skip to main content
Idioma:

Decide Now or Later: Making Sense of Incoherence Across Online Reviews

Yin, Dezhi ; de Vreede, Triparna ; Steele, Logan M. ; de Vreede, Gert-Jan

Information systems research, 2023-09, Vol.34 (3), p.1211-1227 [Periódico revisado por pares]

Linthicum: INFORMS

Texto completo disponível

Citações Citado por
  • Título:
    Decide Now or Later: Making Sense of Incoherence Across Online Reviews
  • Autor: Yin, Dezhi ; de Vreede, Triparna ; Steele, Logan M. ; de Vreede, Gert-Jan
  • Assuntos: consumer decision making ; Consumers ; credibility ; Decision making ; helpfulness ; Incoherence ; inconsistency ; information incoherence ; Judgments ; Nonfiction ; online reviews ; online word of mouth ; Product specifications ; purchase deferral ; Ratings ; Reviews ; Systematic review
  • É parte de: Information systems research, 2023-09, Vol.34 (3), p.1211-1227
  • Descrição: Consumers read online reviews to decide whether to buy a product. Extensive research examines what makes a single review helpful or credible, yet there is very limited understanding of how a collection of reviews facilitates purchase decisions. Such understanding is critical because consumers rarely consult all reviews or a single review. They often start by reading the “top reviews” that a website highlights, then deciding whether to read additional reviews and how many. This paper investigates how inconsistency among top reviews affects a consumer’s purchase deferral—the likelihood to decide immediately or defer the decision until after obtaining more information. We found that, if different reviewers disagree on their opinions about the same feature of a product, consumers are more likely to defer the purchase decision and consult more reviews. Further, this effect is weaker when reviewers provide specific details about their needs or use of the product along with their opinions. This work provides guidance to review platforms on how to select and present a set of top reviews. Our findings also inform retailers and product manufacturers on how to focus their attention in dealing with reviews and when a focus only on the top reviews is not sufficient. Mixed or inconsistent opinions are commonplace in online reviews. Prior research shows that review inconsistency has different effects: its product-level manifestation in the form of inconsistent product ratings is associated with poorer sales, but its review-level manifestation in the form of two-sided arguments is associated with greater helpfulness and credibility evaluations of the review. In practice, consumers rarely consult all reviews or just a single review before they make purchase decisions. Instead, they often read a set of featured reviews (i.e., a review set) and some additional reviews if needed. Focusing on inconsistency in a review set, we introduce a new type of inconsistency across reviews that does not exist within a single review or at the level of product ratings: cross-review incoherence, which refers to disagreement among reviewers about specific product features. Based on cognitive dissonance theory, we explore how and when cross-review incoherence influences helpfulness and credibility judgments of the review set, revealing that consumers’ reactions to such incoherence might operate differently beyond an individual review. In addition, we examine how and why consumers’ judgments of a review set influence their purchase deferral—that is, the likelihood of making a buy-or-not-buy decision immediately after consulting the top reviews or deferring it until after obtaining more information. Two laboratory experiments demonstrate that cross-review incoherence increases purchase deferral via more negative evaluations of the review set that, in turn, reduce attitude certainty. In addition, the negative effect of cross-review incoherence on review set evaluations is weaker when the reviewers provide more contextual information behind their opinions. These findings deepen our understanding of inconsistency across multiple pieces of information; reveal the consequences of review evaluations during an understudied stage of consumers’ decision-making process; and provide critical implications for review platforms, companies, and reviewers. History: Paul Pavlou, Senior Editor; David (Jingjun) Xu, Associate Editor. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2022.1150 .
  • Editor: Linthicum: INFORMS
  • Idioma: Inglês
Voltar para lista de resultados
Resultado  1 AvançarIr para próxima página

  • Realização: ABCD-USP USP   Logos de Redes Sociais: Freepik

Buscando em bases de dados remotas. Favor aguardar.