The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Perceived helpfulness of online consumer reviews: The role of message content and style
Open accessAbstract
The rise of online reviews written by consumers makes possible an examination of how the content and style of these word‐of‐mouth messages contribute to their helpfulness. In this study, consumers are asked to judge the value of real online consumer reviews to their simulated shopping activities. The results suggest the benefits of moderate review length and of positive, but not negative, product evaluative statements. Non‐evaluative product information and information about the reviewer were also found to be associated with review helpfulness. Stylistic elements that may impair clarity (such as spelling and grammatical errors) were associated with less valuable reviews, and elements that may make a review more entertaining (such as expressive slang and humor) were associated with more valuable reviews. These findings point to factors beyond product information that may affect the perceived helpfulness of an online consumer review. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Grice, H. P. (1975) · Speech Acts · doi:10.1163/9789004368811_003 · Cited by 23,221
The Effect of Word of Mouth on Sales: Online Book Reviews
Chevalier, J. A., & Mayzlin, D. (2006) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmkr.43.3.345 · Cited by 6,003
The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness
Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1086/266350 · Cited by 3,543
Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/5657.001.0001 · Cited by 3,537
Online peer and editorial recommendations, trust and choice in virtual markets
Smith, D., Menon, S., & Sivakumar, K. (2005) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1002/dir.20041 · Cited by 683
When consumers and brands talk: Storytelling theory and research in psychology and marketing
Woodside, A. G., Sood, S., & Miller, K. E. (2008) · Psychology & Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.20203 · Cited by 641
Egocentrism over e-mail: can we communicate as well as we think?
Kruger, J., Epley, N., Parker, J., & Ng, Z.-W. (2005) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.925 · Cited by 425
Cited by
What makes a useful online review? Implication for travel product websites
Liu, Z., & Park, S. (2015) · Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2014.09.020 · Cited by 963
Syam, N., & Sharma, A. (2018) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.12.019 · Cited by 852
What makes an online consumer review trustworthy?
Filieri, R. (2016) · Annals of Tourism Research · doi:10.1016/j.annals.2015.12.019 · Cited by 587
Zafar, A. U., Qiu, J., Li, Y., Wang, J., & Shahzad, M. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.106178 · Cited by 367
Ketron, S. (2017) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.08.008 · Cited by 37
Metadata
- Authors
- Schindler, R. M., & Bickart, B.
- Venue
- Journal of Consumer Behaviour
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-03-21
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 234-243
- ISSN
- 1472-0817 (ISSN-L)
- 1479-1838
- OpenAlex
- W2325658410
- Cited by
- 378
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 57.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
