The Effect of Negative Online Customer Reviews On Brand Equity and Purchase Intention of Consumer Electronics in South Africa

The International Review of Retail, Distribution and
Consumer Research
ISSN: 0959-3969 (Print) 1466-4402 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rirr20
The effect of negative online customer reviews on

brand equity and purchase intention of consumer
electronics in South Africa
Justin Beneke, Simona de Sousa, Marcelle Mbuyu & Bradley Wickham
To cite this article: Justin Beneke, Simona de Sousa, Marcelle Mbuyu & Bradley Wickham
(2015): The effect of negative online customer reviews on brand equity and purchase intention
of consumer electronics in South Africa, The International Review of Retail, Distribution and
Consumer Research, DOI: 10.1080/09593969.2015.1068828
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593969.2015.1068828
Published online: 24 Sep 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rirr20
Download by: [Florida International University] Date: 25 September 2015, At: 15:29
The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593969.2015.1068828
The effect of negative online customer reviews on brand equity and

purchase intention of consumer electronics in South Africa
Justin Benekea*, Simona de Sousab, Marcelle Mbuyub and Bradley Wickhamb
a
Faculty of Business, Law & Sport, Winchester Business School, University of Winchester, UK;
b
Faculty of Commerce, School of Management Studies, University of Cape Town, South Africa
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 15:29 25 September 2015
(Received 17 October 2014; accepted 4 June 2015)
This study investigated the effect that negative online customer reviews have on brand
equity and purchase intention. This research examined the influence of negative
electronic word of mouth (eWOM) on brand equity, as influenced by customer review
quality, product involvement and source credibility. A 3 (high quality review versus
low quality review versus no review) £ 2 (high product involvement versus low
product involvement) factorial experiment with 236 respondents was conducted. The
results revealed that the presence of negative eWOM has a significant detrimental
effect on brand equity and purchase intention. Furthermore, the effect of negative
online customer reviews is more detrimental to the brand equity of a high involvement
product than a low involvement product. The results also revealed that high quality
reviews are more influential than low quality reviews with respect to brand equity, and
the difference between the levels of eWOM source credibility has no significant effect
on brand equity.
Keywords: electronic word of mouth; negative reviews; brand equity; purchase
intention; product involvement; review quality; source credibility
Introduction
Marketers tend to spend millions of rand on elaborately conceived advertisement
campaigns when, in fact, the true persuasive force behind a consumer’s behaviour is a
simple, free of charge Word of Mouth (WOM) recommendation made by a trusted source
(Bughin, Doogan, and Vetvik 2010).
WOM communication regarding products and services is widely acknowledged as an
influential source of market place information (Sen and Lerman 2007). With the decline
of trust in advertising, WOM has become a powerful source of communication used to
form consumer perceptions and behavioural intentions (Sher and Lee 2009). Whereas
traditional WOM referred to person-to-person communication; the emergence and spread
of the Internet has introduced a less personal but more ubiquitous form of communication,
namely, electronic word of mouth (eWOM) (Cheng and Zhou 2010). The use of the
Internet as a channel for expressing opinions about products and brands has become a
prominent marketing tool (Chatterjee 2001). eWOM, particularly in the form of online
customer reviews, provide a trusted source of brand information for consumers as it is
considered as independent of the company’s control and influence (Sher and Lee 2009).
It has become increasingly common for consumers to refer to online product reviews when
*Corresponding author. Email: justin.beneke@winchester.ac.uk
q 2015 Taylor & Francis

2 J. Beneke et al.
gathering pre-purchase product information (Zhu and Zhang 2010). Hennig-Thurau,

Walsh, and Walsh (2003) postulate that negative online customer reviews have a more
significant impact on consumers than positive reviews. Xue and Zhou (2010) added that in
contrast, positive or neutral online customer reviews are less informative and diagnostic as
positive information is commonly provided for high, average and low quality products
(Lee, Park, and Han 2008). In addition, individuals who visit opinion platforms are more
likely to encounter negative online reviews as dissatisfied-consumers are more interested
in sharing their negative experiences with as many consumers as possible (Chatterjee
2001). Therefore, this study specifically focuses on negative online customer reviews and
its implications.
As online communities have increased in size, number and character; marketers have
come to recognise the growing importance of eWOM for a company’s success (Bughin
et al. 2010). This study aims to assist marketers to identify and understand the most
influential effects of eWOM communication. This understanding will enable marketers to
craft coordinated, consistent responses to negative eWOM and ensure that it reaches the
right people with the right content in the right setting, to minimise the potentially
detrimental effects. This, in turn, will generate an exponentially greater impact on the
brands that consumers recommend, buy and become loyal towards (Bughin et al. 2010).
Bambauer-Sachse and Mangold (2011) found that eWOM significantly influences
brand equity. This is regarded as one of the most noteworthy effects of eWOM (Wu and
Wang 2011). In addition, various studies have revealed that eWOM has a highly
significant influence on consumers’ purchase intention (Park, Lee, and Han 2007; Xue and
Zhou 2010). Furthermore, the literature suggests that purchase intention can be viewed as
a direct consequence of brand equity (Cobb-Walgren, Ruble, and Donthun 1995). Thus,
negative online customer reviews dilute the brand equity of the reviewed product, which
subsequently weakens consumers’ intention to purchase (Bambauer-Sachse and Mangold
2011; Park et al. 2007). Furthermore, the effect that negative eWOM has on consumers’
perceptions and behaviour varies for different levels of involvement, review quality and
source credibility. The present study considers the aforementioned characteristics of
eWOM in the context of brand equity.
Although numerous studies concerning negative online reviews have corroborated its
effects to be negative, a recent study conducted by Berger, Sorensen, and Rasmussen
(2010) has revealed that negative online customer reviews may have a positive effect on
consumers’ brand evaluation. Their study implies that negative eWOM generates publicity
and awareness for a brand, which is beneficial. This inconsistency in past findings presents
an opportunity for this study to clarify the harmful effects of negative online reviews,
specifically in the South African context.
An industry study revealed that the vast majority of South African consumers base
their brand choices, solely or partly, on recommendations from family and friends (Instant
Grass 2009). This is an indication of South African consumers’ reliance on personal
information sources before making purchase decisions. With the combination of Western
world and traditional African culture, South African consumers tend to display varying
information search behaviours (Van Loggerenberg and Herbst 2010). Researchers suggest
that collectivistic societies regard information giving as a way of sharing favours, whereas
individualistic societies focus on self-reliance (Ma and Chuang 2001). ‘Ubuntu’, a
collectivistic value in South African culture, encourages information sharing within social
networks (Olinger, Britz, and Olivier 2007). A global study has highlighted South Africa
as the world leader in spreading positive stories about brands, which justifies the
importance of conducting eWOM research in South Africa (Instant Grass 2009). However,
The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 3
there has been very little research on eWOM in the context of developing economies, thus
this study aimed to address the following research question: Do negative online customer
reviews of consumer electronics adversely affect brand equity and the purchase intentions
of consumers in South Africa? To achieve this, the following objectives were specified:
. To determine the extent to which negative online customer reviews adversely affect
a product’s brand equity.
. To determine the extent to which negative online customer reviews adversely affect
purchase intention.
This article proceeds by reviewing the pertinent literature and then continues by
discussing the methodology and empirical work conducted.
Literature review
This literature review commences by discussing WOM communication and how it has
extended from its traditional state to an online form i.e. eWOM. Thereafter, the influence
of eWOM on brand equity and purchase intention will be analysed, followed by a
discussion regarding the moderating effects of product involvement, review quality and
source credibility.
Electronic word-of-mouth
A considerable amount of studies has noted the importance of WOM communication in
the field of marketing (Bambauer-Sachse and Mangold 2011; Park, Lee, and Han 2007;
Wang and Wang 2010). Numerous researchers have identified traditional WOM as the
informal, non-commercial exchange of information between two or more individuals
(Arndt 1967; Silverman 2001). This communication is perceived to be more effective in
changing consumers’ attitudes and behaviours than advertising, as it is independent from
the organisation’s influence (Goyette et al. 2010; Silverman 2001).
WOM has transformed to eWOM as a result of the development of the Internet, which
has enabled consumers to search, prior to purchasing, for external information pertaining
to a product (Cheung, Xiao, and Liu 2012). Thus, eWOM is more influential in aiding
individuals to make well-informed decisions by reducing perceived risks when uncertainty
is high (Wang and Wang 2010). This study focuses on the individual-level analysis, the
influence of eWOM on consumers’ perceptions and purchasing decision. As online opinion
platforms have become the most widely used form of eWOM, this study specifically
focused on online customer reviews (Hennig-Thurua, Gwinner, and Walsh 2004).
Online customer reviews

Online customer review websites are considered to be an Internet tool used by the global
community to exchange information regarding products and brands. This information
has become valuable to consumers as it substitutes or complements other sources of
information acquired in the product evaluation process (Bickart and Schindler 2001;
Mayzlin and Chevalier 2003). Along with the increasing popularity of online review
websites, online customer reviews have emerged as an influential source of eWOM in the
purchase decision process (Wu and Wang 2011).
Park and Kim (2008) define online customer reviews as any positive or negative
statement, which is released by potential, actual or previous consumers on an online
platform. A positive review contains favourable information and encourages brand choice,
4 J. Beneke et al.
whereas a negative review has the opposite effect (East et al. 2008). Numerous studies that
have focused on positive eWOM attest that favourable online customer reviews enhance
the image of the reviewed product (Chen and Xie 2008; Hennig-Thurua, Gwinner, and
Walsh 2004). However, negative online customer reviews are considered as more useful to
consumers, and thus have a more significant impact on an individual’s product evaluation
(Chevalier and Mayzlin 2006). According to Goyette et al. (2010), an unsatisfied
consumer mentions his or her dissatisfaction to nine people, whereas satisfaction is only
expressed to five individuals on average. Remarkably, a study of South African consumers
has shown that 74% of those exposed to a personal, negative recommendation were
influenced to change their initial purchase decision (Instant Grass 2009). Therefore, this
study honed in on negative online customer reviews, and the implications thereof.
Negative online customer reviews

Hennig-Thurau, Walsh, and Walsh (2003) postulate that negative customer reviews have a
greater impact than positive customer reviews. This finding can be attributed to the
‘negativity effect’ (Lee and Cranage 2007). In an effort to describe this effect, Lee, Park,
and Han (2008) state that when a consumer is exposed to negative online customer
reviews, they tend to perceive the product as low quality. In contrast, positive or neutral
online customer reviews tend to be less useful in determining the perceived quality of the
product, as positive information is commonly provided for high, average and low quality
products (Lee, Park, and Han 2008). Negative online customer reviews are therefore
considered as more diagnostic for decision-making purposes (Lee, Park, and Han 2008;
Wang and Wang 2010). Similar studies have supported this view by demonstrating that
negative messages have a stronger influence on brand evaluations and purchase intentions
(Charlett, Garland, and Marr 1995; Mizerski 1982; Xue and Zhou 2010). Again, as the
arguments presented are compelling, the focus of this study is therefore placed on negative
online customer reviews.
Numerous studies on negative online reviews have corroborated its effects to be
negative with respect to purchasing behaviour (Bambauer-Sachse and Mangold 2011;
Park, Lee, and Han 2007). Although it seems straightforward to reason that negative online
reviews will negatively impact consumers’ brand evaluation and purchase intent, recent
research has shown somewhat conflicting results (Wu, Van der Heijden, and Korfiatis
2011). Berger, Sorensen, and Rasmussen (2010) posit in their study that negative online
reviews may actually have positive effects on purchase intention, and subsequently sales,
when product awareness is low. This study suggests that, over time, consumers
disassociate the negative information with the product, yet the increased awareness may
lead to increased purchase intent (Berger et al. 2010). The inconsistencies in these findings
present an opportunity for this study to clarify the effects of negative online reviews on
consumers’ perceptions of a product. This effect is especially prevalent in the context of
online reviews of consumer electronics.
The online customer reviews of consumer electronics

