Are Online Reviewers Leaving? Heterogeneity in Reviewing Behavior

  • Parastoo Samiei
  • Arvind Tripathi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 258)


Online consumption communities evolve over time and go through different stages in their life cycle [1]. The key factor of the sustainability of the community is members’ ongoing contribution. This study examines the factors affecting the ongoing contribution of online reviewers for different types of users. Drawing from theory on communities of consumption [2] and popularity effect [3]; we propose a conceptual model of drivers of ongoing contribution. We observed that Social ties, sidedness, and consumption activity could explain the heterogeneity of ongoing contribution level for different users. We studied a community of book reviews. We showed that the effect of sidedness on contribution prediction is stronger for reviewers with extreme behavior. We also concluded that consumption activity has more predictive information about the contribution compare to the social tie and sidedness.


eWOM Social ties Consumption activity User type Community of consumption Sidedness 


  1. 1.
    Iriberri, A., Leroy, G.: A life-cycle perspective on online community success. ACM Comput. Sur. (CSUR) 41(2), 11 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kozinets, R.V.: E-tribalized marketing?: The strategic implications of virtual communities of consumption. Eur. Manag. J. 17(3), 252–264 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goes, P., Lin, M., Yeung, C.: “Popularity effect” in user-generated content: evidence from online product reviews. Inf. Sys. Res. 1–17 (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cheung, C.M.K., Thadani, D.R.: The impact of electronic word-of-mouth communication: a literature analysis and integrative model. Decis. Support Syst. 54(1), 461–470 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mudambi, S.M., Schuff, D.: What makes a helpful online review? A study of customer reviews on MIS Q. 34(1), 185–200 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wei, X., Chen, W., Zhu, K.: Motivating user contributions in online knowledge communities: virtual rewards and reputation. In: 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Samiei, P., Tripathi, A.K.: Effect of social networks on online reviews. In: 47th Hawaii International Conference in System Sciences (HICSS), Hawaii (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Connors, L., Mudambi, S.M., Scuff, D.: Is it the review or the reviewer? A multi-method approach to determine the antecedents of online review helpfulness. In: 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wasko, M.M., Faraj, S.: Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Q. 29(1), 35–57 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alexandrov, A., Lilly, B., Babakus, E.: The effects of social-and self-motives on the intentions to share positive and negative word of mouth. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 41(5), 531–546 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brooks, R.C.: “Word-of-Mouth” advertising in selling new products. J. Mark. 22(2), 154–161 (1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moe, W.W., Schweidel, D.A.: Online product opinions: incidence, evaluation, and evolution. Mark. Sci. 31(3), 372–386 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Munzel, A., Kunz, W.H.: Creators, multipliers, and lurkers: who contributes and who benefits at online review sites. J. Serv. Manage. 25(1), 49–74 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cheung, C.M., Lee, M.K.: What drives consumers to spread electronic word of mouth in online consumer-opinion platforms. Decis. Support Syst. 53(1), 218–225 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Walsh, G., Gremler, D.D.: Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the Internet? J. Interact. Mark. 18(1), 38–52 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hu, N., Pavlou, P.A., Zhang, J.: Can online reviews reveal a product’s true quality? Empirical findings and analytical modelling of online word-of-mouth communication. In: Proceeding of 7th ACM Conference, Electronic Commerce, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li, X., Hitt, L.M.: Self-selection and information role of online product reviews. Inf. Syst. Res. 19(4), 456–474 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhu, F., Zhang, X.: Impact of online consumer reviews on sales: the moderating role of product and consumer characteristics. J. Mark. 74(2), 133–148 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhang, X., Dellarocas, C.: The lord of the ratings: is a movie’s fate is influenced by reviews? In: ICIS 2006 Proceedings (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shen, W.: Competing for attention in online reviews. In: AMCIS 2009 Doctoral Consortium (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Huang, J., Cheng, X.Q., Shen, H.W., Zhou, T., Jin, X.: Exploring social influence via posterior effect of word-of-mouth recommendations. In: Fifth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM 2012) (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Montazemi, A.R., Saremi, H.Q.: The effectiveness of electronic word of mouth on consumers’ perceptions of adopting products/services (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    King, R.A., Racherla, P., Bush, V.D.: What we know and don’t know about online word-of-mouth: a review and synthesis of the literature. J. Interact. Mark. 28(3), 167–183 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ridings, C., Gefen, D., Arinze, B.: Psychological barriers: Lurker and poster motivation and behavior in online communities. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 18(1), 16 (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Takahashi, M., Fujimoto, M., Yamasaki, N.: The active Lurker: a new viewpoint for evaluating the influence of an in-house online community. ACM SIGGROUP Bull. 23(3), 29–33 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Li, H., Lai, V.: The interpersonal relationship perspective on virtual community participation. In: ICIS 2007 Proceedings (2007)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hartmann, B.J., Wiertz, C., Arnould, E.J.: Exploring consumptive moments of value-creating practice in online community. Psychol. Mark. 32(3), 319–340 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Preece, J., Shneiderman, B.: The reader-to-leader framework: motivating technology-mediated social participation. AIS Trans. Hum. Comput. Interact. 1(1), 13–32 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kozinets, R.V.: Utopian enterprise: articulating the meanings of Star Trek’s culture of consumption. J. Consum. Res. 28(1), 67–88 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Butler, B.S.: Membership size, communication activity, and sustainability: a resource-based model of online social structures. Inf. Syst. Res. 12(4), 346–362 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wang, Y.C., Kraut, R., Levine, J.M.: To stay or leave?: The relationship of emotional and informational support to commitment in online health support groups. In: ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work Proceeding (2012)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nov, O., Naaman, M., Ye, C.: Analysis of participation in an online photo-sharing community: a multidimensional perspective. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 61(3), 555–566 (2010)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schlosser, A.E.: Posting versus lurking: communicating in a multiple audience context. J. Consum. Res. 32(2), 260–265 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Samiei, P., Tripathi, A.K.: Exploring reviewers’ contributions to online review platforms. In: 23rd Workshop on Information Technologies and Systems, Milan, Italy (2013)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Xu, Y.C., Zhang, C., Xue, L.: Measuring product susceptibility in online product review social network. Decis. Support Syst. (2013)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Samiei, P.: Understanding online reviewing behavior, product evaluation. In: 24th Workshop on Information Technologies and Systems (WITS), Auckland, New Zealand (2014)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chen, H.-N., Huang, C.-Y.: An investigation into online reviewers’ behavior. Eur. J. Mark. 47(10), 1758–1773 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38. Ksmirnov- Kolmogorov –Smirnov equality-of-distributions test. In: Stata manual (2015)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Huang, D.S., Zhao, Z., Bevilacqua, V., Figueroa, J.C.: Advanced intelligent computing theories and applications. In: 6th International Conference on Intelligent Computing, ICIC 2010, Changsha, China (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Business SchoolUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations