IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ininma/v39y2018icp30-37.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Longer online reviews are not necessarily better

Author

Listed:
  • Fink, Lior
  • Rosenfeld, Liron
  • Ravid, Gilad

Abstract

Models of information processing have long suggested that people respond in a curvilinear manner to variation in information load and that information use may be restricted when available information is either scarce or abundant. Research on online product reviews, however, suggests that the relationship between the length of online reviews available to consumers and effectiveness measures is positive and linear. To explain this discrepancy, we argue that review length has a negative curvilinear (inverted-U-shaped) relationship with effectiveness and that such a relationship has seldom been observed in previous studies because those have analyzed data collected in low-constraint settings of information processing. The analysis of data about online reviews for free and paid apps, collected on two mobile app stores, provides consistent evidence in support of the hypothesized curvilinear relationship. The findings suggest that maximum cognitive load is experienced at lower review lengths for paid apps than for free apps and that the marginal utility for the majority of review length observations is positive or nonsignificant for free apps and negative for paid apps. These findings are consistent with product-related differences in information processing motivation. The study contributes to the ongoing debate on the ideal length of messages in electronic environments.

Suggested Citation

  • Fink, Lior & Rosenfeld, Liron & Ravid, Gilad, 2018. "Longer online reviews are not necessarily better," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 30-37.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ininma:v:39:y:2018:i:c:p:30-37
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.11.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268401217304176
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.11.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. King, Robert Allen & Racherla, Pradeep & Bush, Victoria D., 2014. "What We Know and Don't Know About Online Word-of-Mouth: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 167-183.
    2. Judith Chevalier & Austan Goolsbee, 2003. "Measuring Prices and Price Competition Online: Amazon.com and BarnesandNoble.com," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 203-222, June.
    3. Simon, Herbert A, 1978. "Rationality as Process and as Product of Thought," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 68(2), pages 1-16, May.
    4. Anindya Ghose & Avi Goldfarb & Sang Pil Han, 2013. "How Is the Mobile Internet Different? Search Costs and Local Activities," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 613-631, September.
    5. Erik Brynjolfsson & Yu (Jeffrey) Hu & Duncan Simester, 2011. "Goodbye Pareto Principle, Hello Long Tail: The Effect of Search Costs on the Concentration of Product Sales," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(8), pages 1373-1386, August.
    6. Jacoby, Jacob & Speller, Donald E & Berning, Carol A Kohn, 1974. "Brand Choice Behavior as a Function of Information Load: Replication and Extension," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 1(1), pages 33-42, June.
    7. Quentin Jones & Gilad Ravid & Sheizaf Rafaeli, 2004. "Information Overload and the Message Dynamics of Online Interaction Spaces: A Theoretical Model and Empirical Exploration," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 194-210, June.
    8. Chris Forman & Anindya Ghose & Batia Wiesenfeld, 2008. "Examining the Relationship Between Reviews and Sales: The Role of Reviewer Identity Disclosure in Electronic Markets," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 291-313, September.
    9. Floyd, Kristopher & Freling, Ryan & Alhoqail, Saad & Cho, Hyun Young & Freling, Traci, 2014. "How Online Product Reviews Affect Retail Sales: A Meta-analysis," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 217-232.
    10. Pan, Yue & Zhang, Jason Q., 2011. "Born Unequal: A Study of the Helpfulness of User-Generated Product Reviews," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 87(4), pages 598-612.
    11. Hu, Ya-Han & Chen, Kuanchin, 2016. "Predicting hotel review helpfulness: The impact of review visibility, and interaction between hotel stars and review ratings," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 929-944.
    12. Erik Brynjolfsson & Yu (Jeffrey) Hu & Michael D. Smith, 2003. "Consumer Surplus in the Digital Economy: Estimating the Value of Increased Product Variety at Online Booksellers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(11), pages 1580-1596, November.
    13. Zhang, Jason Q. & Craciun, Georgiana & Shin, Dongwoo, 2010. "When does electronic word-of-mouth matter? A study of consumer product reviews," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(12), pages 1336-1341, December.
    14. Malhotra, Naresh K, 1982. "Information Load and Consumer Decision Making," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 8(4), pages 419-430, March.
    15. Wang, Rebecca Jen-Hui & Malthouse, Edward C. & Krishnamurthi, Lakshman, 2015. "On the Go: How Mobile Shopping Affects Customer Purchase Behavior," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 217-234.
    16. Ahmad, Shimi Naurin & Laroche, Michel, 2017. "Analyzing electronic word of mouth: A social commerce construct," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 202-213.
