) EAGLY [12] [7] [3] ; 1.2 [7] 1 ( ); 1.1 ( ) [13] [8] [89] ( ) ( ) [10] [7] [14] [7] ( ) [9] [7] 2 WIENER [11] ( ) ( 1346

8 9 2011 9 ChineseJournalofManagement Vol.8No.9 Sep.2011 1 2 (1. ;2. ) : ; : ; ; ; :C93 :A :1672 884X(2011)09 1345 08 Impactofthee WOM PlatformsonConsumerProductJudgment:APerspectiveonAtributionTheory LIWei 1 WANGZhizhang 2 (1.NankaiUniversityTianjinChina;2.SouthwestUniversityChongqingChina) Abstract:WiththerapiddevelopmentoftheInternetmoreandmoreconsumerbehaviorhasbeen embeddedinthevirtualnetworkssotheinformationfrominternettookincreasinglytheimpacton consumerbehavior.thispaperfromtheperspectiveofatributiontheoryusingexperimentalre searchmethodsanalysesthemainefectsofe WOMpublishingvariousplatformsonconsumercausal inferenceandproductjudgmentandexaminesthemoderatingroleofthevalenceofe WOM onthe platformsandconsumerproductjudgmentrelationship.finalyitdiscussestheideasandstrategyof disseminatingmarketinginformationthroughtheinternet. Keywords:e WOM;platforms;productjudgment;atributiontheory (WOM) :1 ;2 ;3 [1] [5] [6] [23] ( ) ( ) ) ( ( Nokia ) ( Blog) NEWMAN [4] (e WOM) 2 :2010 03 12 : (07JA840014); (08BSH020) 1345

8 9 2011 9 ) EAGLY [12] [7] [3] ; 1.2 [7] 1 ( ); 1.1 ( ) [13] [8] [89] ( ) ( ) [10] [7] [14] [7] ( ) [9] [7] 2 WIENER [11] ( ) ( 1346

[12] ; ( ) : 1a 1b 2 1.3 2 BICKART [1] [18] XUE [15] GOLD SMITH [9] ( ) [16] IPSOS 1/2 [2] ; 1/3 [17] [3] 1347

8 9 2011 9 51.5%(100 ) 48.5% (94 ) ; 1 21 (10.8%) ( ) 1~2 77 (39.7%) 3~5 69 (35.6%) ( 5 27 ) (13.9%) : 2.2 3a 1 2 3b TaKa 4a 2.3 URL 4b 2 2 2.1 3( : TaKa ) 2( 3 : (50%) (50%)) 2 (CNNIC) TaKa 2 [19] : 3.84 50.7% 25 2009 54.5% 28.9% ; TaKa 94.3% 12 3 19~24 50% ( 18~24 ) SPSS15.0for [20] Windows 194 3.1 6 18~24 22.3 ; 1348 TaKa 6 2 :1 3 [71015]

: TaKa 16( 2 2 4) Likert 7 (1 1 7 ) Cronbach sα 0.79 3 : ( 1) [1621] 4 Likert5 (Cronbach s α=30.88); 4 Likert5 (Cronbach sα=0.81); 1a 1b 1 Likert5 (1= 5= ) 1 3.2 df F Sig. 53.31 5 3.12 0.000 20.65 5 1.56 0.041 TaKa 8.83 4 2.35 0.000 TaKa TaKa 5.01 4 1.93 0.008 183 TaKa 2.99 4 2.88 0.025 ( 94.33%) 15.32 5 0.94 0.792 10.79 5 0.56 0.378 TaKa 2.55 6 1.22 0.094 TaKa 15.57 6 0.93 0.683 TaKa 3.42 6 3.58 0.002 : p <0.05 p <0.01 p <0.001 t (t =37.33p < ( 0.001) (M =5.91) (M=1.26) 2) 3.3 2 5 2 a. b. c. ( ) ( ) ( ) 2 TaKa 12.23 bc (0.429) 15.25 a (0.532) 15.16 a (0.530) TaKa 8.76 bc (0.213) 11.31 ac (0.479) 10.09 ab (0.483) TaKa 1.85 bc (0.092) 2.63 a (0.198) 2.57 a (0.198) 3 4 (F=3.58 p<0.05) ( 1) (M=3.98) (M=3.84) 3 (M=3.21) 1349

8 9 2011 9 ( 3 : 1) ; 4a 4b 3 ( ) 4a a. 3.21 bc (0.18) b. 3.98 a (0.16) c. 3.84 a (0.17) 4b a. 1.48(0.14) b. 1.46(0.16) c. 1.52(0.16) 1 [23] 4 4.1 [8] ( ) 4.2 ; ( ) XUE [15] ; 2 ; 1350

