IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/infosf/v25y2023i4d10.1007_s10796-022-10299-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Review Quality and Source Credibility Interacts to Affect Review Usefulness: An Expansion of the Elaboration Likelihood Model

Author

Listed:
  • Navid Aghakhani

    (University of Tennessee Chattanooga)

  • Onook Oh

    (University of Colorado Denver)

  • Dawn Gregg

    (University of Colorado Denver)

  • Hemant Jain

    (University of Tennessee Chattanooga)

Abstract

This study extends our understanding of what makes an online review useful by examining the effects of review quality (i.e., as a composite variable of review comprehensiveness and review topic consistency) on review usefulness, and the moderating effects of source credibility on the relationship between review quality and review usefulness. The Elaboration Likelihood Model, convergence theory, and cueing effect literature are used to define the variables of review comprehensiveness and review topic consistency. Analyses of 27,517 restaurant reviews from Yelp show that review topic consistency has a positive effect on review usefulness, but, contrary to our hypothesis, review comprehensiveness has a negative effect on review usefulness. We also found source credibility positively moderates the effect of review comprehensiveness on review usefulness, but negatively moderates the effect of review topic consistency on review usefulness. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Navid Aghakhani & Onook Oh & Dawn Gregg & Hemant Jain, 2023. "How Review Quality and Source Credibility Interacts to Affect Review Usefulness: An Expansion of the Elaboration Likelihood Model," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 1513-1531, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:infosf:v:25:y:2023:i:4:d:10.1007_s10796-022-10299-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s10796-022-10299-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10796-022-10299-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10796-022-10299-w?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. Albert E. Mannes, 2009. "Are We Wise About the Wisdom of Crowds? The Use of Group Judgments in Belief Revision," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(8), pages 1267-1279, August.
    2. Ivar Krumpal, 2013. "Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 2025-2047, June.
    3. Ismagilova, Elvira & Slade, Emma & Rana, Nripendra P. & Dwivedi, Yogesh K., 2020. "The effect of characteristics of source credibility on consumer behaviour: A meta-analysis," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    4. Jie Ren & Jeffrey V. Nickerson, 2019. "Arousal, valence, and volume: how the influence of online review characteristics differs with respect to utilitarian and hedonic products," European Journal of Information Systems, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(3), pages 272-290, May.
    5. Navid Aghakhani & Onook Oh & Dawn G. Gregg & Jahangir Karimi, 2021. "Online Review Consistency Matters: An Elaboration Likelihood Model Perspective," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 1287-1301, September.
    6. 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.
    7. William H. Greene, 1994. "Accounting for Excess Zeros and Sample Selection in Poisson and Negative Binomial Regression Models," Working Papers 94-10, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    8. Bin Guo & Shasha Zhou, 2017. "What makes population perception of review helpfulness: an information processing perspective," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 585-608, December.
    9. Chris Forman & Anindya Ghose & Batia Wiesenfeld, 2008. "Examining the Relationship Between Reviews and Sales: The Role of Reviewer Identity Disclosure in Electronic Markets," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 291-313, September.
    10. Anindya Ghose & Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis & Beibei Li, 2012. "Designing Ranking Systems for Hotels on Travel Search Engines by Mining User-Generated and Crowdsourced Content," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(3), pages 493-520, May.
    11. Alton Y.K. Chua & Snehasish Banerjee, 2015. "Understanding review helpfulness as a function of reviewer reputation, review rating, and review depth," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(2), pages 354-362, February.
    12. Angela Aerry Choi & Daegon Cho & Dobin Yim & Jae Yun Moon & Wonseok Oh, 2019. "When Seeing Helps Believing: The Interactive Effects of Previews and Reviews on E-Book Purchases," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(4), pages 1164-1183, December.