    17. Neirotti, Paolo & Raguseo, Elisabetta & Paolucci, Emilio, 2016. "Are customers’ reviews creating value in the hospitality industry? Exploring the moderating effects of market positioning," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 1133-1143.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Muhammad Shehrayar Khan & Atif Rizwan & Muhammad Shahzad Faisal & Tahir Ahmad & Muhammad Saleem Khan & Ghada Atteia, 2022. "Identification of Review Helpfulness Using Novel Textual and Language-Context Features," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(18), pages 1-20, September.
    2. Yi Feng & Yunqiang Yin & Dujuan Wang & Lalitha Dhamotharan & Joshua Ignatius & Ajay Kumar, 2023. "Diabetic patient review helpfulness: unpacking online drug treatment reviews by text analytics and design science approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 328(1), pages 387-418, September.
    3. Wang, Qiang & Zhang, Wen & Li, Jian & Ma, Zhenzhong, 2023. "Complements or confounders? A study of effects of target and non-target features on online fraudulent reviewer detection," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Meiseberg, Brinja, 2016. "The Effectiveness of E-tailers’ Communication Practices in Stimulating Sales of Niche versus Popular Products," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 92(3), pages 319-332.
    2. Gottschalk, Sabrina A. & Mafael, Alexander, 2017. "Cutting Through the Online Review Jungle — Investigating Selective eWOM Processing," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 89-104.
    3. Janina Seutter & Kristin Kutzner & Maren Stadtländer & Dennis Kundisch & Ralf Knackstedt, 2023. "“Sorry, too much information”—Designing online review systems that support information search and processing," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-19, December.
    4. Lutz, Bernhard & Pröllochs, Nicolas & Neumann, Dirk, 2022. "Are longer reviews always more helpful? Disentangling the interplay between review length and line of argumentation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 888-901.
    5. Yani Wang & Jun Wang & Tang Yao, 2019. "What makes a helpful online review? A meta-analysis of review characteristics," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 257-284, June.
    6. Dominik Gutt & Jürgen Neumann & Steffen Zimmermann & Dennis Kundisch & Jianqing Chen, 2018. "Design of Review Systems - A Strategic Instrument to shape Online Review Behavior and Economic Outcomes," Working Papers Dissertations 42, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    7. Raoofpanah, Iman & Zamudio, César & Groening, Christopher, 2023. "Review reader segmentation based on the heterogeneous impacts of review and reviewer attributes on review helpfulness: A study involving ZIP code data," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    8. Lior Fink & Daniele Papismedov, 2023. "On the Same Page? What Users Benefit from a Desktop View on Mobile Devices," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 423-441, June.
    9. Yi Feng & Yunqiang Yin & Dujuan Wang & Lalitha Dhamotharan & Joshua Ignatius & Ajay Kumar, 2023. "Diabetic patient review helpfulness: unpacking online drug treatment reviews by text analytics and design science approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 328(1), pages 387-418, September.
    10. Marchand, André & Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten & Wiertz, Caroline, 2017. "Not all digital word of mouth is created equal: Understanding the respective impact of consumer reviews and microblogs on new product success," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 336-354.
    11. Srivastava, Vartika & Kalro, Arti D., 2019. "Enhancing the Helpfulness of Online Consumer Reviews: The Role of Latent (Content) Factors," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 33-50.
    12. Luis Aguiar Wicht, 2019. "Going Mobile: The Effects of Smartphone Usage on Internet Consumption," JRC Working Papers on Digital Economy 2019-07, Joint Research Centre.
    13. Juan Feng & Xin Li & Xiaoquan (Michael) Zhang, 2019. "Online Product Reviews-Triggered Dynamic Pricing: Theory and Evidence," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(4), pages 1107-1123, December.
    14. Zhen Li & Fangzhou Li & Jing Xiao & Zhi Yang, 2020. "Topic Features in Negative Customer Reviews: Evidence Based on Text Data Mining," The Review of Socionetwork Strategies, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 19-40, April.
    15. Moradi, Masoud & Dass, Mayukh & Kumar, Piyush, 2023. "Differential effects of analytical versus emotional rhetorical style on review helpfulness," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    16. Karl Taeuscher, 2019. "Uncertainty kills the long tail: demand concentration in peer-to-peer marketplaces," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 29(4), pages 649-660, December.
    17. Bin Guo & Shasha Zhou, 2017. "What makes population perception of review helpfulness: an information processing perspective," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 585-608, December.
    18. Ana Babić Rosario & Kristine Valck & Francesca Sotgiu, 2020. "Conceptualizing the electronic word-of-mouth process: What we know and need to know about eWOM creation, exposure, and evaluation," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 422-448, May.
    19. Imke Reimers & Joel Waldfogel, 2021. "Digitization and Pre-purchase Information: The Causal and Welfare Impacts of Reviews and Crowd Ratings," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(6), pages 1944-1971, June.
    20. Wanshu Niu & Liqiang Huang & Xixi Li & Jie Zhang & Mingliang Chen, 2023. "Beyond the review information: an investigation of individual- and group-based presentation forms of review information," Information Technology and Management, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 159-176, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ininma:v:39:y:2018:i:c:p:30-37. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-of-information-management .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.