Prior research shows that positive online reviews are less valued than negative reviews. The authors argue that this is due to differences in causal attributions for positive versus negative information such that positive reviews tend to be relatively more attributed to the reviewer (vs. product experience) than negative reviews. The presence of temporal contiguity cues, which indicate that review writing closely follows consumption, reduces the relative extent to which positive reviews are attributed to the reviewer and mitigates the negativity bias. An examination of 65,531 Yelp.com restaurant reviews shows that review value is negatively related to review valence but that this negative relationship is absent for reviews that contain temporal contiguity cues. A series of lab studies replicates these findings and suggests that temporal contiguity cues enhance the value of a positive review and increase the likelihood of choosing a product with a positive review by changing reader beliefs about the cause of the review.

How does controversy affect conversation? Five studies using both field and laboratory data address this question. Contrary to popular belief, controversial things are not necessarily more likely to be discussed. Controversy increases likelihood of discussion at low levels, but beyond a moderate level of controversy, additional controversy actually decreases likelihood of discussion. The controversy-conversation relationship is driven by two countervailing processes. Controversy increases interest (which increases likelihood of discussion) but simultaneously increases discomfort (which decreases likelihood of discussion). Contextual factors such as anonymity and whether people are talking to friends or strangers moderate the controversyconversation relationship by impacting these component processes. Our framework sheds light on how, when, and why controversy affects whether or not things are discussed.for their valuable feedback on earlier versions of this paper.Contribution Statement. While managers and consumers believe that controversy increases buzz (i.e., WOM), little research has tested this intuition. This articles provides the first empirical look into the question, do people talk about controversies? We propose that the effects of controversy on likelihood of conversation are driven by the countervailing underlying processes of interest and discomfort, with the former increasing and the latter decreasing likelihood of conversation.In addition, we examine how situational variables such as identity disclosure affect people's willingness to talk about controversial topics by affecting underlying processes. In addition to questioning intuition, this paper contributes broadly to a better understanding of why people talk about certain topics and not others. ABSTRACTHow does controversy affect conversation? We use both lab and field data to address this question. Contrary to popular belief, controversial things are not necessarily more likely to be discussed. Data from an online news forum show that controversy increases likelihood of discussion at low levels, but beyond a moderate level of controversy, additional controversy actually decreases likelihood of discussion. Experiments show that the controversy-conversation relationship is driven by two countervailing processes. More controversial things are more interesting to talk about and thus more likely to be discussed. At the same time, more controversial things are less likely to be discussed because they are uncomfortable to talk about.Consequently, contextual factors such as identity disclosure and whether people are talking to friends or strangers moderate the controversy-conversation relationship by impacting these underlying processes. Our framework sheds light on how, when, and why controversy affects whether or not things are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract