Prior research has shown the independent effects of average product ratings and number of reviews for online purchases, but the relative influence of these aggregate review attributes is still debated in the literature. In this research, the authors demonstrate the conditional influences of these two attributes as a function of the valence of average product ratings and the level of review numbers in a choice set. Specifically, they argue that the diagnosticity of the number of reviews, relative to average product ratings, increases when average product ratings are negative or neutral (vs. positive) and when the level of review numbers in a choice set is low (vs. high). As a result, when consumers choose among the best options on one of the review attributes (average product ratings or the number of reviews), their preference shifts from the higher-rated option with fewer reviews toward the lower-rated option with more reviews. The authors demonstrate this preference shift in seven studies, elucidate the underlying process by which this occurs, and conclude with a discussion of the implications for retailers and brands.
AshbyNathaniel J. S.JohnsonJoseph G.KrajbichIanWedelMichel (2016), “Applications and Innovations of Eye-Movement Research in Judgment and Decision Making,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29 (2/3), 96–102.
2.
BagchiRajeshLiXingbo (2010), “Illusionary Progress in Loyalty Programs: Magnitudes, Reward Distances, and Step-Size Ambiguity,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (2), 888–901.
3.
BaumeisterRoy F.BratslavskyEllenFinkenauerCatrinVohsKathleen D. (2001), “Bad Is Stronger Than Good,” Review of General Psychology, 5 (4), 323–70.
4.
BockenholtUlfAlbertDietrichAschenbrennerMichaelSchmalhoferFranz (1991), “The Effects of Attractiveness, Dominance, and Attribute Differences on Information Acquisition in Multiattribute Binary Choice,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 49 (2), 258–81.
BursonKatherine A.LarrickRichard P.JrJohn G. Lynch. (2009), “Six of One, Half Dozen of the Other: Expanding and Contracting Numerical Dimensions Produces Preference Reversals,” Psychological Science, 20 (9), 1074–78.
8.
ChandonPierreOrdabayevaNailya (2017), “The Accuracy of Less: Natural Bounds Explain Why Quantity Decreases Are Estimated More Accurately than Quantity Increases,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146 (2), 250–68.
9.
ChatterjeeSubimalHeathTimothy B. (1996), “Conflict and Loss Aversion in Multiattribute Choice: The Effects of Trade-Off Size and Reference Dependence on Decision Difficulty,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67 (2), 144–55.
ChenZoeyLurieNicholas H. (2013), “Temporal Contiguity and Negativity Bias in the Impact of Online Word of Mouth,” Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (4), 463–76.
12.
ChenP.Y.WuS.Y.YoonJ. (2004). The impact of online recommendations and consumer feedback on sales. ICIS 2004 Proceedings, 58.
13.
ChevalierJudith A.MayzlinDina (2006), “The Effect of Word of Mouth on Sales: Online Book Reviews,” Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (3), 345–54.
14.
ChintaguntaPradeep K.GopinathShyamVenkataramanSriram (2010), “The Effects of Online User Reviews on Movie Box Office Performance: Accounting for Sequential Rollout and Aggregation Across Local Markets,” Marketing Science, 29 (5), 944–57.
15.
ChoEunice K.KhanUzmaDharRavi (2013), “Comparing Apples to Apples or Apples to Oranges: The Role of Mental Representation in Choice Difficulty,” Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (4), 505–16.
16.
ClemonsEric K.GaoGuodong GordonHittLorin M. (2006), “When Online Reviews Meet Hyperdifferentiation: A Study of the Craft Beer Industry,” Journal of Management Information Systems, 23 (2), 149–71.
17.
DeLanghe.Philip M. FernbachBartLichtensteinDonald R. (2015), “Navigating by the Stars: Investigating the Actual and Perceived Validity of Online User Ratings,” Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (2), 817–33.
18.
DellarocasChrysanthosZhangXiaoquan MichaelAwadNeveen F. (2007), “Exploring the Value of Online Product Reviews in Forecasting Sales: The Case of Motion Pictures,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21 (4), 23–45.
19.