A study by Mudambi and Schuff (2010) revealed that product category affects the
significance of the online customer review. Consumer electronics is emerging as one of the
most reviewed product categories on online customer review websites (Chan and Ngai
2011). Park and Kim (2008) suggest that since new versions of consumer electronics are
frequently released and are complicated to use, consumers are more likely to search
for updated information and rely on comments from previous users prior to purchase
(Chan and Ngai 2011). Therefore, eWOM is likely to play a significant role in formulating
the brand evaluations of consumer electronics. Specifically, negative online customer
reviews may well affect the brand equity of the reviewed product.
Brand equity
Since the development of brand equity in the late 1980s, the construct has gained
widespread acceptance as one of the most crucial topics for marketing management (Yoo
and Donthu 2001). Despite a plethora of definitions that have been proposed, the literature
does indicate that some agreement exists as to the meaning of brand equity. Several
authors share the notion that brand equity refers to the incremental utility or value added to
a product due to its affiliated brand name (Keller 1993; Yoo, Donthun, and Lee 2000).
Brand equity can be viewed from two perspectives: the financial perspective and the
consumer perspective (Simon and Sullivan 1993). Financial-based brand equity
investigates the worth of a brand in the financial market (Simon and Sullivan 1993).
This method relies on aggregated data to approximate the overall monetary value of a
firm’s brands, therefore making it an unsuitable measure of an individual brand’s equity in
a multi-brand organisation (Park and Srinivasan 1994). Moreover, eWOM has a dominant
influence on the consumer’s evaluation of a brand. Therefore, this study focused on the
consumer perspective of brand equity.
Keller (1993) initially proposed that consumer-based brand equity refers to the
differential effect that brand knowledge has on consumers’ brand value perceptions.
The literature appears to be in consensus that, from the consumer perspective, brand equity
can be regarded as the added attractiveness that a brand name confers on a product (Chang
and Lui 2009). Researchers in the field have formulated various conceptualisations of
consumer-based brand equity. Aaker (1991) views brand equity as a multidimensional
construct consisting of brand awareness, brand association, perceived quality, brand
loyalty and other propriety brand assets. The last dimension refers to patents, trademarks
and channel relationships, and thus does not have direct relevance to end consumers
(Brodie, Glynn, and Little 2006). Therefore, four of Aaker’s (1991) suggested dimensions
of brand equity remain relevant to consumers’ consideration sets (Xu and Chan 2010).
Further research by Keller (1993) suggests that brand equity is divided into brand
knowledge and brand image. In Keller’s (1993) model, brand knowledge refers to brand
recognition and recall, which is synonymous with brand awareness. Brand image is
defined as a combination of brand associations and perceived quality. Although Yoo,
Donthun, and Lee (2000) corroborated the theory proposed by Aaker (1991), the
researchers found that brand awareness and brand associations were strongly correlated
with one another and validated that these elements constitute a single dimension, namely,
brand awareness with strong associations.
From the literature reviewed, it is apparent that researchers agree that brand equity can
be measured using some variation of the dimensions: brand associations, brand awareness,
perceived quality and brand loyalty (Aaker 1996; Yoo et al. 2000). This study followed the
more recent theory postulated by Yoo et al. (2000), and viewed brand equity as comprising
three dimensions: perceived quality, brand loyalty and brand awareness with strong
associations. Table 1 provides a brief description of the three dimensions of consumer-
based brand equity.
In the context of eWOM, certain aspects of brand equity appear more relevant than
others. Yoo and Donthu (2001) established that the dimensions brand equity could reflect
either consumer perceptions (perceived brand quality, brand awareness and associations)
6 J. Beneke et al.
Table 1. Explanation of the dimensions of brand equity.
Dimension Definition Source

Perceived quality The consumer’s judgment of the overall esteem, Low and Lamb (2000)
excellence or superiority of a brand with and Zeithaml (1988)
respect to its intended purpose, relative to
alternative brands.
Brand loyalty A deeply held commitment to rebuy or repatronise Oliver (1997)
a preferred product consistently in the future.
Brand awareness Anything that is linked in memory to a brand and Aaker (1991) and
with associations results in the ability of a consumer to Keller (2012)
distinguish a brand under various conditions.
or consumer behaviour (brand loyalty). As the present study aimed to determine the extent
to which negative online customer reviews alter individuals’ perceptions of a brand, the
perceptual dimensions of brand equity were deemed highly pertinent. However, Berger
et al. (2010) revealed that any publicity, positive or negative, could enhance a consumer’s
ability to recognise and recall a brand. In light of this, the effect that eWOM has on brand
awareness and associations appears to be a foregone conclusion as it will be enhanced
regardless of whether the message is positive or negative.
Since eWOM originates from individuals who have acquired and experienced the
product, it provides prospective consumers with an alternative source of information when
inferring brand quality and forming brand evaluations (Bambauer-Sachse and Mangold
2011). Thus, eWOM influences brand equity through its ability to significantly shape and
alter a brand’s associations (Xu and Chan 2010). Research has suggested that negative
online customer reviews engender the dissemination of brand complaints and are strongly
associated with customers’ dissatisfaction with a branded product (Xu and Chan 2010).
This significantly weakens the prospective customer’s evaluation of the associated brand,
indicating an associated reduction in brand equity (Chan and Ngai 2011). Bambauer-
Sachse and Mangold (2011) further confirm this theory, as they were able to establish that
brand equity dilution is a direct consequence of negative eWOM. Therefore, when
consumers are exposed to negative online customer reviews, the brand equity of the
reviewed product diminishes. In accordance with the aforementioned literature, the
following assertion is hypothesised:
Hypothesis 1: The average level of brand equity differs between the groups that were
exposed to negative online customer reviews and the groups that were
not exposed to negative online customer reviews.
As the literature suggests, brand equity is significantly diluted by negative eWOM.
This dilution is a great cause for concern as brand equity is found to be a significant
influencer of consumer purchase intention, which is a driver of overall business
performance (Chang and Lui 2009; Cobb-Walgren et al. 1995; O’Cass and Lim 2002).
Purchase intention
Purchase intention is widely viewed as a predictor of actual purchase (Grewal, Monroe, and
Krishnan 1998). Purchase intention represents the likelihood that an individual will
purchase a particular product based on the interaction between customer needs, attitude and
perception towards the product or brand (O’Cass and Lim 2002). It is widely acknowledged
that an individual’s judgment about purchasing a designated brand is one of the most
important behavioural consequences of brand equity (Aaker 1991; Chang and Lui 2009;
Keller 1993). Researchers such as Prasa and Dev (2000) have established that high brand
equity is associated with high customer satisfaction, market share and profits. The above is
compatible with the theory presented by Cobb-Walgren et al. (1995) who suggested that
high brand equity promotes brand preference, stimulating purchase intention. Thus, in
accordance with the findings from prior research, the following assertion is hypothesised:
Hypothesis 2: The intention to purchase a brand is significantly influenced by brand
equity.
In addition to the aforementioned findings, the literature is saturated with research
confirming that purchase intention occurs as a direct consequence of eWOM (Park and Lee
2008). Prior to a purchase, consumers typically search for external information about the
product to decrease the potential risks involved in making the wrong decision (Wang and
Wang 2010). Online customer reviews provide recommendations from the perspective of
individuals who have purchased and experienced the product, thus the information provided
may assist consumers to make more informed purchase decisions (Xu and Chan 2010).
Negative online customer reviews reveal the potential threats and risks associated with the
purchase of the product, and thus significantly reduce purchase intention (Lee, Park, and
Han 2008; Wu and Wang 2011). Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 3: The average level of purchase intention differs between the groups that
were exposed to negative online customer reviews and the groups that
were not exposed to reviews.
Furthermore, in line with previous literature, this study suggests that the effect that
online customer reviews have on brand equity and purchase intention varies under
different levels of product-involvement, review-quality and review-source credibility
(Wang and Wang 2010). These elements are discussed below.
Product involvement
Consumer involvement in a product category is widely acknowledged as a relevant factor in
consumer behaviour (O’Cass 2000). The term involvement refers to the perceived personal
relevance of a product based on the individual consumer’s inherent needs, values and
interests (Griffith, Krampf, and Palmer 2001; Zaichkowsky 1994). Celsi and Olson (1988)
suggested that the involvement construct is composed of two distinct forms: situational
involvement and enduring involvement. Situational involvement represents a temporary
evaluation of interest in a product, which occurs only as the result of a specific circumstance
and fluctuates over time (Laurent and Kapferer 1985). Enduring involvement, commonly
referred to as product class involvement, represents a consumer’s ongoing interest in a
particular product that transcends situational influences (Laurent and Kapferer 1985).
Lee, Park and Han (2008) argue that the situational importance of a purchase decision
is more representative of the variance in consumers’ involvement with a product. The
researchers add that a specific product class cannot be inherently high or low involving, as
the various antecedents to involvement relate differently to each individual consumer.
However, since the level of situational involvement diminishes once the high involvement
situation has ended, this approach appears unsuitable for analysing self-reported measures
of involvement and purchase actions (Zaichkowsky 1994). Although the literature
acknowledges that assigning high and low involvement to specific product classes is not
8 J. Beneke et al.
ideal, there is nonetheless consensus that product characteristics do occupy a significant

role in classifying involvement (Wu and Wang 2011). Thus, the present study considered
product-class involvement.
Prior research has noted that product involvement has a determining influence on
information processing motivation and is therefore associated with eWOM transmission
(Xue and Phelps 2004). The aforementioned association becomes more evident when
applying the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM). This model provides a useful
framework for understanding the effectiveness of persuasive communication (Petty and
Cacioppo 1984). According to ELM, one of the most important factors affecting enduring
persuasion is whether or not a consumer is willing to elaborate on, or think about a
potentially persuasive message (Wu and Wang 2011). ELM theory explains the reaction of
consumers to eWOM by focusing on the information processing procedures that
consumers follow in response to online customer reviews (Lee, Park, and Han 2008).
The ELM suggests that there are two routes to persuasion that influence the formation
and alteration of consumer behaviour – the central route and the peripheral route. The
central route to persuasion is described as the process of engaging in thoughtful, rational
and effortful processing of persuasive communication (Petty and Cacioppo 1984).
Alternatively, the peripheral route to persuasion is characterised by low cognitive effort
and a focus on non-content, extrinsic product cues when processing a persuasive message
(Petty and Cacioppo 1984). The ELM further posits that the level of product involvement
determines whether consumers apply central or peripheral route processing. The former
route is associated with high product involvement, whilst the latter route is associated with
low product involvement (Lee, Park, and Han 2008).
In the context of eWOM, online customer reviews for high involvement products are
viewed by an audience who are prepared to devote time and effort into analysing and
processing the presented information (Celsi and Olson 1988). As involvement increases,
consumers have an increased motivation to pay attention to and comprehend the
information that is presented (Xue and Phelps 2004). In contrast, online customer reviews
for low involvement products are viewed by an audience who are not interested in learning
about the product and its features or willing to spend time and effort processing the
presented information (Celsi and Olson 1988). In this instance, individuals are more likely
to depend on peripheral cues such as the number of reviews, source credibility or
attractiveness of the pictures displayed in the review (Lee, Park, and Han 2008).
The existing body of literature has shown interest in the influence of involvement on
the receivers of eWOM information. An early study by Jain and Srinivasan (1990) found
that product involvement accounted for 35% of the variance in information searching.
More recent research by Ha (2002) and Xue and Zhou (2010) found that the impact of
online customer reviews was stronger when consumers’ involvement with the product was
high. In accordance, Xue and Phelps (2004) suggested that involvement significantly
moderates an individual’s attitude towards the consumer comments that are posted on
independent online forums. Furthermore, prior studies have found that consumers are
more susceptible to negative product information about high involvement products
(Ha 2002). In light of the aforementioned literature, this particular study hypothesises that:
Hypothesis 4: When exposed to negative online customer reviews, the average level of
brand equity differs across high involvement products and low
involvement products.
In addition to the aforementioned findings, the literature suggests that the impact of
product involvement is moderated by certain characteristics of the eWOM message
(Cheung et al. 2009). Furthermore, previous studies have consistently found an interaction
between involvement and the quality of an argument (Lee, Park, and Han 2008).
Review quality
The absence of a standard format for eWOM has led to a variation in the quality of the online
customer reviews (Lee, Park, and Han 2008). Lee, Park, and Han (2008) suggest that review
quality consists of the following characteristics: relevance, reliability, understandability and
sufficiency. Relevance refers to the extent to which the information provided in the online
consumer review resonates with the information that the individual is seeking. Reliability
refers to the dependability of the customer review. Understandability refers to how easily the
information can be understood and sufficiency refers to the depth of the information (Lee,
Lee, and Han 2008).
Review quality can be classified into low quality and high quality. Low quality online
customer reviews are ‘emotional, subjective, contain no factual information and simply
make a recommendation’, whereas high quality reviews are ‘logical, persuasive and
provide reasoning to support facts about the product’ (Park, Lee, and Han 2007, 128).
Commonly, low quality online customer reviews do not aid consumers’ evaluation of the
product as the content is regarded as irrelevant, uninformative and difficult to understand
due to ambiguity (Lee, Park, and Han 2008). However, given that a low quality review
emanates from an individual who has purchased the reviewed product, it does provide
some degree of useful information (Park, Lee, and Han 2007). In contrast, high quality
online customer reviews contain more understandable and objective information with
sufficient reasoning (Lee, Park, and Han 2008). Therefore, a high quality online customer
review is relatively more persuasive than a low quality review (Park, Lee, and Han 2007).
According to the presented literature, high quality negative online customer reviews have
a greater negative effect on consumer-based brand equity. Thus the following assertion is
hypothesised:
brand equity differs across high quality and low quality reviews.
In addition, prior studies have consistently found an interaction between involvement
and the quality of an argument (Park, Lee, and Han 2007). Wu and Wang (2011) suggest
that when product involvement is high, consumers are more likely to be motivated to devote
the cognitive effort required to evaluate the true merits of the product being reviewed (Wu
and Wang 2011; Lee, Park, and Han 2008). Individuals who are motivated to process a
message tend to engage in thoughtful thinking and base their judgment on the evaluation of
persuasive arguments (Park, Lee, and Han 2007). Thus, according to Lee and Lee (2009), a
high quality online customer review is more useful in situations of high product
involvement. When product involvement is low, consumers pay more attention to non-
product-related cues. They then do not find it necessary to thoroughly scrutinise the
information and use minimum cognitive effort to evaluate the information provided (Lee,
Park, and Han 2008; Wu and Wang 2011). As the aforementioned literature suggests, high
quality negative online customer reviews will have a greater influence on brand equity when
product involvement is high (Lee and Lee 2009; Lee, Park, and Han 2008; Wu and Wang
2011). Thus the following hypothesis is postulated:
Hypothesis 6: Under high product involvement, the average level of brand equity
differs across high quality and low quality reviews.
10 J. Beneke et al.
Previous studies have discovered that in addition to the quality of an argument,

