IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jconrs/v42y2015i1p30-44..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Attitude Predictability and Helpfulness in Online Reviews: The Role of Explained Actions and Reactions

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah G. Moore

Abstract

This article examines explanation type in online word of mouth (WOM), focusing on what individuals explain: their actions ("I chose this product because …") or their reactions ("I love this product because …"). Results show that review writers explain their actions more than their reactions for utilitarian products, but they explain their reactions more than their actions for hedonic products. They do so to be helpful to review readers, who find explained actions more helpful for utilitarian products and explained reactions more helpful for hedonic products. Explained actions and reactions are differentially helpful across product type because they increase readers’ ability to predict their attitude toward the reviewed product: explained actions increase attitude predictability for utilitarian products, whereas explained reactions increase attitude predictability for hedonic products. These increases in attitude predictability and review helpfulness ultimately increase readers’ choice of the product in question. This article contributes to the explaining and the WOM literatures by focusing on what individuals explain, rather than on how they explain, by identifying product type as a novel moderator of what review writers explain (actions or reactions), and by examining when and why review readers prefer different types of explanations.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah G. Moore, 2015. "Attitude Predictability and Helpfulness in Online Reviews: The Role of Explained Actions and Reactions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 42(1), pages 30-44.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jconrs:v:42:y:2015:i:1:p:30-44.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jcr/ucv003
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:jconrs:v:42:y:2015:i:1:p:30-44.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcr .

    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.