CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 263Digital Marketing and Social MediaConsumer Behavior and Marketing InfluenceDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Influence of consumer reviews on online purchasing decisions in older and younger adults

Open access
von Helversen, Bettina, Abramczuk, Katarzyna, Kopeć, Wiesław, Nielek, Radoslaw·2018·Decision Support Systems
DOI 10.1016/j.dss.2018.05.006
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We investigated how product attributes, average consumer ratings, and single affect-rich positive or negative consumer reviews influenced hypothetical online purchasing decisions of younger and older adults. In line with previous research, we found that younger adults used all three types of information: they clearly preferred products with better attributes and with higher average consumer ratings. If making a choice was difficult because it involved trade-offs between product attributes, most younger adults chose the higher-rated product. The preference for the higher-rated product, however, could be overridden by a single affect-rich negative or positive review. Older adults were strongly influenced by a single affect-rich negative review and also took into consideration product attributes; however, they did not take into account average consumer ratings or single affect-rich positive reviews. These results suggest that older adults do not consider aggregated consumer information and positive reviews focusing on positive experiences with the product, but are easily swayed by reviews reporting negative experiences.

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 · 10.1016/j.dss.2018.05.006

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Older adults realize the benefits that come with increased ICT proficiency, especially if it helps them achieve personal goals such as communicating with loved ones, managing finance, engaging in e-commerce or pursuing interests.

    “Moreover, older adults realize the benefits that come with an increased ICT proficiency [1] especially if it helps them achieve personal goals [4], such as communicating with their loved ones, managing finance, engaging in e-commerce or pursuing their interests [2, 8, 14].”

