IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/canjag/v66y2018i4p587-597.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impacts of sellers’ responses to online negative consumer reviews: Evidence from an agricultural product

Author

Listed:
  • Ping Qing
  • Heng Huang
  • Amar Razzaq
  • Yifan Tang
  • Ming Tu

Abstract

Sellers’ responses to online negative consumer reviews (NCRs) have a marked effect on consumer purchasing intentions. In this study, we divide seller's responses to NCRs into two categories: rational responses and emotional responses. Through two separate studies, we examine the impact of sellers’ responses to online NCRs on consumer purchasing intention. Results reveal that product‐related NCRs reduce consumer purchasing intentions more than service‐related NCRs and having no reaction to NCRs from the sellers decreases consumer purchasing intentions. In addition, consumer trust mediates the relationship between seller's response to online NCRs and consumer purchasing intentions. The results also show that the impact on consumer purchasing intentions can be modified by the type of NCRs and sellers’ responses. In particular, rational responses will be more effective for product‐related NCRs, and for service‐related NCRs, there does not appear to exist a significant difference between the effects of rational and emotional responses. Les réponses des vendeurs aux revues en ligne négatives (RLN) des consommateurs ont un effet marqué sur les intentions d'achat des consommateurs. Dans cette étude, nous divisons les réponses du vendeur aux RLN en deux catégories: les réponses rationnelles et les réponses émotionnelles. Dans le cadre de deux études distinctes, nous examinons l'incidence des réponses des vendeurs aux RLN en ligne sur l'intention d'achat des consommateurs. Les résultats révèlent que les RLN liées aux produits réduisent davantage les intentions d'achat des consommateurs que les RLN liées aux services et que le fait de ne pas réagir aux RLN diminue les intentions d'achat des consommateurs. En outre, la confiance des consommateurs influence la relation entre la réponse du vendeur aux RLN et les intentions d'achat des consommateurs. Les résultats montrent également que l'impact sur les intentions d'achat des consommateurs peut être modifié par le type de réponses des vendeurs aux RLN. En particulier, les réponses rationnelles seront plus efficaces pour les RLN liées aux produits, alors que pour les RLN liées au service, il ne semble pas exister de différence significative entre les effets des réponses rationnelles et émotionnelles.

