The platform will undergo maintenance on Sep 14 at about 7:45 AM EST and will be unavailable for approximately 2 hours.
2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.dss.2018.01.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Explaining and predicting online review helpfulness: The role of content and reviewer-related signals

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
198
0
2

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 220 publications
(207 citation statements)
references
References 59 publications
7
198
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Receivers assessing WOM information are sensitive to whether a particular message is consistent or inconsistent with prior WOM, in terms of its star rating and content. Messages with star ratings that deviate less from the average are perceived as more helpful (Siering, Muntermann, & Rajagopalan, ; Yin et al, ) because consistency in valence across reviews suggests consensus among senders (Quaschning, Pandelaere, & Vermeir, ). Consensus increases receivers’ confidence in the majority opinion (Koriat, Adiv, & Schwarz, ) and implies that the product outcome is stable and caused by the product (Quaschning et al, ).…”
Section: Sendermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Receivers assessing WOM information are sensitive to whether a particular message is consistent or inconsistent with prior WOM, in terms of its star rating and content. Messages with star ratings that deviate less from the average are perceived as more helpful (Siering, Muntermann, & Rajagopalan, ; Yin et al, ) because consistency in valence across reviews suggests consensus among senders (Quaschning, Pandelaere, & Vermeir, ). Consensus increases receivers’ confidence in the majority opinion (Koriat, Adiv, & Schwarz, ) and implies that the product outcome is stable and caused by the product (Quaschning et al, ).…”
Section: Sendermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The most common reviewer's attributes that affect review helpfulness will be reviewed in the following. First, Siering Michael and Muntermann Jan in [22] investigated the impact of reviewer-related attributes such as reviewer expertise and reviewer non-anonymity on review helpfulness. Furthermore, they consider other control variables include Review depth, review readability, and review extremity as content-related attributes.…”
Section: Reviewers' Attributesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They crawled data for nine months every week by using R Week-by-Week. Then, they obtained important variables by using XML package in R. Finally, in [22] the dataset collected from Amazon's website for two product types. They collected data from different product kinds and picked 100 best-selling products.…”
Section: Attributes Fieldmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…eWOM influences consumer purchase intentions by changing the preferences for alternatives and in turn influences product sales based on information theory [13,14]. We introduce multiattribute attitude theory in this research domain.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%