The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Why Is the Crowd Divided? Attribution for Dispersion in Online Word of Mouth
Abstract
The widespread availability of online word of mouth (WOM) enables modern consumers to assess not only the opinions of others about products and services, but also the extent to which those opinions are consistent or dispersive. Despite longstanding calls for greater understanding of mixed opinions, existing evidence is inconclusive regarding effects of WOM dispersion, and theoretical accounts have relied primarily on the notion of reference dependence. Extending prior work, this research proposes an attribution-based account, in which consumer interpretation of WOM dispersion depends on the extent to which tastes in a product domain are perceived to be dissimilar, so that dispersion can be attributed to inconsistency in reviewer preferences rather than the product itself. Across four experimental studies, participants presented with online rating distributions were more tolerant of dispersion in taste-dissimilar product domains than taste-similar product domains, and the difference was driven by underlying attributions. Together, these findings expand current understanding of WOM, social distributions, and risk perception, by revealing distinct pathways through which consumers respond to differences of opinion. In addition, they suggest the opportunity to proactively influence the manner in which dispersion is perceived, highlighting its positive connotations while diminishing its association with risk.
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
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
The Behavioral Consequences of Service Quality
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.2307/1251929 · Cited by 12,003
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 processes of causal attribution.
Kelley, H. H. (1973) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/h0034225 · Cited by 4,025 · cited 2×
“STUDY 1: THE INFLUENCE OF WOM”
MethodFrom acts to dispositions the attribution process in person perception
Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60107-0 · Cited by 3,424
Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.21 · Cited by 1,897
Real and perceived attitude agreement in social networks.
Goel, S., Mason, W., & Watts, D. J. (2010) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0020697 · Cited by 219
Bar graphs depicting averages are perceptually misinterpreted: The within-the-bar bias
Newman, G. E., & Scholl, B. J. (2012) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0247-5 · Cited by 101
Cited by
Villarroel Ordenes, F., Ludwig, S., de Ruyter, K., Grewal, D., & Wetzels, M. (2017) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucw070 · Cited by 245
Liao, Y.-K., Wu, W.-Y., Le, T. Q., & Phung, T. T. T. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su14020815 · Cited by 123
On Consumer Beliefs about Quality and Taste
Spiller, S. A., & Belogolova, L. (2016) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucw065 · Cited by 95
Hungering for the past: Nostalgic food labels increase purchase intentions and actual consumption
Zhou, X., van Tilburg, W. A. P., Mei, D., Wildschut, T., & Sedikides, C. (2019) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2019.05.007 · Cited by 76
Metadata
- Authors
- He, S. X., & Bond, S. D.
- Venue
- Journal of Consumer Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2015-02-19
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1509-1527
- ISSN
- 0093-5301 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5277
- OpenAlex
- W2101675574
- Cited by
- 168
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 43.19
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Why Is the Crowd Divided? Attribution for Dispersion in Online Word of Mouth. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/680667
- The paper
- He, S. X., & Bond, S. D. (2015). Why Is the Crowd Divided? Attribution for Dispersion in Online Word of Mouth. Journal of Consumer Research. https://doi.org/10.1086/680667
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.