message source credibility plays an influential role in an individual’s evaluation of online
customer reviews (Lee, Park, and Han 2008; Park et al. 2007; Xue and Zhou 2010).
Source credibility
In the online environment, people have unlimited freedom to publish and express their
opinions about products without the obligation of disclosing their identity (Cheung, Lee,
and Rabjohn 2008). According to Ko, Kirsch, and King (2005), information that is
provided by a highly credible source is perceived to be useful and reliable, which in turn
facilitates the adoption of the information. In this study, message source credibility will be
defined as the extent to which a message source, i.e. the message disseminator, is
perceived to be believable by the message recipients (Wu and Wang 2011). The literature
proposes that source credibility can be viewed as an attitude towards the reviewer, which
affects the message receiver’s level of belief in what the source claims (Gunther 1992;
West 1994).
Message source credibility is suggested to consist of three sub-dimensions:
trustworthiness, expertness and attractiveness (Cheung et al. 2009; Wu and Wang
2011). Trustworthiness refers to the degree of confidence and acceptance that message
receivers have towards the message disseminator, expertness refers to the professional
knowledge the disseminator has about the product and attractiveness refers to how the
disseminator entices the receivers to consume the products or services (Ohanian 1990; Wu
and Wang 2011). As this research focused on measuring the source credibility of online
customer reviews, the review disseminator cannot be contacted directly, thus the attraction
sub-dimension cannot be measured (Wu and Wang 2011). Therefore, this study only
measured message source credibility in terms of two of the sub-dimensions, namely
trustworthiness and expertness.
The literature regarding message credibility affirms that when source credibility is
high, the receiver will be highly persuaded by the message and when source credibility is
low, the receiver is likely to be uncertain about the message (Eagly and Chaiken 1993;
Zhang and Buda 1999). Hu, Liu, and Zhang (2008) suggest that consumers do not only rely
on source credibility to construe the message, but also to form their personal attitudes
towards the brand. Therefore, the source credibility of the negative online customer review
enhances the negative effect as consumers that regard high trustworthiness and expertness
towards the eWOM source will perceive the message as credible (Wu and Wang 2011).
Therefore, as the aforementioned literature suggests the negative eWOM effect differs
across the levels of source credibility (Cheung et al. 2009; Park and Lee 2008; Wu and
Wang 2011). Negative eWOM has a greater effect on brand equity when consumers
perceive high source credibility as opposed to low source credibility (Bambauer-Sachse
and Mangold 2011). To this end, the following is hypothesised:
brand equity differs across high source credibility and low source
credibility.
The literature suggests that source credibility, along with product involvement and
review quality, alters the effect that negative eWOM has on brand equity and purchase
intention.
The seven hypotheses compiled above will now be analysed and tested in accordance
with the methodology described below.
Methodology
The following section describes the steps followed in the execution of the study in addition
to the motivation of the methods utilised.
Research design and method

A causal research design, which forms part of conclusive research, was employed to
investigate the cause and effect relationships present in the study (Mooi and Sarstedt
2011). A statistical experimental design was implemented as the study fulfils the key
components of an experiment which are as follows: pre –post test design, a combination
of a treatment and a control group and random assignment of respondents (Malhotra
2010; Marczyk, deMatteo, and Festinger 2005). This will be elaborated on throughout
the methodology, beginning with an explanation of the experimental design directly
below.
Similar to prior research, this study utilises a factorial design as it permitted the
simultaneous examination of more than one independent variable and between-variable
interactions (Marczyk et al. 2005). Therefore, a 3 (high quality versus low quality versus
no review) £ 2 (high involvement versus low involvement) factorial design was
employed. This experimental design has proven success in that it has been used in
noteworthy eWOM studies (Cheung and Thadani 2010; Mrazek 2008).
Target population and sampling method

The target population consisted of individuals that are in residence within the Republic of
South Africa. Non-probability convenience sampling was used to draw the sample of
respondents since the data required for this study could not be collected from the entire
target population (Malhotra 2010). The total sample size for the main experiment was 236
respondents, of which approximately 40 respondents were assigned to each experimental
group (Wu and Wang 2011). A separate sample of respondents, as detailed below, was
selected for pretesting.
Pretest
Prior to the main experiment, a pretest was carried out on 28 university students, who were
not involved in the main study. The results of the pretest identified that on average
respondents read 3.4 online customer reviews on opinion platforms. Therefore, it was
decided that 3 online reviews would be used as the test stimuli for the main study. Second,
the pretest evaluated respondents’ familiarity with the CLEVO brand. The results showed
that 93% of the respondents reported that they are ‘not at all familiar’ with the brand and
the other 7% reported that they were somewhat familiar with the brand. Therefore, it was
determined that CLEVO would be an appropriate brand to use in the main study. Finally,
the pretest assessed the quality of the reviews. Of the pretest sample, 12 subjects read 8
flash drive reviews and 16 subjects read 8 laptop reviews. The respondents were requested
to evaluate each review’s quality. The 3 highest quality and the 3 lowest quality reviews
were selected from each group and used as stimuli in the main study. Additional stimuli
and the experimental products were then selected based on the theory proposed in the
literature review.
12 J. Beneke et al.
Experimental parameters
A laptop computer and a flash drive (16 gigabytes) were featured as the experimental
stimuli for the main study. The selection of these stimuli was based on numerous
reasons. First, prior research has indicated that there should be sufficient motivation for
consumers to receive negative eWOM (Laczniak, De Carlo, and Ramaswami 2001).
Since both Laptop computers and Flash drives were found to be frequently used by the
research participants, it would appear natural for these consumers to engage in eWOM
regarding these products (Laczniak, De Carlo, and Ramaswami 2001). Second, these
consumer electronics represent high involvement and low involvement products,
respectively. Prior studies have used consumer’s perceived purchase risk and purchase
frequency to classify products as high and low involvement (Hoyer and MacInnis
2008). A laptop represents a high involvement electronic consumer good. This

classification was based on the notion that laptop computers are complex and relatively
expensive products. Therefore, consumers are likely to be highly involved with the
product class and motivated to attend to and process the negative eWOM about the
brands within this product category (Mrazek 2008). In addition, the purchase of a
laptop is intended for long-term use, thus consumers in the market for laptops will
carefully consider product-related messages (Laurent and Kapferer 1985). A flash drive
(16gig) represented a low involvement electronic consumer good. The purchase of a
flash drive (16gig) is relatively low cost and does not pose a significant financial risk
for consumers. In addition, consumers purchase flash drives more frequently as they are
not designed to be as durable as a laptop (Mrazek 2008). Therefore, product-related
information would be of limited interest to these consumers (Mrazek 2008). Finally,
laptop computers and flash drives have been effectively used as high and low
involvement experimental stimuli in similar negative eWOM studies (Laczniak, De
Carlo, and Ramaswami 2001; Mrazek 2008; Xue and Zhou 2010). Several control
variables were taken into account to increase the validity of the study (Iacobucci and
Churchill 2009).
Data collection for main study

Respondents were solicited via email in order to take part in the experiment. They were
informed about the purpose of the study and asked whether they would be willing to
partake in the experiment.
Upon activation of the main study, respondents were directed to an online
questionnaire available on the Qualtrics survey website, featuring the reviews profiled
in Appendix A (Tables A.1 and A.2). As the study is focused on online customer
reviews, a method of this sort was deemed appropriate (Wu and Wang 2011). The use
of an online questionnaire is argued to provide accurate results due to the absence
of an interviewer and consequent interviewer bias (Bronner and Kuijlen 2007).
All responses were transferred directly into the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS) programme, thus eliminating potential human recording error
(Malhotra 2010).
Each participant was randomly assigned to one of the six experimental treatment
groups (as described in the ‘Research Design and Method’ section) and was sent an email
that contained the corresponding link to the online questionnaire. Here, identical, although
separate, questionnaires for the high involvement product (laptop computer) and low
involvement product (flash drive) were used.
Control variables and other considerations

