Do consumers who conduct online research also post online reviews? A model of the relationship between online research and review posting behavior
The purpose of the research is to investigate whether consumers who conduct online product research also more likely to post online product reviews. An information theory-based classification algorithm is used to estimate the likelihood of a consumer posting an online review conditional on having conducted online product research. Data from a nationally representative probability sample of American internet users are used to estimate the model. The results indicate that the characteristics of consumers who have a greater propensity to conduct online product research but a lower tendency to post online product reviews differ substantially from those who are more likely to post online product reviews but less likely to conduct online product research. The research is important because the degree to which consumers who conduct online product research are similar to those who post online product reviews can be used to track the effectiveness of online word-of-mouth marketing campaigns.
KeywordsOnline reviews Online product research Word of mouth E-commerce Internet retailing
The author gratefully acknowledges the financial support provided by the Connecticut Information Technology Institute (CITI) and thanks the Pew Internet & American Life Project for providing the data for the study.
- Bruyn, A. D., & Lilien, G. L. (2008). A multi-stage model of word-of-mouth influence through viral marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25, 151–163Google Scholar
- Comor, E. (2000). Household consumption on the internet: income, time, and institutional contradictions. Journal of Economic Issues, 34(1), 105–116.Google Scholar
- Dellarocas, C., & Narayan, R. (2006). What motivates consumers to review a product online? A study of the product-specific antecedents of online movie ratings. Workshop on Information Systems and Economics (WISE). Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
- Gosling, S. D., Augustine, A. A., Vazire, S., Holtzman, N., & Gaddis, S. (2011). Manifestations of personality in online social networks: self-reported Facebook-related behaviors and observable profile information. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14(9), 483–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Goy, A., Ardissono, L., & Petrone, G. (2007). Personalization in e-commerce applications. In P. Brusilovsky, A. Kobsa, & W. Nejdl (Eds.), Adaptive web-based systems (pp. 485–520). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Hu, N., Pavlou, P. A., & Zhang, J. (2006). Can online reviews reveal a product’s true quality? empirical findings and analytical modeling of online word-of-mouth communication. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on Electronic commerce (EC ‘06). 324–330.Google Scholar
- Kim, Y. A., & Srivastava, J. (2007). Impact of social influence in e-commerce decision making. in Proceedings of the Ninth international Conference on Electronic Commerce, ICEC ‘07, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 258, 293–302.Google Scholar
- Koh, N. S., Hu, N., & Clemons, E. K. (2010). Do online reviews reflect a product’s true perceived quality? An investigation of online movie reviews across cultures. 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
- Lambrecht, A., & Seim, K. (2006). Adoption and usage of online services in the presence of complementary offline services; Retail Banking. NET Institute Working Paper. New York, NY, #06–27.Google Scholar
- Larose, D. T. (2005). Discovering knowledge in data a descriptive model of consumer information search behavior. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Mudambi, S. M., & Schuff, D. (2010). What makes a helpful online review? A study of customer reviews on Amazon.com. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 185–200.Google Scholar
- Quinlan, J. R. (1992). C4.5: programs for machine learning. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar