When consumers post questions online, who influences the content of the discussion more: the consumer posting the question or those who respond to the post? Analyses of data from real online discussion forums and four experiments show that early responses to a post tend to drive the content of the discussion as much as or more than the content of the initial query. Although advice seekers posting to online discussion forums often explicitly tell respondents which attributes are most important to them, the authors demonstrate that one common online posting goal, affiliation, makes respondents more likely to repeat attributes mentioned by previous respondents, even if those attributes are less important to the advice seeker or support a suboptimal choice given the advice seeker's decision criteria. Firms “listening in” on social media should account for this systematic bias when making decisions on the basis of the discussion content.
ArielyDan, and LevavJonathan (2000), “Sequential Choice in Group Settings: Taking the Road Less Traveled and Less Enjoyed,”Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (3), 279–90.
2.
BanerjeeAbhijit (1992), “A Simple Model of Herd Behavior,”Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107 (3), 797–817.
3.
BaraschAlixandra, and BergerJonah (2014), “Broadcasting and Narrowcasting: How Audience Size Affects What People Share,”Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (June), 286–99.
4.
BlackLaura W., WelserHoward T., CosleyDan, and DeGrootJocelyn M. (2011), “Self-Governance Through Group Discussion in Wikipedia: Measuring Deliberation in Online Groups,”Small Group Research, 42 (5), 595–634.
5.
BonaccioSilvia, and DalalReeshad S. (2006), “Advice Taking and Decision-Making: An Integrative Literature Review, and Implications for the Organizational Sciences,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101(2), 127–51.
6.
ChenYu-Jen, and KirmaniAmna (2015), “Posting Strategically: The Consumer as an Online Media Planner,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25 (4), 609–21.
7.
ChenZoey, and LurieNicholas H. (2013), “Temporal Contiguity and Negativity Bias in the Impact of Online Word of Mouth,”Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (August), 463–76.
8.
ChevalierJudith A., and MayzlinDina (2006), “The Effect of Word of Mouth on Sales: Online Book Reviews,”Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (August), 345–54.
9.
CialdiniRobert B., and GoldsteinNoah J. (2004), “Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity,”Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621.
10.
DellarocasChrysanthos, and NarayanRitu (2006), “A Statistical Measure of a Population's Propensity to Engage in Post-Purchase Online Word-of-Mouth,”Statistical Science, 21 (2), 277–85.
11.
DeutschMorton, and GerardHarold B. (1955), “A Study of Normative and Informational Social Influences upon Individual Judgment,”Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51 (3), 629–36.
12.
EaslyDavid, and KleinbergJon (2010), Networks, Crowds and Markets: Reasoning About a Highly Connected World. New York: Cambridge University Press.
13.
GodesDavid, and MayzlinDina (2004), “Using Online Conversations to Study Word-of-Mouth Communication,”Marketing Science, 23 (4), 545–60.
14.
GodesDavid, and SilvaJose C. (2012), “Sequential and Temporal Dynamics of Online Opinion,”Marketing Science, 31 (3), 448–73.
15.
GoldsteinNoah J., CialdiniRobert B., and GriskeviciusVladas (2008), “A Room with a Viewpoint: Using Social Norms to Motivate Environmental Conservation in Hotels,”Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (3), 472–82.
16.
GriceH. Paul (1975), “Logic and Conversation,” in Speech Acts, ColeP. and MorganJ.L., eds. New York: Academic Press, 41–58.
17.
Hennig-ThurauThorsten, GwinnerKevin P., WalshGianfranco, and GremlerDwayne D. (2004), “Electronic Word-of-Mouth via Consumer-Opinion Platforms: What Motivates Consumers to Articulate Themselves on the Internet?”Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18 (1), 38–52.
18.
LarsonJames R., Foster-FishmanPennie G., and KeysChristopher B. (1994), “Discussion of Shared and Unshared Information in Decision-Making Groups,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67 (3), 446–61.
19.
LiCharlene, and BernoffJosh (2011), Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
20.
LudwigStephan, de RuyterKo, FriedmanMike, BrüggenElisabeth C., WetzelsMartin, and PfannGerard (2013), “More Than Words: The Influence of Affective Content and Linguistic Style Matches in Online Reviews on Conversion Rates,”Journal of Marketing, 77 (January), 87–103.
21.
MojzischAndreas, and Schulz-HardtStefan (2010), “Knowing Others’ Preferences Degrades the Quality of Group Decisions,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98 (5), 794–808.
22.
MoeWendy, and SchweidelDavid (2012), “Online Product Opinions: Incidence, Evaluation, and Evolution,”Marketing Science, 31 (3), 372–86.
23.
NailPaul R. (1986), “Toward an Integration of Some Models and Theories of Social Response,”Psychological Bulletin, 100 (2), 190–206.
24.
NisbettRichard E., ZukierHenry, and LemleyRonald E. (1981), “The Dilution Effect: Nondiagnostic Information Weakens the Implications of Diagnostic Information,”Cognitive Psychology, 13 (2), 248–77.
25.
PackardGrant, and WootenDavid B. (2013), “Compensatory Knowledge Signaling in Consumer Word-of-Mouth,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23 (4), 434–50.
26.
PendryLouise F., and SalvatoreJessica (2015), “Individual and Social Benefits of Online Discussion Forums,”Computers in Human Behavior, 50 (September), 211–20.
27.
RustRoland T., and CooilBruce (1994), “Reliability Measures for Qualitative Data: Theory and Implications,”Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (1), 1–14.
28.
SchlosserAnn E. (2005), “Posting Versus Lurking: Communicating in a Multiple Audience Context,”Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (2), 260–65.
29.
SchlosserAnn E. (2009), “The Effect of Computer-Mediated Communication on Conformity vs. Nonconformity: An Impression Management Perspective,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19 (3), 374–88.
30.
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.
31.
SchwarzNorbert (1994), “Judgment in a Social Context: Biases, Shortcomings, and the Logic of Conversation,”Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 123–62.
32.
SherifMuzafer, WhiteB. Jack, and HarveyO.J. (1955), “Status in Experimentally Produced Groups,”American Journal of Sociology, 60(4), 370–79.
33.
StasserGarold, and TitusWilliam (1985), “Pooling of Unshared Information in Group Decision Making: Biased Information Sampling During Discussion,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48 (6), 1467–78.
34.
StephenAndrew T., and LehmannDonald R. (2009), “Is Anyone Listening? Modeling the Impact of Word-of-Mouth at the Individual Level,”working paper, Columbia University.
35.
WallerWilliam S., and ZimbelmanMark F. (2003), “A Cognitive Footprint in Archival Data: Generalizing the Dilution Effect from Laboratory to Field Settings,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91 (2), 254–68.
36.
WittenbaumGwen M., HollingsheadAndrea B., and BoteroIsabel C. (2004), “From Cooperative to Motivated Information Sharing in Groups: Moving Beyond the Hidden Profile Paradigm,”Communication Monographs, 71 (3), 286–310.
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.
