Understanding the effects of different review features on purchase probability

References

• Allsop, D.T., B.R. Bassett, and J.A. Hoskins. 2007. Word-of-mouth research: Principles and applications. Journal of Advertising Research 47, no. 4: 398–411. doi:10.2501/s0021849907070419
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aral, S. 2014. The problem with online ratings. MIT Sloan Management Review 55, no. 2: 47–52.
   Google Scholar
• Askalidis, G., S.J. Kim, and E.C. Malthouse. 2017. Understanding and overcoming biases in online review systems. Decision Support Systems 97: 23–30. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2017.03.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baber, A., R. Thurasamy, M.I. Malik, B. Sadiq, S. Islam, and M. Sajjad 2016. Online word-of-mouth antecedents, attitude and intention-to-purchase electronic products in Pakistan. Telematics and Informatics 33, no. 2: 388–400.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baek, H., J. Ahn, and Y. Choi. 2012. Helpfulness of online consumer reviews: Readers’ objectives and review cues. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 17, no. 2: 99–126. doi:10.2753/JEC1086-4415170204
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumeister, R.F., E. Bratslavsky, C. Finkenauer, and K.D. Vohs. 2001. Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology 5, no. 4: 323–70. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323
   Google Scholar
• Blazevic, V., W. Hammedi, I. Garnefeld, R.T. Rust, T. Keiningham, T.W. Andreassen, N. Donthu, and W. Carl. 2013. Beyond traditional word‐of‐mouth: An expanded model of customer‐driven influence. Journal of Service Management 24, no. 3: 294–313. doi:10.1108/09564231311327003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bohner, G., S. Chaiken, and P. Hunyadi. 1994. The role of mood and message ambiguity in the interplay of heuristic and systematic processing. European Journal of Social Psychology 24, no. 1: 207–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bosman, D.J., C. Boshoff, and G.-J. van Rooyen. 2013. The review credibility of electronic word-of-mouth communication on e-commerce platforms. Management Dynamics 22, no. 3: 29–44.
   Google Scholar
• Cacioppo, J.T., and R.E. Petty. 1980. Persuasiveness of communications is affected by exposure frequency and message quality: A theoretical and empirical analysis of persisting attitude change. Current Issues & Research in Advertising 3, no. 1: 97–122.
   Google Scholar
• Chaiken, S. 1980. Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39, no. 5: 752–66. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaiken, S., and D. Maheswaran. 1994. Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66, no. 3: 460–473. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.460
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, Y.-F. 2008. Herd behavior in purchasing books online. Computers in Human Behavior 24, no. 5: 1977–92. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.08.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, Z., and N.H. Lurie. 2013. Temporal contiguity and negativity bias in the impact of online word of mouth. Journal of Marketing Research 50, no. 4: 463–76. doi:10.1509/jmr.12.0063
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng, Y.-H., and H.-Y. Ho. 2015. Social influence's impact on reader perceptions of online reviews. Journal of Business Research 68, no. 4: 883–7. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.11.046
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung, C.M.K., M.K.O. Lee and N. Rabjohn. 2008. The impact of electronic word-of-mouth. Internet Research 18, no. 3: 229–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung, C.M.-Y., C.-L. Sia, and K.K.Y. Kuan. 2012. Is this review believable? A study of factors affecting the credibility of online consumer reviews from an ELM perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 13, no. 8: 618–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung, C.M.K., and D.R. Thadani. 2012. The impact of electronic word-of-mouth communication: A literature analysis and integrative model. Decision Support Systems 54, no. 1: 461–70. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2012.06.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chevalier, J.A., and D. Mayzlin. 2006. The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book reviews. Journal of Marketing Research 43, no. 3: 345–54. doi:10.1509/jmkr.43.3.345
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chintagunta, P.K., S. Gopinath, and S. Venkataraman. 2010. The effects of online user reviews on movie box office performance: Accounting for sequential rollout and aggregation across local markets. Marketing Science 29, no. 5: 944–57. doi:10.1287/mksc.1100.0572
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clemons, E.K., G.G. Gao, and L.M. Hitt. 2006. When online reviews meet hyperdifferentiation: A study of the craft beer industry. Journal of Management Information Systems 23, no. 2: 149–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dhanasobhon, S., P.-Y. Chen, M. Smith, and P.-y Chen. 2007. An analysis of the differential impact of reviews and reviewers at Amazon.com. Paper presented at the ICIS 2007 proceedings in Montreal, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Dick, A.S., and K. Basu. 1994. Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 22, no. 2: 99–113. doi:10.1177/0092070394222001
   Google Scholar
• Doh, S.-J., and J.-S. Hwang. 2009. How consumers evaluate eWOM (electronic word-of-mouth) messages. CyberPsychology & Behavior 12, no. 2: 193–7. doi:10.1089/cpb.2008.0109
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dou, X., J.A. Walden, S. Lee, and J.Y. Lee. 2012. Does source matter? Examining source effects in online product reviews. Computers in Human Behavior 28, no. 5: 1555–63. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Filieri, R. and F. Mcleay. 2013. E-wom and accommodation: An analysis of the factors that influence travelers' adoption of information from online reviews. Journal of Travel Research 53, no. 1: 44–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finn, A., L. Wang, and T. Frank. 2009. Attribute perceptions, customer satisfaction and intention to recommend e-services. Journal of Interactive Marketing 23, no. 3: 209–20. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2009.04.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Floyd, K., R. Freling, S. Alhoqail, H.Y. Cho, and T. Freling. 2014. How online product reviews affect retail sales: A meta-analysis. Journal of Retailing 90, no. 2: 217–32. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2014.04.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox, J., and G. Monette. 1992. Generalized collinearity diagnostics. Journal of the American Statistical Association 87, no. 417: 178–83. doi:10.1080/01621459.1992.10475190
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gopinath, S., J.S. Thomas, and L. Krishnamurthi. 2014. Investigating the relationship between the content of online word of mouth, advertising, and brand performance. Marketing Science 33, no. 2: 241–58. doi:10.1287/mksc.2013.0820
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta, P. and J. Harris. 2010. How e-wom recommendations influence product consideration and quality of choice: A motivation to process information perspective. Journal of Business Research 63, no. 9–10: 1041–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herr, P.M., F.R. Kardes, and J. Kim. 1991. Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute information on persuasion: An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of Consumer Research 17, no. 4: 454–62. doi:10.1086/208570
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang, A.H., K. Chen, D.C. Yen, and T.P. Tran. 2015. A study of factors that contribute to online review helpfulness. Computers in Human Behavior 48: 17–27. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. 1973. Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Keller, E., and B. Fay. 2012. Word-of-mouth advocacy: A new key to advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising Research 52, no. 4: 459–64.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, H.-S., P. Brubaker, and K. Seo. 2015. Examining psychological effects of source cues and social plugins on a product review website. Computers in Human Behavior 49: 74–85. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.058
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, R.A., P. Racherla, and V.D. Bush. 2014. What we know and don't know about online word-of-mouth: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Interactive Marketing 28, no. 3: 167–83. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2014.02.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, M. and K. Johnson. 2013. Ed. Johnson, K, Springerlink and Link. Applied predictive modeling. New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kuan, K.K.Y., H. Kai-Lung, P. Prasarnphanich, and L. Hok-Yin. 2015. What makes a review voted? An empirical investigation of review voting in online review systems. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 16, no. 1: 48–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, M., and S. Youn. 2009. Electronic word of mouth (eWOM). International Journal of Advertising 28, no. 3: 473–99. doi:10.2501/S0265048709200709
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, S., and Y. Gvili. 2015. How credible is e-word of mouth across digital-marketing channels? The roles of social capital, information richness, and interactivity. Journal of Advertising Research 55, no. 1: 95–109. doi:10.2501/jar-55-1-095-109
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, M., L. Huang, C.-H. Tan, and K.-K. Wei. 2013. Helpfulness of online product reviews as seen by consumers: Source and content features. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 17, no. 4: 101–36. doi:10.2753/jec1086-4415170404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, X., and L.M. Hitt. 2008. Self-selection and information role of online product reviews. Information Systems Research 19, no. 4: 456–74. doi:10.1287/isre.1070.0154
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu-Thompkins, Y., and E.C. Malthouse. 2017. A primer on using behavioral data for testing theories in advertising research. Journal of Advertising 46, no. 1: 213–25. doi:10.1080/00913367.2016.1252289
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, Y. 2006. Word of mouth for movies: Its dynamics and impact on box office revenue. Journal of Marketing 70, no. 3: 74–89. doi:10.2307/30162102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• López, M. and M. Sicilia. 2014. Ewom as source of influence: The impact of participation in ewom and perceived source trustworthiness on decision making. Journal of Interactive Advertising 14, no. 2: 86–97.
