IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

How e-WOM recommendations influence product consideration and quality of choice: A motivation to process information perspective


  • Gupta, Pranjal
  • Harris, Judy


A laboratory experiment examines the effects of electronic word-of-mouth (e-WOM) on consumer consideration and choice of an experience product. Specifically, we manipulated the number of consumer recommendations and the optimality of the recommended product in a realistic online shopping environment. The results indicate that e-WOM is likely to result in more time considering the recommended product. For consumers more motivated to process information, e-WOM recommendations lead to more time spent on the choice task overall. Further, consumers with less motivation to process information make suboptimal decisions based on e-WOM recommendations. Consumers with a high motivation to process information are willing to accept recommendations and switch from declared attribute preferences, but choose only optimal products.

Suggested Citation

  • Gupta, Pranjal & Harris, Judy, 2010. "How e-WOM recommendations influence product consideration and quality of choice: A motivation to process information perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(9-10), pages 1041-1049, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:63:y::i:9-10:p:1041-1049

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Rosen, Dennis L & Olshavsky, Richard W, 1987. " A Protocol Analysis of Brand Choice Strategies Involving Recommendations," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(3), pages 440-444, December.
    2. Senecal, Sylvain & Kalczynski, Pawel J. & Nantel, Jacques, 2005. "Consumers' decision-making process and their online shopping behavior: a clickstream analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 58(11), pages 1599-1608, November.
    3. Dellarocas, Chrysanthos, 2003. "The Digitization of Word-of-mouth: Promise and Challenges of Online Feedback Mechanisms," Working papers 4296-03, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    4. Bone, Paula Fitzgerald, 1995. "Word-of-mouth effects on short-term and long-term product judgments," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 213-223, March.
    5. Inman, J Jeffrey & McAlister, Leigh & Hoyer, Wayne D, 1990. " Promotion Signal: Proxy for a Price Cut?," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 74-81, June.
    6. Brown, Jacqueline Johnson & Reingen, Peter H, 1987. " Social Ties and Word-of-Mouth Referral Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(3), pages 350-362, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. repec:eee:joinma:v:28:y:2014:i:3:p:167-183 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Rahat Ullah & Wonjoon Kim & Naveen C. Amblee & Hyunjong Lee & Alice Oh, 2014. "Do Emotions Matter? Exploring The Distribution Of Emotions In Online Product Reviews," Working papers 156, Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode.
    3. Tugay Arat, 2016. "The Role of Social Media in Tourism," Proceedings of International Academic Conferences 3306093, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
    4. repec:spr:elcore:v:17:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s10660-016-9234-7 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Carlos Orús & Raquel Gurrea & Carlos Flavián, 0. "Facilitating imaginations through online product presentation videos: effects on imagery fluency, product attitude and purchase intention," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-40.
    6. Filieri, Raffaele, 2015. "What makes online reviews helpful? A diagnosticity-adoption framework to explain informational and normative influences in e-WOM," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1261-1270.
    7. Bin Guo & Shasha Zhou, 0. "What makes population perception of review helpfulness: an information processing perspective," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-24.
    8. Ranaweera, Chatura & Jayawardhena, Chanaka, 2014. "Talk up or criticize? Customer responses to WOM about competitors during social interactions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(12), pages 2645-2656.
    9. Park, Sangwon & Nicolau, Juan L., 2015. "Asymmetric effects of online consumer reviews," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 67-83.
    10. Melinda Majláth, 2016. "Difference among Personality Types in Comment-Writing Behaviour," Volume of Management, Enterprise and Benchmarking in the 21st century III, Óbuda University, Keleti Faculty of Business and Management.
    11. Claire Roederer & Marc Filser, 2011. "e-voicing an opinion on a brand," Post-Print hal-00600695, HAL.
    12. repec:eee:touman:v:34:y:2013:i:c:p:196-201 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. repec:eee:joreco:v:32:y:2016:i:c:p:96-108 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. repec:eee:touman:v:47:y:2015:i:c:p:140-151 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Chen, Jie & Teng, Lefa & Yu, Ying & Yu, Xueer, 2016. "The effect of online information sources on purchase intentions between consumers with high and low susceptibility to informational influence," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 467-475.
    16. Hu, Nan & Liu, Ling & Tripathy, Arindam & Yao, Lee J., 2011. "Value relevance of blog visibility," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(12), pages 1361-1368.
    17. Ronald L. Hess & Lawrence Ring, 2016. "The influence of the source and valence of word-of-mouth information on post-failure and post-recovery evaluations," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 10(2), pages 319-343, June.
    18. repec:spr:elcore:v:17:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s10660-016-9250-7 is not listed on IDEAS


    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:jbrese:v:63:y::i:9-10:p:1041-1049. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.