1987) Relationships of organizational frustration with reported

behavioural reactions: the moderating effect of locus of control, Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 60(3), pp. 227–235.

Sundram, D. S., Mitra, K. & Webster, C. (1998) Word-of-mouth communications: a motivational

analysis, Advances in Consumer Research, 25, pp. 527–531.

Triandis, H. C. (1995) Individualism & Collectivism (USA: Westview).

Watkins, H. & Liu, R. (1996) Collectivism, individualism and in-group membership: implications for

consumer complaining behaviors in multicultural contexts, Journal of International Consumer

Marketing, 8(3/4), pp. 69–75.

Wilson, J. R. (1994) Word-of-mouth Marketing (New York: John Wiley & Sons).

Wilson, W. R. & Peterson, R. A. (1989) Some limits on the potency of word-of-mouth information,

Advances in Consumer Research, 16, pp. 23–29.

Appendix

Word-of-mouth Items (In-group)

1. I like introducing new brands and products only to my close friends or

family.

2. I only provide information about new brands and products to my close

friends or family.

3. I like to seek advice or information only from my close friends or family

when making a purchase decision.

4. I only gather information about a product before I buy from my close

friends or family.

Word-of-mouth Items (Out-group)

1. I like to provide people other than my close friends or family with

information about new brands or products.


2. I share information about new brands and products with people other than

my close friends or family.

3. I seek out the advice of people other than my close friends or family

regarding which brand to buy.

4. I like to seek information and advice of people other than my close friends

or family before making a purchase decision.

Internal Locus of Control

1. My life is determined by my own actions.

2. When I get what I want it is usually because I worked hard for it.

3. I can pretty much determine what will happen in my life.

External Locus of Control (Chance)

1. To a great extent my life is controlled by accidental happenings.

2. When I get what I want it is usually because I am lucky.

3. It is not always wise for me to plan too far ahead because many things turn

out to be a matter of good or bad luck.

External Locus of Control (Powerful Others)

1. I feel like what happens in my life is mostly determined by powerful people.

2. My life is chiefly controlled by powerful others.

3. People like me have little chance of protecting our personal interests when

they conflict with those of strong pressure groups. (Rejected because of low

rotated factor loading.)


Word of Mouth

Documents

Transcript of Word of Mouth