WOM re-conceptualisation

It was argued in Section1.3.2 that refining the concept of WOM dissemination could lead to a better understanding and better prediction of this behaviour. The need for this refinement represents the genesis of the theoretical framework proposed in the current chapter. In Chapter One, positive WOM dissemination was defined as the consumer’s conveyance of their endorsement of a particular brand or product to other consumers. Invoking the prototype theory,it is argued here that this view of positive WOM dissemination portrays this concept as a basic level concept. According to the prototype theory, things can be conceptualised at three levels of generality; superordinate, basic, and subordinate (Rosch & Mervis, 1975; Rosch, Mervis, Gray, Johnson, & Boyes-Braem, 1976). At the top is the

superordinate level followed by the basic level and then the subordinate level at the bottom. The level of generality and inclusiveness of a concept decreases as the level of

conceptualisation moves downward. Thus, a concept that is defined at the superordinate level tends to be general and inclusive. In other words, such a concept or category tends to subsume several subcategories within it. Asuperordinate category is also said to be at such a high level of generality that members within the category have only few attributes in

common.

The subcategories that are encapsulated within a superordinate category are referred to in the prototype theory as basic-level categories. They represent the middle level of

conceptualisation. At this level, a category’s degree of inclusiveness starts to decrease. However, attributes that are specific to that category begin to formulate across different members of the category and be readily discerned. Within this basic level, another set of

94

subcategories exists. These tier-three subcategories represent the subordinate level of conceptualisation. At this level, more attributes can be identified whose degree of specificity render subordinate categories the least inclusive. Despite the high level of specificity at this conceptualisation level, common attributes across the subordinate categories tend to counterbalance the differences (Rosch et al., 1976).

The taxonomy of the prototype theory outlined above can be explained further with

examples. The word “vehicles” is a label that denotes a superordinate concept. Encapsulated within that superordinate category are a number of subcategories such as cars, motorcycles, trucks, and airplanes. These can be regarded as basic-level categories on their own

right(Rosch et al., 1976). The concept of vehicles conveys fewer attributes that are common to all vehicles compared to the concept of cars conferring common attributes to all cars. Further refinement of the concept of vehicles can be reached by refining one of the

concept’s basic-level categories. For instance, third tiers categories such as four-door sedan, two-door sedan, and minivan can be specified to reach that level of conceptualisation. These tier-three subcategories represent subordinate-level concepts(Tversky & Hemenway, 1984). While each of the different subcategories of cars has its own specific attributes, all cars have more in common than the subtle differences that set them apart.

A comparison between the three levels of conceptualisation led Rosch et al. (1976) and others such as Tversky and Hemenway (1984) to assign perceptual salience to concepts at the basic level as opposed to the superordinate and subordinate levels. This primacy was demonstrated in a series of experiments conducted by Rosch et al. (1976). In one of these experiments, participants were shown pictures of different objects in succession. For each picture, participants were required to write down a word that typifies the object. It was found that participants tended to choose labels that define the objects at the basic level more frequently than the other levels (i.e., superordinate and subordinate). For example, a picture of a table was identified as a table (i.e., basic-level category) more often than being identified as furniture (i.e., superordinate category)(Rosch et al., 1976).

In another experiment, participants first listened to a word that defined a particular object at one of the three conceptualisation levels. Examples of such words included animal, bird, and robin which denoted respectively the superordinate, the basic, and the subordinate levels of conceptualisation. After the audio presentation of the word, participants were presented

95

with a picture of an object. Their task was to indicate whether the picture was the epitome of the category that the word referred to. Additionally, the time it took participants to make that indication was measured. The analytic results revealed that participants spent the shortest amount of time in matching a picture to a basic-level label in comparison to superordinate and subordinate labels(Rosch et al., 1976). Similar experiments were

replicated by Tversky and Hemenway (1984) whose findings corroborated those of Rosch et al. (1976).As pointed out by a number of researchers, these findings seem to be in line with the findings that basic-level concepts or categories enter children’s lexicon before those that are defined at the superordinate and subordinate levels (Mervis & Rosch, 1981; Wisniewski & Murphy, 1989).

The taxonomy of the prototype theory can be utilised to refine the behaviour of

disseminating positive WOM messages as a concept.As quotedin Chapter One, WOM in general has been defined as “communication between a non-commercial communicator and a receiver concerning a brand, a product, or a service offered for sale”(Lang, 2010, p. 33).It is argued here that this definition is a conceptualisation of WOM at the superordinate level. Within this general and inclusive superordinate category, a few subcategories are subsumed such as disseminating positive WOM, disseminating negative WOM, and requesting WOM. Additionally, disseminating positive WOM has been defined here as the consumer’s

conveyance of their endorsement of a particular brand or product to other consumers. It is thereforeargued that this definition represents a basic-level conceptualisation of WOM. Thus, the WOM literature seems to be lacking further refinement of WOM dissemination at the subordinate level.

