Where did speech come from? Long before the written word, humans communicated through different means. From the drawings on the Chauvet caves to mimicry and movements, to the Greeksâ rhetoric art, mankind has always strived to connect. Before delving into the written word, an overview of the evolution of speech is essential.
At one point in time, the mere thought of theorizing about the birth of speech was heavily frowned upon. In fact, in the 1860s, the British Academy, as well as the SociĂŠtĂŠ Linguistique de Paris, discouraged their members from speculating about those origins. It was believed that these debates would only lead to pointless assumptions (Hockett & Hockett, 1960). A century later, deliberations were once again possible. The time was finally right to lead these investigations as new ways of thinking and new techniques emerged. Over the last decades, studies on the matter exploded.
Nevertheless, the lines remain blurred concerning the beginning of speech. It was clear that no consensus would be reached soon. However, what was certain is the fact that fully developed language was present 50 000 years ago in Europe where humans created art and buried the dead, a sign of the existence of fluent language (Holden, 2004). Speech evolved with the physiological development of human speech organs that are used in language such as vocal organs, the lips, and the tongue. It is believed that the ancient mother tongue spoken by first modern humans is the click language, which relies on adept tongue and inward air movement (Holden, 2004).
Once speech was born, it was only a matter of time before it was put together to create a story. People love stories and have been telling them for a long time. From drawing tales of hunting adventures on caves in the prehistoric era to narrating the Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh and the Ancient Greek Odyssey, sharing stories has always been a tool to entertain, educate, preserve culture or even preach moral values. These oral traditions of storytelling can be thought of as the first form of word of mouth.
Before the invention of writing and the printing press, engaging in word of mouth was the easiest way to communicate. This idiom has been used since the 1500s; it is the anglicization of the Latin idiom viva voce, which translates to living voice (Word of mouth Idiom Definition â Grammarist, 2020). Word of mouth entails the oral exchange of information between individuals, it has shaped the way we pass on tradition, and relay the history of the world, as well as communicate on common interests.
Rumors or word of mouth?
People often relate word of mouth to rumors. Early work on rumors, dating back several centuries, had already emphasized its negative and unstable character. Several fields have then seized this notion to study the mechanisms of influence of information conveyed by word of mouth.
Rumor is derived from the Latin word rumor that means confusing noise that runs. Rumors ran for centuries before being considered an object of scientific research. The first known attempt at a definition dates back to the seventeenth century where the first definitions focused on their slanderous and irrational aspect (Brodin & Roux, 1990). Louis William Stern (1902) defines the rumor as âa chain of subjects who tell each other a story of word-of-mouth, without repetition or explanation; at the end, we compare the story told by the first subject and the story told by the last; naturally, history is at best truncated, at worst distorted.â Thus, the German sociologist was the first to refer to the uncertain aspect of the rumor and the change that it undergoes over time. As of the second half of the twentieth century, research on rumors increased in a cyclical logic. The rumors spoke of major events that marked public opinions such as wars or pandemics. During the Second World War, when rumors became a full-fledged war strategy, early definitions of word of mouth appeared with the work of Allport and Postman (1946). In the footsteps of L. W. Sterne, the two psychologists have revealed three characteristics of word of mouth similar to rumors: leveling, sharpening, and assimilation. Leveling suggests that the message gets shorter with fewer details as it gets diffused in later versions. Sharpening refers to the fact that the predominant information remains in the storyline and is not removed in future versions; it includes selective retention of information. Finally, assimilation is the ânoiseâ people add as they retell the rumor through their own linguistic specificities and cognitive biases. It can be linked to distortion since it refers to the integration of oneâs attitude, beliefs, and subconscious. According to Breck and Cardieâs (2004) broken phone syndrome, positive information gets shorter and is not distorted while negative information gets longer in later versions and is distorted. The definitions of rumor have increased since then, but they all agree on the characteristics mentioned earlier, namely, the arbitrary aspect of the speech, the changing content as it is transmitted, and the validity of the story, almost impossible to verify.
More recently, Roquette (1979) has developed four characteristics of the rumor: the implication of the transmitter, the impossibility of verifying the transmitted content, the negativity, and the distortion of the message. A few years later, the notion of rumor marketing is introduced in France (Kapferer, 1990). The author is one of the pioneers to have considered word of mouth as mass media. He develops a definition that will then serve as a theoretical basis for research on rumors, particularly in the field of marketing communication and brand awareness. According to the author, a rumor is âthe emergence and circulation of social information that is neither confirmed nor denied publicly by official sources.â Inscribing the rumor in an individual frame, but also in the social frame, we can draw a list of motivations that push an individual to relay this type of information. According to the author, individuals need to speak-to-speak, speak-to-know, speak-to-please, and finally speak-to-convince.
Rumor is then conveyed through word-of-mouth, which is defined as an interpersonal oral transmission between a transmitter and a receiver where the communicant is perceived as non-commercial (Arendt, 1967). Several areas are quickly taking hold of this nascent concept of word of mouth. We can mention, to name a few: social communication, social psychology, information sciences, and later, management sciences. The focus of this book is the latter.
Towards a comprehensive definition of WOM
As research regarding WOM evolved, many different definitions have emerged, such as Westbrookâs (1987) definition in which he specifies the subject matter of the communication and incorporates the services factor that was lacking in Arendtâs definition. Buttle (1998) also adds an important contribution when he explains that the information can be positive or negative. Additionally, Stokes et al. (2002) stipulate that WOM is an interpersonal communication about products or services in which the sender perceives the receiver to be impartial. This mention of impartiality relates to the receiversâ perception towards the source. Stokes et al. (2002) were the first to introduce the notion of how individuals perceive the source and their belief in them. Similarly, Litvin et al. (2008) highlight a defining characteristic of WOM: the independence of the source. Some authors speak of consumer-to-consumer communication (Gruen et al., 2006).
