Influences on Consumer

Use of Word-of-Mouth
Recommendation Sources
Dale R Duhan
Texas Tech University

Scott D. Johnson
University of Louisville

James B. Wilcox
Texas Tech University

Gilbert D. Harrell
Michigan State University

This article reports the development and testing of a theoretical model of the initial stages of recommendationbased decision making by consumers. Although consumers
use a variety of recommendation sources, they have different motivations for the use of different sources. The model
focuses on the factors that influence the likelihood of
consumers using strong-tie sources (e.g., friends and family) and weak-tie sources (e.g., acquaintances or strangers) of recommendations. The factors used in the model
are the prior knowledge level of the consumer about the
product being considered, the perceived decision task difficulty level, and the type of evaluative cues sought by the
consumer. Hypotheses are tested using data collected in an
extensive fieM study with consumers. Two paths or routes
of influence on the use of recommendation sources are
proposed and confirmed in the study.

Because consumers generally cannot process all of the

information that is available for purchase decisions, they
apply various decision heuristics in their informationJournal of the Academy of Marketing Science.
Volume 25, No. 4, pages 283-295.
Copyright 9 1997 by Academy of Marketing Science.

processing tasks. These decision heuristics are simplified

decision strategies or rules of thumb (Bettman, Johnson,
and Payne 1990) that sacrifice the certainty of a correct
judgment for increased efficiency in the decision process
(Payne 1977). The various types of decision heuristics can
be viewed as falling along a continuum of decision-maker
independence. At one end are the independent or ownbased decision processes whereby the consumer--without
the assistance of others--processes information on
both product alternatives and their attributes; for example,
e l i m i n a t i o n - b y - a s p e c t s h e u r i s t i c s and w e i g h t e d multiattribute heuristics. At the other end are the dependent
or subcontracted decision processes (Rosen and O1shavsky 1987), whereby the decision maker selects someone to serve as a decision "surrogate" for him or her and
from whom the decision maker receives a recommendation as to a specific alternative. Between these end points
are hybrid decision processes or recommendation-based
heuristics in which the decision maker obtains recommendations (usually from various sources) for the purpose of
reducing the amount of information that must be processed
to make a decision (Olshavsky and Granbois 1979). Rosen
and Olshavsky (1987) found empirical support for two
such hybrid processes. One uses recommendations to reduce the number of alternatives that must be considered,
and the second uses recommendations to reduce the number of attributes that must be considered.

284

JOURNALOF THE ACADEMYOF MARKETINGSCIENCE

FALL 1997

Theories of recommendation-based heuristics such as

those of Rosen and Olshavsky (1987) provide an opportunity for creating a broader framework for understanding
consumer decision processes. Even though recommendations can significantly influence ultimate consumer decisions, little is known about the processes used by
consumers to select recommendation sources. Therefore,
our objective is to develop and test a theory of the factors
that influence consumers' choices of which recommendation sources to use. First, we develop a theoretical model
of the choice of recommendation sources in which specific
constructs and their interrelationships are presented. Next,
the context and method used to test the hypotheses derived
from the model are described. Finally, the results of the test
are presented and discussed.

regarding some personal aspects of the decision, they are

likely to seek out strong-tie sources for that kind of information.
Our theoretical model posits that because of the qualitative differences between the types of recommendation
sources, there are different factors influencing the consumer's use of strong-tie and weak-tie sources. The factors
addressed in the model presented below are (1) the types
of information or evaluative cues seen as important to the
decision, (2) the perceived difficulty of the decision task,
and (3) the type and level of prior knowledge that the
decision maker has. Figure 1 presents the general form of
this model, in which source choice is directly influenced
by task difficulty and evaluative cues and is indirectly
influenced by the consumer's level of prior knowledge. We
first focus on factors that influence the choice of strong-tie
recommendation sources, and then focus on the factors
influencing weak-tie sources.

THEORETICAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT

Recommendation Sources
Recommendation sources used in consumer decision
heuristics are predominantly, though not exclusively, personal sources of information (Feldman and Spencer 1965;
Kuehl and Ford 1977; Stewart, Hickson, Ratneshwar,
Pechmann, and Altemeier 1985; Swartz and Stephens
i983), usually studied under the rubric of word-of-mouth
(WOM) communication. WOM recommendation sources
can be categorized according to the closeness of the relationship between the decision maker and the recommendation source, or the "tie strength" (Brown and Reingen
1987). The tie strength of a relationship is defined as strong
if the source is someone who knows the decision maker
personally. For instance, purchase pals, those offering
advice or accompanying the consumer on shopping trips,
are considered strong-tie recommendation sources. Tie
strength is defined as weak if the source is merely an
acquaintance or one who does not know the decision
maker at all. The primary advantage of strong-tie recommendation sources is that they can simultaneously evaluate
the decision maker and the product alternatives to provide
information that is custom tailored to the decision maker's
preferences. Weak-tie recommendation sources have the
advantage of not being limited to the social circle of the
decision maker, and thus weak-tie sources are both more
numerous and more varied. Consequently, there is a
greater likelihood of finding more and better information
(greater expertise) regarding the product from weak-tie
recommendation sources.
As a result of these inherent differences in recommendation sources, decision makers who are seeking recommendations will have different motivations for using
strong-tie sources and weak-tie sources. For instance,
Brown and Reingen (1987) observed that weak-tie
sources, which are more likely to have greater expertise,
appear to be conducive to the flow of information, whereas
strong-tie sources, which have a personal relationship with
the decision maker, are more conducive to the flow of
influence. Thus, if consumers feel a need for reassurance

Influences on the Use

of Strong-Tie Sources
The choice of strong-tie recommendation sources is
posited to be influenced by the importance of affective
evaluative cues, the perceived difficulty of the task, and all
aspects of the decision maker's prior knowledge.

EvaluativeCues
Well-known conceptualizations of types of cues (taxonomies) have been developed and used in the marketing
literature by Olson (1977) and Park and Lessig (1981).
These taxonomies have in common a dichotomy based on
(1) properties of the physical object (i.e., internal cues,
intrinsic cues, and functional cues such as color or type of
fiber) and (2) characteristics outside of the object (i.e.,
external cues, extrinsic cues, and nonfunctional cues such
as price and brand). Other researchers have developed
taxonomies based on the distinction between affective
cues, which relate to the aesthetic aspects of the product
(and which could be either internal or external) and instrumental cues, which relate to the more technical- or
performance-oriented aspects of the product (Ben-Sira
1976, 1980; Crane and Lynch 1988; Glassman and Glassman 1981; Lovdal and Pearson 1989; Swartz and Stephens
1983). The affective and instrumental cues' conceptualization of product cues is more generalizable across the
product categories of both goods and services, and it has
been adopted for this research.