DharRaviNowlisStephen M. (1999), “The Effect of Time Pressure on Consumer Choice Deferral,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (4), 369–84.
20.
DharRaviShermanSteven J. (1996), “The Effect of Common and Unique Features in Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (3), 193–203.
21.
DharRaviSimonsonItamar (2003), “The Effect of Forced Choice on Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 40 (2), 146–60.
22.
DuanWenjingGuBinWhinstonAndrew B. (2008), “Do Online Reviews Matter? An Empirical Investigation of Panel Data,” Decision Support Systems, 45 (4), 1007–16.
23.
EtkinJordanGhoshAnastasiya Pocheptsova (2018), “When Being in a Positive Mood Increases Choice Deferral,” Journal of Consumer Research, 45 (1), 208–25.
24.
FeldmanJack M.LynchJohn G. (1988), “Self-Generated Validity and Other Effects of Measurement on Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 (3), 421–35.
25.
FisherMatthewNewmanGeorge E.DharRaviOsselaerStijn van (2018), “Seeing Stars: How the Binary Bias Distorts the Interpretation of Customer Ratings,” Journal of Consumer Research, 45 (3), 471–89.
26.
FloydKristopherFrelingRyanAlhoqailSaadChoHyun YoungFrelingTraci (2014), “How Online Product Reviews Affect Retail Sales: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Retailing, 90 (2), 217–32.
27.
GallistelCharles R.GelmanRochel (2000), “Non-Verbal Numerical Cognition: From Reals to Integers,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4 (2), 59–65.
28.
GodesDavidMayzlinDina (2004), “Using Online Conversations to Study Word-of-Mouth Communication,” Marketing Science, 23 (4), 545–60.
29.
González-VallejoClaudiaMoranElizabeth (2001), “The Evaluability Hypothesis Revisited: Joint and Separate Evaluation Preference Reversal as a Function of Attribute Importance,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86 (2), 216–33.
30.
HeStephen X.BondSamuel D. (2015), “Why is the Crowd Divided? Attribution for Dispersion in Online Word of Mouth,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (6), 1509–27.
31.
HerrPaul M.KardesFrank R.KimJohn (1991), “Effects of Word-of-Mouth and Product-Attribute Information on Persuasion: An Accessibility-Diagnosticity Perspective,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (4), 454–62.
32.
Ho-DacNga N.CarsonStephen J.MooreWilliam L. (2013), “The Effects of Positive and Negative Online Customer Reviews: Do Brand Strength and Category Maturity Matter?” Journal of Marketing, 77 (6), 37–53.
33.
HseeChristopher K. (1996), “The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals Between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67 (3), 247–57.
HseeChristopher K.LoewensteinGeorge F.BlountSallyBazermanMax H. (1999), “Preference Reversals Between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Options: A Review and Theoretical Analysis,” Psychological Bulletin, 125 (5), 576–90.
IsaacMathew S.SchindlerRobert M. (2013), “The Top-Ten Effect: Consumers' Subjective Categorization of Ranked Lists,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (6), 1181–202.
38.
ItoTiffany A.LarsenJeff T.Kyle SmithN.CacioppoJohn T. (1998), “Negative Information Weighs More Heavily on the Brain: The Negativity Bias in Evaluative Categorizations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 (4), 887–900.
39.
JohnsonEric J.MeyerRobert J. (1984), “Compensatory Choice Models of Noncompensatory Processes: The Effect of Varying Context,” Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (1), 528–41.
40.
KahnemanDanielTverskyAmos (1979), “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk,” Econometrica, 47 (2), 263–91.
41.
KhareAdwaitLabrecqueLauren I.AsareAnthony K. (2011), “The Assimilative and Contrastive Effects of Word-of-Mouth Volume: An Experimental Examination of Online Consumer Ratings,” Journal of Retailing, 87 (1), 111–26.
42.
KingDanJaniszewskiChris (2011), “The Sources and Consequences of the Fluent Processing of Numbers,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (2), 327–41.
43.
KirmaniAmnaRaoAkshay R. (2000), “No Pain, No Gain: A Critical Review of the Literature on Signaling Unobservable Product Quality,” Journal of Marketing, 64 (2), 66–79.
44.
LembregtsChristophePandelaereMario (2013), “Falling Back on Numbers: Quantitative Specifications as Sources of Control,” in Proceedings of the 2013 Society for Consumer Psychology Annual Winter Conference, San Antonio, TX.
45.
LiuYong (2006), “Word of Mouth for Movies: Its Dynamics and Impact on Box Office Revenue,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (3), 74–89.
46.
LucaMichaelZervasGeorgios (2016), “Fake It Till You Make it: Reputation, Competition, and Yelp Review Fraud,” Management Science, 62 (12), 3412–27.
47.
LudwigStephanDe RuyterKoFriedmanMikeBrüggenElisabeth C.WetzelsMartinPfannGerard (2013), “More than Words: The Influence of Affective Content and Linguistic Style Matches in Online Reviews on Conversion Rates,” Journal of Marketing, 77 (1), 87–103.
48.
LynchJohn G.MarmorsteinHowardWeigoldMichael F. (1988), “Choices from Sets Including Remembered Brands: Use of Recalled Attributes and Prior Overall Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (2), 169–84.
49.
MarkmanArthur B.MedinDouglas L. (1995), “Similarity and Alignment in Choice,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63 (2), 117–30.
50.
MayzlinDinaDoverYanivChevalierJudith (2014), “Promotional Reviews: An Empirical Investigation of Online Review Manipulation,” American Economic Review, 104 (8), 2421–55.
51.
McAuleyJulianPandeyRahulLeskovecJure (2015), “Inferring Networks of Substitutable and Complementary Products,” in Proceedings of the 21st ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 785–94.
52.
MoeWendy W.TrusovMichael (2011), “The Value of Social Dynamics in Online Product Ratings Forums,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (3), 444–56.
53.
MongaAshwaniBagchiRajesh (2011), “Years, Months, and Days Versus 1, 12, and 365: The Influence of Units Versus Numbers,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (2), 185–98.
54.
MonroeKent B. (1971), “Measuring Price Thresholds by Psychophysics and Latitudes of Acceptance,” Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (4), 460–4.
55.
MooreSarah G. (2015), “Attitude Predictability and Helpfulness in Online Reviews: The Role of Explained Actions and Reactions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (1), 30–44.
56.
National Retail Federation (2010), “E-Commerce Sales,” (accessed November 28, 2016), [available at http://research.nrffoundation.com].
57.
NowlisStephen M.SimonsonItamar (1997), “Attribute-task Compatibility as a Determinant of Consumer Preference Reversals,” Journal of Marketing Research, 205–18.
58.
NowlisStephen M.DharRaviSimonsonItamar (2010), “The Effect of Decision Order on Purchase Quantity Decisions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (4), 725–37.
59.
OrquinJacob L.LooseSimone Mueller (2013), “Attention and Choice: A Review on Eye Movements in Decision Making,” Acta Psychologica, 144 (1), 190–206.
60.
PandelaereMarioBriersBarbaraLembregtsChristophe (2011), “How to Make a 29% Increase Look Bigger: The Unit Effect in Option Comparisons,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (5), 308–22.
61.
PayneJohn W. (1976), “Task Complexity and Contingent Processing in Decision Making: An Information Search and Protocol Analysis,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16 (2), 366–87.
62.
PreacherKristopher J.RuckerDerek D.HayesAndrew F. (2007), “Addressing Moderated Mediation Hypotheses: Theory, Methods, and Prescriptions,” Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42 (1), 185–227.
63.
PurohitDevavratSrivastavaJoydeep (2001), “Effect of Manufacturer Reputation, Retailer Reputation, and Product Warranty on Consumer Judgments of Product Quality: A Cue Diagnosticity Framework,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10 (3), 123–34.
64.
RaoAkshay R.MonroeKent B. (1988), “The Moderating Effect of Prior Knowledge on Cue Utilization in Product Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (2), 253–64.
65.
RaoAkshay R.MonroeKent B. (1989), “The Effect of Price, Brand Name, and Store Name on Buyers’ Perceptions of Product Quality: An Integrative Review,” Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (3), 351–57.
66.
RichardsonPaul S.DickAlan S.JainArun K. (1994), “Extrinsic and Intrinsic Cue Effects on Perceptions of Store Brand Quality,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (4), 28–36.
67.
RossJr. William T.CreyerElizabeth H. (1992), “Making Inferences about Missing Information: The Effects of Existing Information,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (1), 14–25.
68.
RozenkrantsBellaChristian WheelerS.ShivBaba (2017), “Self-Expression Cues in Product Rating Distributions: When People Prefer Polarizing Products,” Journal of Consumer Research, 44 (4), 759–77.
69.
RozinPaulRoyzmanEdward B. (2001), “Negativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion,” Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5 (4), 296–320.
70.
SchleyDan R.LembregtsChristophePetersEllen (2017), “The Role of Evaluation Mode on the Unit Effect,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27 (2), 278–86.
71.
SchlosserAnn E. (2011), “Can Including Pros and Cons Increase the Helpfulness and Persuasiveness of Online Reviews? The Interactive Effects of Ratings and Arguments,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21 (3), 226–39.
72.
SlovicPaul (1966), “Cue-Consistency and Cue-Utilization in Judgment,” American Journal of Psychology, 79 (3), 427–34.
73.
SlovicPaulLichtensteinSarah (1971), “Comparison of Bayesian and Regression Approaches to the Study of Information Processing in Judgment,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6 (6), 649–744.
74.
SlovicPaulMacPhillamyDouglas (1974), “Dimensional Commensurability and Cue Utilization in Comparative Judgment,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 11 (2), 172–94.
75.
SunMonic (2012), “How Does the Variance of Product Ratings Matter?” Management Science, 58 (4), 696–707.
76.
ThalerRichard (1980), “Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice,” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1 (1), 39–60.
77.
TsirosMichaelMittalVikas (2000), “Regret: A Model of Its Antecedents and Consequences in Consumer Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (4), 401–17.
78.
TverskyAmosKahnemanDaniel (1985), “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice,” in Environmental Impact Assessment, Technology Assessment, and Risk Analysis, CovelloVincent T.MumpowerJeryl L.StallentPieter Jan M.UppuluriV.R.R., eds. Berlin: Springer, 107–29.
79.
TverskyAmosKahnemanDaniel (1992), “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5 (4), 297–323.
80.
TverskyAmosShafirEldar (1992), “Choice Under Conflict: The Dynamics of Deferred Decision,” Psychological Science, 3 (6), 358–61.
81.
Villarroel OrdenesFranciscoLudwigStephanDe RuyterKoGrewalDhruvWetzelsMartin (2017), “Unveiling What Is Written in the Stars: Analyzing Explicit, Implicit, and Discourse Patterns of Sentiment in Social Media,” Journal of Consumer Research, 43 (6), 875–94.
82.
YeungCatherine WMSomanDilip (2005), “Attribute Evaluability and the Range Effect,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (3), 363–9.
83.
YouYaVadakkepattGautham G.JoshiAmit M. (2015), “A Meta-Analysis of Electronic Word-of-Mouth Elasticity,” Journal of Marketing, 79 (2), 19–39.
84.
ZeelenbergMarcelPietersRik (2007), “A Theory of Regret Regulation 1.0,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17 (1), 3–18.
85.
ZhangShiMarkmanArthur B. (1998), “Overcoming the Early Entrant Advantage: The Role of Alignable and Nonalignable Differences,” Journal of Marketing Research, 413–426.
86.
ZhangShiMarkmanArthur B. (2001), “Processing Product Unique Features: Alignability and Involvement in Preference Construction,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11 (1), 13–27.
87.
ZhuFengZhangXiaoquan (2010), “Impact of Online Consumer Reviews on Sales: The Moderating Role of Product and Consumer Characteristics,” Journal of Marketing, 74 (2), 133–48.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