   Google Scholar
• Mackiewicz, J., and D. Yeats. 2014. Product review users’ perceptions of review quality: The role of credibility, informativeness, and readability. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 57, no. 4: 309–24. doi:10.1109/TPC.2014.2373891
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maslowska, E., E.C. Malthouse, and S.F. Bernritter. 2017. Too good to be true: The role of online reviews’ features in probability to buy. International Journal of Advertising 36, no. 1: 142–63. doi:10.1080/02650487.2016.1195622
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maslowska, E., E.C. Malthouse, and V. Viswanathan. 2017. Do customer reviews drive purchase decisions? The moderating roles of review exposure and price. Decision Support Systems 98: 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2017.03.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCroskey, J.C., V.P. Richmond, and J.A. Daly. 1975. The development of a measure of perceived homophily in interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research 1, no. 4: 323–32. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00281.x
   Google Scholar
• Metzger, M.J., A.J. Flanagin, and R.B. Medders. 2010. Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication 60, no. 3: 413–39. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mudambi, S.M., and D. Schuff. 2010. What makes a helpful review? A study of customer reviews on Amazon.com. MIS Quarterly 34, no. 1: 185–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otterbacher, J. 2009. ‘Helpfulness’ in online communities: A measure of message quality. Paper presented at the proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Boston, MA, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Park, D.-H., and S. Kim. 2008. The effects of consumer knowledge on message processing of electronic word-of-mouth via online consumer reviews. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 7, no. 4: 399–410. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2007.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park, D.-H., J. Lee, and I. Han. 2007. The effect of on-line consumer reviews on consumer purchasing intention: The moderating role of involvement. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 11, no. 4: 125–48. doi:10.2753/JEC1086-4415110405
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park, S., and J.L. Nicolau. 2015. Asymmetric effects of online consumer reviews. Annals of Tourism Research 50: 67–83. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2014.10.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petty, R.E., and J.T. Cacioppo. 1986. Communication and persuasio: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Purnawirawan, N., M. Eisend, P. De Pelsmacker, and N. Dens. 2015. A meta-analytic investigation of the role of valence in online reviews. Journal of Interactive Marketing 31: 17–27. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2015.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quaschning, S., M. Pandelaere, and I. Vermeir. 2015. When consistency matters: The effect of valence consistency on review helpfulness. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 20, no. 2: 136–52. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12106
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reichheld, F.F. 2003. The one number you need to grow (cover story). Harvard Business Review 81, no. 12: 46–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rethans, A.J., J.L. Swasy, and L.J. Marks. 1986. Effects of television commercial repetition, receiver knowledge, and commercial length: A test of the two-factor model. Journal of Marketing Research 23, no. 1: 50–61. doi:10.2307/3151776
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riegner, C. 2007. Word of mouth on the Web: The impact of Web 2.0 on consumer purchase decisions. Journal of Advertising Research 47, no. 4: 436–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rucker, D.D., Z.L. Tormala, R.E. Petty, and P. Briñol. 2014. Consumer conviction and commitment: An appraisal-based framework for attitude certainty. Journal of Consumer Psychology 24, no. 1: 119–36. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2013.07.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schindler, R.M., and B. Bickart. 2012. Perceived helpfulness of online consumer reviews: The role of message content and style. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 11, no. 3: 234–43. doi:10.1002/cb.1372
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlosser, A.E. 2011. Can including pros and cons increase the helpfulness and persuasiveness of online reviews? The interactive effects of ratings and arguments. Journal of Consumer Psychology 21, no. 3: 226–39. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.04.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sher, P.J. and L. Sheng-Hsien. 2009. Consumer skepticism and online reviews: An elaboration likelihood model perspective. Social Behavior & Personality 37, no. 1: 137–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sridhar, S., and R. Srinivasan. 2012. Social influence effects in online product ratings. Journal of Marketing 76, no. 5: 70–88. doi:10.1509/jm.10.0377
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundar, S.S. 2008. The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In Digital media, youth, and credibility, eds. M.J. Metzger and A.J. Flanagin, 73–100. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sundar, S.S., A. Oeldorf-Hirsch, and Q. Xu. 2008. The bandwagon effect of collaborative filtering technology. Paper presented at the CHI’08 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems in Florence, Italy.
   Google Scholar
• The Nielsen Company. 2015. Recommendations from friends remain most credible form of advertising among consumers; branded websites are the second-highest-rated form. <http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/press-room/2015/recommendations-from-friends-remain-most-credible-form-of-advertising.html>
   Google Scholar
• Todorov, A., S. Chaiken, and M.D. Henderson. 2002. The heuristic-systematic model of social information processing. In The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice, ed. J.P. Dillard and M. Pfau, 195–212. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Vasa, R., L. Hoon, K. Mouzakis, and A. Noguchi. 2012. A preliminary analysis of mobile app user reviews. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 24th Australian computer–human interaction conference, Melbourne, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Walther, J.B., Y. Liang, T. Ganster, D.Y. Wohn, and J. Emington. 2012. Online reviews, helpfulness ratings, and consumer attitudes: An extension of congruity theory to multiple sources in web 2.0. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 18, no. 1: 97–112. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01595.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells, W.D., C. Leavitt, and M. McConville. 1971. A reaction profile for TV commercials. Journal of Advertising Research 11, no. 6: 11–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willemsen, L.M., P.C. Neijens, F. Bronner, and J.A. de Ridder. 2011. “Highly recommended!” The content characteristics and perceived usefulness of online consumer reviews. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 17, no. 1: 19–38. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01551.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xue, F., and J.E. Phelps. 2004. Internet-facilitated consumer-to-consumer communication: the moderating role of receiver characteristics. International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising 1, no. 2: 121–36. doi:10.1504/ijima.2004.004016
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, K.Z.K., S.J. Zhao, C.M.K. Cheung, and M.K.O. Lee. 2014. Examining the influence of online reviews on consumers’ decision-making: A heuristic–systematic model. Decision Support Systems 67: 78–89. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2014.08.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, W., and S.A. Watts. 2008. Capitalizing on content: Information adoption in two online communities. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 9, no. 2: 72–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, X., and C. Dellarocas. 2006. The lord of the ratings: Is a movie's fate is influenced by reviews? In ICIS 2006 proceedings, 117. Milwaukee, WI: ICIS.
   Google Scholar