Multiple methods were employed to control for extraneous variables. Brand familiarity
was controlled through the usage of CLEVO, an existing Taiwanese brand that is largely
unknown in South Africa, thus ensuring that there were no preconceived attitudes towards
the brand (Mrazek 2008; Park, Lee, and Han 2007). In addition, employing products that
all sample units were highly knowledgeable of controls for prior product knowledge,
Chan and Ngai (2011) determined that negative online customer reviews had a weaker
impact on consumers’ with higher product knowledge (Xia and Bechwati 2008).
Since varying online review pages were created for each experimental group, the study
was susceptible to potential instrumentation effects (Malhotra 2010). This extraneous
variable was controlled for by maintaining an identical style and layout for all customer
reviews, differing only in the product involvement and review quality that constituted the
manipulations (Park and Lee 2009). In addition, the information presented in the online
customer reviews was kept homogenous across involvement levels. The low quality
customer reviews were identical across groups. The high quality customer reviews
portrayed similar information across the groups. However, the facts were adapted
according to the product (see Appendix A). Finally, common method variance (CMV)
posed a concern as this study employed a self-report questionnaire assessing perceptual
variables derived from the same respondent (Chang, van Witteloostruijin, and Eden 2010).
This study minimised CMV bias by using different scale types and end points (Mooi and
Sarstedt 2011). In addition, the ordering of the items was randomised throughout the
questionnaire to ensure that respondents could not associate questions to the respective
construct in measurement (Chang et al. 2010). After controlling for these extraneous
variables, data collection was commenced.
Measurement scales
Constructing an optimal research instrument with the appropriate measurement scales is
imperative to capturing the data required. The ensuing discussion addresses the scales
employed to measure the constructs within this study.
A manipulation check for the perception of eWOM negativity was measured using a
scale adapted from a similar study by Cheung et al. (2009). The original scale measured
the perception of both positive and negative eWOM. This study employed an adjusted
version whereby the items that referred to positive eWOM were omitted. The scale
consisted of three items that were measured by a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from (1)
strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. This measure received a Cronbach a reliability of
0.84, which exceeds the benchmark for internal consistency reliability of 0.7 (Cheung
et al. 2009; Nunnally 1978). Therefore, this scale was deemed to be a suitable measure for
the present study. Questionnaire items 7 –9 measured this independent variable.
Respondents’ general attitudes towards reviews were measured by a scale developed
by Park, Lee, and Han (2007). This scale comprised of eight items measured on a seven-
point Likert scale, ranging from (1) ‘strongly agree’ to (7) ‘strongly disagree’. This scale
received a Cronbach a of 0.79, thus indicating this to be a suitable measure for inclusion in
the research (Park, Lee, and Han 2007). Items 56– 63 within the questionnaire measured
this variable.
Yoo, Donthun, and Lee (2000) developed both the uni-dimensional and, the more
widely used, multidimensional brand equity scale. Within the eWOM context, certain
dimensions of brand equity are more prominent than others; hence, the multidimensional
scale was favoured (Xu and Chan 2010). This brand equity scale comprised a total of 15
14 J. Beneke et al.
items, categorised into the four brand equity dimensions (Yoo et al. 2000). Each item
was assessed on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from (1) ‘strongly disagree’ to (7)
‘strongly agree’. Accordingly, perceived brand quality, brand awareness and
associations were measured by six items, respectively, and brand loyalty was measured
by three items. Each dimension received very high Cronbach a reliability scores of 0.93,
0.90 and 0.94, respectively. This brand equity scale, when employed in the study by
Washburn and Plank (2002), likewise indicated high reliability with a Cronbach a of
0.93. Therefore, this scale provided a suitable measure of brand equity. Questionnaire
items 13, 19 and 22 measured brand loyalty and items 11, 14, 20, 17, 18 and 24 assessed
brand awareness and associations. Lastly, perceived brand quality was assessed by items
10, 12, 15, 21, 25 and 26.
Purchase intention was measured using the scale developed by Cobb-Walgren et al.
(1995). Although some literature regards Juster’s (1966) purchase probability scale as a
more accurate estimate of actual purchase behaviour, this measure has now been superseded
(Lee, Park, and Han 2008). In addition, the purchase intention scale employed in this study
has previously been adopted by a plethora of studies across information technology and
marketing literature (Park, Lee, and Han 2007). This scale comprised two items that were
measured on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from (1) ‘strongly agree’ to (7) ‘strongly
disagree’. This scale received a high Cronbach a reliability measure of 0.95 when employed
in a similar study conducted by Chang and Lui (2009). Thus, this scale was deemed to be
suitable. Consumers’ purchase intention was measured by questions 16 and 23.
It has been noted that Mittal’s (1989) purchase-decision involvement scale is a valid
measure of both situational and product class involvement manipulations within the same
research setting (Mrazek 2008). However, since this study focused on productclass
involvement, it was measured by the revised version of Zaichkowsky’s (1994) personal
involvement inventory (PII). Zaichkowsky (1985) modified the original 20-item PII
measure by removing problematic scale items. The revised PII required respondents to
assess their level of involvement with the reviewed product, based on 10 items measured
by seven-point semantic differential scales. Respondents were asked to assess the
reviewed product according to polar adjectives such as important/unimportant and
relevant/irrelevant. The average score has been used as the standard to denote whether
consumers considered the respective product as high or low involvement. A score that was
above the average represented high product involvement and a score below the average
represented low product involvement. When employed in a similar study conduct by Xue
and Zhou (2010), the PII received a high Cronbach a reliability measure of 0.93. In this
study, the product involvement manipulation check was measured by questions 46 – 55.
The message source credibility model, a measurement of source credibility, was first
proposed and analysed by Ohanian (1990). A variation of the model, named the corporate
credibility scale, was developed by Newell and Goldsmith (2001) and employed in initial
studies in the eWOM context. Although the corporate credibility scale employed similar
items, the scale is limited to individuals’ perceptions of a company. This study has adopted
Wu and Wang’s (2011) adapted version of the source credibility model as it has been
applied to similar eWOM contexts as a self-reporting measure. This nine-item seven-point
semantic differential scale contains polar adjective pairs such as dependable/undependable
and honest/dishonest. The mean was used as the standard to classify negative online
customer reviews as either high or low source credibility (Cheng and Rabjohn 2008).
A score that was above the average represented high source credibility and a score below the
average represented low source credibility. This scale received a high Cronbach a of 0.90,
thus this scale was deemed a suitable measure for the present study. This manipulation
check was measured by questionnaire items 27 –45.
The review quality was measured to ensure that respondents perceived the reviews as
intended. Initially, various researchers adopted the information quality scale to measure
high and low quality of online customer reviews (Choi, Ok, and Hyun 2011). This
multidimensional scale, although validated, had a weak fit in the eWOM sphere as it
assessed information quality in an information technology context (Wixom and Todd,
2005). Alternatively, this study adopted a uni-dimensional scale developed by Park, Lee,
and Han (2007) consisting of a six-item five-point Likert scale ranging from (1) ‘strongly
agree’ to (5) ‘strongly disagree’. This scale received a Cronbach a of 0.87 and was thus
deemed to be a suitable measure (Mrazek, 2008). This manipulation check was measured
by questions one to six in the questionnaire.
Manipulation checks
The manipulation checks were examined to assess whether the respondents perceived the
experimental treatments as the study intended. The manipulation check for review
negativity was analysed. The three-item scale that measured review negativity was found to
be reliable (Cronbach a ¼ 0.747) and the items were averaged for a one-sample t-test. The
result showed that the mean value for review negativity was significantly greater [t
(156) ¼ 25.926; p ¼ 0.000; M ¼ 4.38; SD ¼ 0.665] than 3, the midpoint of the five-point
Likert scale. Higher values indicated that respondents strongly agreed with the statements
that the reviews reported negative information. Thus, the review negativity was successfully
manipulated. Second, the manipulation check for product involvement was examined to
determine whether the respondents correctly perceived the laptop as high product
involvement and the flash drive as low product involvement. The 10 items used to measure
product involvement were highly reliable (Cronbach a ¼ 0.931). The items were averaged
for an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The result provided evidence that the product
involvement was successfully manipulated [F (1,232) ¼ 65.228; p ¼ 0.000; MLaptop
¼ 3.06; MFlash drive ¼ 4.33] as low scale values corresponded to high product involvement
attributes and vice versa. Finally, to check the manipulation of review quality, six items
were evaluated. These items received a high reliability (Cronbach a ¼ 0.846) and were
averaged for an ANOVA. The result showed that there was a significant difference between
low quality and high quality reviews [F (1,232) ¼ 78.190; p ¼ 0.000; Mhigh quality
treatment ¼ 3.59; MLow quality treatment ¼ 2.63]. Therefore, the review quality was successfully
manipulated as high values indicated that respondents agreed with the statements, which
classified the reviews as high quality and vice versa. This indicates that the respondents
correctly perceived all of the manipulations and the results of the study were interpretable.
Results
The following section outlines the empirical findings in order to fulfil the research
objectives. First, the scale reliability and validity are discussed, followed by the
descriptive statistics. Finally, the inferential statistics that tested the hypotheses proposed
by the study are analysed.
Scale reliability
In order to assess the reliability of the constructs, an item reliability analysis was
performed with Brand Equity (Cronbach a ¼ 0.85), Purchase Intention (Cronbach
16 J. Beneke et al.
Table 2. Results of item reliability on all the main variables of the study.
Variable n Cronbach a Number of items

Brand equity 234 0.85 15
Purchase intention 234 0.81 2
Involvement 234 0.93 10
Source credibility 156 0.91 9
Review quality 156 0.85 6
a ¼ 0.81), Product Involvement (Cronbach a ¼ 0.93), Review Quality (Cronbach

a ¼ 0.91) and Source Credibility (Cronbach a ¼ 0.85), with each achieving Cronbach as
greater than the reliability threshold value of 0.7 (Malhotra 2010; Hair et al. 2010).
In addition, the Cronbach a did not increase if items were deleted for any of the constructs.
Table 2 contains a summary of the construct parameters pertaining to the measurement
of scale reliability.
Due to the high Cronbach a values described above, all scales demonstrate high
internal consistency and were deemed acceptable for further statistical analysis.
Descriptive statistics
Table 3 contains the descriptive statistics of the key constructs in the study, namely Brand
Equity, Perceived Quality, Brand Loyalty, Brand Awareness and Associations, as well as
Purchase Intention. These variables are divided into treatment groups 1– 6.
The respondents in treatment groups 1, 2, 4 and 5 were exposed to online customer
reviews, whereas the respondents in treatment groups 3 and 6 were not. Overall for brand
equity, respondents in treatment groups 1, 2, 4 and 5 had the following means (M) of 2.31
(SD ¼ 0.68), 2.37 (SD ¼ 0.79), 2.38 (SD ¼ 0.71), 2.68 (SD ¼ 0.84), respectively. These
mean values, varying around 2, indicate that the respondents reported a low rating of brand
equity as they disagreed with the statements in the construct. However, the standard
deviation indicates that the responses varied from strongly disagree to neutral.
Respondents in treatment groups 3 and 6 reported the following means (M) of 3.09
(SD ¼ 0.75) and 3.03 (SD ¼ 0.90), respectively. This indicates that respondents
moderately disagreed with brand equity, however given the relatively high standard
deviations the responses varied.
Two of the dimensions of brand equity, perceived quality and brand loyalty, obtained
similar results as the mean values of these scales, for the treatment groups 1, 2, 4 and 5
were lower than in treatment group 3 and 6. However, the brand awareness and
associations dimension indicates different mean values across the treatment groups. The
standard deviation values are all above 1, thus indicating that the responses widely varied
from the mean. This may be due to the fact that respondents were unaware of the brand,
thus their associations and awareness were subjective for each respondent. Considering
purchase intention, respondents in treatment groups 1, 2, 4 and 5 had the following means
(M) of 1.51 (SD ¼ 0.80), 1.96 (SD ¼ 1.11), 1.79 (SD ¼ 0.95), 2.22 (SD ¼ 1.11),
respectively. These mean values indicate that the respondents felt strongly towards not
purchasing the product. However, the standard deviation indicates that the responses
varied from strongly disagree to somewhat disagree. Respondents in treatment groups 3
and 6 had the following means (M) of 2.87 (SD ¼ 1.30) and 3.23 (SD ¼ 1.51),
respectively. This indicates that respondents moderately disagreed with purchase
intention; however given the high standard deviations the responses were widely varied.
Table 3. Means and standard deviation of brand equity and purchase intention.
Treatment Mean Standard

Variable Group group no. n (M) deviation (SD)
Brand High involvement, high quality 1 38 2.31 0.68
equity High involvement, low quality 2 37 2.37 0.79
High involvement, no review 3 39 3.09 0.75
Low involvement, high quality 4 40 2.38 0.71
Low involvement, low quality 5 41 2.68 0.84
Low, involvement, no review 6 39 3.03 0.90
Perceived High involvement, high quality 1 38 1.96 0.70
quality High involvement, low quality 2 37 2.47 1.07

Low, involvement, no review 6 39 3.78 0.94
Brand High involvement, high quality 1 38 1.42 0.48
loyalty High involvement, low quality 2 37 1.54 0.64
Low involvement, no review 6 39 2.19 1.12
Brand awareness High involvement, high quality 1 38 3.10 1.30
with brand High Involvement, low quality 2 37 2.70 1.11
associations High Involvement, no review 3 39 2.90 1.06
Purchase High involvement, high quality 1 38 1.51 0.80
intention High involvement, low quality 2 37 1.96 1.11
Assumptions pertaining to the hypotheses

This study primarily explored the differences between group means. Statistical techniques
such as ANOVA and an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) were primarily employed to
test the proposed hypotheses. Here, there are two main assumptions that require
verification. First, the dependent variable should be approximately normally distributed
for each category of the independent variable (Mooi and Sarstedt 2011). Second, there
should be homogeneity of variances between the independent groups (Mooi and Sarstedt
2011). Both of these conditions were tested and subsequently found to be true.
Assessment of hypotheses
Earlier, this study proposed seven hypotheses based on the literature reviewed. The
following section describes the outcome of the statistical techniques that were applied to
test the proposed hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1: The average level of brand equity differs between the groups that were
exposed to online customer reviews and the groups that were not
exposed to online customer reviews.
18 J. Beneke et al.
Table 4. Review presence one-way ANOVA.
Mean (M1) Mean (M2)

Dependent variables df F P Reviews No reviews M1 2 M2
Brand equity 1,232 32.827 0.000*** 2.439 3.062 2 0.623
Perceived quality 1,232 143.322 0.000*** 2.265 3.780 2 1.515
Brand loyalty 1,232 17.879 0.000*** 1.643 2.141 2 0.498
Brand awareness and 1,232 1.605 0.206*** 3.011 2.803 0.207
associations
Note: Significant at p , 0.05**; p , 0.001***
An ANOVA was conducted to assess whether the level of brand equity is significantly
different between the respondents who were exposed to negative online customer reviews
and those who were not. The results of the one-way ANOVA can be viewed in Table 4.
The findings revealed that there is a statistically significant difference in the average level
of brand equity reported by respondents who were exposed to negative online customer
reviews and those who were not exposed to any reviews [F(1,232) ¼ 32.827; p ¼ 0.000].
It can be concluded that the subjects who were exposed to negative online customer
reviews evaluated brand equity significantly lower [M ¼ 2.44] than the subjects who were
not exposed to online customer reviews [M ¼ 3.06]. Thus, the results provide evidence in
support of hypothesis 1, confirming that the presence of negative online customer reviews
has a detrimental effect on brand equity.
In addition, a univariate ANOVA was conducted to explore whether the average level of
brand equity significantly differs between the respondents who were exposed to high quality
and low quality negative online reviews, in isolation, and those who were not exposed to any
reviews. The average level of brand equity that was reported by the respondents who
were exposed to high quality reviews [M ¼ 2.344; MHigh quality2Mno reviews ¼ 2 0.718;
p ¼ 0.000] and those who were exposed to low quality reviews [M ¼ 2.534; MLow quality 2
Mno reviews ¼ 2 0.527; p ¼ 0.000] was significantly lower than that of the respondents who
were not exposed to online customer reviews [M ¼ 3.062]. These findings further confirmed
support of hypothesis 1.
Supplementing the above, a one-way ANOVA was conducted to investigate
whether the average level of perceived quality, brand loyalty and brand awareness and
associations significantly differs between the respondents who were exposed to
negative online customer reviews and those who were not exposed to any reviews.
Table 4 illustrates the results of these analyses. The results revealed that the average
levels of perceived quality [F ¼ 77.784; p ¼ 0.000] and brand loyalty [F ¼ 10.082;
p ¼ 0.000] significantly differ between the groups. More specifically, the average level
of perceived quality [MReviews ¼ 2.265; MNo reviews ¼ 3.780] and brand loyalty
[MReviews ¼ 1.643; MNo reviews ¼ 2.141] is lower in the presence of eWOM, which
confirms the detrimental effect of negative online customer reviews. A more
interesting result revealed that although insignificant [F ¼ 1.605; p ¼ 0.206], the
average level of brand awareness and associations [MReviews ¼ 3.011; MNo
reviews ¼ 2.803] was higher amongst the respondents who were exposed to negative
online customer reviews.
Hypothesis 2: The intention to purchase a brand is significantly influenced by brand
equity.
Following the research of O’Cass and Lim (2002), the relationship between brand
equity and purchase intention was examined using a correlation analysis and tested
primarily through simple linear regression.
A Spearman’s rank order correlation test was conducted to determine whether there is
an association between brand equity and purchase intention. The analysis revealed that
there is a statistically significant correlation between brand equity and purchase intention
[rs(232) ¼ 0.655; p ¼ 0.000]. The results indicated the presence of a strong, positive
relationship between brand equity and purchase intention (Cobb-Walgren, Ruble, and
Donthu 1995). Thus, a decrease in brand equity will correspond with a decrease in
purchase intention.
The linear regression analysis revealed an adjusted R 2 value of 0.428, indicating that
42.8% of the variation in purchase intention is explained by the variation in brand equity.
Furthermore, the results show that the model applied [F(1,232) ¼ 175.2; p ¼ 0.000] was
significant in predicting the outcome of the purchase intention variable. Lastly, the
findings revealed that the b coefficient of brand equity [b ¼ 1.013; t ¼ 13.238; p ¼ 0.000]
significantly contributes to the model. Thus, brand equity is a significant predictor of
purchase intention. The results thus provided evidence in support of hypothesis 2.
Hypothesis 3: The average level of purchase intention differs between the groups that
were exposed to negative online customer reviews and the groups that
were not exposed to reviews.
An independent sample t-test was conducted to assess whether the average level of
purchase intention is significantly different between the respondents who were exposed to
negative online customer reviews and those who were not. This statistical analysis was
selected as purchase intention violated the assumption of the homogeneity of variances
across groups. The Levene’s test was significant [F(1,232)¼25.043; p ¼ 0.000], thus equal
variances were not assumed.
The results of the independent sample t-test revealed that the average level of purchase
intention was significantly [t(232) ¼ 2 7.267; p ¼ 0.000] different between the respondents
who were exposed to negative online customer reviews and those who were not exposed to
any reviews. The results from the independent sample t-tests are displayed in Table 5.
It can be concluded that the subjects who were exposed to negative online customer
reviews evaluated purchase intention significantly lower [M ¼ 1.880] than the subjects
who were not exposed to online customer reviews [M ¼ 3.051]. The results provided
evidence in support of hypothesis 3, confirming that the presence of negative online
customer reviews has a detrimental effect on consumers’ intention to purchase a brand.
Additional independent sample t-tests were conducted to examine whether high
quality and low quality negative online customer reviews, in isolation, alters the average
Table 5. Independent sample t-tests.

Mean (M1) Mean (M2)
Group1– Group 2 df t p X reviews no review M1 2 M2
Reviews – no review 1,232 27.267 0.000*** 1.875 3.051 2 1.176
High quality reviews – 1,154 27.413 0.000*** 1.654 3.051 2 1.397
no review
Low quality reviews – 1,154 17.879 0.000*** 2.096 3.051 2 0.955
no review
20 J. Beneke et al.
level of purchase intention, compared to no online customer reviews. The results of both t-
tests were significant and revealed that the average level of purchase intention of the
respondents who were exposed to high quality reviews [t(154) ¼ 2 7.413; p ¼ 0.000;
M ¼ 1.654] and those who were exposed to low quality reviews [t(154) ¼ 2 4.697;
p ¼ 0.000; M ¼ 2.096] was significantly lower than that of the respondents who were not
exposed to online customer reviews [M ¼ 3.051]. These findings reaffirmed hypothesis 3.
Hypothesis 4: When exposed to negative online customer reviews, the average level
of brand equity differs across high involvement products and low
involvement products.
A two-way univariate ANCOVA was conducted to test hypotheses 4, 5 and 6.
As suggested by Lee, Park, and Han (2008), respondents’ general attitude towards online
reviews was employed as a covariate in the analyses. This variable was deemed to be a
covariate as it has an extraneous effect on consumers’ adoption of the information presented
in the online reviews, although it is not the primary interest in this particular study. Similar
to the findings of Lee, Park, and Han (2008), the covariate effect was found to be
insignificant [F(3,152) ¼ 2.062; p ¼ 0.153]. Thus, the average level of the respondents’
general attitude towards online reviews does not appear to differ between the factorial
groups (Mooi and Sarstedt 2011).
The results from the ANCOVA are presented in Table 6. The analysis revealed that the
main effect of product involvement was significant [F(1,154) ¼ 4.110; p ¼ 0.044].
Therefore, after being exposed to negative online customer reviews, the average level of
brand equity [M ¼ 2.293] of high involvement products is significantly lower than the
brand equity [M ¼ 2.574] of low involvement products. Thus, this finding revealed
support of hypothesis 4. Subjects who viewed negative online customer reviews for the
high involvement product reported brand equity scores lower than those who viewed
negative online customer reviews for the low involvement product.
brand equity differs across high quality and low quality reviews.
The results of the analysis, presented in Table 6, revealed that the main effect of review
quality is significant [F(1,154) ¼ 4.085; p ¼ 0.045]. Therefore, following the exposure
to high quality negative online customer reviews, the average level of brand equity
[M ¼ 2.294] reported is significantly lower than the average level of brand equity
[M ¼ 2.573] reported after the exposure to low quality negative online customer reviews.
This finding provided support for hypothesis 5. The effect of high quality negative eWOM
therefore appears to have a greater detrimental effect on brand equity than that of low
quality negative eWOM.
Table 6. Two-way univariate ANCOVA.

Brand equity fixed Mean (M1) Mean (M2)
factors df F p high condition low condition M1 2 M2
Product involvement 1,154 4.110 0.044** 2.439 3.062 2 0.623
Review quality 1,154 4.085 0.045** 2.265 3.780 2 1.515
Involvement*quality 1,154 0.002 0.965 1.643 2.141 2 0.498
General attitude 1,154 2.062 0.153
towards reviews
Table 7. Source credibility one-way ANOVA.
Mean (M1) Mean (M2)

