The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What Makes a Helpful Online Review? A Study of Customer Reviews on Amazon.Com1
Abstract
Customer reviews are increasingly available online for a wide range of products and services. They supplement other information provided by electronic storefronts such as product descriptions, reviews from experts, and personalized advice generated by automated recommendation systems. While researchers have demonstrated the benefits of the presence of customer reviews to an online retailer, a largely uninvestigated issue is what makes customer reviews helpful to a consumer in the process of making a purchase decision. Drawing on the paradigm of search and experience goods from information economics, we develop and test a model of customer review helpfulness. An analysis of 1,587 reviews from Amazon.Com across six products indicated that review extremity, review depth, and product type affect the perceived helpfulness of the review. Product type moderates the effect of review extremity on the helpfulness of the review. For experience goods, reviews with extreme ratings are less helpful than reviews with moderate ratings. For both product types, review depth has a positive effect on the helpfulness of the review, but the product type moderates the effect of review depth on the helpfulness of the review. Review depth has a greater positive effect on the helpfulness of the review for search goods than for experience goods. We discuss the implications of our findings for both theory and practice.
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
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 · Cited by 28,810
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
A theory of social comparison processes
Festinger, L. (1954) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/001872675400700202 · Cited by 20,926
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
Building Effective Online Marketplaces with Institution-Based Trust
Pavlou, P. A., & Gefen, D. (2004) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1040.0015 · Cited by 2,516
Online peer and editorial recommendations, trust and choice in virtual markets
Smith, D., Menon, S., & Sivakumar, K. (2005) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1002/dir.20041 · Cited by 683
Consumer Skepticism of Advertising Claims: Testing Hypotheses from Economics of Information
Ford, G. T., Smith, D. B., & Swasy, J. L. (1990) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209228 · Cited by 481
Two-sided advertising: A meta-analysis
Eisend, M. (2006) · International Journal of Research in Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2005.11.001 · Cited by 305
Cited by
Authenticity under threat: When social media influencers need to go beyond self-presentation
Audrezet, A., de Kerviler, G., & Guidry Moulard, J. (2020) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.008 · Cited by 1,452
Xiang, Z., Du, Q., Ma, Y., & Fan, W. (2017) · Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2016.10.001 · Cited by 1,051
Filieri, R. (2015) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.11.006 · Cited by 1,083
What makes a useful online review? Implication for travel product websites
Liu, Z., & Park, S. (2015) · Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2014.09.020 · Cited by 963
What makes an online consumer review trustworthy?
Filieri, R. (2016) · Annals of Tourism Research · doi:10.1016/j.annals.2015.12.019 · Cited by 587
Metadata
- Authors
- Mudambi, S. M., & Schuff, D.
- Venue
- MIS Quarterly
- Publisher
- MIS Quarterly
- Published
- 2010-03-01
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 185-200
- ISSN
- 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-9730
- OpenAlex
- W3141714916
- Cited by
- 2,490
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 113.73
- 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.
