IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i2p441-d475270.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Promoting Reviewer-Related Attribution: Moderately Complex Presentation of Mixed Opinions Activates the Analytic Process

Author

Listed:
  • Guangming Xie

    (School of Logistics, Chengdu University of Information Technology, Chengdu 610031, China)

  • Wenbo Du

    (School of Management, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China)

  • Hongping Yuan

    (School of Management, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China)

  • Yushi Jiang

    (School of Economics and Management, Southwest Jiao Tong University, Chengdu 610031, China)

Abstract

Using metacognition and dual process theories, this paper studied the role of types of presentation of mixed opinions in mitigating negative impacts of online word of mouth (WOM) dispersion on consumer’s purchasing decisions. Two studies were implemented, respectively. By employing an eye-tracking approach, study 1 recorded consumer’s attention to WOM dispersion. The results show that the activation of the analytic system can improve reviewer-related attribution options. In study 2, three kinds of presentation of mixed opinions originating from China’s leading online platform were compared. The results demonstrated that mixed opinions expressed in moderately complex form, integrating average ratings and reviewers’ impressions of products, was effective in promoting reviewer-related attribution choices. However, too-complicated presentation types of WOM dispersion can impose excessively on consumers’ cognitive load and eventually fail to activate the analytic system for promoting reviewer-related attribution choices. The main contribution of this paper lies in that consumer attribution-related choices are supplemented, which provides new insights into information consistency in consumer research. The managerial and theoretical significance of this paper are discussed in order to better understand the purchasing decisions of consumers.

Suggested Citation

  • Guangming Xie & Wenbo Du & Hongping Yuan & Yushi Jiang, 2021. "Promoting Reviewer-Related Attribution: Moderately Complex Presentation of Mixed Opinions Activates the Analytic Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-28, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:2:p:441-:d:475270
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/2/441/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/2/441/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Li, Qian & Huang, Zhuowei (Joy) & Christianson, Kiel, 2016. "Visual attention toward tourism photographs with text: An eye-tracking study," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 243-258.
    2. Bi, Sheng & Liu, Zhiying & Usman, Khalid, 2017. "The influence of online information on investing decisions of reward-based crowdfunding," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 10-18.
    3. Weiner, Bernard, 2000. "Attributional Thoughts about Consumer Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(3), pages 382-387, December.
    4. Spalevic, Zaklina & Ilic, Milos & Filipic, Goran, 2019. "Правни и економски аспекти интелектуалне својине у цyбер простору," Ekonomika, Journal for Economic Theory and Practice and Social Issues, Society of Economists Ekonomika, Nis, Serbia, vol. 65(2), February.
    5. Keith Stanovich & Maggie Toplak, 2012. "Defining features versus incidental correlates of Type 1 and Type 2 processing," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 11(1), pages 3-13, June.
    6. Zhu, Yongmin & Liu, Miaomiao & Zeng, Xiaohua & Huang, Pei, 2020. "The effects of prior reviews on perceived review helpfulness: A configuration perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 484-494.
    7. Wang, Feng & Liu, Xuefeng & Fang, Eric (Er), 2015. "User Reviews Variance, Critic Reviews Variance, and Product Sales: An Exploration of Customer Breadth and Depth Effects," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 372-389.
    8. Monic Sun, 2012. "How Does the Variance of Product Ratings Matter?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(4), pages 696-707, April.
    9. Duan, Wenjing & Gu, Bin & Whinston, Andrew B., 2008. "The dynamics of online word-of-mouth and product sales—An empirical investigation of the movie industry," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 233-242.
    10. Ratner, Rebecca K & Kahn, Barbara E, 2002. "The Impact of Private versus Public Consumption on Variety-Seeking Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 29(2), pages 246-257, September.
    11. Stephen X. He & Samuel D. Bond, 2015. "Why Is the Crowd Divided? Attribution for Dispersion in Online Word of Mouth," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 41(6), pages 1509-1527.
    12. Langan, Ryan & Besharat, Ali & Varki, Sajeev, 2017. "The effect of review valence and variance on product evaluations: An examination of intrinsic and extrinsic cues," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 414-429.
    13. Robyn A. LeBoeuf & Michael I. Norton, 2012. "Consequence-Cause Matching: Looking to the Consequences of Events to Infer Their Causes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 39(1), pages 128-141.
    14. Jiménez, Fernando R. & Mendoza, Norma A., 2013. "Too Popular to Ignore: The Influence of Online Reviews on Purchase Intentions of Search and Experience Products," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 226-235.
    15. Purnawirawan, Nathalia & De Pelsmacker, Patrick & Dens, Nathalie, 2012. "Balance and Sequence in Online Reviews: How Perceived Usefulness Affects Attitudes and Intentions," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 244-255.
    16. Khare, Adwait & Labrecque, Lauren I. & Asare, Anthony K., 2011. "The Assimilative and Contrastive Effects of Word-of-Mouth Volume: An Experimental Examination of Online Consumer Ratings," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 111-126.
    17. Flynn, Leisa Reinecke & Goldsmith, Ronald E., 1999. "A Short, Reliable Measure of Subjective Knowledge," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 57-66, September.
    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. Akawut Jansom & Siwarit Pongsakornrungsilp, 2021. "How Instagram Influencers Affect the Value Perception of Thai Millennial Followers and Purchasing Intention of Luxury Fashion for Sustainable Marketing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-19, July.