Affective EvaluativeCues
The likelihood of obtaining information about evaluative cues is different for various types of cues and sources
of recommendations. The evaluation of affective cues is
generally based on subjective criteria established by and
related to the purchaser (e.g., "My wife hates blue cars"),
whereas the evaluation of instrumental cues is generally
based on characteristics of the product that can be evaluated independently of the purchaser (e.g., "This car gets
good gas mileage"). Strong-tie sources are more likely to
be in a position to evaluate both the purchaser (to whom

Duhan et al. / WORD-OF-MOUTH RECOMMENDATION

285

FIGURE 1
General Model of Recommendation Source Choice

II IIII

Prior
Knowledge

Source
Choice
" Evaluative =.
Cues !

the recommendation is to be given) and the product. Consequently, strong-tie sources are more likely to be good
sources of information regarding affective cues (what aspects of the product the consumer would like) and are more
likely to be sought for that type of information. As an
example, the question "What restaurants do you think that
I would like?" presupposes knowledge of both restaurants
and the preferences of the person asking the question. It is
also essentially a question about affective characteristics
(e.g., the type of the food rather than health department
ratings or prices). The 'following hypothesis is proposed:
I l l : The greater the importance of affective evaluative
cues, the greater the likelihood that strong-tie
sources will be sought for recommendations.
Figure 2 presents this and the other relationships that form
the theoretical model. Instrumental cues will be discussed
later as an influence on the choice of weak-tie sources.

Task Difficulty
In their theory of human problem solving, Newell and
Simon (1972) proposed that the task environment "determines to a large extent the behavior of the problem solver,
independently of the detailed internal structure of his information processing system" (p. 788). An important part
of the decision task environment is the perceived level of
difficulty. Task difficulty has been defined in a variety of

ways; however, for this theory the construct will be defined

in terms of how "overwhelming" the decision task is for
the decision maker. The difficulty level of a consumer's
decision task environment can be evaluated on two basic
dimensions: (1) the number of product alternatives from
which a choice is to be made and/or (2) the number of
attributes on which a choice is based (e.g., Kim and
Khoury 1987; Paquette and Kida 1988; Payne 1976, 1982).
This view of task difficulty corresponds with the information load perspective of decision making that is concerned
with the sheer amount of information that the decision
maker must consider (Jacoby, Speller, and Kohn 1974).
Additional dimensions of task difficulty have also been
proposed. Olshavsky (1979) suggested taking into account
the complexity of attributes to be considered, as well as
their number. Howard (1977) noted that several factors
affect complexity (processability), including the simplicity of the language used, its abstractness, and its redundancy. Olshavsky and Smith (1980) noted that a difficult
task environment could be one in which goods or services
are inherently complex. Similarly, McQuiston (1989) used
the complexity of the product to study task difficulty in
industrial buying.
The greater risk reflected in decision tasks with high
levels of difficulty influences the types of information
sources that consumers seek (Locander and Hermann
1979). When decision task difficulty increases, people fed
less self-confident about making a good judgment, so they

286

JOURNALOF THEACADEMYOF MARKETINGSCIENCE

FALL1997

FIGURE 2
Theoretical Model of Recommendation Source Choice

Mediating Variables

. Consumer
Pnor Knowledge
Level

Recommendation
Source Type

-I-

H(
H3

'~

Weak-tie
H9

tend to seek sources that are similar to themselves and in

whom they have greater confidence (Brown and Reingen
1987). For instance, high school seniors who are considering various colleges that they might attend are often
overwhelmed with the quantity of information sent to them
from many colleges. A common response to this situation
is for the student to ask for advice from family members.
In this model, we posit that when perceived task difficulty
increases, consumers are more likely to seek information
from strong-tie sources.
Task difficulty is also an important factor in the types
of information that consumers deem important. Cox
(1962) introduced the idea of assigning predictive and
confidence values to cues and stated that "unless a consumer feels sufficiently confident about evaluating a cue,
she is not likely to use it--no matter how high its predictive
value" (p. 419). In other words, the more difficulty consumers have evaluating a cue, the less likely they are to use
it. Evidence also suggests that as task difficulty increases,
consumers attempt to reduce the cognitive effort required
by complex tasks (Bruner 1957; Bruner, Goodnow, and
Austin 1956; Hogarth 1987; Lussier and Olshavsky 1979;
Olshavsky 1979; Payne 1976). As a result, information
search may be more limited for difficult tasks, and consumers may be likely to rely on, and seek, more easily
1
processed cues. For most consumers, these are affective
cues rather than instrumental cues because instrumental
cues often involve unfamiliar characteristics and information that is more difficult to process. 2 For instance, many

automobile purchasers do not understand the more technical aspects of cars (e.g., the functions of fuel injection
systems, transmission coolers, etc.), so they evaluate cars
on the basis of affective characteristics (e.g., comfort,
style, etc.). Thus, we generalize from this that the greater
the perceived task difficulty, the greater the perceived
importance of affective evaluative cues. The formal hypotheses regarding the influence of task difficulty are
stated as follows:
H2: The greater the level of perceived task difficulty, the
greater the likelihood that strong-tie sources will be
sought for recommendations.
H3: The greater the level of perceived task difficulty, the
greater the importance of affective cues in the decision process.
We posit that task difficulty influences recommendation
source choice both directly and indirectly through affective cues.

Prior Knowledge
The concept of prior knowledge is defined in terms of
the extent of experience and familiarity that one has with
a product (good or service). The concept has been widely
researched (e.g., Alba 1983; Alba and Hutchinson 1987;
Brucks 1985; Herr 1989; Murray 1991; Park, Mothersbaugh, and Feick 1994; Rao and Monroe 1988; Sujan
1985) and c o m m o n l y refers to information that is

Duhanet al. / WORD-OF-MOUTHRECOMMENDATION 287

(1) accessible from memory and (2) generally accessed
before external search occurs. Hayes-Roth (1977) and
Marks and Olson (1981) contend that an increase in knowledge level results in a more developed cognitive structure
or "schema." Johnson and Russo (1984) and Brucks
(1985) found prior knowledge to be positively related to
the ability to process new information and the efficiency
with which information is processed. Prior knowledge has
been defined in at least three conceptually different ways:
(1) experience-based prior knowledge, (2) subjective prior
knowledge, and (3) objective prior knowledge.
Experience-based prior knowledge has been defined in
terms of three components of familiarity with products:
search experience, usage experience, and ownership (Park
and Lessig 1981). Alba and Hutchinson (1987) used the
term familiarity in this experiential sense and defined it as
"the number of product related experiences accumulated
by the consumer" (p. 411). The conceptual common
ground for defining this construct (Bettman and Park 1980;
Punj and Staelin 1983) and the definition used in this
model is consumers' actual purchasing or usage behavior
with a product category.
Subjective prior knowledge has been defined as consumer self-assessment of product domain knowledge (e.g.,
Brucks 1985; Johnson and Russo 1984; Park et al. 1994).
Spreng and Olshavsky (1989) point out two fundamental
problems with this concept of prior knowledge. The first
problem is that misperceptions of the "anchor" or point of
comparison (e.g., "the rest of the population") will have an
effect on the response. The second problem is determining
the relevant domain of subjective knowledge as it differs
from objective knowledge when people are over- or underconfident about their actual knowledge level. Additionally,
Park et al. (1994) found no significant relationship between self-confidence and subjective knowledge. Nonetheless, subjective knowledge is an important part of the
more general concept of prior knowledge because the
perception that consumers have of their own levels of
knowledge influences their perceptions of their ability to
process information, and therefore it influences their
strategies for acquiring information.
Objective prior knowledge is the preferred conceptualization of prior knowledge for many researchers (Brucks
1985; Rao and Monroe 1988; Spreng and Olshavsky 1989;
Sujan 1985) because it is based on the actual content and
organization of knowledge held in memory. Brucks (] 986)
developed a marketing-specific topology of knowledge
content based on the Bloom, Englehart, Furst, Hill, and
Krathwohl (1956) taxonomy.3 The Brucks topology ineludes terminology, product attributes, general attribute
evaluation, specific attribute evaluation, general product
usage, personal product usage, brand facts, and purchasing/
decision-making procedures. Determining the composition of objective knowledge and the process by which it is
developed continues to be a source of research interest
because it is necessarily specific to the knowledge domain
in which a theory is to be applied.