    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. Srikanth Parameswaran & Pubali Mukherjee & Rohit Valecha, 2023. "I Like My Anonymity: An Empirical Investigation of the Effect of Multidimensional Review Text and Role Anonymity on Helpfulness of Employer Reviews," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 853-870, April.
    2. Baidyanath Biswas & Pooja Sengupta & Boudhayan Ganguly, 2022. "Your reviews or mine? Exploring the determinants of “perceived helpfulness” of online reviews: a cross-cultural study," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(3), pages 1083-1102, September.
    3. Xiaomo Liu & G. Alan Wang & Weiguo Fan & Zhongju Zhang, 2020. "Finding Useful Solutions in Online Knowledge Communities: A Theory-Driven Design and Multilevel Analysis," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(3), pages 731-752, September.
    4. Yani Wang & Jun Wang & Tang Yao, 2019. "What makes a helpful online review? A meta-analysis of review characteristics," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 257-284, June.
    5. Ganguly, Boudhayan & Sengupta, Pooja & Biswas, Baidyanath, 2024. "What are the significant determinants of helpfulness of online review? An exploration across product-types," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    6. Khim-Yong Goh & Cheng-Suang Heng & Zhijie Lin, 2013. "Social Media Brand Community and Consumer Behavior: Quantifying the Relative Impact of User- and Marketer-Generated Content," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(1), pages 88-107, March.
    7. Raoofpanah, Iman & Zamudio, César & Groening, Christopher, 2023. "Review reader segmentation based on the heterogeneous impacts of review and reviewer attributes on review helpfulness: A study involving ZIP code data," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    8. Yanni Ping & Chelsey Hill & Yun Zhu & Jorge Fresneda, 2023. "Antecedents and consequences of the key opinion leader status: an econometric and machine learning approach," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 1459-1484, September.
    9. Theodoros Lappas & Gaurav Sabnis & Georgios Valkanas, 2016. "The Impact of Fake Reviews on Online Visibility: A Vulnerability Assessment of the Hotel Industry," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 940-961, December.
    10. Yuqian Xu & Mor Armony & Anindya Ghose, 2021. "The Interplay Between Online Reviews and Physician Demand: An Empirical Investigation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(12), pages 7344-7361, December.
    11. Lifang Peng & Qinyu Liao & Xiaorong Wang & Xuanfang He, 2016. "Factors affecting female user information adoption: an empirical investigation on fashion shopping guide websites," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 145-169, June.
    12. Supriyo Mandal & Abyayananda Maiti, 2022. "Network promoter score (NePS): An indicator of product sales in E-commerce retailing sector," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(3), pages 1327-1349, September.
    13. Srivastava, Vartika & Kalro, Arti D., 2019. "Enhancing the Helpfulness of Online Consumer Reviews: The Role of Latent (Content) Factors," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 33-50.
    14. Shan, Wei & Wang, Jiaxuan & Shi, Xiaoxiao & David Evans, Richard, 2024. "The impact of electronic word-of-mouth on patients’ choices in online health communities: A cross-media perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    15. Fang, Bin & Ye, Qiang & Kucukusta, Deniz & Law, Rob, 2016. "Analysis of the perceived value of online tourism reviews: Influence of readability and reviewer characteristics," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 498-506.
    16. Kummer, Michael E. & Laitenberger, Ulrich & Rich, Cyrus E. & Hughes, Danny R. & Ayer, Turgay, 2021. "Healthy reviews! Online physician ratings reduce healthcare interruptions," ZEW Discussion Papers 21-075, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    17. Davis, Joshua M. & Agrawal, Deepti, 2018. "Understanding the role of interpersonal identification in online review evaluation: An information processing perspective," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 140-149.
    18. Lien Thi Kim Nguyen & Hao-Hsuan Chung & Kristine Velasquez Tuliao & Tom M. Y. Lin, 2020. "Using XGBoost and Skip-Gram Model to Predict Online Review Popularity," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, December.
    19. 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.
    20. Xin (Shane) Wang & Feng Mai & Roger H. L. Chiang, 2014. "Database Submission ---Market Dynamics and User-Generated Content About Tablet Computers," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(3), pages 449-458, May.

    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:spr:infosf:v:25:y:2023:i:4:d:10.1007_s10796-022-10299-w. 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.