The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Is Neutral Really Neutral? The Effects of Neutral User-Generated Content on Product Sales
Abstract
This article aims to specify the performance implications of neutral user-generated content (UGC) on product sales by differentiating mixed-neutral UGC, which contains an equal amount of positive and negative claims, from indifferent-neutral UGC, which includes neither positive nor negative claims. The authors propose that positive and negative UGC only provide opportunities for consumers to process product-related information, whereas both mixed- and indifferent-neutral UGC affect consumers’ motivation and ability to process positive and negative UGC. The results of three studies using multiple measures (text and numerical UGC), contexts (automobiles, movies, and tablets), and methods (empirical and behavioral experiment) indicate contrasting premium and discount effects such that mixed-neutral UGC amplifies the effects of positive and negative UGC, whereas indifferent-neutral UGC attenuates them. Empirical evidence further indicates that ignoring mixed- or indifferent-neutral UGC leads to substantial under- or overestimates of the effects of positive and negative UGC. The effects of neutral UGC on product sales thus are not truly neutral, and the direction of the bias depends on both the type of UGC and the distribution of positive and negative UGC.
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
Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/651257 · Cited by 12,583
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
Sentiment strength detection for the social web
Thelwall, M., Buckley, K., & Paltoglou, G. (2012) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21662 · Cited by 1,062
How Does Brand-related User-generated Content Differ across YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter?
Smith, A. N., Fischer, E., & Yongjian, C. (2012) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2012.01.002 · Cited by 1,044
Cited by
More than a Feeling: Accuracy and Application of Sentiment Analysis
Hartmann, J., Heitmann, M., Siebert, C., & Schamp, C. (2023) · International Journal of Research in Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2022.05.005 · Cited by 356
Unstructured data in marketing
Balducci, B., & Marinova, D. (2018) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-018-0581-x · Cited by 300
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
Online reviews and product sales: the role of review visibility
Alzate, M., Arce-Urriza, M., & Cebollada, J. (2021) · Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research · doi:10.3390/jtaer16040038 · Cited by 45
Hochstein, R. E., Harmeling, C. M., & Perko, T. (2025) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-023-00982-y · Cited by 45
Metadata
- Authors
- Tang, T. (., Fang, E. (., & Wang, F.
- Venue
- Journal of Marketing
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2014-07
- Volume
- 78
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 41-58
- ISSN
- 0022-2429 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-7185
- OpenAlex
- W2018105737
- Cited by
- 281
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 39.99
- 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: Is Neutral Really Neutral? The Effects of Neutral User-Generated Content on Product Sales. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1509/jm.13.0301
- The paper
- Tang, T. (., Fang, E. (., & Wang, F. (2014). Is Neutral Really Neutral? The Effects of Neutral User-Generated Content on Product Sales. Journal of Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.13.0301
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.