Examining the impact of review tag function on product evaluation and information perception of popular products

Abstract

Since online reviews have become an increasingly important information source for consumers to evaluate products during online shopping, many platforms started to adopt review mechanisms to maximize the value of such massive reviews. In recent years, the review tag function has been adopted in practices and leading the research of sentiment and opinion extraction techniques. However, the examination of its impact has been largely overlooked. In this paper, by proposing a framework through the lens of attribution theory, we look into the effect of the review tag function on two focal outcomes. One is the evaluation of highly-rated popular products, the other is the helpfulness perception of product reviews. Experimental methods and qualitative analysis were utilized to test our hypotheses. Our findings demonstrate the importance of tag function application as it further increases consumers’ product evaluation for popular products. We also found that different tag function appearances influence consumers’ cognitive biases in review helpfulness perception.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

References

  1. Archak N, Ghose A, Ipeirotis PG (2011) Deriving the pricing power of product features by mining consumer reviews. Manage Sci 57(8):1485–1509. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ba S, Pavlou PA (2002) Evidence of the effect of trust building technology in electronic markets: price premiums and buyer behavior. MIS Q 26(3):243–268. https://doi.org/10.2307/4132332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bao Z, Chau M (2016) A schema-oriented product clustering method using online product reviews. In: International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2016)

  4. Chen Z, Lurie NH (2013) Temporal contiguity and negativity bias in the impact of online word of mouth. J Mark Res 50(4):463–476. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.12.0063

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chen P-Y, Hong Y, Liu Y (2017) The value of multi-dimensional rating systems: evidence from a natural experiment and randomized experiments. Manage Sci. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chevalier JA, Mayzlin D (2006) The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book reviews. J Mark Res 43(3):345–354. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.3.345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cohen J (1968) Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 70(4):213. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Connelly BL, Certo ST, Ireland RD, Reutzel CR (2011) Signaling theory: a review and assessment. J Manag 37(1):39–67

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dellarocas C (2003) The digitization of word of mouth: Promise and challenges of online feedback mechanisms. Manage Sci 49(10):1407–1424. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.49.10.1407.17308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. DeVellis RF (2016) Scale development: Theory and applications, vol 26. Sage publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dimoka A, Hong Y, Pavlou PA (2012) On product uncertainty in online markets: theory and evidence. MIS Q 36(2):395–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Forman C, Ghose A, Wiesenfeld B (2008) Examining the relationship between reviews and sales: the role of reviewer identity disclosure in electronic markets. Inf Syst Res 19(3):291–313. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1080.0193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18(1):39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Försterling F (1986) Attributional conceptions in clinical psychology. Am Psychol 41(3):275. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.3.275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hair JF, Anderson RE, Babin BJ, Black WC (2010) Multivariate data analysis: a global perspective, vol 7. Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  16. He SX, Bond SD (2015) Why Is the crowd divided? Attribution for dispersion in online word of mouth. J Consum Res 41(6):1509–1527. https://doi.org/10.1086/680667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Heider F (1958) The psychology of interpersonal relations. Psychology Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Hu M, Liu B (2004) Mining and summarizing customer reviews. In: Proceedings of the tenth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, ACM, pp 168–177. https://doi.org/10.1145/1014052.1014073

  19. Hu N, Pavlou PA, Zhang J (2017) On self-selection biases in online product reviews. MIS Quart 41(2):449. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2017/41.2.06

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Huang P, Lurie NH, Mitra S (2009) Searching for experience on the web: an empirical examination of consumer behavior for search and experience goods. J Mark 73(2):55–69. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.2.55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kassin SM (1979) Consensus information, prediction, and causal attribution: a review of the literature and issues. J Pers Soc Psychol 37(11):1966. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.1966

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kelley HH (1967) Attribution theory in social psychology. In: Nebraska symposium on motivation. University of Nebraska Press

  23. Kelley HH (1973) The processes of causal attribution. Am Psychol 28(2):107. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kelley HH (1987) Attribution in social interaction. In: Ones EE, Kanouse DE, Kelley HH, Nisbett RE, Valins S, Weiner B (eds) Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kelley HH, Michela JL (1980) Attribution theory and research. Annu Rev Psychol 31(1):457–501. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.002325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Krippendorff K (2004) Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lombard M, Snyder-Duch J, Bracken CC (2002) Content analysis in mass communication: assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Hum Commun Res 28(4):587–604. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00826.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lu X, Ba S, Huang L, Feng Y (2013) Promotional marketing or word-of-mouth? Evidence from online restaurant reviews. Inf Syst Res 24(3):596–612. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1120.0454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. McGill AL (1989) Context effects in judgments of causation. J Pers Soc Psychol 57(2):189. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. McGuire WJ (1968) Personality and attitude change: An information-processing theory. In: Greenwald AG, Brock TC, Ostrom TM (eds) Psychological foundations of attitudes. Academic Press, New York, p 196

    Google Scholar 

  31. Morgan D (1997) The focus group guidebook, vol 1. Sage publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  32. Mudambi SM, Schuff D (2010) What makes a helpful online review? A study of customer reviews on Amazon. com. MIS Quart 34(1):185–200. https://doi.org/10.2307/20721420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Nunnally JC (1967) Psychometric theory, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  34. Pan Y, Zhang JQ (2011) Born unequal: a study of the helpfulness of user-generated product reviews. J Retail 87(4):598–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2011.05.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Qiu L, Li D (2010) Effects of aggregate rating on eWOM acceptance: an attribution theory perspective. The Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2010)

  36. Ryan KE, Gandha T, Culbertson MJ, Carlson C (2014) Focus group evidence: Implications for design and analysis. Am J Eval 35(3):328–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Sen S, Lerman D (2007) Why are you telling me this? An examination into negative consumer reviews on the web. J Interact Mark 21(4):76–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sun M (2012) How does the variance of product ratings matter? Manage Sci 58(4):696–707. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Tsaparas P, Ntoulas A, Terzi E (2011) Selecting a comprehensive set of reviews. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data Mining. ACM, pp 168–176. https://doi.org/10.1145/2020408.2020440

  40. Wells GL, Harvey JH (1977) Do people use consensus information in making causal attributions? J Pers Soc Psychol 35(5):279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.5.279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Yan X, Wang J, Chau M (2015) Customer revisit intention to restaurants: Evidence from online reviews. Inf Syst Front 17(3):645–657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-013-9446-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Yin D, Bond S, Zhang H (2014) Anxious or angry? Effects of discrete emotions on the perceived helpfulness of online reviews. MIS Q 38(2):539–560. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2014/38.2.10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Yin D, Mitra S, Zhang H (2016) Research Note—when do consumers value positive vs. negative reviews? An empirical investigation of confirmation bias in online word of mouth. Inform Syst Res 27(1):131–144. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2015.0617

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is supported in part by the General Research Fund from the Hong Kong Research Grants Council (#17514516B), the Seed Funding for Basic Research from the University of Hong Kong (#104003314), and the grants from National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project No. 71701061).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhuolan Bao.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bao, Z., Li, W., Yin, P. et al. Examining the impact of review tag function on product evaluation and information perception of popular products. Inf Syst E-Bus Manage 19, 517–539 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-021-00532-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Online reviews
  • Review tag
  • Product evaluation
  • Perceived bias