IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jbrese/v69y2016i12p5993-6001.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When good WOM hurts and bad WOM gains: The effect of untrustworthy online reviews

Author

Listed:
  • Reimer, Thomas
  • Benkenstein, Martin

Abstract

As a form of word of mouth (WOM), online reviews are used to reduce uncertainty about service or product quality and to direct consumer attitudes and behavior through the valence of the review. However, because the communication partner is anonymous, there is a degree of uncertainty regarding whether the review is trustworthy. This paper considers the moderating effect of review trustworthiness on the relationship between review valence and purchase intention. It takes into account the availability of review argumentation and review skepticism as a result of prior persuasion experience as influences on review trustworthiness. Specifically, two scenario-based experiments are used. The results show that trustworthy reviews influence purchase intention in the same direction as review valence. However, untrustworthy reviews cause a “boomerang effect,” so that positive reviews decrease and negative reviews increase purchase intention as a result of reactant behavior. The results are discussed, and practical implications for companies are suggested.

Suggested Citation

  • Reimer, Thomas & Benkenstein, Martin, 2016. "When good WOM hurts and bad WOM gains: The effect of untrustworthy online reviews," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 5993-6001.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:69:y:2016:i:12:p:5993-6001
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.05.014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296316303964
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.05.014?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. Dina Mayzlin & Yaniv Dover & Judith Chevalier, 2014. "Promotional Reviews: An Empirical Investigation of Online Review Manipulation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(8), pages 2421-2455, August.
    2. Stephanie Watts Sussman & Wendy Schneier Siegal, 2003. "Informational Influence in Organizations: An Integrated Approach to Knowledge Adoption," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 14(1), pages 47-65, March.
    3. Campbell, Margaret C & Kirmani, Amna, 2000. "Consumers' Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibility and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence Agent," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(1), pages 69-83, June.
    4. Skarmeas, Dionysis & Leonidou, Constantinos N., 2013. "When consumers doubt, Watch out! The role of CSR skepticism," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(10), pages 1831-1838.
    5. Friestad, Marian & Wright, Peter, 1994. "The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(1), pages 1-31, June.
    6. Evanschitzky, Heiner & Baumgarth, Carsten & Hubbard, Raymond & Armstrong, J. Scott, 2007. "Replication research's disturbing trend," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 411-415, April.
    7. Kleinaltenkamp, Michael & Jacob, Frank, 2002. "German approaches to business-to-business marketing theory: origins and structure," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 149-155, February.
    8. George A. Akerlof, 1970. "The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 84(3), pages 488-500.
    9. Gefen, David, 2000. "E-commerce: the role of familiarity and trust," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 725-737, December.
    10. Joseph Persky, 1995. "The Ethology of Homo Economicus," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 221-231, Spring.
    11. Filieri, Raffaele, 2015. "What makes online reviews helpful? A diagnosticity-adoption framework to explain informational and normative influences in e-WOM," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1261-1270.
    12. John Hulland, 1999. "Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 195-204, February.
    13. C. Nadine Wathen & Jacquelyn Burkell, 2002. "Believe it or not: Factors influencing credibility on the Web," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 53(2), pages 134-144.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Zhuang, Mengzhou & Cui, Geng & Peng, Ling, 2018. "Manufactured opinions: The effect of manipulating online product reviews," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 24-35.
    2. Jehad Imlawi, 2017. "E-WOM Adoption and Sharing Behavior in Social Network Sites: The Impact of Engagement in SNSs," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(6), pages 87-97, June.
    3. Koukova, Nevena T. & Wang, Rebecca Jen-Hui & Isaac, Mathew S., 2023. "“If you loved our product”: Do conditional review requests harm retailer loyalty?," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 85-101.
    4. Munzel, Andreas, 2016. "Assisting consumers in detecting fake reviews: The role of identity information disclosure and consensus," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 96-108.
    5. Pyle, Martin A. & Smith, Andrew N. & Chevtchouk, Yanina, 2021. "In eWOM we trust: Using naïve theories to understand consumer trust in a complex eWOM marketspace," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 145-158.
    6. Janssen, Catherine & Swaen, Valérie & Du, Shuili, 2022. "Is a specific claim always better? The double-edged effects of claim specificity in green advertising," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 435-447.
    7. Chang-Dae Ham & Jeesun Kim, 2019. "The Role of CSR in Crises: Integration of Situational Crisis Communication Theory and the Persuasion Knowledge Model," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 158(2), pages 353-372, August.
    8. Halder, Deepa & Pradhan, Debasis & Roy Chaudhuri, Himadri, 2021. "Forty-five years of celebrity credibility and endorsement literature: Review and learnings," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 397-415.
    9. Onofrei, George & Filieri, Raffaele & Kennedy, Lorraine, 2022. "Social media interactions, purchase intention, and behavioural engagement: The mediating role of source and content factors," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 100-112.
    10. Robert G. Magee, 2022. "Understanding worldview beliefs to allay skepticism toward CSR advertising," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 29(6), pages 538-555, November.
    11. Costa Filho, Murilo & Nogueira Rafael, Diego & Salmonson Guimarães Barros, Lucia & Mesquita, Eduardo, 2023. "Mind the fake reviews! Protecting consumers from deception through persuasion knowledge acquisition," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    12. Jochen Theis & Marvin Nipper & Marco Meier, 2024. "The influence of corporate philanthropic donations on private investors' valuation judgments: Experimental evidence," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(1), pages 540-554, January.
    13. Vahid Rahmani, 2023. "Persuasion knowledge framework: Toward a comprehensive model of consumers’ persuasion knowledge," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 13(1), pages 12-33, June.
    14. Rachel Esther Lim & Wei‐Na Lee, 2023. "Communicating corporate social responsibility: How fit, specificity, and cognitive fluency drive consumer skepticism and response," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(2), pages 955-967, March.
    15. Mengmeng Wang & Wenjie Yang, 2021. "What Drives Rural Consumers to Change E-Commerce Attitude and Adopt E-Commerce through the Moderating Role of Corporate Social Responsibility in an Emerging Market? An Empirical Investigation in the C," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-22, November.
    16. Reimer, Thomas & Benkenstein, Martin, 2018. "Not just for the recommender: How eWOM incentives influence the recommendation audience," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 11-21.
    17. Filieri, Raffaele & Acikgoz, Fulya & Du, Hao, 2023. "Electronic word-of-mouth from video bloggers: The role of content quality and source homophily across hedonic and utilitarian products," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    18. Suwelack, Thomas & Hogreve, Jens & Hoyer, Wayne D., 2011. "Understanding Money-Back Guarantees: Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Outcomes," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 87(4), pages 462-478.
    19. Skarmeas, Dionysis & Leonidou, Constantinos N., 2013. "When consumers doubt, Watch out! The role of CSR skepticism," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(10), pages 1831-1838.
    20. Caldieraro, Fabio & Cunha, Marcus, 2022. "Consumers’ response to weak unique selling propositions: Implications for optimal product recommendation strategy," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 724-744.

    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:eee:jbrese:v:69:y:2016:i:12:p:5993-6001. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres .

    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.