Does the Valence of Online Consumer Reviews matter for Consumer Decision Making? The Moderating Role of Consumer Expertise

Abstract

<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 9pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 宋体; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt;" lang="EN-US">The previous studies have shown inconsistent relationship between the valence (positive or negative) of online consumer reviews and consumer decision making. With accessibility/diagnosticity theory, this study attempts to explain this discrepancy through exploring consumer expertise as a moderator. Our results from a 2 * 2 experiment design indicate that the impact of online reviews valence is moderated by consumer expertise: The impact difference between negative reviews and positive reviews is greater for consumers with low expertise than for those with high expertise. Our study adds to the literature relevant with e-WOM effect. And we also provide managerial implications for e-marketers.</span&gt

Evaluating right versus just evaluating online consumer reviews

“…Some recent studies have focused on boundary conditions such as consumer trait variables, including expertise (Zou et al, 2011), regulatory focus (Zhang et al, 2010), and product category (Hao et al, 2010;Pan & Chiou, 2011;Senecal & Nantel, 2004), brand characteristics such as brand attachment and source credibility (Chiou et al, 2013) and familiarity (Ahluwalia, 2002;East et al, 2008), and review writers' addition of facial expressions (Kim & Gupta, 2012) and avatars (Lee et al, 2013). However, differences in consumers' information processing styles such as regulatory mode orientation have rarely been addressed as a moderator.…”

“…To resolve their inconsistencies, several studies have attempted to introduce moderators in the link between review valence and dependent variables. Moderators investigated were brand familiarity, product category, and consumer traits (Ahluwalia, 2002;East et al, 2008;Pan & Chiou, 2011;Zhang et al, 2010;Zou et al, 2011). Building on this research, this study aimed to demonstrate that the effectiveness of review valence in message adoption depends on an individual's regulatory mode orientation.…”

“…However, the research results have been mixed. To resolve this inconsistency, recent studies have introduced various boundary conditions, including individual and situational differences (Ahluwalia, 2002;Chiou, Hsu, & Hsieh, 2013;East et al, 2008;Hao, Ye, Li, & Cheng, 2010;Pan & Chiou, 2011;Zhang, Craciun, & Shin, 2010;Zou, Yu, & Hao, 2011). Building on this research tradition, this study proposes that individual regulatory mode orientation (Pierro, Giacomantonio, Pica, Giannini, & Kruglanski et al, 2013) can explain the inconsistencies that have been detected between recommendation valence and its effectiveness.…”

“…Zhang et al (2010) demonstrate that, while consumers with promotion goals evaluate positive reviews as being more persuasive than negative ones, consumers with prevention goals evaluate negative reviews as being more persuasive. Zou et al (2011) report that the impact difference between negative and positive reviews is greater for consumers with low expertise than for those with high expertise. Pan and Chiou (2011) show that product category, in conjunction with online review valence, has a moderating effect on consumers' product judgments.…”

Research of Online Reviews Deviation for Sales in B2C Platform

“…Customers pay more attention to the content of comment not only simple statistical data (Yin, Bond & Zhang, 2014). Comment quality must be reflected by the parameters of subjective variable (Zou, Yu & Hao, 2011). The research, in the base of other scholars' achievements and the current comment condition in Tmall, tried out subjective variable which is mainly about emotional inclination of comment (positive or negative attitude) and reply for negative comment.…”