Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025
Conformity or Differentiation? How Consumers Respond to the (In)consistency Between Product Ratings and Review Sentiments in the United States and China
This research investigates the joint impact of numeric ratings and review sentiments in prior product reviews on consumers' product evaluations and how this impact varies between individualist and collectivist cultures. Using data on 115,231 consumer reviews of 167 American movies released both in the United States and China, the authors find that the joint impact of movie ratings and review sentiments varies with the consistency between the two information sources, as well as their valence. Furthermore, their analysis reveals that the joint impact differs between the two cultures. The authors suggest that these findings may arise because consumers' perception of information credibility varies depending on the information consistency and their cultural background. The findings offer important implications for firms in managing user-generated content platforms for consumers' product reviews and social media across global markets.
AakerJLSenguptaJ (2000) Additivity versus attenuation: The role of culture in the resolution of information incongruity. Journal of Consumer Psychology9(2): 67–82.
2.
AppelmanASundarSS (2016) Measuring message credibility: Construction and validation of an exclusive scale. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly93(1): 59–79.
3.
ArielyDLevavJ (2000) Sequential choice in group settings: Taking the road less traveled and less enjoyed. Journal of Consumer Research27(3): 279–290.
4.
BaSJinYLiX, et al. (2020) One size fits all? The differential impact of online reviews and coupons. Production and Operations Management29(10): 2403–2424.
5.
BergerJHeathC (2007) Where consumers diverge from others: Identity signaling and product domains. Journal of Consumer Research34(2): 121–134.
6.
BondRSmithPB (1996) Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin119(1): 111–137.
7.
BrewerMB (1991) The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin17(5): 475–482.
BurtchGHongYBapnaR, et al. (2018) Stimulating online reviews by combining financial incentives and social norms. Management Science64(5): 2065–2082.
10.
CaporaelLDawesROrbellJ, et al. (1989) Selfishness examined: Cooperation in the absence of egoistic incentives. Behavioral and Brain Sciences12: 683–699.
11.
ChenYFaySWangQ (2011a) The role of marketing in social media: How online consumer reviews evolve. Journal of Interactive Marketing25(2): 85–94.
12.
ChenYWangQXieJ (2011b) Online social interactions: A natural experiment on word of mouth versus observational learning. Journal of Marketing Research48(2): 238–254.
13.
ChenYXieJ (2008) Online consumer review: Word-of-mouth as a new element of the marketing communication mix. Management Science54(3): 477–491.
14.
ChevalierJAMayzlinD (2006) The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book reviews. Journal of Marketing Research43(3): 345–354.
15.
ChoHSSosaMEHasijaS (2022) Reading between the stars: Understanding the effects of online customer reviews on product demand. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management24(4): 1977–1996.
16.
ChongAYLLiBNgaiEWT, et al. (2016) Predicting online product sales via online reviews, sentiments, and promotion strategies: A big data architecture and neural network approach. International Journal of Operations & Production Management36(4): 358–383.
17.
CialdiniRBGoldsteinNJ (2004) Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology55(1): 591–621.
18.
CialdiniRBTrostMR (1998) Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In: GilbertDTFiskeSTLindzeyG (eds) The handbook of social psychology. 4th edn.New York: McGraw-Hill, 151–192.
19.
CousinsSD (1989) Culture and self-perception in Japan and the United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology56(1): 124–131.
20.
CrowleyAEHoyerWD (1994) An integrative framework for understanding two-sided persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research20(4): 561–574.
21.
DeutschMGerardHB (1955) A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology51(3): 629–636.
22.
DuanWGuBWhinstonAB (2008) The dynamics of online word-of-mouth and product sales—An empirical investigation of the movie industry. Journal of Retailing84(2): 233–242.
23.
EastRHammondKLomaxW (2008) Measuring the impact of positive and negative word of mouth on brand purchase probability. International Journal of Research in Marketing25(3): 215–224.
24.
Ein-GarDShivBTormalaZL (2012) When blemishing leads to blossoming: The positive effect of negative information. Journal of Consumer Research38(5): 846–859.
25.
EisendM (2007) Understanding two-sided persuasion: An empirical assessment of theoretical approaches. Psychology & Marketing24(7): 615–640.
26.
EpplerMJWittigD (2000) Conceptualizing information quality: A review of information quality frameworks from the last ten years. IQ.
27.
FormanCGhoseAWiesenfeldB (2008) Examining the relationship between reviews and sales: The role of reviewer identity disclosure in electronic markets. Information Systems Research19(3): 291–313.
28.
GhoseAYangS (2009) An empirical analysis of search engine advertising: Sponsored search in electronic markets. Management Science55(10): 1605–1622.
29.
GodesDMayzlinD (2004) Using online conversations to study word-of-mouth communication. Marketing Science23(4): 545–560.
30.
GodesDSilvaJC (2011) Sequential and temporal dynamics of online opinion. Marketing Science31(3): 448–473.
31.
GopinathSThomasJSKrishnamurthiL (2014) Investigating the relationship between the content of online word of mouth, advertising, and brand performance. Marketing Science33(2): 241–258.
32.
GrankaLAJoachimsTGayG (2004) Eye-tracking analysis of user behavior in WWW search. In: Proceedings of the 27th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, pp.478–479.
33.
HayesAF (2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
34.
