Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,245

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Why are you telling me this? An examination into negative consumer reviews on the Web

Sen, Shahana, Lerman, Dawn·2007·Journal of Interactive Marketing

Abstract

Although word-of-mouth (WOM) is recognized as a powerful force in persuasion, we know little about the new communication phenomenon known as e-WOM. One of the main forms of e-WOM is the product reviews consumers post on different Web sites, and how this form of e-WOM stands up to this claim is yet unknown. For example, do consumers trust the accuracy of these reviews posted by anonymous reviewers, and, do readers trust negative and positive reviews equally? Past research has shown that people tend to weight negative information more than positive information during evaluation. Through an observation study and two laboratory experiments, we investigate the existence of this negativity effect in e-WOM consumer reviews for utilitarian versus hedonic products, and investigate the influence of the reader's attributions regarding the reviewer's motivations on this. Both types of studies show that product type moderates the effect of review valence, and readers exhibit a negativity bias for utilitarian product reviews only. Furthermore, the lab studies show that the reader's attributions about the motivations of the reviewer mediate the effect of this moderation on their attitude about the review. We find that compared with the utilitarian case, readers of negative hedonic product reviews are more likely to attribute the negative opinions expressed, to the reviewer's internal (or non-product related) reasons; and therefore are less likely to find the negative reviews useful. However, in the utilitarian case, readers’ are more likely to attribute the reviewer's negative opinions to external (or product related) motivations, and therefore find negative reviews more useful than positive reviews on average.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/dir.20090

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 1,245

Metadata

Authors
Sen, S., & Lerman, D.
Venue
Journal of Interactive Marketing
Published
2007-11
Volume
21
Issue
4
Pages
76-94
ISSN
  • 1094-9968 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-6653
OpenAlex
W2069927273
Cited by
1,245
References
9
FWCI
54.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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.