The influence of prior knowledge on task difficulty and

strong-tie sources. Prior knowledge influences the likeli-

hood of using strong-tie sources indirectly through task

difficulty. Higher levels of prior know/edge lead to more
complete cognitive schemata, which tend to facilitate consumer information search. The richer evaluative criteria
that result from high prior knowledge provide the decision
maker with a greater ability to identify differences in the
products on which the decision task is focused. For instance, a person with high levels of knowledge regarding
the technical aspects of automobiles would be more likely
to recognize the difference between carburetors and fuel
injection systems and be able to identify which is the better,
more modern technology. Miyake and Norman (1979)
found that when consumer knowledge increases, so does
the number of questions asked in a difficult task context
(whereas the number of questions decreases in a simple
context). As products are increasingly viewed as different
from one another, more search is likely to take place
(Engel, Blackwell, and Miniard 1990).
Alba and Hutchinson (1987) indicate that prior knowledge tends to improve the ability to perform decision tasks
by reducing cognitive effort. Brucks and Schurr (1990)
found a significant interaction between being overwhelmed by information and the low-knowledge condition, suggesting that low levels of knowledge may increase
perceived decision task difficulty. Thus, the relationship
between both objective and subjective prior knowledge
and task difficulty is hypothesized to be negative.
H4: The greater the level of objective prior knowledge,
the lower the perceived level of task difficulty.
HS: The greater the level of subjective prior knowledge,
the lower the perceived level of task difficulty.

Relationships among types of prior knowledge. Experience-based knowledge has presented difficulties for information-processing theories. The relationships found
between experience-based prior knowledge and other variables have often been inconsistent with the relationships
that subjective and objective prior knowledge have with
those same variables (Brucks 1985). This indicates that
perhaps experience-based prior knowledge should be conceptualized as related to, but different from, subjective or
objective prior knowledge in the way it influences consumer decision making.
In the process of choosing a recommendation source,
experience functions as the basis for the development of
both objective and subjective knowledge rather than as a
direct influence on the decision. When decision makers are
confronted with a new decision task, there is a natural
limitation in the applicability of their exact memories of
previous experiences to the new task. Instead, they recall
abstractions of their experiences in the form of their objective and subjective prior knowledge.4 Thus, past experiences are related to other variables in the decision process
through the influence that they have on subjective and
objective prior knowledge. This conceptualization is similar to the four-stage process described by Hoch and
Deighton (1989) through which consumers integrate their
experiences with their prior beliefs to form new or modified beliefs.

288

JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE

FALL 1997

Alba and Hutchinson (1987) explored the relationship

between experience and objective prior knowledge in their
comprehensive review of consumer expertise. They isolated a number of qualitative aspects related to increases
in experience-based knowledge (or familiarity). For example, they indicated that as experience increases, cognitive
structures become more complete. Likewise, the ability to
remember specific product information improves with experience. Thus, experience is hypothesized to positively
influence objective knowledge. Similarly, experience and
subjective knowledge are hypothesized to be positively
related because people generally believe they gain knowledge through their experiences. These hypotheses are
stated formally as follows:

son 1981), and are therefore more likely to use them (Park
and Lessig 1981; Rao and Monroe 1988). Thus, the relationship between subjective prior knowledge and the use
of instrumental cues is expected to be positive.

1-I6: Experience is positively related to objective prior

knowledge.
HT: Experience is positively related to subjective prior
knowledge.
Influences on the Use of Weak-Tie Sources
InstrumentalCues
As discussed above, personal knowledge of the purchaser (by the recommendation source) is not as important
for the evaluation of instrumental cues as for affective
cues. Consequently, strong-tie recommendation sources
are relatively less important as sources of information for
instrumental cues. A purchaser's weak-tie sources will be
more varied and numerous than strong-tie sources. Therefore, it is more likely that a weak-tie source can be found
that will be able to provide more and better information
regarding instrumental cues. Brown and Reingen (1987)
suggested that weak ties are more conducive to the flow of
information and are more likely to be used for active
information seeking (i.e., initiating a conversation to obtain information) than strong-tie sources. Indeed, professional reference services (e.g., 1-800-DENTIST) provide
instrumental information about service providers, and they
are clearly weak-tie sources of information. The hypothesized relationship between instrumental cues and weak-tie
sources is as follows:
H8: The greater the importance of instrumental evaluative cues, the greater the likelihood that weak-tie
sources will be sought for recommendations.
Subjective Prior Knowledge
In this theoretical model, subjective prior knowledge is
hypothesized to be the primary influence on the perceived
importance of instrumental cues and an indirect influence
on the choice of weak-tie sources. This is because it is the
decision maker's own perception of his or her ability to
process more technical information (rather than an objective assessment of his or her ability to do so) that influences
the perception of the importance of that information to his
or her decision. Consumers with higher levels of subjective knowledge are more confident in their abilities to
assess more technical (instrumental) cues (Marks and O1-

Hg" Subjective prior knowledge is positively related to

the use of instrumental cues.

