IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/mktlet/v29y2018i2d10.1007_s11002-018-9459-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How reviewers’ use of profanity affects perceived usefulness of online reviews

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Hair

    (Southern Illinois University Edwardsville)

  • Timucin Ozcan

    (Rollins College)

Abstract

This research explores the effects of profanity on perceptions of online reviews’ usefulness. Based on the prior research that described asymmetric attribution effects, we predict that when consumers see profanity in an online review, their reactions differ depending on the valence of the review. Specifically, when profanity is used in a negative review, it should reduce review usefulness because of decreased perceived reviewer objectivity. Among positive reviews, profanity increases review usefulness through greater perceived reviewer credibility. Through analysis of Yelp data, we show that the effect of profanity on usefulness depends on review valence. Experimentally, we demonstrate the opposing mediating effects of perceived objectivity and credibility on the usefulness of the review.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Hair & Timucin Ozcan, 2018. "How reviewers’ use of profanity affects perceived usefulness of online reviews," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 151-163, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:mktlet:v:29:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s11002-018-9459-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11002-018-9459-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11002-018-9459-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11002-018-9459-4?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. Mizerski, Richard W, 1982. "An Attribution Explanation of the Disproportionate Influence of Unfavorable Information," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 9(3), pages 301-310, December.
    2. Dahl, Darren W. & Frankenberger, Kristina D. & Manchanda, Rajesh V., 2003. "Does It Pay to Shock? Reactions to Shocking and Nonshocking Advertising Content among University Students," Journal of Advertising Research, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(3), pages 268-280, September.
    3. Sparks, Beverley A. & Browning, Victoria, 2011. "The impact of online reviews on hotel booking intentions and perception of trust," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1310-1323.
    4. Kim, Junyong & Gupta, Pranjal, 2012. "Emotional expressions in online user reviews: How they influence consumers' product evaluations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(7), pages 985-992.
    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. Shawn Berry, 2024. "Fake Google restaurant reviews and the implications for consumers and restaurants," Papers 2401.11345, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.
    2. Ifie, Kemefasu, 2020. "Excellent Product … But Too Early to Say: Consumer Reactions to Tentative Product Reviews," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 35-51.
    3. 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.
    4. Ravula, Prashanth & Jha, Subhash & Biswas, Abhijit, 2022. "Relative persuasiveness of repurchase intentions versus recommendations in online reviews," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 98(4), pages 724-740.

    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. Surachartkumtonkun, Jiraporn (Nui) & Grace, Debra & Ross, Mitchell, 2021. "Unfair customer reviews: Third-party perceptions and managerial responses," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 631-640.
    2. Kim, Taeyong & Hwang, Seungsoo & Kim, Minkyung, 2022. "Text analysis of online customer reviews for products in the FCB quadrants: Procedure, outcomes, and implications," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 676-689.
    3. 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.
    4. Koji Ishida & Lisa Slevitch & Katia Siamionava, 2016. "The Effects of Traditional and Electronic Word-of-Mouth on Destination Image: A Case of Vacation Tourists Visiting Branson, Missouri," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-17, September.
    5. 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.
    6. Nath, Prithwiraj & Devlin, James & Reid, Veronica, 2018. "The effects of online reviews on service expectations: Do cultural value orientations matter?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 123-133.
    7. Garaus, Marion & Wagner, Udo, 2016. "Retail shopper confusion: Conceptualization, scale development, and consequences," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 3459-3467.
    8. Xuan Yang & Xiao Li & Daning Hu & Harry Jiannan Wang, 2021. "Differential impacts of social influence on initial and sustained participation in open source software projects," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(9), pages 1133-1147, September.
    9. Gerrath, Maximilian H.E.E. & Usrey, Bryan, 2021. "The impact of influencer motives and commonness perceptions on follower reactions toward incentivized reviews," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 531-548.
    10. Yan, Zhen & Zhou, Jie-hong, 2015. "Measuring consumer heterogeneous preferences for pork traits under media reports: choice experiment in sixteen traceability pilot cities, China," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212609, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Easley, Richard W. & Bearden, William O. & Teel, Jesse E., 1995. "Testing predictions derived from inoculation theory and the effectiveness of self-disclosure communications strategies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 93-105, October.
    12. 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).
    13. repec:oup:jecgeo:v:50:y:2023:i:2:p:363-381. is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Mathieu Djaballah & Boris Helleu, 2014. "La WWE de Vince K. McMahon : une mascarade à prendre au sérieux," Post-Print hal-01716779, HAL.
    15. Yuanyuan Guo & Yanqing Wang & Chaoyou Wang, 2019. "Exploring the Salient Attributes of Short-Term Rental Experience: An Analysis of Online Reviews from Chinese Guests," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-19, August.
    16. José Alberto Martínez-González & Eduardo Parra-López & Almudena Barrientos-Báez, 2021. "Young Consumers’ Intention to Participate in the Sharing Economy: An Integrated Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-21, January.
    17. Ert, Eyal & Fleischer, Aliza & Magen, Nathan, 2016. "Trust and reputation in the sharing economy: The role of personal photos in Airbnb," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 62-73.
    18. Elvira Ismagilova & Emma L. Slade & Nripendra P. Rana & Yogesh K. Dwivedi, 2020. "The Effect of Electronic Word of Mouth Communications on Intention to Buy: A Meta-Analysis," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 1203-1226, October.
    19. He, Yi & You, Ya & Chen, Qimei, 2020. "Our conditional love for the underdog: The effect of brand positioning and the lay theory of achievement on WOM," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 210-222.
    20. Casaló, Luis V. & Flavián, Carlos & Guinalíu, Miguel & Ekinci, Yuksel, 2015. "Avoiding the dark side of positive online consumer reviews: Enhancing reviews' usefulness for high risk-averse travelers," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(9), pages 1829-1835.
    21. Jun Hwan Kim & Hyun Cheol Lee, 2019. "Understanding the Repurchase Intention of Premium Economy Passengers Using an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-19, 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:kap:mktlet:v:29:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s11002-018-9459-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.