This researcher is of the opinion that the argument for the primacy of basic-level

conceptualisations holds true in terms of everyday human perceptual processes. However, such primacy might be untenable in academic conceptualisations in which the emphasis is placed on ontological specificity (Churchill, 1979; Jaccard & Jacoby, 2010). This argument seems to find support from within the literature of the prototype theory itself. Rosch et al. (1976) speculated that the special status of basic-level categories might be rivalled by subordinate categories when the perceiver is an expert on the perceived object. Such speculation was later empirically confirmed by Tanaka and Taylor (1991). Tanaka and Taylor (1991) replicated the experiments cited above from Rosch et al. (1976) while also taking into account the expertise of participants. The authors hypothesised that experts would use

96

subordinate labels to define objects as frequently as they use basic-level labels. Similarly, experts would likely be faster in matching a picture of an object to a subordinate label compared to non-experts. The authors reasoned that the detailed knowledge which experts possess about a particular domain should make them more likely to see and define that domain from a subordinate-level perspective as opposed to superordinate or basic levels. Using a sample that included experts on dogs and experts on birds, the hypotheses were empirically supported. The recruited dog experts did not possess expertise in the bird domain, and the recruited bird experts did not possess expertise in the dog domain. This allowed the experimenters to treat each type of experts as novices in the other’s domain. All participants were shown pictures of different breeds of birds and dogs, and then asked to name the object in the picture. In fifty-seven per cent of the incidents, experts used

subordinate labels such as Cardinal, Sparrow, Jay, or Robin to describe the pictures of birds; and to describe the pictures of dogs, they used labels such as Doberman Pinscher, German Shepherd, Cocker Spaniel, or Beagle. Comparatively, experts resorted to basic-level labels for forty-three per cent of theiropportunities. Furthermore, when they participated as novices, participants used basic-level labels forseventy-six per cent and subordinate labels only twenty-one per cent of the photographs(Tanaka & Taylor, 1991).

In another experiment, the same experts who participated in the previous experiment were presented with pictures of different breeds of birds and dogs multiple times. Every picture was also combined with a label that purportedly defined that picture. These labels spanned the three levels of conceptualisation (i.e., superordinate, basic, and subordinate). The participants’ task was to indicate whether the picture-label combination was true or false. The authors found no difference between the time it took experts to identify a true combination at the subordinate level and the time they needed to identify a true

combination at the basic level. Novices, however, needed a longer time to identify a true combination at the subordinate level compared to one at the basic level (Tanaka & Taylor, 1991).

Along with marketing specialists, marketing theoreticians are the experts of the marketing discipline. Thus, when devising theories to explain the concept of disseminating WOM and how it relates to other concepts, marketing academics and theoreticians would be

97

refined conceptualisations of the phenomena they investigate is a fundamental part of their role as social scientists (Jaccard & Jacoby, 2010). Jaccard and Jacoby (2010) refer to such refinement as the process of instantiation, and described it as “a deliberate process that involves specifying concrete instances of abstract concepts in order to help clarify their meaning” (p. 76).

Several examples of conceptual refinement can be found in the literature. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975)for instance presented an extensive literature review of the concept of attitude. After analysing more than five hundred definitions of this concept, they put forward an argument that three separate constructs can be detected from the definitions they

reviewed; beliefs, feelings, and behavioural intentions. Moreover, they argued that each of the three attitude types have different sets of predictors. The concept of perceived risk is another example of a similar conceptual refinement. Early conceptualisations of perceived risk viewed the concept generally as the level of uncertainty in anticipating the

consequences of an action (Bauer, 1967). However, a refined view of this concept was subsequently suggested by Jacoby and Kaplan (1972) in which they argued that perceived risk is a function of the setting in which this phenomenon occurs. Accordingly, they identified four subcategories of perceived risk; physical, monetary, social, and moral.

Aiming to provide a refined conceptualisation of WOM dissemination at the subordinate level, the current research contextualises this concept by following guidelines that were put forward by Jaccard and Jacoby (2010). Theyargued that within social science, most instances of people’s social behaviour have four properties: an action, an object, a time, and a setting. The action property concerns the core behavioural phenomenon that the researcher is investigating; the object is the target of the action; the time property refers to when the action occurs; and the setting refers to the context in which the action transpires. Applying these properties on the behaviour of disseminating WOM messages, the action property is realised when the consumer generates a WOM message. An object of that action could be the product that the message talks about, or it could be the person to whom the message is directed. The action and the object properties are not utilised here in the refinement of WOM dissemination. Rather, the remaining two properties (time and setting) are employed to make two distinctions that have not received much contemplation in previous WOM research.

98

The first distinction is related to the timing property. The vast majority of WOM research seems to presuppose that the behaviour of generating a WOM message is always a post- consumption behaviour. The current research argues that this behaviour can also occur pre- consumption. This view finds anecdotal support in the buzz that usually precedes the launch of some products such as a new smart phone or a new movie of a popular Hollywood star. Also, indirect support for this view can be found in some WOM definitions suggested in previous research. One example is the definition put forward byHennig-Thurau et al. (2004) who described WOM communication in general as a “statement made by potential, actual, or former customers” (p. 39).The second distinction is related to the setting property. It revolves around whether the WOM message is generated voluntarily or whether it was primarily a reply to a request for advice. Voluntary messages are generated without being preceded by a request for advice. On the contrary, solicited WOM messages have to be preceded by an explicit request for advice. Otherwise, they are unlikely to be generated. Based on the two distinctions noted above, the concept of generating WOM is split into three separate categories: generating unsolicited pre-consumption WOM, generating unsolicitedpost-consumption WOM, and generating solicited WOM. The first is defined as the consumer’s unrequested conveyance of their endorsement of a particular brand or product to another consumer before consumption. The second is defined as the consumer’s unrequested conveyance of their endorsement of a particular brand or product to another consumer after consumption. The third is defined as the consumer’s conveyance of their endorsement of a particular brand or product to another consumer after receiving a request for advice.Distinguishing between generating solicited pre-consumption WOM and

generating solicited post-consumption WOM was deemed unnecessary and inconsequential. This is so because in generating solicited WOM, the request for advice is the main driver of generating the WOM message. In other words, absent an explicit request for advice, the WOM message is unlikely to be generated. Hence, in this case the distinction between generating solicited pre-consumption WOM and generating solicited post-consumption WOM is irrelevant.