METHOD
Research Context
The selection of the context for the test of this model
was guided by the need to have a decision task that was
both likely to involve recommendations and to be common
enough that the typical consumer would see it as realistic
and familiar. The professional services market was chosen
because research has consistently found that recommendations play a major role in the selection of professional
services providers (e.g., Crane and Lynch 1988; Feldman
and Spencer 1965; King and Haefner 1988; Murray 1991;
Orsini 1982; Parsons 1951). Moreover, as a result of the
increasing importance of services in our economy, there is
a body of literature on services to use as guidance for
measurement and other methodological issues. Within the
professional services market, medical services were chosen, since a high proportion of consumers have had experience with choosing a medical service provider.
Additionally, there is evidence that in many cases, the
choice of a medical service provider can present a reasonably difficult decision task (Murray 1991; Reade and
Ratzan 1989; Shostack 1987). To perform the study, we
needed to narrow down the large array of services within
the medical field. Additionally, we needed to avoid emergency medical situations in which the relative convenience
of various medical service providers would dominate the
decision process. The context chosen was the selection of
a provider of obstetric services (an obstetrician) by women
of child-bearing age.
This context was operationalized through the use of the
scenario method. The use of scenarios offers the advantage
of avoiding situational effects associated with the selection
of a service provider (e.g., conditions of emergency or
dissatisfaction with current provider) (Eroglu 1987). Additionally, scenarios enable the researcher to more consistently portray decision situations. The scenario employed
in this research described a situation in which the subject
had recently moved to a new city and needed to select a
physician.
Sampling Procedures
A multistage cluster sampling procedure was used to
select subjects for the study. A simple random sample of
six census tracts was selected from within a large metropolitan area. Each chosen tract was then further broken
down by using a simple random sample to select five
census blocks within each tract. After the blocks were

Duhanet al. / WORD-OF-MOUTHRECOMMENDATION 289

selected, the sequence in which the blocks would be approached by the field researchers was determined randomly. A census was then taken within each of the selected
blocks.
Individual field researchers were assigned to collect
data from the predetermined census blocks, and they were
given explicit verbal and written instructions regarding
procedures. The field researcher made contact with every
address on each block to which they were assigned. Since
the questionnaire was designed to be self-administered, it
was not necessary for the field researcher be present while
the respondents completed it. Thus, a drop-off/pick-up
technique was used to deliver and collect the questionnaires (Lovelock, Stiff, Cullwick, and Kaufman 1976).
Once a field researcher successfully made contact,
screened a respondent, and dropped off the questionnaire,
arrangements were made with the respondent to retrieve
the completed questionnaire. Field researchers generally
were able to pick up the questionnaire the same day it was
given to the respondent.
The Sample
Field researchers approached a total of 800 addresses,
from which 245 suitable subjects were found who were
willing and able to complete the questionnaire. Of the
questionnaires completed and returned, a validation check
on the field research procedures was conducted by using
the city directory to obtain telephone numbers of a random
sample of respondents. This check revealed no inconsistencies.
After collection of the data, further screening deleted
some questionnaires either because they were not completed properly or the respondent was over age 49. 5Additionally, some respondents were screened out because they
had formal medical training (nurses, physician's assistants,
etc.) or had medical service providers among their friends
and relatives (which would create difficulties discriminating between strong-tie and weak-tie sources). The resulting sample included 185 respondents. The study
participants averaged 31 years of age, typically had some
post-high school education (technical school or college),
and had moved between two and three times in the previous 10 years.
Measurement of Constructs
Recommendation Sources
The development of items for measuring the likelihood
of using various recommendation sources was based on
measures reported in the literature and on extensive exploratory research (King and Haefner 1988; Stewart et al.
1985; Swartz and Stephens 1983). A series of focus groups
with individuals fitting the subject profile (women of
child-bearing age) identified several specific sources
likely to be used for recommendations regarding providers
of obstetric services. The sources typically consulted for
recommendations were friends, neighbors, relatives, coworkers, nurses, doctors, government agencies, and library

reference materials. Sources identified by this process

were similar to those found in other research. 6 The likelihood of use for each source was measured on a scale from
very likely to very unlikely (see the appendix for items and
scales used in this research). Friends, neighbors, relatives,
and coworkers were considered strong-tie sources; nurses,
doctors, government agency personnel, and reference librarians were considered weak-tie sources.

Task difficulty. Bettman et al. (1990) found that perceived task difficulty is greater when there is a smaller
number of shared attributes among the alternatives, a
greater level of uncertainty about which attributes to consider, and a greater number of both attributes and alternatives to process. To ensure variability in the perceived
levels of task difficulty, we employed alternative scenarios
similar to those used by Kuehl and Ford (1977) and Ratchford and Andreasen (1974). Potential respondents were
randomly given one of two scenarios: low-task difficulty
or high-task difficulty. The high-task difficulty scenario
described a need for a specialist, used more technical and
abstract language, and described a situation in which the
consumer had a greater number of alternative providers
from which to choose (see the appendix for the complete
text of the scenarios). The task difficulty scenarios were
pretested and modified to ensure that variability enhancement was taking place (t value for the differences in
perceived difficulty = 3.45, p < .01). The level of task
difficulty perceived by the respondent after reading a scenario was measured on a scale ranging from very difficult
to very easy (higher values indicated greater difficulty).
Cue characteristics. The findings from the exploratory
research and previous empirical studies (Ben-Sira 1976;
Lovdal and Pearson 1989) were incorporated to develop
items for the measurement of the relative importance of
affective and instrumental cues. Affective cues were measured
with items that scaled the importance of the physician's
friendliness, warmth, caring, willingness to talk to the
patient, and ability to put the patient at ease. The importance of instrumental cues was similarly measured, with
items including whether the physician had advanced training, was trained by a renowned expert, could perform
complex procedures, used the latest equipment, or was
recognized by his or her peers as an expert.
Prior knowledge. Experience has generally been measured
as the number of product-related experiences a consumer
has had. That approach was used in this research, where
experience with medical (especially obstetric) services
was measured by the number of experiences as a hospital
patient plus the number of times the respondent had given
birth. Subjective prior knowledge has generally been
measured with subjective self-assessment of knowledge
level. Studies by Rao and Monroe (1988) and Rao and
Seiben (1992) each measured subjective prior knowledge
with a subject-reported assessment of prior knowledge on
a scale that ranged from completely unfamiliar to extremely familiar. In this research, subjective prior knowledge was measured using an adaptation of the same
measure for self-assessment of knowledge, with high val-

290

JOURNALOF THE ACADEMYOF MARKETINGSCIENCE

ues indicating greater subjective knowledge. A scale of

objective prior knowledge within this research context was
developed following procedures similar to those used by
Rao and Monroe (1988), Rao and Seiben (1992), Park et
al. (1994), and Sujan (1985). The set of items included in
the scale was designed to follow the major knowledge
dimensions discussed by Brucks (1985). A review by
medical professionals confirmed the content validity of the
scale. Additionally, a pretest found that the criterion validity of the objective knowledge measure was significant. 7
An item analysis and inspection of comments from the
pretest led to some modifications to the scale. The resulting
scale consisted of 11 multiple-choice items. Objective
prior knowledge was measured as the number of items
answered correctly by the subject.

Analysis
The test of the model presented in Figure 2 was performed using L I S R E L 8 (JiSreskog and Sorb/Sm 1995).
This analysis tool was chosen because of the nature of the
relationships within the model and the fact that some of
the constructs in the model were measured with multiple
indicants. The use of LISREL allowed the concurrent
evaluation of the relationships within the model and the
multiple indicators of latent constructs.