high source low source
Dependent variables df F p credibility credibility M1 2 M2
Brand equity 1,154 0.296 0.587 2.406 2.473 2 0.067
Perceived quality 1,154 5.113 0.025** 2.103 2.431 2 0.327
Brand loyalty 1,154 2.988 0.086* 1.540 1.749 2 0.209
Brand awareness and 1,154 1.849 0.176 3.141 2.877 0.265
associations
Note: Significant at p , 0.10*; p , 0.05**; p , 0.001***
Hypothesis 6: Under high product involvement, the average level of brand equity
differs across high quality and low quality reviews.
The results from the two-way ANCOVA, displayed in Table 6, revealed that there was
an insignificant interaction between review quality and product involvement
[F(1,154) ¼ 0.002; p ¼ 0.965]. Therefore, hypothesis 6 was not supported. This finding
illustrated that product involvement does not appear to significantly alter the average level
of brand equity across high quality and low quality reviews.
brand equity differs across high source credibility and low source
credibility.
A one-way ANOVA was conducted to explore whether the average level of brand
equity differs under high review source credibility and low review source credibility
conditions. The results from this analysis are displayed in Table 7. Brand equity along with
perceived quality, brand loyalty and brand associations and awareness were used as the
dependent variables to carry out the ANOVA. The one-way ANOVA revealed an
insignificant [F(1,232) ¼ 0.296; p ¼ 0.587] main effect of source credibility on brand
equity. This finding points to hypothesis 7 not being supported. Regardless of whether
consumers regard the source of the review to be credible or not, there appears to be no
significant difference in the detrimental effect that negative eWOM has on brand equity.
A further inspection of the ANOVA revealed a significant outcome across two of the
brand equity dimensions: perceived quality [F(1,154) ¼ 5.113; p ¼ 0.025] and brand
loyalty [F(1,154) ¼ 2.988; p ¼ 0.086]. It has been noted that brand loyalty is significant at
the 10% level, which exceeds the norm of 5%. However, it may be argued that this is
acceptable within marketing research (Malhotra 2010). This indicates that consumers who
perceive high negative eWOM source credibility would have a lower perceived brand
quality and brand loyalty than consumers who perceive low negative eWOM source
credibility. Table 7 displays the differences on the dependent variables between high and
low source credibility.
Based on the aforementioned results, the following section discusses the outcome and
interpretations of the above findings.
Discussion
The objective of the present research was to investigate the effects that negative eWOM may
have on two response variables that are highly relevant in marketing, namely consumer-
22 J. Beneke et al.
based brand equity and purchase intention. Second, this study explored the consumer’s
information adoption behaviour depending on the level of involvement with the reviewed
product, the quality of the negative reviews and the level of perceived source credibility.
Several major findings emerge from this online experimental study. First, negative
online customer reviews are significantly more effective on the two response variables
than no reviews. Therefore, the findings confirm the theory that the presence of negative
eWOM has detrimental effects on both brand equity and purchase intention. When
purchasing new products consumers tend to experience uncomfortable feelings of
uncertainty (Wu and Wang 2011). Thus, the search for product information is conducted to
ensure that a well-informed decision is made. Negative online reviews imply that potential
product-related risks exist and thus enhances consumers’ feelings of uncertainty (Wu and
Wang 2011). Moreover, negative online customer reviews result in the dissemination of
brand complaints and are strongly associated with consumers’ dissatisfaction with the
brand (Xu and Chan 2008). Furthermore, the results reveal that the damaging effect of
negative online customer reviews significantly occur through the perceived quality and
brand loyalty dimensions of brand equity.
The research further reveals that the effect of negative online customer reviews is
significantly more detrimental to the brand equity of a high involvement product than a
low involvement product. This is consistent with previous researchers who have suggested
that negative eWOM has a greater impact on high involvement products (Doh and Hwang
2009; Bae and Lee 2011; Park and Lee 2008; Lee and Lee 2009; Xue and Zhou 2010).
A high involvement product, such as a laptop, is a highly complex and costly item.
Therefore, an incorrect purchase decision could result in significant financial and long-
term repercussions for the consumer (Hoyer and MacInnis 2008). Consumers in the market
for high involvement products are more motivated to pay attention to and comprehend the
information presented by online customer reviews (Xue and Phelps 2004). A low
involvement product, such as a flash drive, does not pose a substantial financial risk to
consumers, and thus, an incorrect purchase decision is likely to pose a diminished negative
consequence. The information presented by the negative online customer reviews serves
as a signal of poor product performance, which is more likely to alarm consumers who are
in the market for high involvement products.
The quality of the online customer review has a significant effect on brand equity. High
quality reviews are supported with facts and respondents generally perceive them as being
more objective (Park, Lee, and Han 2007). Thus, they are more influential than low quality
reviews, which are often subjective and emotional. This finding is consistent with
numerous researchers (Lee, Park, and Han 2008). The difference between the effects of
high and low quality negative online customer reviews on brand equity would appear not
to significantly differ across the two levels of product involvement. Therefore, consumers
who are seeking online customer reviews for high involvement products are not
significantly influenced by the review quality in forming a perception towards the brand.
This finding, which is inconsistent with prior research, may be due to the fact that in this
study, review quantity was not explicitly considered (Lee, Park, and Han 2008; Park, Lee,
and Han 2007). Park, Lee, and Han (2007) posit that consumers seeking high involvement
products are affected by review quality and review quantity. The effects of the review
quality are more pronounced with a sizable number of reviews and thus consumers regard
review quantity as a useful signal for product evaluation (Park and Lee 2009).
The difference in the levels of source credibility was found to have an insignificant
effect on brand equity. Although inconsistent with some perspectives discussed within the
literature review, this result is in line with the finding of Cheung et al. (2008). This may be
due to the mere presence of negative information that reinforces the credibility of online
customer reviews. Consumers consider reviews more credible when points of criticisms
are included (Lee and Koo 2012). In addition, this finding may be due to the influence of
the product type, that being consumer electronics, on source credibility. Consumer
electronics are identified as search goods as they can be evaluated according to their
specific functional attributes. According to Bae and Lee (2011), the review source has no
significant impact on perceived message source credibility for a search product. Therefore,
the level of source credibility of the online customer review does not alter the effect on
brand equity. In addition, an intriguing finding that emerges in this study is that consumers
with high source credibility have lower perceptions of the brand quality dimension of
brand equity. According to Mrazek (2008), this may be due to the fact that information
regarding the functional product attributes can easily be obtained prior to purchase, but is
difficult to form judgments towards. Therefore, the level of source credibility is likely to
have a more significant effect on the product’s perceived quality.
The following section considers practical implications for managers.
Managerial implications
The widespread development of the Internet has greatly empowered consumers in their
ability to gather and disseminate product-related information (Zhang, Craciun, and Shin
2010). In particular, opinion platforms, which enable consumers to read and publish their
personal experiences with products, have gained importance in recent years. Previous
research suggests that consumers are generally more interested in reading and writing
negative online customer reviews (Lee, Park, and Han 2008). Moreover, the literature has
established that negative eWOM is more influential on product attitude than positive
online customer reviews (Lee, Park, and Han 2008). To this end, this particular study
provides notable implications for marketing practitioners.
The main findings of this study emphasise the importance of managing negative online
customer reviews. The accessibility, reach and transparency of the Internet offer marketers
the opportunity to monitor and assess the eWOM communications surrounding their
brands (Bambauer-Sachse and Mangold 2011). Marketers should take full advantage of
this opportunity and continuously track the satisfaction levels and feedback from
consumers. eWOM can be regarded as an invaluable resource for companies as most
consumers prefer to verbalise their product complaints to other consumers as opposed to
company representatives (Wang and Wang 2010). As a response to feedback, such
representatives should make the effort to personally contact the unsatisfied consumers and
show an invested interest in providing solutions to their troubles. When a company is
successful in converting a dissatisfied customer into a satisfied customer, this customer is
likely to become more brand loyal (Rosenbaum, Ostrom, and Kuntze 2005).
The detrimental effect that negative eWOM communication has on brand equity and
purchase intention is of particular importance in the retail setting. The widespread use of
mobile Internet, a growing occurrence amongst South Africans and indeed throughout the
world, enables consumers to read online customer reviews of products directly at the point
of purchase. This could have an instrumental effect on consumers’ purchasing decisions,
as they are made aware of other consumers’ negative product experiences (Bambauer-
Sachse and Mangold 2011). Therefore, sellers should initiate point of sales events in the
form of product trials with the objective to compensate for the negative effects of eWOM.
This will facilitate the formation of consumers’ own perceptions of the brand based on
personal experience.
24 J. Beneke et al.
It is increasingly challenging for a new and unfamiliar brand to gain awareness and
acceptance in the public domain (Mrazek 2008). This difficulty is emphasised when start-up
companies lack adequate funds to advertise their brand. Thus, the findings from this research
provide valuable information for new and developing brands. Although the presence of
eWOM communication surrounding the brand will increase consumers’ consciousness of it,
if the information is negative in the first instance, it could be increasingly difficult to change
the original perceptions formed (Berger et al. 2010). Therefore, marketers need to ensure
that the initial communication pertaining to a new brand is favourable.
It would appear evident that the process of managing the negative eWOM
communications of high involvement products is of greater importance than in the case of
low involvement products. Marketeers, who are responsible for a portfolio of brands that have
both high involvement and low involvement products, should therefore allocate a greater
proportion of the marketing budget and resources to mitigate the negative effects of eWOM
surrounding the high involvement products as the consequences are more detrimental.
Although marketers cannot directly control eWOM surrounding the brand, they can
manipulate the manner in which certain information is presented. Practitioners (e.g. site
administrators) can provide guidelines through templates or specific review formats to
enable reviewers to post high quality reviews that focus on logical reasoning to support
facts about the product. The templates could guide consumers to consider aspects of the
product such as functionality, performance, look and feel and actual usage as opposed
to focusing on a sole characteristic of the product. In addition, practitioners can offer
reviewers rewards and incentives for posting high quality reviews. This can be achieved by
using a system of rewarding reviewers who consistently post high quality reviews with
points, and allowing them to feature on a ranking table of the best reviewers on the
website, thereby providing an intrinsic benefit. Practitioners can also display online
customer reviews ordered by their level of quality rather than by date as research has
shown that the primary effect ensures that the first reviews that consumers view are the
most influential (Lee, Park, and Han 2008).
In light of these findings, it is evident that businesses need to align their marketing
strategies in accordance with the specific type of eWOM that they desire to create. This entails
that particular care should be exercised on sustaining the product or brand’s quality and
functionality as these are the main components upon which consumers base their reviews (Wu
and Wang 2011). When a company is committed to delivering quality, the negative eWOM
derived from its customers ought to be limited. Otherwise, consumers of the company will be
more likely to disseminate their dissatisfaction with the brand through numerous platforms of
eWOM in an attempt to take vengeance or warn potential consumers.
Limitations
It should be noted that this study is limited in terms of its geographic scope; in that it
exclusively considers a South African domain. Furthermore, only the consumer
electronics category was scrutinised. Other merchandise categories may well produce
different results. Lastly, it is entirely possible that other causal effects might influence this
process. It is therefore recommended that further studies be contemplated, particularly in
an emerging market context where a dearth of such research exists.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Aaker, D. 1991. Managing Brand Equity. New York: Free Press Variable.
Aaker, D. 1996. “Measuring Brand Equity Across Product and Markets.” California Management
Review 38 (3): 102– 120. doi:10.2307/41165845.
Arndt, J. 1967. “Role of Product-Related Conversations in Diffusion of a New Product.” Journal of
Marketing Research 4 (3): 291– 827. doi:10.2307/3149462.
Bae, S., and T. Lee. 2011. “Product Type and Consumers’ Perception of Online Customer Reviews.”
Electron Markets 21 (4): 255– 266. doi:10.1007/s12525-011-0072-0.
Bambauer-Sachse, S., and S. Mangold. 2011. “Brand Equity Dilution through Negative Online
Word-of-Mouth.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18 (1): 38 – 45. doi:10.1016/j.
jretconser.2010.09.003.
Berger, J., A. T. Sorensen, and S. J. Rasmussen. 2010. “Positive Effects of Negative Publicity: When
Negative Reviews Increase Sales.” Marketing Science 29 (5): 815 –827. doi:10.1287/mksc.
1090.0557.
Bickart, B., and R. M. Schindler. 2001. “Internet Forums as Influential Sources of Consumer
Information.” Journal of Interactive Marketing 15 (3): 31 – 40. doi:10.1002/dir.1014.
Brodie, R., M. Glynn, and V. Little. 2006. “The Service Brand and the Service-Dominant Logic:
Missing Fundamental Premise or the Need for Stronger Theory?” Marketing Theory 6 (3):
363– 379. doi:10.1177/1470593106066797.
Bughin, J., J. Doogan, and O. J. Vetvik. 2010. “A New Way to Measure Word-of-Mouth Marketing.”
McKinsey Quarterly, April 1 – 9. http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/marketing_sales/a_new_
way_to_measure_word-of-mouth_marketing
Bronner, A. E., and T. Kuijlen. 2007. “The Live or Digital Interviewer: A Comparison Between
CASI, CAPI and CATI with Respect to Differences in Response Behaviour.” International
Journal of Market Research 49 (2): 167– 190.
Celsi, R., and J. Olson. 1988. “Involvement in Attention and Comprehension Processes.” Journal of
Consumer Research 15 (2): 210–224. doi:10.1086/209158.
Chan, Y., and E. Ngai. 2011. “Conceptualising Electronic Word of Mouth Activity: An Input-
Process-Output-Perspective.” Marketing Intelligence and Planning 29 (5): 488 – 516.
doi:10.1108/02634501111153692.
Chang, H., and Y. Liu. 2009. “The Impact of Brand Equity on Brand Preference and
Purchase Intensions in Service Industries.” The Service Industries Journal 29 (12): 1687– 1706.
doi:10.1080/02642060902793557.
Chang, S., A. van Witteloostruijin, and L. Eden. 2010. “From the Editors: Common Method
Variance in International Research.” Journal of International Business Studies 41 (2): 178–184.
doi:10.1057/jibs.2009.88.
Charlett, D., R. Garland, and N. Marr. 1995. “How Damaging is Negative Word of Mouth.”
Marketing Bulletin 6 (1): 42 – 50.
Chatterjee, P. 2001. “Online Reviews: Do Consumers Use Them?” Advances in Consumer Research
28: 129– 133.
Chen, Y., and J. Xie. 2008. “Online Consumer Review: Word-of-Mouth as a New Element of
Marketing Communication Mix.” Management Science 54 (3): 477– 491.
Cheng, X., and M. Zhou. 2010. “Study on Effect of eWOM: A Literature Review and Suggestions
for Future Research.” In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Management and
Service Sciences, 1 – 4. Wuhan:.
Cheung, C., M. Lee, and N. Rabjohn. 2008. “The Impact of Electronic Word-of-Mouth: The
Adoption of Online Opinions in Online Customer Communities.” Internet Research 18 (3):
229– 247. doi:10.1108/10662240810883290.
Cheung, M. Y., C. Luo, C. L. Sia, and H. Chen. 2009. “Credibility of Electronic Word-of-Mouth:
Informational and Normative Determinants of On-Line Consumer Recommendations.”
International Journal of Electronic Commerce 13 (4): 9 – 38. doi:10.2753/JEC1086-
4415130402.
Cheung, C., and D. Thadani. 2010. “The Effectiveness of Electronic Word-of-Mouth
Communication: A Literature Analysis.” In Proceedings of the 23rd Bled eConference on
eTrust: Implications for individuals, Enterprises and Society, 329– 345. Slovenia:.
Cheung, C. M., B. Xiao, and I. L. Liu. 2012. “The Impact of Observational Learning and Electronic
Word of Mouth on Consumer Purchase Decisions: The Moderating Role of Consumer Expertise
26 J. Beneke et al.
and Consumer Involvement.” In Proceedings of the 45th International Conference on System

