This article investigates the influence of including pictures in online consumer reviews on review helpfulness perceptions for different types of products (hedonic vs utilitarian). Based on the dual-process model of information processing and regulatory fit theory, the study finds that reviews composed mainly of pictures are more helpful for hedonic purchases, while reviews composed mainly of text are more helpful for utilitarian purchases. The reason is that a picture-based (vs text-based) review permits consumers to obtain more knowledge about a product’s emotional (rational) benefits, which fits with hedonic (vs utilitarian) products’ consumption motivation. Specifically, the effect of fit between hedonic (vs utilitarian) purchase and picture (vs text) presentation of a review on the review helpfulness perception is mediated by emotional (vs cognitive) engagement.
AakerJLLeeAY (2001) “I” seek pleasures and “we” avoid pains: The role of self-regulatory goals in information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research28: 33–49.
2.
AchterbergWPotAMKerkstraA, et al. (2003) The effect of depression on social engagement in newly admitted Dutch nursing home residents. The Gerontologist43: 213–218.
3.
AlbaJWWilliamsEF (2013) Pleasure principles: A review of research on hedonic consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology23: 2–18.
4.
AlgesheimerRDholakiaUMHerrmannA (2005) The social influence of brand community: Evidence from European car clubs. Journal of Marketing69: 19–34.
5.
ArnoldMJReynoldsKE (2012) Approach and avoidance motivation: Investigating hedonic consumption in a retail setting. Journal of Retailing88: 399–411.
6.
BoomgaardenHGBoukesMIorgoveanuA (2016) Image versus text: How newspaper reports affect evaluations of political candidates. International Journal of Communication10: 2529–2555.
7.
BottiSMcgillAL (2011) The locus of choice: Personal causality and satisfaction with hedonic and utilitarian decisions. Journal of Consumer Research37: 1065–1078.
8.
CesarioJGrantHHigginsET (2004) Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from feeling right. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology86: 388–404.
9.
ChengYHHoHY (2015) Social influence’s impact on reader perceptions of online reviews. Journal of Business Research68: 883–887.
10.
ChevalierJMayzlinD (2006) The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book reviews. Journal of Marketing Research43: 345–354.
11.
ChildersTLHoustonMJSusanEH (1986) Measurement of individual differences in visual versus verbal information processing. Journal of Consumer Research12: 125–134.
12.
ElderRSKrishnaA (2012) The “visual depiction effect” in advertising: Facilitating embodied mental simulation through product orientation. Journal of Consumer Research38: 988–1003.
13.
EpsteinS (1994) Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. The American Psychologist49: 709–724.
FredricksJABlumenfeldPCParisAH (2004) School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research74: 59–109.
16.
GoolkasianP (2012) Research in visual pattern recognition: The enduring legacy of studies from the 1960s. American Journal of Psychology125: 155–163.
17.
GriffithDA (2005) An examination of the influences of store layout in online retailing. Journal of Business Research58: 1391–1396.
18.
GunucSKuzuA (2015) Student engagement scale: Development, reliability and validity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education40: 587–610.
19.
HambyADaniloskiKBrinbergD (2015) How consumer reviews persuade through narratives. Journal of Business Research68: 1242–1250.
20.
HayesAF (2018) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-based Approach. 2nd ed.New York: The Guilford Press.
21.
HigginsET (2006) Value from hedonic experience and engagement. Psychological Review113: 439–460.
HirschmanECHolbrookMB (1982) Emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing46: 92–101.
24.
HochSJLoewensteinGF (1991) Time-inconsistent preferences and consumer self-control. Journal of Consumer Research17: 492–507.
25.
HollebeekLD (2011) Demystifying customer brand engagement: Exploring the loyalty nexus. Journal of Marketing Management27: 785–807.
26.
HongHXuDWangGA, et al. (2017) Understanding the determinants of online review helpfulness: A meta-analytic investigation. Decision Support Systems102: 1–11.
27.
HongWYuZWuL, et al. (2020) Influencing factors of the persuasiveness of online reviews considering persuasion methods. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications39: 100912.
28.
HuNPavlouPAZhangJ (2017) On self-selection biases in online product reviews. MIS Quarterly41: 449–471.
29.
HuangAHChenKYenDC, et al. (2015) A study of factors that contribute to online review helpfulness. Computers in Human Behavior48: 17–27.
30.
HuangPLurieNHMitraS (2009) Searching for experience on the web: An empirical examination of consumer behavior for search and experience goods. Journal of Marketing73: 55–69.
31.
IlićA (2008) Towards a conceptualization of consumer engagement in online communities: A net nongraphic study of vibration training online community. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Marketing, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
32.
KahnemanDFrederickS (2002) Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In: GilovichTGriffinDKahnemanD (eds) Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 49–81.
33.