FALL 1997

TABLE 1
Estimated Parameters for
the Measurement Model"
Parameter

LISREL Estimated Values

Affectivecues
ZI.1

Composite Reliability

.79
.71
.53
.78
.56
.67

~.1.:2
~-1.3
~!.4
X1,5
Insmunental cues
~,6
;~2,7

.80

~,8

.66
.62
.62

x2,9

.66

;k.2,10
Strong-tie sources
7~,H
L3,n
L3,13

.75
.76
.72
.6,1
.73
.56

~,14
Weak-tie sources
~L4,15
~'4,]6
~-4.17
~,4,1s

.66
.48
.34
.79
.63

a. Standardizedestimates.

RESULTS
TABLE 2
Test of Hypothesized Model

The Measurement Model

Two constructs in this model were measured with single
indicant items (task difficulty and subjective prior knowledge), and two were treated as formative constructs (exper i e n c e and o b j e c t i v e prior k n o w l e d g e ) . For these
constructs, lambda was set at .95 and the error term was
set t o . 1 because of the possibility of some measurement
error. Four constructs were treated as reflective constructs
and were measured with multiple items (affective cues,
instrumental cues, strong-tie sources, and weak-tie
sources). Table 1 contains the LISREL estimates of the
measurement model for the multi-item measures. All of the
parameters are significant (t values > 2), and for the most
part the loadings are high. There are some low loadings for
the weak-tie source that appear to be a result of a difference
between service providers (doctors and nurses) and other
sources (library and government). These low scores might
reflect the trade-off discussed by Churchill and Peter
(1984) between maximum reliability and the content validity of a scale. The reliability of this scale is lowered
somewhat by the inclusion of items important to the validity
of the scale. The weak-tie construct is most heavily influenced by nurses and doctors as sources of information.

Test of the Hypothesized Model

The model is presented in Figure 2. The results of the
tests are presented in Table 2. The model resulted in a

From

Hypothesized Path
To

Direct effects
H1 Affective
H2 Difficulty
H3 Difficulty
H4 Objective
H5 Subjective
H6 Experience
I-I7 Experience
H8 Instrumental
H9 Subjective
Indirect effectsb
Experience
Experience
Objective
Objective
Subjective
Subjective
Subjective

Strong
Strong
Affective
Difficulty
Difficulty
Objective
Subjective
Weak
Instrumental
Instrumental
Weak
Affect
Strong
Affect
Strong
Weak

Sign

+
+
+
+
+
+

Standardized
Estimation

t Valuea

n.s.
.20
.19
.20
-.22
.27
.56
.37
.21

2.26
2.23
2.58
-2.77
3.15
6.08
3.18
2.44

.12
.04
.04
.04
-.04
-.05
.08

2.27
1.91
1.68
1.71
-1.74
-1.78
2.01

a. All paths are significantat the .01 level unless otherwise noted.
b. Only significantpaths reported.
goodness-of-fit index 0f.88, a nonnormed fit index of.90,
a comparative fit index of .91, a root mean square residual
of .069, a root mean square error of approximation of.048
(p value for the test of close fit at .05 = .6), Z2(202) =

Duhan et al. / WORD-OF-MOUTH RECOMMENDATION 291

TABLE 3
Interconstruct Correlation Matrix
Affective Cues
Affecfive cues
Instrumental cues
Strong-tie
Weak-tie
Task difficulty
Objective knowledge
Subjective knowledge
Experience knowledge

Instrumental
Cues
1.00
0.25
0.04
0.09
0.19
0.03
-0.04
-0.01

Strong-Tie
1.00
-0.01
0.37
-0.04
,0.03
0.21
0.12

Weak-Tie

1.00
0.00
0.21
0.03
-0.04
-0.01

287.27, p = .001. All fit indices indicate a substantial

improvement over a null model, and they indicate a good
fit (Bentler and Bonett 1980 suggest .9 as a cutoff). Seven
of the nine relationships in the model were significant and
in the hypothesized direction, s Table 3 contains the interconstruct correlation matrix.

DISCUSSION
The test of this model reveals a number of interesting
results, the most important of which is support for the
general proposition by Brown and Reingen (1987) that
there are different influences on the likelihood of consumers choosing different types of recommendation sources.
More specifically, the likelihood of choosing strong-tie
sources is influenced by task difficulty and prior knowledge, and the likelihood of choosing weak-tie sources is
influenced by the importance of instrumental cues and
subjective prior knowledge. Consumers with higher levels
of subjective knowledge are perhaps more likely to feel
that they can evaluate instrumental information themselves, and thus they are inclined to use the "instrumental
to weak-tie" route. Consumers who perceive great difficulty in the decision task are likely to look toward strongtie sources for recommendations. These are not mutually
exclusive routes; consumers routinely use both in a given
decision situation. The routes reflect differences in the
reasons for seeking recommendations from various types
of sources.
Additional support for the two distinct routes of influence was found by examining the indirect effects within
the model. There are significant indirect effects on strongtie sources of both objective prior knowledge (t = 1.71) and
subjective prior knowledge (t = -1.78). There was also a
significant indirect effect on weak-tie sources of subjective
prior knowledge (t = 2.01) and experience (t = 1.91).
Beyond the general finding regarding the two routes to
the choice of recommendation sources, there are a number
of other interesting outcomes. First, support was found for
the hypothesized relationships between experience and
objective prior knowledge and between experience and
subjective knowledge, which is consistent with the relationships identified by previous research (Alba and

Task Difficulty

1.00
-0.01
0.01
0.08
0.04

Objective
Knowledge

Subjective
Knowledge

1.00
0.17
-0.19
-0.07

1.00
0.15
0,27

Experience
Knowledge

1.00
0.56

Hutchinson 1987; Park et al. 1994). This result provides

support for the proposition that past experience is more
appropriately treated as a basis for objective and subjective
prior knowledge rather than as a distinct type of knowledge. This is also consistent with the view presented by
Hoch and Deighton (1989) that experience is a part of"an
intuitive hypothesis testing process" (p. 2) whereby consumers integrate their existing beliefs with new experiences to form new beliefs about a product.
Second, the test of the hypotheses regarding the relationship between prior knowledge (subjective and objective) and task difficulty revealed an interesting result. Both
relationships were significant, but their signs differed.
Higher levels of objective knowledge resulted in higher
levels of perceived task difficulty (contrary to H4), and
higher levels of subjective knowledge are associated with
lower perceived task difficulty. One possible explanation
for this anomaly is the "wise fool" phenomenon (a wise
fool is someone who knows enough to know how much
they do not know). In this context, individuals with higher
levels of objective knowledge are perhaps better able to
recognize the complexities of the decision situation and
thus are more inclined to see the decision task as difficult.
On the other hand, individuals with higher levels of subjective knowledge perceived less difficulty in the task. The
difference between the two relationships may be attributable to the self-confidence component of subjective
knowledge (Lichtenstein and Fischoff 1977; Park and
Lessig 1981), which is not captured by the standard definition and operationalizations of objective knowledge. If
this is true, then it would provide an explanation for some
of the inconsistencies noted by Brucks (1985) in the relationships between various measures of prior knowledge
(experience, subjective and objective) and other variables.
Third, contrary to the hypothesized model, the importance of affective evaluative cues does not appear to influence the likelihood of seeking a recommendation from a
strong-tie source. However, the importance of affective
cues is positively related to the level of task difficulty
perceived by the consumer. Thus, the influence on the use
of strong tie sources is through task difficulty separately
from affective cues, even though affective cues are
also influenced by the same source (both directly and
indirectly).