    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. Xie, Guangming & Lü, Kevin & Gupta, Suraksha & Jiang, Yushi & Shi, Li, 2021. "How Dispersive Opinions Affect Consumer Decisions: Endowment Effect Guides Attributional Inferences," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 97(4), pages 621-638.
    2. Agnieszka Zablocki & Bodo Schlegelmilch & Michael J. Houston, 2019. "How valence, volume and variance of online reviews influence brand attitudes," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 9(1), pages 61-77, June.
    3. Liu, Fu & Wei, Haiying & Wang, Xingyuan & Zhu, Zhenzhong & Chen, Haipeng Allan, 2023. "The influence of online review dispersion on consumers’ purchase intention: The moderating role of dialectical thinking," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    4. (Kay) Byun, Kyung-ah & Ma, Minghui & Kim, Kevin & Kang, Taeghyun, 2021. "Buying a New Product with Inconsistent Product Reviews from Multiple Sources: The Role of Information Diagnosticity and Advertising," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 81-103.
    5. 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.
    6. Dominik Gutt, 2018. "In the Eye of the Beholder? Empirically Decomposing Different Economic Implications of the Online Rating Variance," Working Papers Dissertations 40, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    7. Wu, Yuanyuan & Liu, Tianjiao & Teng, Lefa & Zhang, Hui & Xie, Chenxin, 2021. "The impact of online review variance of new products on consumer adoption intentions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 209-218.
    8. Chinonso E. Etumnu & Kenneth Foster & Nicole O. Widmar & Jayson L. Lusk & David L. Ortega, 2020. "Does the distribution of ratings affect online grocery sales? Evidence from Amazon," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(4), pages 501-521, October.
    9. Zheng, Lili, 2021. "The classification of online consumer reviews: A systematic literature review and integrative framework," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 226-251.
    10. Langan, Ryan & Besharat, Ali & Varki, Sajeev, 2017. "The effect of review valence and variance on product evaluations: An examination of intrinsic and extrinsic cues," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 414-429.
    11. Minnema, Alec & Bijmolt, Tammo H.A. & Gensler, Sonja & Wiesel, Thorsten, 2016. "To Keep or Not to Keep: Effects of Online Customer Reviews on Product Returns," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 92(3), pages 253-267.
    12. Bella Rozenkrants & S Christian Wheeler & Baba Shiv & Gita JoharEditor & Derek RuckerAssociate Editor, 2017. "Self-Expression Cues in Product Rating Distributions: When People Prefer Polarizing Products," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 44(4), pages 759-777.
    13. Wang, Feng & Liu, Xuefeng & Fang, Eric (Er), 2015. "User Reviews Variance, Critic Reviews Variance, and Product Sales: An Exploration of Customer Breadth and Depth Effects," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 372-389.
    14. Golmohammadi, Alireza & Mattila, Anna S. & Gauri, Dinesh K., 2020. "Negative online reviews and consumers’ service consumption," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 27-36.
    15. Wang, Fang & Menon, Kalyani & Ranaweera, Chatura, 2018. "Dynamic trends in online product ratings: A diagnostic utility explanation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 80-89.
    16. Hernández-Ortega, Blanca, 2020. "When the performance comes into play: The influence of positive online consumer reviews on individuals' post-consumption responses," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 422-435.
    17. Wu, Xiaoyue & Jin, Liyin & Xu, Qian, 2021. "Expertise Makes Perfect: How the Variance of a Reviewer's Historical Ratings Influences the Persuasiveness of Online Reviews," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 238-250.
    18. 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.
    19. Dezhi Yin & Sabyasachi Mitra & Han Zhang, 2016. "Research Note—When Do Consumers Value Positive vs. Negative Reviews? An Empirical Investigation of Confirmation Bias in Online Word of Mouth," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 131-144, March.
    20. Wu, Yinglu & Wu, Jianan, 2016. "The Impact of User Review Volume on Consumers' Willingness-to-Pay: A Consumer Uncertainty Perspective," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 43-56.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:2:p:441-:d:475270. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.