First criterion

A construct is not included in the theoretical framework if it seems to have a plausible conceptual overlap with another construct in the framework. As shown in Chapter Two, there is a variety of constructs that have been used in the prediction of WOM dissemination. Some of these constructs seem to overlap in the way they are defined or operationalised despite their different labels. This overlap has indeed been noticed by WOM researchers such as Bristor (1990). Given the abstract level at which theoretical frameworks are

envisaged, conceptual overlap between WOM-related constructs was judged by examining the definitions of these constructs at face value. Of the ten constructs reviewed in

ChapterTwo, three were identified, each of which appeared to be ontologically similar to other constructs and therefore were not included in the framework as constructs of their own. However, the aspects and meanings that underlie these three constructs are argued to be accounted for through other constructs in the framework. These three constructs are consumer loyalty, quality, and perceived value. The following paragraphs explain why these three constructs are excluded.

100

First, as explained in Section 2.7, research has identified two dimensions by which loyalty was conceptualised; attitudinal and behavioural. The attitudinal component involves the cultivation of a positive emotional or psychological disposition on the part of the consumer toward a particular brand (Marshall, 2010). This psychological attachment tends to extend for a prolongedperiod of time (De Matos & Rossi, 2008), resulting in the consumer becoming an expert on the brand and its products. Furthermore, this positive long-term disposition toward the brand tends over time to fuse with the consumer’s sense of who they are(Park et al., 2010). It is argued here that, seen through the prism of this attitudinal dimension, the construct of loyalty seems to overlap conceptually with the construct of involvement, particularly enduring involvement. As explained previously in Section 2.1, a consumer is likely to develop a sense of enduring involvement with a product or a brand when they have an ongoing interest in such objects (Houston & Rothschild, 1978). This ongoinginvolvement tends to result in the consumer accumulating knowledge about and experience with the product or brand that gripped their interest. Additionally, this involvement is likely to become relevant to the consumer’s ego and to their sense of who they are. Moreover, consumption of a particular product is not necessary for the consumer to be regarded as loyal or enduringly involved.

Furthermore, it is argued here that making a cogent argument for an association between loyalty and WOM dissemination seems untenable when the construct of loyalty is seen through the prism of the behavioural dimension. As explained earlier, the behavioural dimension of loyalty refers to purchasing the same product from the same brand consistently over time (Gremler & Brown, 1996). Absent any psychological connection between the consumer and the product or its brand, repeat purchases persist over time when switching costs are high or when switching to another product entails inconvenient technical or psychological changes (Selnes, 1993). Seen from this perspective, arguing for an association between the behavioural dimension of loyalty and WOM dissemination seems a rather untenable task. Empirical evidence from Gounaris and Stathakopoulos (2004) and from Harrison-Walker (2001), cited in Section 2.7, seems to lend support to this view. Second, the debate concerning a conceptual overlap between the constructs of quality and satisfaction was laid bare in Section2.8. Within that debate, several definitions were cited that clearly attest to the overlap between quality and satisfaction and more specifically between quality and consumers’ expectations (De Wulf et al., 2003; Hartline & Jones, 1996).

101

Due to this overlap, the inclusion of the construct of quality in the framework is deemed a duplication, as its effect is accounted for through the construct of satisfaction and the disconfirmation paradigm.

Third, Section 2.9presented a description of perceived value as the result of a comparison that the consumer makes between consumption benefits and costs (De Matos & Rossi, 2008). This comparison process is not different from the comparison standard of the

disconfirmation paradigm that is central in determining consumers’ satisfaction. Accordingly, this constitutes a clear conceptual overlap between the construct of perceived value and the construct of satisfaction, more specifically between perceived value and consumers’

expectations. Furthermore, the specific types of value dimensions that have been identified in previous research point to another overlap with the construct of consumption type. Particularly, the functional and convenient dimensions of value seem to be identical to the utilitarian type of consumption. Perceived functional value is the utility that the consumer gains from the performance of a product (Sheth et al., 1991). Perceived convenience value is a judgement of effort, time, and attention paid by the consumer to obtain a product

(Pihlstrom, 2008). These two value dimensions are not different from the view of utilitarian consumption as an instrumental and practical experience in which functional and task- related benefits are obtained (Chaudhuri, 2002).

By the same token, the emotional dimension of value seems to have a high degree of resemblance to the hedonic type of consumption. Perceived emotional value refers to the feelings that are provoked in the customer as a result of consumption (Sheth et al., 1991). Similarly, hedonic consumption is a multisensory experience in which intangible affective benefits are obtained (O'Curry & Strahilevitz, 2001). Therefore, due to the overlap between the construct of perceived value and other constructs, perceived value is not included in the framework as a separate construct. Nevertheless, its ontological constituents are taken into accountwithin the framework through other constructs such as consumers’ expectations and consumption types.