Prior research has indicated that consumers’ decisions are significantly influenced by online reviews. However, existing research has focused mainly on attributes (e.g., average ratings) that are not fully controlled by firms; only limited research has investigated how controllable attributes (e.g., review display formats) affect consumers. Drawing on visual perception research, the authors examine the effectiveness of two prominent graphical display formats used by major e-commerce platforms: one that displays rating distributions in a proportional format (e.g., Amazon) and one that does so in a simple format (e.g., Google). The results indicate that due to the changes in graphs’ reference points caused by the shrunken x-axis in simple bar graphs, consumers respond more positively to an item when its rating distribution is displayed in a graphically simple (vs. proportional) format. This effect is moderated by the distribution's peak value (i.e., the share of the most frequent rating) and imbalance score (i.e., the difference between the share of positive and negative ratings). Furthermore, even an item's future ratings are influenced by the graphical format in which its prior ratings are displayed. The contributions to the marketing literature are discussed, and insights that can aid managers in making more informed decisions are provided.
BettmanJames R.KakkarPradeep (1977), “Effects of Information Presentation Format on Consumer Information Acquisition Strategies,” Journal of Consumer Research, 3 (4), 233–40.
4.
BettmanJames R.LuceMary FrancesPayneJohn W. (1998), “Constructive Consumer Choice Processes,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (3), 187–217.
CarpenterPatricia A.ShahPriti (1998), “A Model of the Perceptual and Conceptual Processes in Graph Comprehension,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 4 (2), 75–100.
7.
ChenZoeyLurieNicholas H. (2013), “Temporal Contiguity and Negativity Bias in the Impact of Online Word of Mouth,” Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (4), 463–76.
8.
ChevalierJudith A.MayzlinDina (2006), “The Effect of Word of Mouth on Sales: Online Book Reviews,” Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (3), 345–54.
9.
ChildersTerry L.HoustonMichael J.HecklerSusan E. (1985), “Measurement of Individual Differences in Visual Versus Verbal Information Processing,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (2), 125–34.
10.
ClevelandWilliam S. (1985), The Elements of Graphing Data. Wadsworth.
11.
ClevelandWilliam S.McGillRobert (1984), “Graphical Perception: Theory, Experimentation, and Application to the Development of Graphical Methods,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79 (387), 531–54.
12.
ClevelandWilliam S.McGillRobert (1985), “Graphical Perception and Graphical Methods for Analyzing Scientific Data,” Science, 229 (4716), 828–33.
FischerMartin H. (2000), “Do Irrelevant Depth Cues Affect the Comprehension of Bar Graphs?” Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14 (2), 151–62.
15.
FisherMatthewNewmanGeorge E.DharRavi (2018), “Seeing Stars: How the Binary Bias Distorts the Interpretation of Customer Ratings,” Journal of Consumer Research, 45 (3), 471–89.
16.
FurnhamAdrianBooHua Chu (2011), “A Literature Review of the Anchoring Effect,” Journal of Socio-Economics, 40 (1), 35–42.
17.
GillanDouglas J.LewisRobert (1994), “A Componential Model of Human Interaction with Graphs: 1. Linear Regression Modeling,” Human Factors, 36 (3), 419–40.
18.
GrewalLaurenStephenAndrew T. (2019), “In Mobile We Trust: The Effects of Mobile Versus Nonmobile Reviews on Consumer Purchase Intentions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 56 (5), 791–808.
19.
HamakerEllen L.MuthénBengt (2020), “The Fixed Versus Random Effects Debate and How It Relates to Centering in Multilevel Modeling,” Psychological Methods, 25 (3), 365–79.
20.
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.
21.
HegartyMary (2011), “The Cognitive Science of Visual-Spatial Displays: Implications for Design,” Topics in Cognitive Science, 3 (3), 446–74.
22.
HuNanPavlouPaul A.ZhangJie (2017), “On Self-Selection Biases in Online Product Reviews,” MIS Quarterly, 41 (2), 449–71.
23.
JuddCharles M.WestfallJacobKennyDavid A. (2012), “Treating Stimuli as a Random Factor in Social Psychology: A New and Comprehensive Solution to a Pervasive but Largely Ignored Problem,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103 (1), 54–69.
24.
JungMinah H.PerfectoHannahNelsonLeif D. (2016), “Anchoring in Payment: Evaluating a Judgmental Heuristic in Field Experimental Settings,” Journal of Marketing Research, 53 (3), 354–68.
25.
KahnemanDanielTverskyAmos (1979), “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk,” Econometrica, 47 (2), 263–92.
26.
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.
27.
KimJunghanLakshmananArun (2021), “Do Animated Line Graphs Increase Risk Inferences?” Journal of Marketing Research, 58 (3), 595–613.
28.