292

JOURNALOF THE ACADEMYOF MARKETINGSCIENCE

CONCLUSION
This research builds on previous work in the area of
recommendation-based decision making (e.g., Rosen and
Olshavsky 1987). It extends the line of research by investigating the influences on a person's choice of sources for
recommendations. We present a model, influenced by
studies from several areas, that proposes two routes of
influence on the choice of recommendation sources. The
model proposes that the prior knowledge level of the
consumer, the perceived level of task difficulty, and the
type of evaluative cues sought by consumers influence
their choice of recommendation sources. The article also
reports an extensive field study with consumers that investigated the hypotheses of the model. The results of this
research extend the literature on consumer decision making by providing a better understanding of recommendation-based decision-making processes.
The limitations of this study include the context in
which the theory was tested and the structure of the study.
Future research should investigate these issues in other
contexts. The medical services context is common enough
to ensure a reasonable test of the theory, but other contexts
may provide additional insights. The study reported here
was not longitudinal, and thus it was not able to investigate
some aspects of the recommendation-based decision process. For instance, decision makers might seek recommendations regarding other sources of recommendations, or
perhaps a decision maker's level of objective or subjective
knowledge may change during the process of seeking
recommendations and considering the decision.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors express their appreciation to Roy D. Howell, Shelby D. Hunt, and Robert Wilkes of Texas Tech
University; Randy Sparks of the University of Dayton;
Sigurd Troye and Andreas W. Falkenberg of the Institute
of Marketing at the Norwegian School of Economics and
Business Administration in Bergen, Norway; and three
anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments on
this manuscript.

APPENDIX
Task Difficulty Scenarios and Measure
Scenario I (Low Difficulty)
Please read the following scenario and, as best as you can, place
yourself into the role described.
As the result of a job promotion, you moved to _ _
6
months ago. While this is far from your home, you are
beginning to settle in and are really starting to enjoy your
coworkers and neighbors. Surprise! Just last week you
discovered that you were pregnant after using a home
pregnancy test kit. This news is exciting to both you and

FALL 1997

your husband. Luckily you have health insurance provided through work. The company supplied you with a list
of three names of doctors to choose from. This seems to
you like it will be a relatively easy task to perform.

Scenario 2 (High Difficulty)

Please read the following scenario and, as best as you can, place
yourself into the role described.
As the result of a job promotion, you moved to _ _
6
months ago. While this is far from your home, you are
starting to enjoy your coworkers and neighbors. Surprise!
Just last week you performed a test with a home pregnancy
test kit; the results were positive. This news is exciting to
both you and your husband. Luckily you have health
insurance provided through work. Although you have not
yet done so, you feel you must now select a physician
within a week for prenatal assessment and to begin prenatal care. You consider yourself quite healthy, but you do
have diabetes, which you can control quite well. Therefore, it is necessary that you select a specialist in obstetrics/
gynecology within a week for prenatal assessment and to
begin prenatal care.
Since the company supplied you with a list of over 10
names of doctors to choose from, this seems to you like it
will be a relatively difficult task to perform. You know that
choosing a physician is an important decision, and you
want to make the right choice. You haven't heard anything
one way or the other about any of the doctors on the list.
Finally, another complication is sorting out the insurance options. It is possible to select a doctor not affiliated
with the insurance program, yet in that case, you would
have to pay out of your own pocket. If you select a
"preferred provider," then the insurance company will pay.
How difficult do you feel this scenario is in terms of your task of
selecting a doctor?
Very difficult

Not at all difficult

A common way most people go about selecting a doctor is to ask

someone else for their advice. Given the scenario you just read,
please respond to the following items regarding how likely it is
that you would use different personal sources. (The respondents
were asked to respond to the following items on a 5-point scale
ranging from very likely to very unlikely.)
How likely is it that you would ask a friend for advice?
How likely is it that you would ask a nurse for advice?
How likely is it that you would ask a relative for advice?
How likely is it that you would ask a coworker for advice?
How likely is it that you would ask a neighbor for advice?
How likely is it that you would ask a doctor for advice?

Importance of Affective and Instrumental Cues

Please rate how important each of these items would be to you
in your selection of a doctor. (The respondents were asked to

Duhan et al. / WORD-OF-MOUTH RECOMMENDATION

respond to the following items on a 5-point scale ranging from

extremely important to unimportant.)
The
The
The
The
The
The

doctor is caring.
doctor is friendly toward you.
doctor had advanced training in a specialized field.
doctor was trained by a renowned expert.
doctor puts you at ease.
doctor uses the latest equipment.

293

During pregnancy, how is high blood pressure treated?

Iron supplement
Rest
Low-fat diet
What is the normal expected weight gain for a woman during
pregnancy?
20-25 lbs.
30-35 lbs.
35-40 lbs.

Prior Knowledge (Experience)

How many times have you been hospitalized in the past 10 years?
To how many children have you given birth?

Subjective Prior Knowledge

Regarding obstetrics and pregnancy, would you consider yourself
Completely unfamiliar
Unfamiliar
Neither familiar nor unfamiliar
Familiar
Extremely familiar

Objective Prior Knowledge

Please answer the following questions as best as you can. It is
important that only you answer these questions. Please do not
consult any persons or books. Remember, your responses are
completely private.
What are two common breech positions?
Frank and footling
Shoulder and flank
Partial and complete
How many weeks is considered to be a full-term pregnancy?
36 weeks
38 weeks
40 weeks
What is the recommended frequency of prenatal visits for
most women?
Monthly
Weekly
Monthly, but more frequent in last 2 months
What would be the appropriate limits for fetal heart rate
during labor?
120-160 beats/minute
80-100 beats/minute
175-200 beats/minute
What is a common purpose of ultrasound?
Determine due date
Visualize the location of the placenta
Determine number of fetuses
All of the above

