2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.dss.2015.07.009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Can online product reviews be more helpful? Examining characteristics of information content by product type

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
58
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 141 publications
(68 citation statements)
references
References 87 publications
1
58
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Some of the linguistic features were marked as effective for predicting review helpfulness. Weathers et al (2015) focused on the diagnosticity and credibility of electronic wordof-mouth. Diagnosticity explains the uncertainty and equivocality of the reviewer, whereas credibility defines the trust and expertise of the reviewer.…”
Section: Automated Approach For Helpfulness Predictionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some of the linguistic features were marked as effective for predicting review helpfulness. Weathers et al (2015) focused on the diagnosticity and credibility of electronic wordof-mouth. Diagnosticity explains the uncertainty and equivocality of the reviewer, whereas credibility defines the trust and expertise of the reviewer.…”
Section: Automated Approach For Helpfulness Predictionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this study, text-related and source-related variables, whose effect on helpfulness of reviews has been established in past literature, were controlled. These variables included the review rating (Baek et al, 2012), reviewer identity (Forman et al, 2008), and the nature of the product (i.e., search or experience product; Mudambi & Schuff, 2010;Weathers, Swain, & Grover, 2015). Review rating was captured as the number of stars given in a particular review.…”
Section: Control Variablesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A handful of studies (Ahmad & Laroche, 2015;Kim & Gupta, 2012;Yin et al, 2014) have examined the impact of emotions expressed in review content on perceived helpfulness of online reviews. Overall star rating, rating inconsistency Baek et al, 2012;Hu & Chen, 2016;Mudambi & Schuff, 2010;Robinson et al, 2012;Yan et al, 2016;Yin et al, 2016 Content Length, proportion of negative words, images/photos, valence, objectivity/subjectivity, emotions, emotion intensity, detailed information, explained actions and reactions, review format, review type (attributed value and simple recommendation), review Ahmad & Laroche, 2015;Baek et al, 2012;Cheng & Ho, 2015;Felbermayr & Nanopoulos, 2016;Folse et al, 2016;Hussain, et al 2017;Jeong & Koo, 2015;Karimi & Wang, 2017;Kaushik et al, 2018;Kim & Gupta, 2012;Li & Zhan, 2011;Lockie et al, 2015;Moore, 2015;Mudambi & Schuff, 2010;Ngo- Ye & diagnosticity, technical information, argument diversity, expertise claim, persuasive words, presentation mode Sinha, 2014; Park & Lee, 2008;Peng et al, 2014;Purnawirawan et al, 2015;Quaschning et al, 2015;Robinson et al, 2012;Teng et al, 2014;Weathers et al, 2015;Willemsen et al, 2011;Wu, 2013;…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%