KosslynStephen M. (1989), “Understanding Charts and Graphs,” Applied Cognitive Psychology, 3 (3), 185–225.
29.
KronrodAnnDanzigerShai (2013), “‘Wii Will Rock You!’ The Use and Effect of Figurative Language in Consumer Reviews of Hedonic and Utilitarian Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (4), 726–39.
30.
LurieNicholas H.MasonCharlotte H. (2007), “Visual Representation: Implications for Decision Making,” Journal of Marketing, 71 (1), 160–77.
31.
MoeWendy W.NetzerOdedSchweidelDavid A. (2017), “Social Media Analytics,” in Handbook of Marketing Decision Models, WierengaBerendvan der LansRalf, eds. Springer International Publishing, 483–504.
32.
MoeWendy W.SchweidelDavid A. (2012), “Online Product Opinions: Incidence, Evaluation, and Evolution,” Marketing Science, 31 (3), 372–86.
33.
MussweilerThomasStrackFritz (1999), “Hypothesis-Consistent Testing and Semantic Priming in the Anchoring Paradigm: A Selective Accessibility Model,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35 (2), 136–64.
RocklageMatthew D.FazioRussell H. (2020), “The Enhancing Versus Backfiring Effects of Positive Emotion in Consumer Reviews,” Journal of Marketing Research, 57 (2), 332–52.
36.
RocklageMatthew D.RuckerDerek D.NordgrenLoran F. (2021), “Mass-Scale Emotionality Reveals Human Behaviour and Marketplace Success,” Nature Human Behaviour, 5 (10), 1323–29.
37.
RozenkrantsBellaWheelerS. ChristianShivBaba (2017), “Self-Expression Cues in Product Rating Distributions: When People Prefer Polarizing Products,” Journal of Consumer Research, 44 (4), 759–77.
38.
ScaifeMikeRogersYvonne (1996), “External Cognition: How Do Graphical Representations Work?” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45 (2), 185–213.
39.
SchlosserAnn E. (2005), “Posting Versus Lurking: Communicating in a Multiple Audience Context,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (2), 260–65.
40.
SchoenmuellerVerenaNetzerOdedStahlFlorian (2020), “The Polarity of Online Reviews: Prevalence, Drivers and Implications,” Journal of Marketing Research, 57 (5), 853–77.
41.
ShenHaoJiangYuweiAdavalRashmi (2010), “Contrast and Assimilation Effects of Processing Fluency,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (5), 876–89.
42.
SimkinDavidHastieReid (1987), “An Information-Processing Analysis of Graph Perception,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82 (398), 454–65.
43.
StoneEric R.SieckWinston R.BullBenita E.Frank YatesJ.ParksStephanie C.RushCarolyn J. (2003), “Foreground:Background Salience: Explaining the Effects of Graphical Displays on Risk Avoidance,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90 (1), 19–36.
44.
StoneEric R.YatesJ. FrankParkerAndrew M. (1997), “Effects of Numerical and Graphical Displays on Professed Risk-Taking Behavior,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3 (4), 243–56.
45.
SunMonic (2012), “How Does the Variance of Product Ratings Matter?” Management Science, 58 (4), 696–707.
46.
TalbotJustinSetlurVidyaAnandAnushka (2014), “Four Experiments on the Perception of Bar Charts,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 20 (12), 2152–60.
47.
ThomasManojKyungEllie J. (2019), “Slider Scale or Text Box: How Response Format Shapes Responses,” Journal of Consumer Research, 45 (6), 1274–93.
48.
TverskyAmosKahnemanDaniel (1974), “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” Science, 185 (4157), 1124–31.
49.
TverskyAmosKahnemanDaniel (1986), “Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions,” Journal of Business, 59 (4), 251–78.
50.
WangQianChauMichaelPengChih HungNgaiEric W.T. (2022), “Using the Anchoring Effect and the Cultural Dimensions Theory to Study Customers’ Online Rating Behaviors,” Information Systems Frontiers, 24, 1451–63.
51.
WansinkBrianKentRobert J.HochStephen J. (1998), “An Anchoring and Adjustment Model of Purchase Quantity Decisions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (1), 71–81.
52.
WatsonJaredGhoshAnastasiya PocheptsovaTrusovMichael (2018), “Swayed by the Numbers: The Consequences of Displaying Product Review Attributes,” Journal of Marketing, 82 (6), 109–31.
53.
WestermanDeanne L.LanskaMeredithOldsJustin M. (2015), “The Effect of Processing Fluency on Impressions of Familiarity and Liking,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 41 (2), 426–38.
ZacksJeffLevyEllenTverskyBarbaraSchianoDiane J. (1998), “Reading Bar Graphs: Effects of Extraneous Depth Cues and Graphical Context,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 4 (2), 119–38.
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.