Sciences, 3228– 3237. Hawaii:.
Chevalier, J., and D. Mayzlin. 2006. “The Effect of Word of Mouth Online: Online Book Reviews.”
Journal of Marketing Research 43 (3): 345– 354. doi:10.1509/jmkr.43.3.345.
Choi, Y. G., C. Ok, and S. S. Hyun. 2011. “Evaluating Relationships Among Brand Experience,
Brand Personality, Brand Prestige, Brand Relationship Quality, and Brand Loyalty: An
Empirical Study of Coffeehouse Brands.” http://scholarworks.umass.edu/gradconf_hospitality/
2011/Presentation/22/
Cobb-Walgren, C., C. Ruble, and N. Donthu. 1995. “Brand Equity, Brand Preference and Purchase
Intent.” Journal of Advertising 24 (3): 25 – 40. doi:10.1080/00913367.1995.10673481.
Doh, S., and J. Hwang. 2009. “How Consumers Evaluate eWOM (Electronic Word-of-Mouth)
Messages.” Cyberpsychology and Behavior 12 (2): 193– 197. doi:10.1089/cpb.2008.0109.
Eagly, A. H., and S. Chaiken. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth,TX: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.
Eagly, A., W. Wood, and S. Chaiken. 1978. “Causal Inferences about Communicators and Their
Effect on Opinion Change.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36 (4): 424–435.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.36.4.424.
East, R., K. Hammond, and W. Lomax. 2008. “Measuring the Impact of Positive and Negative Word
of Mouth on Brand Purchase Probability.” International Journal of Research in Marketing
25 (3): 215– 224. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2008.04.001.
Goyette, I., L. Ricard, J. Bergeron, and F. Marticotte. 2010. “e-WOM Scale: Word-of-Mouth
Measurement Scale for E-Services Context.” Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
27 (1): 5 – 23. doi:10.1002/cjas.129.
Grewal, D., K. B. Monroe, and R. Krishnan. 1998. “The Effects of Price-Comparison Advertising on
Buyers’ Perceptions of Acquisition Value, Transaction Value, and Behavioral Intentions.” The
Journal of Marketing 46 – 59.
Griffith, D. A., R. F. Krampf, and J. W. Palmer. 2001. “The Role of Interface in Electronic
Commerce: Consumer Involvement with Print Versus On-Line Catalogs.” International Journal
of Electronic Commerce 5 (4): 135– 153.
Gunther, A. C. 1992. “Biased Press or Biased Public: Attitudes Toward Media Coverage of Social
Groups.” Public Opinion Quarterly 56 (2): 147– 167.
Ha, H. Y. 2002. “The Effects of Consumer Risk Perception on Pre-Purchase Information in Online
Auctions: Brand, Word-of-Mouth, and Customized Information.” Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication 8 (1).
Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson. 2008. Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hennig-Thurau, T., G. Walsh, and G. Walsh. 2003. “Electronic Word-of-Mouth: Motives for and
Consequences of Reading Customer Articulations on the Internet.” International Journal of
Electronic Commerce 8 (2): 51 – 74.
Hennig-Thurau, T., K. Gwinner, and G. Walsh. 2004. “Electronic Word-of-Mouth via Consumer-
Opinion Platforms: What Motivates Consumers to Articulate Themselves on the Internet?”
Journal of Interactive Marketing 18 (1): 35 – 52.
Hoyer, W., and D. MacInnis. 2008. Consumer Behavior. 5th ed. Mason, OH: South-Western.
Hu, N., L. Liu, and J. J. Zhang. 2008. “Do Online Reviews Affect Product Sales? The Role of
Reviewer Characteristics and Temporal Effects.” Information Technology and Management
9 (3): 201– 214.
Iacobucci, D., and G. A. Churchill. 2009. Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations.
10th ed. Mason, OH: South-Western.
Instant Grass. 2009. “Seed: The Power of Word-of-Mouth Grass: Youth Insights and colloboration.”
In Project Pinch in Association with the Unilever Institute of Strategic Marketing [CD-ROM].
Cape Town:.
Jain, K., and N. Srinivasan. 1990. “An Empirical Assessment of Multiple Operationalizations of
Involvement.” Advances in Consumer Research 17 (1): 594– 602.
Juster, F. T. 1966. “Consumer Buying Intentions and Purchase Probability: An Experiment in Survey
Design.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 61 (315): 658 –696.
Keller, K. 1993. “Conceptualising, Measuring and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity.”
Journal of Marketing 57 (1): 1 – 22. doi:10.2307/1252054.
Keller, K. L. 2012. Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand
Equity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Ko, D. G., L. J. Kirsch, and W. R. King. 2005. “Antecedents of Knowledge Transfer from
Consultants to Clients in Enterprise System Implementations.” MIS Quarterly 59 –85.
Laczniak, R. N., T. E. DeCarlo, and S. N. Ramaswami. 2001. “Consumers’ Responses to Negative
Word-of-Mouth Communication: An Attribution Theory Perspective.” Journal of consumer
Psychology 11 (1): 57 – 73.
Laurent, G., and J. Kapferer. 1985. “Measuring Consumer Involvement Profile.” Journal of
Marketing Research 22 (1): 41 – 53. doi:10.2307/3151549.
Lee, C. H., and D. Cranage. 2007. “Towards Understanding Consumer Processing of Negative
Word-of-Mouth Communication: The Roles of Opinion Agreement and Organizational
Response.” In Proceedings of the 16th Graduate Students Research Conference. TX, USA.
Lee, K. T., and D. M. Koo. 2012. “Effects of Attribute and Valence of e-WOM on Message
Adoption: Moderating Roles of Subjective Knowledge and Regulatory Focus.” Computers in

Human Behavior 28 (5): 1974– 1984.
Lee, J., and J. Lee. 2009. “Understanding the Product Information Inference Process in Electronic
Word-of-Mouth: An Objectivity-Subjectivity Dichotomy Perspective.” Information and
Management 46 (5): 302– 311. doi:10.1016/j.im.2009.05.004.
Lee, J., D. Park, and I. Han. 2008. “The Effect of Negative Online Consumer Reviews on Product
Attitude: An Information Processing View.” Electronic Commerce Research and Applications
7 (3): 341– 352. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2007.05.004.
Low, G., and C. Lamb. 2000. “The Measurement and Dimensionality of Brand Association.”
Journal of Product and Brand Management 9 (6): 350– 370. doi:10.1108/10610420010356966.
Ma, R., and R. Chuang. 2001. “Persuasion Strategies of Chinese College Students in Interpersonal
Contexts.” Southern Journal of Communication 66 (4): 267 – 278. doi:10.1080/
10417940109373206.
Malhotra, N. K. 2010. Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson.
Marczyk, G., D. DeMatteo, and D. Festinger. 2005. Essentials of Research Design and Methodology.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Mayzlin, D., and J. A. Chevalier. 2003. The Effect of Word of Mouth on Sales: Online Book Reviews.
(No. YSM413) Yale School of Management.
Mittal, B. 1989. “Measuring Purchase Decision Involvement.” Psychology and Marketing 6 (2):
147– 162. doi:10.1002/mar.4220060206.
Mizerski, R. W. 1982. “An Attribution Explanation of the Disproportionate Influence of Unfavorable
Information.” Journal of Consumer Research 301– 310.
Mooi, E., and M. Sarstedt. 2011. A Concise Guide to Market Research. The Process, Data and
Methods using IBM SPSS Statistics. New York: Springer.
Mrazek, P. 2008. “Creating Brands Online: Third Party Pinions and Their Effect on Consumers’
Trust in Brands and Purchase Intentions.” . Thesis, The Manship School of Mass
Communication, Louisiana State University.
Mudambi, S. M., and D. Schuff. 2010. “What Makes a Helpful Review? A Study of Customer
Reviews on Amazon.com.” MIS Quarterly 34 (1): 185– 200.
Newell, S., and R. Goldsmith. 2001. “The Development of a Scale to Measure Perceived Corporate
Credibility.” Journal of Business Research 52 (3): 235– 247. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(99)
00104-6.
Nunnally, J. 1978. Psychometric Theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
O’Cass, A. 2000. “An Assessment of Consumers Product, Purchase Decision, Advertising and
Consumption Involvement in Fashion Clothing.” Journal of Economic Psychology 21 (5):
545– 576.
O’Cass, A., and K. Lim. 2002. “The Influence of Brand Associations on Brand Preference and
Purchase Intention.” Journal of International Consumer Marketing 14 (2 – 3): 41 – 71. doi:10.
1300/J046v14n02_03.
Ohanian, R. 1990. “Construction and Validation of a Scale to Measure Celebrity Endorsers’
Perceived Expertise, Trustworthiness, and Attractiveness.” Journal of Advertising 19 (3):
39 – 52. doi:10.1080/00913367.1990.10673191.
28 J. Beneke et al.
Olinger, H. N., J. J. Britz, and M. S. Olivier. 2007. “Western Privacy and/or Ubuntu? Some Critical
Comments on the Influences in the Forthcoming Data Privacy Bill in South Africa.” The
International Information and Library Review 39 (1): 31 – 43. doi:10.1016/j.iilr.2002.08.001.
Oliver, R. 1997. A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Park, D., and S. Kim. 2008. “The Effects of Consumer Knowledge on Message Processing of
Electronic Word-of-Mouth Via Online Customer Reviews.” Electronic Commerce Research and
Applications 7 (4): 399–410. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2007.12.001.
Park, D., and J. Lee. 2008. “eWOM Overload and Its Effect on Consumer Behavioural Intention
Depending on Consumer Involvement.” Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 7 (4):
386– 398. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2007.11.004.
Park, C., and T. Lee. 2009. “Information Direction, Website Reputation and eWOM
Effect: A Moderating Role of Product Type.” Journal of Business Research 62 (1): 61 –67.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.11.017.
Park, D., J. Lee, and I. Han. 2007. “The Effect of On-Line Customer Reviews on Consumer
Purchasing Intention: The Moderating Role of Involvement.” International Journal of
Electronic Commerce 11 (4): 125– 148. doi:10.2753/JEC1086-4415110405.
Park, C., and V. Srinivasan. 1994. “A Survey Based Method for Measuring and Understanding
Brand Equity and Its Extendibility.” Journal of Marketing Research 31 (2): 271–288.
doi:10.2307/3152199.
Petty, R., and J. Cacioppo. 1984. “The Effects of Involvement on Response to Argument Quality and
Quantity: Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion.” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 46 (1): 69 – 81. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.1.69.
Prasa, K., and C. Dev. 2000. “Managing Hotel Brand Equity: A Customer-Centric Framework for
Accessing Performance.” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 41 (3):
22 – 31.
Rosenbaum, M. S., A. L. Ostrom, and R. Kuntze. 2005. “Loyalty Programs and a Sense of
Community.” Journal of Services Marketing 19 (4): 222–233.
Sen, S., and D. Lerman. 2007. “Why are You Telling Me This? An Examination into Negative
Customer Reviews on the Web.” Journal of Interactive Marketing 21 (4): 76 – 94. doi:10.1002/
dir.20090.
Sher, P. J., and S. H. Lee. 2009. “Consumer Skepticism and Online Reviews: An Elaboration
Likelihood Model Perspective.” Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal
37 (1): 137– 143.
Silverman, G. 2001. “The Power of Word-of-Mouth.” Direct Marketing 64 (5): 47– 52.
Simon, C., and M. Sullivan. 1993. “The Measurement and Determinants of Brand Equity:
A Financial Approach.” Marketing Science 12 (1): 28 – 52. doi:10.1287/mksc.12.1.28.
Van Loggerenberg, M. J., and F. J. Herbst. 2010. “Word-of-Mouth Marketing to a Female Emerging
Market: A South African Perspective.” Journal of Digital Marketing 1 (2): 107– 127.
Wang, C., and Y. Wang. 2010. “Persuasion Effect of e-WOM: The Impact of Involvement
and Ambiguity Tolerance.” Journal of Academy of Marketing Science 20 (4): 281 –293.
doi:10.1080/12297119.2010.9707433.
Washburn, J. H., and R. E. Plank. 2002. “Measuring Brand Equity: An Evaluation of a Consumer-
Based Brand Equity Scale.” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 10 (1): 46 – 62.
West, D. 1994. “Validating a Scale for the Measurement of Credibility: A Covariance Structure
Modeling Approach.” Journalism Quarterly 71 (1): 159– 168.
Wixom, B. H., and P. A. Todd. 2005. “A Theoretical Integration of User Satisfaction and
Technology Acceptance.” Information Systems Research 16 (1): 85 – 102. doi:10.1287/isre.
1050.0042.
Wu, P. F., H. Van der Heijden, and N. Korfiatis. 2011. “The Influences of Negativity and Review
Quality on the Helpfulness of Online Reviews.” In Proceedings of the 32nd International
Conference on Information Systems. Shanghai:.
Wu, P. C., and Y. Wang. 2011. “The Influences of Electronic Word-of-Mouth Message Appeal and
Message Source Credibility on Brand Attitude.” Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics
23 (4): 448– 472. doi:10.1108/13555851111165020.
Xia, L., and N. Bechwati. 2008. “Word of Mouse: The Role of Cognitive Personalization in Online
Customer Reviews.” Journal of Interactive Marketing 9 (1): 108– 128.
Xu, J. B., and A. Chan. 2010. “A Conceptual Framework of Hotel Experience and Customer-Based
Brand Equity.” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality 22 (2): 174 – 193.
doi:10.1108/09596111011018179.
Xue, F., and J. E. Phelps. 2004. “Internet-Facilitated Consumer-to-Consumer Communication: The
Moderating Role of Receiver Characteristics.” International Journal of Internet Marketing and
Advertising 1 (2): 121– 136.
Xue, F., and P. Zhou. 2010. “The Effects of Product Involvement and Prior Experience on Chinese
Consumers’ Responses to Online Word of Mouth.” Journal of International Consumer
Marketing 23 (1): 45 – 58. doi:10.1080/08961530.2011.524576.
Yoo, B., and N. Donthu. 2001. “Developing and Validating a Multidimensional Consumer-Based
Brand Equity Scale.” Journal of Business Research 52 (1): 1 – 14.
Yoo, B., N. Donthu, and S. Lee. 2000. “An Examination of Selected Marketing Mix Elements and
Brand Equity.” Journal of Academy of Marketing Science 28 (2): 195– 211. doi:10.1177/
0092070300282002.
Zaichkowsky, J. 1985. “Measuring the Involvement Construct.” Journal of Consumer Research