    From Older Adults and Voice Interaction: A Pilot Study with Google Home (2019) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Introduction (page not provided) says older adults are increasingly buying goods or services online, supporting e-commerce as one activity in the cited list. The paper does not say that older adults recognize benefits from increased ICT proficiency, or that it helps them communicate with loved ones, manage finances, or pursue interests. Its section 2.2 instead notes that older adults appear more reluctant than younger adults to use e-commerce. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. M. Law, M. Ng, Age and gender differences: understanding mature online users with the online purchase intention model, Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science 26 (3) (2016) 248-269.
  2. Y.J. Ma, H. Kim, H.-h. Lee, Effect of individual differences on online review per- ception and usage behavior: the need for cognitive closure and demographics, Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles 36 (12) (2012) 1270-1284.
  3. P.Y. Chen, S.y. Wu, J. Yoon, The impact of online recommendations and consumer feedback on sales, ICIS 2004 Proceedings, 2004, p. 58.
  4. K. Floyd, R. Freling, S. Alhoqail, H.Y. Cho, T. Freling, How online product reviews affect retail sales: a meta-analysis, Journal of Retailing 90 (2) (2014) 217-232, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2014.04.004. · DOI
  5. R.A. King, P. Racherla, V.D. Bush, What we know and don't know about online word-of-mouth: a review and synthesis of the literature, Journal of Interactive Marketing 28 (3) (2014) 167-183.
  6. N. Purnawirawan, M. Eisend, P. De Pelsmacker, N. Dens, A meta-analytic in- vestigation of the role of valence in online reviews, Journal of Interactive Marketing 31 (2015) 17-27, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2015.05.001. · DOI
  7. Y. Liu, Word of mouth for movies: its dynamics and impact on box office revenue, Journal of Marketing 70 (3) (2006) 74-89.
  8. E. Maslowska, E.C. Malthouse, V. Viswanathan, Do customer reviews drive pur- chase decisions? The moderating roles of review exposure and price, Decision Support Systems 98 (2017) 1-9.
  9. S. Karimi, F. Wang, Online review helpfulness: impact of reviewer profile image, Decision Support Systems 96 (2017) 39-48.
  10. S. Sen, D. Lerman, Why are you telling me this? An examination into negative consumer reviews on the web, Journal of Interactive Marketing 21 (4) (2007) 76-94.
  11. BrightLocal, Local Consumer Review Survey 2016, (2016) https://www.brightlocal. com/learn/local-consumer-review-survey/.
  12. M. Ziegele, M. Weber, Example, please! Comparing the effects of single customer reviews and aggregate review scores on online shoppers' product evaluations, Journal of Consumer Behaviour 14 (2015) 103-114.
  13. C. Betsch, C. Ulshöfer, F. Renkewitz, T. Betsch, The influence of narrative v. sta- tistical information on perceiving vaccination risks, Medical Decision Making 31 (5) (2011) 742-753, https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X11400419. · DOI
  14. A. Winterbottom, H.L. Bekker, M. Conner, A. Mooney, Does narrative information bias individual's decision making? A systematic review, Social Science and Medicine 67 (12) (2008) 2079-2088.
  15. P.B. Baltes, U.M. Staudinger, U. Lindenberger, Lifespan psychology: theory and application to intellectual functioning. Annual Review of Psychology 50 (1999) 471-507, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.471. · DOI · Paper page
  16. R. Mata, T. Pachur, B. von Helversen, R. Hertwig, J. Rieskamp, L. Schooler, Ecological rationality: a framework for understanding and aiding the aging decision maker, Frontiers in Decision Neuroscience 6 (Article 19) (2012) 1-6, https://doi. org/10.3389/fnins.2012.00019. · DOI
  17. T. Salthouse, Consequences of age-related cognitive declines, Annual Review of Psychology 63 (2012) 201-226.
  18. R. Frey, R. Mata, R. Hertwig, The role of cognitive abilities in decisions from ex- perience: age differences emerge as a function of choice set size, Cognition 142 (2015) 60-80, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.05.004. · DOI
  19. R. Mata, L. Nunes, When less is enough: cognitive aging, information search, and decision quality in consumer choice, Psychology and Aging 25 (2010) 289-298, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017927. · DOI
  20. B. von Helversen, R. Mata, Losing a dime with a satisfied mind: positive affect predicts less search in sequential decision making, Psychology and Aging 27 (4) (2012) 825-839, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027845. · DOI
  21. G. Gigerenzer, P.M. Toddthe ABC Research Group, Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart, Oxford University Press, 1999.
  22. R. Mata, B. von Helversen, J. Rieskamp, Learning to choose: cognitive aging and strategy selection learning in decision making, Psychology and Aging 25 (2) (2010) 299-309, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018923. · DOI
  23. J.A. Mikels, C.E. Löckenhoff, S.J. Maglio, L.L. Carstensen, M.K. Goldstein, A. Garber, Following your heart or your head: focusing on emotions versus in- formation differentially influences the decisions of younger and older adults, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 16 (1) (2010) 87.
  24. C.A. Cole, S.K. Balasubramanian, Age differences in consumers' search for in- formation: public policy implications, Journal of Consumer Research 20 (1993) 157-169.
  25. C.M. Schaninger, D. Sciglimpaglia, The influence of cognitive personality traits and demographics on consumer information acquisition, Journal of Consumer Research 8 (2) (1981) 208-216.
  26. R. Lambert-Pandraud, G. Laurent, E. Lapersonne, Repeat purchasing of new auto- mobiles by older consumers: empirical evidence and interpretations, Journal of Marketing 69 (2) (2005) 97-113.
  27. S.M. Carpenter, C. Yoon, Aging and consumer decision making, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1235 (1) (2011) 1-12.
  28. Q. Ma, K. Chen, A.H.S. Chan, P.L. Teh, Acceptance of ICTs by older adults: a review of recent studies, International Conference on Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population, Springer, 2015, pp. 239-249.
  29. A. Ahmed, A.S. Sathish, Determinants of online shopping adoption: meta analysis and review, European Journal of Social Sciences 49 (4) (2015) 483-510.
  30. R. De Beni, E. Borella, B. Carretti, Reading comprehension in aging: the role of working memory and metacomprehension, Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition 14 (2) (2007) 189-212, https://doi.org/10.1080/13825580500229213. · DOI
  31. L.L. Carstensen, Motivation for social contact across the life span: a theory of so- cioemotional selectivity, Nebraska symposium on motivation, vol. 40, 1993, pp. 209-254.
  32. S.T. Charles, L.L. Carstensen, Social and emotional aging, Annual Review of Psychology 61 (2010) 383-409.
  33. H.H. Fung, L.L. Carstensen, Sending memorable messages to the old: age differences in preferences and memory for advertisements, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85 (1) (2003) 163-178.
  34. M.J. Frank, L. Kong, Learning to avoid in older age, Psychology and Aging 23 (2) (2008) 392-398, https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.23.2.392. · DOI
  35. D. Hämmerer, S.C. Li, V. Müller, U. Lindenberger, Life span differences in electro- physiological correlates of monitoring gains and losses during probabilistic re- inforcement learning, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 23 (3) (2011) 579-592.
  36. B. Eppinger, N.W. Schuck, L.E. Nystrom, J.D. Cohen, Reduced striatal responses to reward prediction errors in older compared with younger adults, Journal of Neuroscience 33 (24) (2013) 9905-9912.
  37. A. Mantonakis, P. Rodero, I. Lesschaeve, R. Hastie, Order in choice: effects of serial position on preferences, Psychological Science 20 (11) (2009) 1309-1312, https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02453.x. · DOI
  38. C. Mogilner, B. Shiv, S.S. Iyengar, Eternal quest for the best: sequential (vs. si- multaneous) option presentation undermines choice commitment, Journal of Consumer Research 39 (6) (2013) 1300-1312, https://doi.org/10.1086/668534. · DOI
  39. W. Kopeć, K. Skorupska, A. Jaskulska, K. Abramczuk, R. Nielek, A. Wierzbicki, LivingLab PJAIT: towards better urban participation of seniors, Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Intelligence, ACM, 2017, pp. 1085-1092.
  40. W. Kopeć, K. Abramczuk, B. Balcerzak, M. Juźwin, K. Gniadzik, G. Kowalik, R. Nielek, A location-based game for two generations: teaching mobile technology to the elderly with the support of young volunteers, eHealth 360, Springer, 2017, pp. 84-91.
  41. R.V. Lenth, Least-squares means: the R package lsmeans, Journal of Statistical Software 69 (1) (2016) 1-33, https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v069.i01. · DOI
  42. F. Schieber, Human factors and aging: identifying and compensating for age-related deficits in sensory and cognitive function, Impact of technology on successful aging, 2003, pp. 42-84.
  43. N. Hu, N.S. Koh, S.K. Reddy, Ratings lead you to the product, reviews help you clinch it? The mediating role of online review sentiments on product sales, Decision Support Systems 57 (2014) 42-53.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
von Helversen, B., Abramczuk, K., Kopeć, W., & Nielek, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Warsaw (PL)
  • Polish-Japanese Academy of Information Technology (PL)
ORCID
Venue
Decision Support Systems
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-09
Volume
113
Pages
1-10
ISSN
0167-9236 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.dss.2018.05.006
OpenAlex
W2809672241
Cited by
263
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 4
FWCI
45.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Decision Support Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
  • Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (157432)
  • H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (690962)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Marketing and Social Media
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Behavior and Marketing Influence
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
consumer reviews, online purchase decision, older adults, young adults, age differences, product attributes, consumer information processing

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