NOTES
1. In some instances, task difficulty may be so high that consumers
will decide that they cannot process the information themselves at all and
get someone to make the decision for them. If this occurs, the decision
process is no longer recommendation based, it is completely subconIracted.
2. An anonymous reviewer suggested that higher levels of decision
task difficulty lead to a greater desire for instrumental cues, and therefore
greater importance for expert sources. We felt, however, that increased
use of instrumental cues generally would increase the task difficulty.
3. Bloom et al. (1956) present a taxonomy of educational objectives
with two broad classifications: the cognitive domain and the affective
domain. The cognitive domain consists of knowledge, comprehension,
application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. The affective domain
consists of receiving, responding, valuing, organizing, and characterizing
by a value or a value complex.
4. If their experiences are perceived to be specifically relevant to the
current decision task (e.g., repeat purchase behavior), decision makers
are less likely to seek recommendations at all.
5. It should be noted that in the face-to-face screening, the field
researchers would only "eyeball" the age of potential subjects but not
verbally inquire about age; thus, some subjects were later dropped from
the analysis because of their self-reported age.
6. Stewart et al. (1985) found the following source options cited by
subjects: (1) friends and neighbors, (2) other family members, (3) other
physicians, (4) previous encounters with the doctor as a patient,
(5) encounters with the physician other than as a patient, (6) phone
directory, (7) government agencies, or (8) local medical societies. King
and Haefner (1988) found the vast majority of types were (1) another
doctor (48.8%), (2) friends (33.4%), (3) relatives (26.8%), (4) nurse
(12.6%), (5) other health care providers (6.8%), and (6) Yellow Pages
(6.6%). Swartz and Stephens (1983) used a somewhat different format
and found similar sources.
7. Eighteen experts and 38 novices were selected to test this knowledge measure. The expert group scored significantly higher than the
novices, t = 9.62, df= 54, p < .001.
8. Since specific directions for these relationships were hypothesized,
these are one-tailed tests that have a critical value of t = 1.645 at the .05
significance level.

REFERENCES
Alba, Joseph W. 1983. "The Effects of Product Knowledge on the
Comprehension, Retention, and Evaluation of Product Information."
InAdvances in Consumer Research. Eds. Richard P. Bagozzi and Alice
M. Tybout. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research,
577-580.
and J. Wesley Hutchinson. 1987. "Dimensions of Consumer
Expertise." Journal of Consumer Research 13 (March): 411-454.
Ben-Sira, Zeev. 1976. "The Function of the Professional's Affective
Behavior in Client Satisfaction: A Revised Approach to Social Interaction Theory." Journal of Health and Social Behavior 17 (March): 3-11.

294

JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE

FALL 1997

-. 1980. "Affective and Instrumental Components in the PhysicianPatient Relationship: An Additional Dimension of Interaction Theory."
Journal of Health and Social Behavior 21 (June): 170-180.
Benfler, P. M. and D. C. BoneR. 1980. "Significance Tests and Goodness
of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures." Psychological Bulletin
88:588-606.
Bettman, James R. and C. Whan Park. 1980. "Effects of Prior Knowledge
and Experience and Phase of the Choice Process on Consumer Decision Processes: A Protocol Analysis." Journal of Consumer Research
7 (December): 234-248.
, Eric J. Johnson, and John W. Payne. 1990. "A Compenential
Analysis of Cognitive Effort in Choice." Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes 45 (February): 111-139.
Bloom, B. S., M. D. Englehart9 E. J. Furst, W. H. Hill, and D. R.
Krathwohl. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I:
Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay.
Brown, Jacqueline Johnson and Peter H. Reingen. 1987. "Social Ties and
Word-of-Mouth Referral Behavior." Journal of Consumer Research
14 (December): 350-362.
Brucks, Merde. 1985. "The Effects of Product Class Knowledge on
Information Search Behavior." Journal of Consumer Research 12
(June): 1-16.
9 1986. "A Typology of Consumer Knowledge Content." In Advances in Consumer Research. Ed. Richard J. Lutz. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 58-63.
- - a n d
Paul H. Schurr. 1990. "The Effects of Bargainable Attributes
and Attribute Range Knowledge on Consumer Choice Processes."
Journal of Consumer Research 16 (March): 409-419.
Bruner, Jerome S. 1957. "On Perceptual Readiness." Psychological
Review 64:123-152.
9J. J. Goodnow, and G. A. Austin. 1956. A Study of Thinking. New
York: John Wiley.
Churchill, Gilbert D. and J. Paul Peter. 1984. "Research Design Effects
on the Reliability of Rating Scales: A Meta Analysis." Journal of
Marketing Research 21 (February): 360-375.
Cox, Donald E 1962. "The Measurement of Information Value: A Study
in Consumer Decision-Making." In Proceedings of the American
Marketing Association. Ed. William Decker. Chicago: American Marketing Association9413-421.
Crane, E G. and J. E. Lynch. 1988. "Consumer Selection of Physicians
and Dentists: An Examination of Choice Criteria and Cue Usage."
Journal of Health Care Marketing 8 (3): 16-19.
Engel, James E, Roger D. Blackwell, and Paul W. Miniard. 1990.
Consumer Behavior. 6th ed. Chicago: Dryden.
Eroglu, Sevgin. 1987. "The Scenario Method: A Theoretical, Not Theatrical, Approach." In Summer Educators' Conference Proceedings.
Chicago: American Marketing Association, 236.
Feldman, Sidney P. and Merlin C. Spencer. 1965. "The Effect of Personal
Influence in the Selection of Consumer Services." In Marketing and
Economic Development. Ed. Peter Bennett. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 440-452.
Glassman, Myron and Nanci Glassman. 1981. "A Marketing Analysis of
Physician Selection and Patient Satisfaction." Journal of Health Care
Marketing 1 (4): 25-31.
Hayes-Roth, Barbara. 1977. "Evolution of Cognitive Structures and
Processes." Psychological Review 84 (3): 260-278.
Herr, Paul. 1989. "Priming Price: Prior Knowledge and Context Effects."
Journal of Consumer Research 16 (june): 67-75.
Hoch, Stephen J. and John Deighton. 1989. "Managing What Consumers
Learn From Experience." Journal of Marketing 53 (April): 1-20.
Hogarth, Robin. 1987. Judgement and Choice. New York: John Wiley.
Howard, John. 1977. Consumer Behavior: Application of Theory. New
York: McGraw-Hill.