Suggested Citation

  • Ping Qing & Heng Huang & Amar Razzaq & Yifan Tang & Ming Tu, 2018. "Impacts of sellers’ responses to online negative consumer reviews: Evidence from an agricultural product," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 66(4), pages 587-597, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:66:y:2018:i:4:p:587-597
    DOI: 10.1111/cjag.12184
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12184
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/cjag.12184?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gefen, David, 2000. "E-commerce: the role of familiarity and trust," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 725-737, December.
    2. Andreas I. Nicolaou & D. Harrison McKnight, 2006. "Perceived Information Quality in Data Exchanges: Effects on Risk, Trust, and Intention to Use," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 332-351, December.
    3. Chen, Yubo & Fay, Scott & Wang, Qi, 2011. "The Role of Marketing in Social Media: How Online Consumer Reviews Evolve," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 85-94.
    4. D. Harrison McKnight & Vivek Choudhury & Charles Kacmar, 2002. "Developing and Validating Trust Measures for e-Commerce: An Integrative Typology," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 334-359, September.
    5. Michael Luca, 2011. "Reviews, Reputation, and Revenue: The Case of Yelp.com," Harvard Business School Working Papers 12-016, Harvard Business School, revised Mar 2016.
    6. Dellarocas, Chrysanthos, 2004. "The Digitization of Word-of-Mouth: Promise and Challenges of Online Feedback," Working papers 4296-03, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    7. Xinshu Zhao & John G. Lynch & Qimei Chen, 2010. "Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 37(2), pages 197-206, August.
    8. William P. Bottom & Kevin Gibson & Steven E. Daniels & J. Keith Murnighan, 2002. "When Talk Is Not Cheap: Substantive Penance and Expressions of Intent in Rebuilding Cooperation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(5), pages 497-513, October.
    9. 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.
    10. Yubo Chen & Jinhong Xie, 2008. "Online Consumer Review: Word-of-Mouth as a New Element of Marketing Communication Mix," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(3), pages 477-491, March.
    11. Paul A. Pavlou & David Gefen, 2004. "Building Effective Online Marketplaces with Institution-Based Trust," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 15(1), pages 37-59, March.
    12. Leonard-Barton, Dorothy, 1985. "Experts as Negative Opinion Leaders in the Diffusion of a Technological Innovation," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 11(4), pages 914-926, March.
    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. Xiaofei Li & Baolong Ma & Rubing Bai, 2020. "Do you respond sincerely? How sellers’ responses to online reviews affect customer relationship and repurchase intention," Frontiers of Business Research in China, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 1-13, December.
    2. Kexiao Xie & Dongkai Lin & Weihan Zhu & Yongqiang Ma & Jiaxiong Qiu & Youcheng Chen & Zhidan Chen, 2023. "Analysis of Influencing Factors on the Willingness and Behavioral Consistency of Chinese Consumers to Purchase Tea via E-Commerce Platforms," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-17, September.
    3. Mengyao Zhang & Hasliza Hassan & Melissa Wendy Migin, 2023. "Exploring the Consumers’ Purchase Intention on Online Community Group Buying Platform during Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-13, January.
    4. Sven Anders & Wuyang Hu, 2018. "Introduction to the special issue on food consumption and marketing in Canada, the United States, and China: An intertwined system," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 66(4), pages 537-538, December.
    5. Adil Zia & Musaad Alzahrani & Abdullah Alomari & Fahad AlGhamdi, 2022. "Investigating the Drivers of Sustainable Consumption and Their Impact on Online Purchase Intentions for Agricultural Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-17, May.
    6. Abdelhalim R. Doeim & Thowayeb H. Hassan & Mohamed Y. Helal & Mahmoud I. Saleh & Amany E. Salem & Mohamed A. S. Elsayed, 2022. "Service Value and Repurchase Intention in the Egyptian Fast-Food Restaurants: Toward a New Measurement Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-17, November.
    7. Lijun Zhang & Wenlin Gao & Xiaoxiao Ma & Rongrong Gong, 2023. "Relationship between Disaster Shock Experience and Farmers’ Entrepreneurial Inclination: Crisis or Opportunity?," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-26, 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. Nguyen, Stephanie & Didi Alaoui, Mohamed & Llosa, Sylvie, 2020. "When interchangeability between providers and users makes a difference: The mediating role of social proximity in collaborative services," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 506-515.
    2. Ahmed Ibrahim Alzahrani & T. Ramayah & Nalini Suppiah & Osama Alfarraj & Nasser Alalwan, 2020. "Modeling Blog Usage From a Developing Country Perspective Using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(3), pages 21582440209, July.
    3. Möhlmann, Mareike, 2021. "Unjustified trust beliefs: Trust conflation on sharing economy platforms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(3).
    4. Timm Teubner & Marc T. P. Adam & Florian Hawlitschek, 2020. "Unlocking Online Reputation," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 62(6), pages 501-513, December.
    5. Baozhou Lu & Rudy Hirschheim & Andrew Schwarz, 2015. "Examining the antecedent factors of online microsourcing," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 601-617, June.
    6. Rajković, Borislav & Đurić, Ivan & Zarić, Vlade & Glauben, Thomas, 2021. "Gaining trust in the digital age: The potential of social media for increasing the competitiveness of small and medium enterprises," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 13(4).
    7. Malhotra, Neeru & Sahadev, Sunil & Purani, Keyoor, 2017. "Psychological contract violation and customer intention to reuse online retailers: Exploring mediating and moderating mechanisms," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 17-28.
    8. repec:dau:papers:123456789/2723 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Dan J. Kim & Donald L. Ferrin & H. Raghav Rao, 2009. "Trust and Satisfaction, Two Stepping Stones for Successful E-Commerce Relationships: A Longitudinal Exploration," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 237-257, June.
    10. David Gefen & Paul A. Pavlou, 2012. "The Boundaries of Trust and Risk: The Quadratic Moderating Role of Institutional Structures," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(3-part-2), pages 940-959, September.
    11. Mohammed Alharbey & Stefan Van Hemmen, 2021. "Investor Intention in Equity Crowdfunding. Does Trust Matter?," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-20, January.
    12. Chin, Amita Goyal & Harris, Mark A. & Brookshire, Robert, 2018. "A bidirectional perspective of trust and risk in determining factors that influence mobile app installation," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 49-59.
    13. Faridi, Amir Ali & Kavoosi-Kalashami, Mohammad & Bilali, Hamid El, 2020. "Attitude components affecting adoption of soil and water conservation measures by paddy farmers in Rasht County, Northern Iran," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    14. Heiko Moryson & Guido Moeser, 2016. "Consumer Adoption of Cloud Computing Services in Germany: Investigation of Moderating Effects by Applying an UTAUT Model," International Journal of Marketing Studies, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 8(1), pages 14-32, February.
    15. Dan Ke & Anran Chen & Chenting Su, 2016. "Online trust-building mechanisms for existing brands: the moderating role of the e-business platform certification system," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 189-216, June.
    16. Uttara M. Ananthakrishnan & Beibei Li & Michael D. Smith, 2020. "A Tangled Web: Should Online Review Portals Display Fraudulent Reviews?," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(3), pages 950-971, September.
    17. Hong, Ilyoo B. & Cho, Hwihyung, 2011. "The impact of consumer trust on attitudinal loyalty and purchase intentions in B2C e-marketplaces: Intermediary trust vs. seller trust," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 469-479.
    18. Andreas I. Nicolaou & D. Harrison McKnight, 2006. "Perceived Information Quality in Data Exchanges: Effects on Risk, Trust, and Intention to Use," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 332-351, December.
    19. Chameroy, Fabienne & Salgado, Stéphane & de Barnier, Virginie & Chaney, Damien, 2024. "In platform we trust: How interchangeability affects trust decisions in collaborative consumption," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    20. Weck, Marina & Afanassieva, Marianne, 2023. "Toward the adoption of digital assistive technology: Factors affecting older people's initial trust formation," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2).
    21. Park, Sangwon, 2020. "Multifaceted trust in tourism service robots," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).

    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:bla:canjag:v:66:y:2018:i:4:p:587-597. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caefmea.html .

    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.