12 (3): 341– 352. doi:10.1086/208520.
Zaichkowsky, J. 1994. “Research Notes: The Personal Involvement Inventory: Reduction, Revision,
and Application to Advertising.” Journal of Advertising 23 (4): 59– 70. doi:10.1080/00913367.
1943.10673459.
Zeithaml, V. 1988. “Consumer Perception of Price, Quality and Value: A Means End Model and
Synthesis of Evidence.” Journal of Marketing 52 (3): 2 – 22. doi:10.2307/1251446.
Zhang, Y., and R. Buda. 1999. “Moderating Effects of Need for Cognition on Responses to
Positively Versus Negatively Framed Advertising Messages.” Journal of Advertising 28 (2):
1 – 15.
Zhang, J. Q., G. Craciun, and D. Shin. 2010. “When Does Electronic Word-of-Mouth Matter? A
Study of Consumer Product Reviews.” Journal of Business Research 63 (12): 1336– 1341.
Zhu, F., and X. Zhang. 2010. “Impact of Online Consumer Reviews on Sales: The Moderating Role
of Product and Consumer Characteristics.” Journal of Marketing 74 (2): 133– 148.
Appendix A: online customer reviews stimuli

30
Table A1. High quality online customer reviews.

High involvement Low involvement
High Not so impressed Not so impressed
quality I bought this laptop for my personal use and, so far, I am very disappointed with I bought this memory stick for moving movie files – it is a 16GB drive
my purchase. The laptop is heavy and gets extremely hot very quickly. The after all. I was pleased to see that it reads with around 18mb/s, but
power runs out after about an hour of not being plugged in, the mouse pad is EXTREMELY DISPLEASED to see that it writes with only about
difficult to use and the keyboard is just terrible – the keys are not very 4mb/s. To move a movie file of about 4GB, it takes around 20 min.
responsive. If that’s not bad enough, the audio is terrible – you can hardly hear This is totally unacceptable. It is the slowest memory stick that I have
it even when it’s turned up to its loudest. I should have bought the other laptop ever owned. Don’t buy it!
that I was considering! By Robbie Silver
By Robbie Silver
Terrible product! Terrible product!
This machine broke down on me within 3 months of using it. For the period When inserted into my PC (Windows 7) gives an error message that the
where it did work, I had connectivity issues, poor battery life, and ‘special drive is unreadable and needs to be formatted. After it had been
features’ that only hindered the machines performance. So now it’s been in formatted, Windows 7 reads it as a 64 MB drive. So there is nothing I
Clevo’s repair dock for 2 months with no estimate for when it will come back. can do with it. I have wasted a couple of hours trying to research the
What’s more, after they had the thing for a month they demanded R4000 to problem and fix it, to no avail. These multibillion dollar companies
J. Beneke et al.
repair it. I can’t even describe how infuriating this whole process has been. need to get their acts together when it comes to external storage drives.
I regret my purchase with all my heart and soul. Don’t buy this computer, and The CLEVO brand cannot be trusted!!!!!!
don’t buy a CLEVO product. By Jessica Brown
By Jessica Brown
Very disappointed! Very disappointed!
For anyone looking to buy this laptop, DON’T!!! I bought this laptop a year ago The product worked fine for about a month! Today, while I was trying
and, for a while, it was fine. Then the volume adjuster broke; next a button on to copy some important files from the drive onto one of my computers,
the mouse pad broke and now the keyboard stops working from time to time and it gave me an error message and would not let me view the contents of
when it does work, it continually enters the one letter you’re trying to enter. the drive. I disconnected and reconnected it and a message told me that
Spend a little more money and get something with more quality. And we are the drive cannot be accessed and needs to be formatted. I have tried
very careful with it. WOULD NOT BUY AGAIN!! formatting it several times and it will not complete the process. Thus,
By Riley Morgan the product is now USELESS. I would recommend you DO NOT BUY
this one because it will most likely fail on you.
By Riley Morgan
Table A2. Low quality online customer reviews.
High involvement Low involvement

Low Not so impressed Not so impressed
quality I bought this laptop about a month ago. I have been extremely dissatisfied I bought this flash drive about a month ago. I have been extremely
with it from day 1!! This is hands down the worst Laptop that I have ever dissatisfied with it from day 1!! This is hands down the worst flash drive
purchased. I cannot believe that I actually paid money for this piece of that I have ever purchased. I cannot believe that I actually paid money for
JUNK. I do not know why I even considered it! Save your money and buy this piece of JUNK. I do not know why I even considered it! Save your
something else!!!! money and buy something else!!!
By Robbie Silver By Robbie Silver
Terrible product! Terrible product!
There is only one, very important, reason not to get this laptop: because There is only one, very important, reason not to get this flash drive:
you don’t want to have the worst, I mean really the worst laptop ever. This because you don’t want to have the worst, I mean really the worst flash
thing is ridiculous. I don’t care what others might say, but it’s worse than drive ever. This thing is ridiculous. I don’t care what others might say, but
the plastic laptop made for kids. It’s almost so bad, that I have been it’s worse than the plastic toys made for kids. It’s almost so bad, that I’ve
tempted to give it away for free. Yes, getting nothing would be better than been tempted to give it away for free. Yes, getting nothing would be better
this. than this.
By Jessica Brown By Jessica Brown
Very disappointed! Very disappointed!
Oh my word! – This was a terrible choice. This is the first and LAST time Oh my word! – This was a terrible choice. This is the first and LAST time
that I purchase a CLEVO laptop. It is absolute GARBAGE. I regret the day that I purchase a CLEVO flash drive. It is absolute GARBAGE. I regret the
that I decided to buy this junk. Big mistake!! I am ready to throw it away. day that I decided to buy this junk. Big mistake!! I am ready to throw it
Do yourself a favour and DO NOT purchase this laptop. away. Do yourself a favour and DO NOT purchase this flash drive.
By Riley Morgan By Riley Morgan
The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research
31

The Effect of Negative Online Customer Reviews On Brand Equity and Purchase Intention of Consumer Electronics in South Africa

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Effect of Negative Online Customer Reviews On Brand Equity and Purchase Intention of Consumer Electronics in South Africa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The International Review of Retail, Distribution and

ISSN: 0959-3969 (Print) 1466-4402 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rirr20

The effect of negative online customer reviews on

Justin Beneke, Simona de Sousa, Marcelle Mbuyu & Bradley Wickham

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593969.2015.1068828

Published online: 24 Sep 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

The effect of negative online customer reviews on brand equity and

(Received 17 October 2014; accepted 4 June 2015)

*Corresponding author. Email: justin.beneke@winchester.ac.uk

q 2015 Taylor & Francis

gathering pre-purchase product information (Zhu and Zhang 2010). Hennig-Thurau,

Online customer reviews

Negative online customer reviews

The online customer reviews of consumer electronics

Table 1. Explanation of the dimensions of brand equity.

Dimension Definition Source

ideal, there is nonetheless consensus that product characteristics do occupy a significant

Previous studies have discovered that in addition to the quality of an argument,

Research design and method

Target population and sampling method

2008). A laptop represents a high involvement electronic consumer good. This

Data collection for main study

Control variables and other considerations

Variable n Cronbach a Number of items

a ¼ 0.81), Product Involvement (Cronbach a ¼ 0.93), Review Quality (Cronbach

Treatment Mean Standard

Low involvement, high quality 4 40 2.38 0.84

Assumptions pertaining to the hypotheses

Table 4. Review presence one-way ANOVA.

Mean (M1) Mean (M2)

Table 5. Independent sample t-tests.

Table 6. Two-way univariate ANCOVA.

Table 7. Source credibility one-way ANOVA.

Mean (M1) Mean (M2)

and Consumer Involvement.” In Proceedings of the 45th International Conference on System

Adoption: Moderating Roles of Subjective Knowledge and Regulatory Focus.” Computers in

Zaichkowsky, J. 1985. “Measuring the Involvement Construct.” Journal of Consumer Research

Appendix A: online customer reviews stimuli

Table A1. High quality online customer reviews.

Table A2. Low quality online customer reviews.

High involvement Low involvement

You might also like