Jacob),, Jacob, Donald E. Speller, and Carol A. Kohn. 19749 "Brand

Choice Behavior as a Function of Information Load." Journal of
Marketing Research 11 (February): 63-69.
Johnson, Eric J. and J. Edward Russo. 1984. "Product Familiarity and
Learning New Information." Journal of Consumer Research 11 (June):
542-550.
J6reskog9 K. G. and D. Sorbtm. 1995. I_JSREL 8. Chicago: Scientific
Software International.
Kim, Chankon and Majeed Khoury. 1987. "Task Complexity and Contingent Information Processing in the Case of Couple's Decision
Making." Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 25 (Fall):
32-43.
King9Karen Whitehill and James E. Haefner. 1988. "An Investigation of
the External Physician Search Process." Journal of Health Care Marketing 8 (2): 4-13.
Kuehl, Philip G. and Gary T. Ford. 1977. "The Promotion of Medical and
Legal Services: An Experimental Study." In Contemporary Marketing
Thought (AMA Educators' Proceedings). Eds. A. G. Greenberg and
D. N. Bellenger. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 39-44.
Lichtenstein9 Sarah and Baruch Fischoff. 1977. "Do Those Who Know
More Also Know More About How Much They Know." Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 20:159-183.
Locander, William B. and Peter W. Hermann. 1979. "The Effect of
Self-Confidence and Anxiety on Information Seeking in Consumer
Risk Reduction." Journal of Marketing Research 16 (May): 268-279.
Lovdal, Lynn T. and Ron Pearson. 1989. "Wanted--DoctorsWho Care.9
Journal of Health Care Marketing 9 (1): 37-41.
Lovelock, Christopher H., Ronald Stiff, David Cullwick9 and Ira M.
Kaufman. 1976. "An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Drop-Off
Questionnaire Delivery." Journal of Marketing Research 13 (November): 358-364.
Lussier, Denis A. and Richard W. Olshavsky. 1979. "Task Complexity
and Contingent Processing in Brand Choice." Journal of Consumer
Research 6 (September): 154-165.
Marks9Larry J. and Jerry C. Olson. 1981. "Toward a Cognitive Structure
Conceptualization of Product Familiarity." In Advances in Consumer
Research 8. Ed. Kent Monroe. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 145-150.
McQuiston, Daniel H. 1989. "Novelty, Complexity and Importance as
Causal Determinants of Industrial Buyer Behavior." Journal of Marketing 53 (April): 66-79.
Miyake9 Naomi and Donald Norman. 1979. ''To Ask a Question, One
Must Know Enough to Know What Is Not Known." Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior 18 (June): 357-364.
Murray9Keith B. 1991. "A Test of Services Marketing Theory: Consumer
Acquisition Activities." Journal of Marketing 55 (January): 10-25.
Newell9A. and H. A. Simon. 1972. Human Problem Solving. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Olshavsky, Richard W. 1979. "Task Complexity and Contingent Processing in Decision Making: A Replication and Extension." Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance 24:300-316.
and Donald H. Granbois. 1979. "Consumer Decision Making-Fact or Fiction?" Journal of Consumer Research 6 (September):
93-100.
and Michael Smith. 1980. "A Taxonomy of Brand Choice Environments." In Proceedings of the 88th Annual Convention of the
American Psychological Association (Division 23). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association, 145-154.
Olson, Jerry C. 1977. "Price as an Informational Cue: Effects on Product
Evaluations." In Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior. Eds. Arch
Woodside, Jagdish Sheth, and Peter Bennett. New York: North-Holland, 267-286.

Duhan et al. / WORD-OF-MOUTH RECOMMENDATION

Orsini, Joseph L. 1982. "Differences Between Goods and Services: An

Empirical Analysis of Information Source Importance." In Educators'
Conference Proceedings. Eds. Bruce J. Walker, William O. Bearden,
William R9 Darden, Patrick E. Murphy, John R. Nevin, Jerry Colsor,
and Barten A. Weitz. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 208211.
Paquette, Laurence and Thomas Kida. 1988. "The Effect of Decision
Strategy and Task Complexity on Decision Performance." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 41:128-142.
Park, C. Whan and V. Parker Lessig. 1981. "Familiarity and Its Impact
on Consumer Decision Biases and Heuristic." Journal of Consumer
Research 8 (September): 223-230.
, David Mothersbangh, and Lawrence Feick. 1994. "Consumer
Knowledge Assessment." Journal of Consumer Research 21 (June):
71-82.
Parsons, Talcott. 1951. The Social System. New York: Free Press.
Payne, John W. 1976. "Task Complexity and Contingent Processing in
Decision Making: An Information Search and Protocol Analysis."
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16:366-387.
9 1977. "Heuristic Search Processes in Decision Making." In
Advances in Consumer Research. Vol. 3. Ed. Beverlee Anderson. Ann
Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 321-327.
9 1982. "Contingent Decision Making." Psychological Bulletin
92:382-402.
Punj, Girish N. and Richard Staelin. 1983. "A Model of Consumer
Information Search Behavior for New Automobiles." Journal of Consumer Research 9 (March): 366-380.
Rao, Akshay R. and Kent B. Monroe. 1988. "The Moderating Effect of
Prior Knowledge on Cue Utilization in Product Evaluations." Journal
of Consumer Research 15 (September): 253-264.
and Wanda A. Seiben. 1992. "The Effect of Prior Knowledge on
Price Acceptability and the ~ype of Information Examined." Journal
of Consumer Research 19 (September): 256-271.
Ratchford, Brian T. and Alan A. Andreasen. 1974. "A Study of Consumer
Perceptions of Decisions." In Advances in ConsumerResearch.Vol. 1.
Eds. Scott Ward and Peter Wright. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for
Consumer Research, 334-345.
Reade, Julia M. and Richard M. Ratzan. 1989. "Access to Information-Physicians' Credentials and Where You Can't Find Them." New England Journal of Medicine 321 (7): 466-468.
Rosen, Dennis L. and Richard W. Olshavsky. 1987. "A Protocol Analysis
of Brand Choice Strategies Involving Recommendations." Journal of
Consumer Research 14 (December): 440-444.
Shostack, Lynn G. 1987. "Service Positioning Through Structural
Change." Journal of Marketing 51 (January): 34-43.
Spreng, Richard A. and Richard W. Olshavsky. 1989. "Exploring the
Headwaters of the Prior Knowledge-Search Relationship." In Proceed-

ings of Summer Educators' Conference,American MarketingAssocia-

295

tion. Eds. Paul Bloom, Russ Winer, Harold H. Kassarjian, Debra L.

Scammon, Bart Weitz, Robert Spekman, Vijay Mahajan, and Michael
Levy. Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Stewart, David W., Gerald B. Hickson, Srinivasan Ratneshwar, Corneha
Pechmann, and William Altemeier. 1985. "Information Search and
Decision Strategies Among Health Care Consumers." Advances in
Consumer Research 12:252-257.
Sujan, Mita. 1985. "Consumer Knowledge: Effects on Evaluation Strategies Mediating Consumer Judgments." Journal of ConsumerResearch
12 (June): 31-46.
Swartz, Teresa A. and Nancy Stephens. 1983. "Marketing Professional
Services: The Case of the Physician." In Proceedings of the 1983
Convention of the American Academy of Advertising. Ed. Donald
Jugenheimer. Lawrence, KS: American Academy of Advertising, 7882.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dale F. Duhan (Ph.D., University of Oregon) is on the marketing
faculty of the College of Business at Texas Tech University. His
work has been published in the Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, Journal of Marketing, and Journal of Marketing Research.

Scott D. Johnson (Ph.D., Michigan State University) is an
assistant professor of marketing at the College of Business and
Public Administration, University of Louisville 9 His research
interests center on consumer decision making and marketing
education. He has published previously in the Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, Journal o f Advertising, Strategic

Change, The International Executive, and Marketing Education
Review.
James B. Wilcox is a professor of marketing at Texas Tech
University. His research interests include research methodology,
quantitative methods, and competitive intelligence. His work has
appeared in the Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of

Marketing, and Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.

Gilbert D. l-Iarrell (Ph.D., Pennsylvania State University) is a
professor of marketing and supply chain management, Eli Broad
Graduate School of Management, Michigan State University,
East Lansing. His publications have appeared in numerous journais. His books include Consumer Behavior (Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1986) and Marketing Management (Simon &
Schuster).