Ho-DacNNCarsonSJMooreWL (2013) The effects of positive and negative online customer reviews: Do brand strength and category maturity matter?Journal of Marketing77(6): 37–53.
35.
HongYHuangNBurtchG, et al. (2016) Culture, conformity, and emotional suppression in online reviews. Journal of the Association for Information Systems17(11): 737–758.
36.
HornseyMJOppesTSvenssonA (2002) “It’s OK if we say it, but you can’t”: Responses to intergroup and intragroup criticism. European Journal of Social Psychology32(3): 293–307.
37.
HuNKohNSReddySK (2014) Ratings lead you to the product, reviews help you clinch it? The mediating role of online review sentiments on product sales. Decision Support Systems57: 42–53.
38.
JonesEEDavisKE (1965) From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology2: 219–266.
39.
KelleyHH (1973) The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist28(2): 107–128.
40.
KimHMarkusHR (1999) Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cultural analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology77(4): 785.
41.
KimJGuptaP (2012) Emotional expressions in online user reviews: How they influence consumers’ product evaluations. Journal of Business Research65(7): 985–992.
42.
KimJNaylorGSivadasE, et al. (2016) The unrealized value of incentivized eWOM recommendations. Marketing Letters27(3): 411–421.
43.
LaczniakRNDeCarloTERamaswamiSN (2001) Consumers’ responses to negative word-of-mouth communication: An attribution theory perspective. Journal of Consumer Psychology11(1): 57–73.
44.
LeiZYinDMitraS, et al. (2022) Swayed by the reviews: Disentangling the effects of average ratings and individual reviews in online word of mouth. Production and Operations Management31 (6): 2393–2411.
45.
LiYXieY (2020) Is a picture worth a thousand words? An empirical study of image content and social media engagement. Journal of Marketing Research57(1): 1–19.
46.
LiuY (2006) Word of mouth for movies: Its dynamics and impact on box office revenue. Journal of Marketing70(3): 74–89.
47.
LorigoLHaridasanMBrynjarsdóttirH, et al. (2008) Eye tracking and online search: Lessons learned and challenges ahead. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology59(7): 1041–1052.
48.
LudwigSde RuyterKFriedmanM, et al. (2013) More than words: The influence of affective content and linguistic style matches in online reviews on conversion rates. Journal of Marketing77(1): 87–103.
49.
ManchandaPRossiPEChintaguntaPK (2004) Response modeling with nonrandom marketing-mix variables. Journal of Marketing Research41(4): 467–478.
50.
PathakXPathak-ShelatM (2017) Sentiment analysis of virtual brand communities for effective tribal marketing. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing11(1): 16–38.
51.
PetrinATrainK (2010) A control function approach to endogeneity in consumer choice models. Journal of Marketing Research47(1): 3–13.
52.
PurnawirawanNEisendMDe PelsmackerP, et al. (2015) A meta-analytic investigation of the role of valence in online reviews. Journal of Interactive Marketing31: 17–27.
53.
RibeiroFNAraújoMGonçalvesP, et al. (2016) Sentibench—A benchmark comparison of state-of-the-practice sentiment analysis methods. EPJ Data Science5(1): 1–29.
54.
SamahaSABeckJTPalmatierRW (2014) The role of culture in international relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing78(5): 78–98.
55.
SavaniKWadhwaMUchidaY, et al. (2015) When norms loom larger than the self: Susceptibility of preference–choice consistency to normative influence across cultures. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes129: 70–79.
56.
SenSLermanD (2007) Why are you telling me this? An examination into negative consumer reviews on the web. Journal of Interactive Marketing21(4): 76–94.
57.
SingelisTM (1994) The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin20(5): 580–591.
58.
SridharSSrinivasanR (2012) Social influence effects in online product ratings. Journal of Marketing76(5): 70–88.
59.
SnyderCRFromkinHL (1980) Uniqueness: The human pursuit of difference. New York: Plenum Press.
60.
WangQZhangWLiJ, et al. (2022b) Effect of online review sentiment on product sales: The moderating role of review credibility perception. Computers in Human Behavior133: 107272.
61.
WangXHeJCurryDJ, et al. (2022a) Attribute embedding: Learning hierarchical representations of product attributes from consumer reviews. Journal of Marketing86(6): 155–175.
62.
WoolleyKSharifMA (2021) Incentives increase relative positivity of review content and enjoyment of review writing. Journal of Marketing Research58(3): 539–558.
63.
YanL(L)YanXTanY, et al. (2019) Shared minds: How patients use collaborative information sharing via social media platforms. Production and Operations Management28(1): 9–26.
64.
YangNZhangR (2022) Dynamic pricing and inventory management in the presence of online reviews. Production and Operations Management31(8): 3180–3197.
65.
YinDBondSDZhangH (2017) Keep your cool or let it out: Nonlinear effects of expressed arousal on perceptions of consumer reviews. Journal of Marketing Research54(3): 447–463.
66.
ZhaoCWangXXiaoY, et al. (2022) Effects of online reviews and competition on quality and pricing strategies. Production and Operations Management31 (10): 3840–3858.
67.
ZhuDHZhangZJChangYP, et al. (2019) Good discounts earn good reviews in return? Effects of price promotion on online restaurant reviews. International Journal of Hospitality Management77: 178–186.
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.
