versus advocate (i.e., “marketer-co

versus advocate (i.e., “marketer-controlled” or “seller-dominat¬ed”) and impersonal (i.e., “mass”) versus personal/interpersonal (i.e., “word-of-mouth;” Andreasen, 1968; Beatty and Smith 1987; Schmidt and Spreng, 1996).
4.1. The potency of word-of-mouth
One of the most important sources of product information is personal/interpersonal. “Informal conversation is probably the oldest mechanism by which opinions on products and brands are developed, expressed, and spread... Word-of-mouth emerges as one of the most important, if not the most important source of information for the consumer” (Arndt, 1967, p. 1 and 70; also see Goodman, 1999). The influence of word-of-mouth has been studied extensively in the marketing management and consumer psychology literatures (e.g., Dye, 2000; Brown and Reingen, 1987). Word-of-mouth has been shown to be particularly important with regard to services (Zeithaml et al., 1996) and the diffusion of innovations (Mahajan et al., 1990), and is a closely related and consequential outcome of consumer satisfaction and loyalty (Oliver, 1997; Reichheld, 1996).
Word-of-mouth has been linked with a variety of personality traits or trait-like constructs including Extraversion (Mooradian and Olver, 1997) and traits or facets subsumed by Extraversion such as “sociability” (Lau and Ng, 2001) and “social needs” (Reynolds and Beatty, 1999). Word-of-mouth has also been related to Extraversion in the form of “Opinion Leadership”: “A very consistent attribute of opinion leaders, from the early studies and across numerous areas of leadership and personal influence was their social activity and gregariousness” (Wei¬mann, 1999, p. 79).
4.2. Word-of-mouth across cultures and nations
Limited research has considered information search or source preferences across nations or cultures. Money et al. (1998), noting that “(v)irtually no [previous] WOM studies have been undertaken on a cross-national basis” (p. 77), found strong support for the hypothesis that the Japanese firms rely on word-of-mouth referrals more than American firms and on stronger interpersonal ties in sourcing industrial services. They explained those differences with reference to Hofstede's Individualism and Uncertainty Avoidance dimensions and to the High- versus Low-Context cultural distinction, but they did not test those relationships.
Dawar et al. (1996), surveying students at a “major European business school,” found that Uncertainty Avoidance and Power Distance (for the students' home countries) predicted reliance on interpersonal sources of product information. Keillor et al. (2001) found that level of economic development was inversely related to the influence of personal sources such as family and friends; they did not consider cultural or individual differences across nations. Pornpitakpan (2000) referenced Hofstede's Uncertainty Avoidance to explain the observation that, “in making purchase decisions, Japanese are apt to rely more heavily on personal sources of information than Thais, and Thais are apt to do so more heavily than Americans” (p. 64).

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

versus advokat (yaitu. "marketer-dikendalikan" atau "Penjual-dominat¬ed") dan impersonal (yaitu, "Misa") versus pribadi interpersonal (yaitu, "kata-of-mulut;" Andreasen, 1968. Beatty dan Smith 1987; Schmidt dan Spreng, 1996).4.1. potensi kata-of-mulutSalah satu sumber paling penting informasi produk pribadi dan interpersonal. "Percakapan informal mungkin adalah mekanisme yang tertua yang pendapat tentang produk dan merek dikembangkan, menyatakan, dan menyebar... Kata-of-mulut muncul sebagai salah satu yang paling penting, jika tidak sumber paling penting informasi untuk konsumen"(Arndt, 1967, ms. 1 dan 70; Lihat juga Goodman, 1999). Pengaruh kata-of-mulut telah dipelajari secara ekstensif dalam pemasaran manajemen dan konsumen literatur psikologi (misalnya, pewarna, 2000; Brown dan Reingen, 1987). Kata-of-mulut telah terbukti menjadi sangat penting dalam Layanan (Zeithaml et al., 1996) dan difusi inovasi (Mahajan et al., 1990), dan hasil yang erat terkait dan konsekuensial kepuasan konsumen dan loyalitas (Oliver, 1997; Reichheld, 1996).Kata-of-mulut telah dikaitkan dengan berbagai ciri-ciri kepribadian atau sifat-seperti konstruksi termasuk Extraversion (Mooradian dan Olver, 1997) dan ciri-ciri atau aspek mana menggolongkan oleh Extraversion seperti "keramahan" (Lau dan Ng, 2001) dan "kebutuhan sosial" (Reynolds dan Beatty, 1999). Kata-of-mulut telah juga berhubungan dengan Extraversion dalam bentuk "Kepemimpinan pendapat": "atribut sangat konsisten pemimpin opini, dari kajian-kajian dini dan di berbagai daerah kepemimpinan dan pengaruh pribadi adalah kegiatan sosial dan gregariousness mereka" (Wei¬mann, 1999, hal. 79).4.2. kata-of-mulut di seluruh budaya dan bangsa-bangsaTerbatas penelitian telah dianggap preferensi pencarian atau sumber informasi di seluruh negara atau budaya. Uang et al. (1998), mencatat bahwa "(v) irtually ada [sebelumnya] WOM penelitian telah dilakukan pada dasar lintas" (p. 77), menemukan dukungan kuat bagi hipotesis bahwa perusahaan-perusahaan Jepang bergantung pada arahan kata-of-mulut lebih daripada perusahaan-perusahaan Amerika dan lebih kuat hubungan interpersonal dalam sumber industri layanan. Mereka menjelaskan perbedaan dengan referensi untuk Hofstede's individualisme dan ketidakpastian penghindaran dimensi dan tinggi-versus rendah-konteks budaya perbedaan, tetapi mereka tidak tes hubungan-hubungan itu.Dawar et al. (1996), surveying students at a “major European business school,” found that Uncertainty Avoidance and Power Distance (for the students' home countries) predicted reliance on interpersonal sources of product information. Keillor et al. (2001) found that level of economic development was inversely related to the influence of personal sources such as family and friends; they did not consider cultural or individual differences across nations. Pornpitakpan (2000) referenced Hofstede's Uncertainty Avoidance to explain the observation that, “in making purchase decisions, Japanese are apt to rely more heavily on personal sources of information than Thais, and Thais are apt to do so more heavily than Americans” (p. 64).