KimMLennonS (2008) The effects of visual and verbal information on attitudes and purchase intentions in internet shopping. Psychology and Marketing25: 146–178.
34.
KronrodADanzigerS (2013) “Wii will rock you!” The use and effect of figurative language in consumer reviews of hedonic and utilitarian consumption. Journal of Consumer Research40: 726–739.
35.
KronrodAGrinsteinAWathieuL (2012) Enjoy! Hedonic consumption and compliance with assertive messages. Journal of Consumer Research39: 51–61.
36.
LeeAYHigginsET (2009) The persuasive power of regulatory fit. In: WänkeM (ed.) Social Psychology of Consumer Behavior. New York: Psychology Press, pp. 319–333.
37.
LeeAYKellerPASternthalB (2010) Value from regulatory construal fit: The persuasive impact of fit between consumer goals and message concreteness. Journal of Consumer Research36: 735–747.
38.
LeeJKimYK (2020) Online reviews of restaurants: Expectation-confirmation theory. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism21: 582–599.
39.
LinTMYLuKWuJ (2012) The effects of visual information in eWOM communication. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing6: 7–26.
40.
LinYYaoDChenX (2021) Happiness begets money: Emotion and engagement in live streaming. Journal of Marketing Research58: 417–438.
41.
LiuZParkS (2015) What makes a useful online review? Implication for travel product websites. Tourism Management47: 140–151.
42.
LoftusGRMackworthNH (1978) Cognitive determinants of fixation location during picture viewing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance4: 565–572.
43.
MacInnisDJPriceLL (1987) The role of imagery in information processing: Review and extensions. Journal of Consumer Research13: 473–491.
44.
McQuarrieEFPhillipsBJ (2008) It’s not your magazine ad: Magnitude and direction of recent changes in advertising style. Journal of Advertising37: 95–106.
45.
MarksHM (2000) Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal37: 153–184.
46.
MarksHMPrintySM (2003) Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly39: 370–397.
47.
MeloyMGRussoJE (2004) Binary choice under instructions to select versus reject. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes93: 114–128.
48.
MetcalfeJMischelW (1999) A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review106: 3–19.
49.
MooreSG (2015) Attitude predictability and helpfulness in online reviews: The role of explained actions and reactions. Journal of Consumer Research42: 30–44.
50.
NagpalAKrishnamurthyP (2008) Attribute conflict in consumer decision making: The role of task compatibility. Journal of Consumer Research34: 696–705.
51.
OrdenesFVLudwigSRuyterKD, et al. (2017) Unveiling what is written in the stars: Analyzing explicit, implicit, and discourse patterns of sentiment in social media. Journal of Consumer Research43: 875–894.
52.
PackardGBergerJ (2017) How language shapes word of mouth’s impact. Journal of Marketing Research54: 572–588.
53.
PaivioA (1990) Dual coding theory. In: PaivioA (ed.) Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 53–83.
54.
PanYZhangJQ (2011) Born unequal: A study of the helpfulness of user-generated product reviews. Journal of Retailing87: 598–612.
PozharlievRRossiDAngelisMD (2022) A picture says more than a thousand words: Using consumer neuroscience to study Instagram users’ responses to influencer advertising. Psychology & Marketing39: 1336–1349.
58.
RacherlaPFriskeW (2012) Perceived “usefulness” of online consumer reviews: An exploratory investigation across three services categories. Electronic Commerce Research & Applications11: 548–559.
59.
SaksAM (2006) Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology21: 600–619.
60.
ShaoufALüKLiX (2016) The effect of web advertising visual design on online purchase intention: An examination across gender. Computers in Human Behavior60: 622–634.
61.
ShenWHuYJUlmerJR (2015) Competing for attention: An empirical study of online reviewers’ strategic behavior. MIS Quarterly39: 683–696.
62.
ShivBFedorikhinA (1999) Heart and mind in conflict: The interplay of affect and cognition in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research26: 278–292.
63.
SlomanSA (1996) The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin119: 3–22.
64.
SokolovaTKrishnaA (2021) Pick your poison: Attribute trade-offs in unattractive consideration sets. Journal of Consumer Psychology31: 319–328.
65.
WuJHolsappleC (2014) Imaginal and emotional experiences in pleasure-oriented IT usage: A hedonic consumption perspective. Information & Management51: 80–92.
66.
XuPChenLSanthanamR (2015) Will video be the next generation of e-commerce product reviews? Presentation format and the role of product type. Decision Support Systems73: 85–96.
67.
YangSBHleeSLeeJ, et al. (2017) An empirical examination of online restaurant reviews on Yelp.com: A dual coding theory perspective. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management29: 817–839.
68.
YinDBondSZhangH (2014) Anxious or angry? Effects of discrete emotions on the perceived helpfulness of online reviews. MIS Quarterly38: 539–560.
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.