Based on the previous definitions we can, therefore, retain a broad definition of classical word of mouth as a consumer-to-consumer informal exchange of positive or negative information about a product or a service serving no commercial intent. A review of the WOM definition is presented in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1 WOM definition
Informal | The term informal refers to an unorganized behavior. |
Communication | Word of mouth consists on sharing information, thoughts or ideas. It can be either positive or negative (Buttle, 1998). |
A sender and a receiver | WOM occurs between friends and family, it almost does not happen anonymously. |
No commercial aim | It is considered to be more effective than advertising because it is perceived to be unbiased (Stokes et al., 2002) |
WOM in marketing: the birth of WOMM
The power and potential of word of mouth have pushed marketers to integrate this phenomenon in their marketing strategies. The first person to recognize the benefits of this informal communication was psychologist George Silverman. In 1970, he conducted a study where physicians were asked to discuss new pharmaceutical products. He soon realized that even the most skeptical of doctors were influenced by the positive feedbacks of their peers. It was so powerful that even physicians who had previously endured a negative experience with the products changed their minds following their peersâ positive reviews (Pandey et al., 2017). Silverman was the pioneer of word of mouth marketing (WOMM).
Word of mouth marketing is the intentional influencing of consumer-to-consumer communications through marketing techniques (Kozinets et al., 2010). This phenomenon was so powerful that the Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA) was created in 2004 to ethically lead and advocate for the WOM industry through education, professional development, networking, and knowledge sharing. It was acquired in 2018 by ANA (Association of National Advertisers) (Wolfe, 2018). Word of mouth marketing drives $6 trillion of annual consumer spending and is believed to constitute 13 percent of consumer sales. Moreover, WOMM impression yields five times more sales than paid media impression (Saleh, n.d.). In fact, people are more likely to believe their friends than other marketing sources since peer influence is 5000 times more effective than traditional marketing (Silverman, 2009).
Over the years, professional as well as academic studies on WOMM have exploded. Professional books on how to generate and use WOMM have piqued the interest of businesses (Kelly, 2007; Rosen, 2009; Sernovitz et al., 2006) while researchers continued to explore the antecedents and consequences of this phenomenon (Kozinets et al., 2010; Cheung et al., 2009).
The power of WOM resides in the fact that consumers prefer to get information from their peers, which makes WOM the most trusted source of information since itâs independent, impartial, and informal (Derbaix & Vanhamme, 2003). In parallel, WOM has become a more effective marketing tool (Goldsmith & Horowitz, 2006). In fact, WOM has an impact on consumer behavior and can influence their preferences (Godes & Mayzlin, 2004).
Furthermore, research has shown that WOM influences product decisions, selecting service providers (Price & Feick, 1984; Lau & Ng, 2001; Keaveney, 1995) and reducing risk and uncertainty of choice (Olshavsky & Granbois, 1979). Consumers make an effort while deciding on their next purchase. Other consumersâ recommendations reduce these efforts and the uncertainty of making a decision by making it easier to decide on a purchase (Fitzsimons & Lehman, 2004).
Identifying persuasion mechanisms to better understand WOM
Persuasive communication has been the subject of much research in various fields: psychology, sociology, social communication, etc. Research in the field of medical persuasion has uncovered more than 15 theories belonging to different categories: theories of attitude, cognitive theories, functional approaches, cognitive biases, and others (Cameron, 2009). Historically, the scientific community recognizes two distinct origins of work on persuasion. The first essays, of artistic origin, are attributed to Aristotle and go back to more than three centuries bc where the latter had already defined, by means of the treatise of the rhetoric, the arguments of the persuasion and the effects that it is necessary to arouse in the receiver to convince him (De Barnier, 2006). He was the first to lay the groundwork for social influence and persuasion (BERSCHEID, 1976). During the Second World War a second approach of the attitude was born, a more scientific one. Carl Hovlandâs experimental empirical research has been a major turning point in this area. Unlike his predecessorâs work that focuses on the receiver, Hovland was more interested in the source and form of the message. Three currents then emerged: work based on the contribution of Hovland, which focused on the sender; those who study the form and structure of the message (Hovland et al., 1953; McGuire, 1969); and finally, those who are interested in the receiver (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). This trilogy dominated the field of persuasive research until the emergence of foundational works on advertising persuasion adopting a more holistic approach. The ELM (Elaboration Likelihood Model) model that Petty and Cacioppo developed in 1981 embodied this holistic approach. This gave rise to many works that attempted to study persuasion and its underlying mechanisms, cognitive but also emotional. Researchers then approached more interactive and complementary approaches (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982; Zajonc, 1980), giving birth to a new era: that of persuasion through the double process of persuasion, also called the persuasion routes. Therefore, it is no longer a question of a single persuasion process but of a multitude of mechanisms acting alone, together or intertwined (Chaiken & Eagly, 1983; Greenwald & Leavitt, 1984; Mitchell, 1981, Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). It goes without saying that this trend has created a strong divergence among the scientific community as to the number of routes involved and their modes of interaction. Overall, the theory of persuasion was based on a simple questioning: how can we persuade individuals to change their attitude. Is it with the right arguments?
Persuasive communication is based on the traditional theory of communication and is comprised of the same elements. Going back to the theory of classical communication, Lasswell (1948) proposed the following formula: âWho says what to whom, in what channel with what effect.â In other words, communication consists of five components: the transmitter (âwhoâ), the message (âwhatâ), the receiver (âwhoâ), the support (âchannel with what effectâ). Figure 1.1 illustrates the basic communication model. Each one of these components of word of mouth communication will be mentioned at the end of this chapter. Itâs important at this stage to focus...
