The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Selectively Emotional: How Smartphone Use Changes User-Generated Content
Abstract
User-generated content has become ubiquitous and very influential in the marketplace. Increasingly, this content is generated on smartphones rather than personal computers (PCs). This article argues that because of its physically constrained nature, smartphone (vs. PC) use leads consumers to generate briefer content, which encourages them to focus on the overall gist of their experiences. This focus on gist, in turn, tends to manifest as reviews that emphasize the emotional aspects of an experience in lieu of more specific details. Across five studies—two field studies and three controlled experiments—the authors use natural language processing tools and human assessments to analyze the linguistic characteristics of user-generated content. The findings support the thesis that smartphone use results in the creation of content that is less specific and privileges affect—especially positive affect—relative to PC-generated content. The findings also show that differences in emotional content are driven by the tendency to generate briefer content on smartphones rather than user self-selection, differences in topical content, or timing of writing. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
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
SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004) · Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers · doi:10.3758/bf03206553 · Cited by 17,383
Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.35.2.151 · Cited by 8,094
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
What Makes Online Content Viral?
Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2012) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmr.10.0353 · Cited by 3,178 · cited 2×
“The substantial body of work on the topic of online WOM has largely focused on the “impact” of WOM, such as its perceived helpfulness (e.g., Ghose and Ipeirotis 2011), virality (e.g., Berger and Milkman 2012), and effect on sales (e.g., Godes and Mayzlin 2009).”
A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: dynamics of willpower
Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.106.1.3 · Cited by 2,931 · cited 1×
“…and Liu (2018) speculate that consumers writing reviews on their smartphones (vs. PCs) use more emotional language simply because they tend to write their reviews shortly after their consumption experience, which would render their feelings more salient or “hot” (e.g., Metcalfe and Mischel 1999).”
Psychological Predictors of Problem Mobile Phone Use
Bianchi, A., & Phillips, J. G. (2005) · CyberPsychology & Behavior · doi:10.1089/cpb.2005.8.39 · Cited by 1,514
Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: A review and directions for future research
Berger, J. (2014) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2014.05.002 · Cited by 1,469
Firm-Created Word-of-Mouth Communication: Evidence from a Field Test
Godes, D., & Mayzlin, D. (2009) · Marketing Science · doi:10.1287/mksc.1080.0444 · Cited by 837 · cited 2×
“Prior work on online WOM has shown that its impact or persuasiveness depends on factors such as the characteristics of the reviewer (e.g., Godes and Mayzlin 2009) and the characteristics of the review itself, such as its linguistic characteristics (e.g., Schellekens, Verlegh, and Smidts 2010).”
An Empirical Analysis of User Content Generation and Usage Behavior on the Mobile Internet
Ghose, A., & Han, S. P. (2011) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1110.1350 · Cited by 282
Cited by
Uniting the Tribes: Using Text for Marketing Insight
Berger, J., Humphreys, A., Ludwig, S., Moe, W. W., Netzer, O., & Schweidel, D. A. (2020) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/0022242919873106 · Cited by 742
An Emerging Theory of Avatar Marketing
Miao, F., Kozlenkova, I. V., Wang, H., Xie, T., & Palmatier, R. W. (2022) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/0022242921996646 · Cited by 688
Natural Language Processing in Marketing
Hartmann, J., & Netzer, O. (2023) · Artificial Intelligence in Marketing · doi:10.1108/s1548-643520230000020011 · Cited by 38
Generative AI in Marketing: Foundations, Trends, and Future Research Propositions
Prasanna, A., & Kushwaha, B. P. (2025) · Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1155/hbe2/5542513 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Melumad, S., Inman, J. J., & Pham, M. T.
- Venue
- Journal of Marketing Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-01-23
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 259-275
- ISSN
- 0022-2437 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-7193
- OpenAlex
- W2913549175
- Cited by
- 163
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 40.90
- 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: Selectively Emotional: How Smartphone Use Changes User-Generated Content. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0022243718815429
- The paper
- Melumad, S., Inman, J. J., & Pham, M. T. (2019). Selectively Emotional: How Smartphone Use Changes User-Generated Content. Journal of Marketing Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243718815429
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.