; 3 [1]BICKARTBSCHINDLER M.InternetForumsasIn fluentialsourcesofconsumerinformation [J].Journal ofinteractivemarketing200115 (3):31~40. [2]HERR MKARDES R.Efectsof Word of Mouth XUE andproductatributeinformationonpersuasion:an Accessibility diagnosticityperspective[j].journalof ConsumerResearch199117(4):454~462. [3]SEN SLERMAN D.Why Wre You Teling Me This An Examinationinto NegativeConsumerRe viewsontheweb[j].journalofinteractivemarket ing200721 (4):76~94. [4]NEWMAN M.TheStructureandFunctionofCom plexnetworks [J].SIAM Review200345(2): ; 167~256. [5]. [J]. ( 2009(6):127~131. [6]DELLAROCASC. The Digitization of Word of ) Mouth:PromiseandChalengesofOnlineFeedback Mechanisms [J]. Management Science200349 (10):1407~1424. [7]CHATTERJEEP. Online Review:Do Consumers UseThem [J].Advancesin Consumer Research 4.3 200128 (2):129~133. [8]LACZNIAK NDECARLO E.Consumers Respon sesto Negative Word of mouth Communication:An AtributionTheoryPerspective [J].JournalofCon sumerpsychology200111 (1):57~73. [9]GOLDSMITH MHOROWITZD.Measuring Moti vationsforonlineopinionseeking[j].journalofin teractiveadvertising20066 (2):123~135. [10]RIFONJCHOI M.CongruenceEfectsinSpon sorship:the MediatingRoleofSponsorCredibility andconsumeratributionsofsponsor Motive [J]. JournalofAdvertising200433 (1):30~42. [22] [11]WIENERLMOWENC.SourceCredibility:OntheIn ( dependentefectsoftrustandexpertise[j].advances ) inconsumerresearch198613 (1):306~310. [12]EAGLY HCHAIKENS.AnAtributionAnalysis oftheefectofcommunicatorcharacteristicsono pinionchange:thecaseofcommunicatoratrac tiveness[j].journalofpersonalityandsocialpsy chology197557(1):136~144. 1351

8 9 2011 9 [13]GRANOVETTER M.The Strength of Weak Ties [J].AmericanJournalofSociology197883(6): 1360~1380. [14]GRANITZAWARD C.VirtualCommunity:A SociocognitiveAnalysis[J].AdvancesinConsumer Research199623 (1):161~166. [15]XUEFPHELPSE.Internet facilitatedconsumer to consumercommunication:the Moderating Role ofreceivercharacteristics [J].InternationalJour nalofinternetmarketingandadvertising200421 (2):121~136. [16]THORSONS RODGERS S. Relationships be tweenblogsasewom andinteractivityperceived InteractiveandParasocialInteraction[J].Journalof [19]CNNIC.2009 [R]. : 2010:7~8. [20]SKOWRONSKIJCARLSTON E.Negativityand ExtremityBiasesinImpression Formation:A Re view of Explanations [J].PsychologicalBuletin 1989105(1):131~142. [21]DUHANFJOHNSON D.InfluenceonConsumer Use of Word of mouth Recommendation Sources [J].AcademyofMarketingScience199725 (4): 283~295. [22]WRIGHTL.The Cognitive Processes Mediating AcceptanceofAdvertising [J].Journalof Market ingresearch197310(2):53~62. ( ) InteractiveAdvertising20066 (2):54~69. [17]BULIKS.WhoBlogs OddsAre MarketersHaveNo : (1956~) Idea[J].AdvertisingAge200717(4):20~27. ( 400715) [18]. [J]. 2007(22): E mail:buddykingw@g mail.com 36~42. ( 1268 ) [1]. [J]. 2363. 20096(9):1137~1142. [2]. 3 [J]. 20107(9):1290. [3]. 201027(19):1~4. [J]. 200926 [14]. [M]. : (11):5~12. 2010:60~69. [4]. [M]//. 2010.. : [16] M. : 2004:128~136. [M].. : 2010. [5]. [17]. : [M]. [J]. : 2011. 2005(11):211~213. [6]. 2011. [J]. 20063(3): 127~131142. [7]. : [J]. 2008(1): 57~63. [8]. ( 510632) [J]. 20085(3):323~329. (7):861~866. [11]. [J]. 2009(8):18~ [12]. 12 [J]. 2010(8):67~73. [13]. [J]. [15]. [M]. : [18]. [M]. : [19]. [J]. : 1990(1):100~109. ( ) : (1940~) ; ; [9]. [J]. 2008(12):24~31. E mail:lrh@jnu.edu.cn [10]. [J]. 20096 1352