The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Credibility of Anonymous Online Product Reviews: A Language Expectancy Perspective
Abstract
Online reviews play a significant role in forming and shaping perceptions about a product. With the credibility of online reviewers a frequent question, this research investigates how potential buyers assess the credibility of anonymous reviewers. Technology separates the reviewer from the review, and potential buyers are left to rely on characteristics of the review itself to determine the credibility of the reviewer. By extending the language expectancy theory to the online setting, we develop hypotheses about how expectancy violations of lexical complexity, two-sidedness (highlighting positive and negative aspects of a product), and affect intensity influence credibility attributions. We present an experiment in which favorable experimental reviews were generated based on actual reviews for a digital camera. The results indicate that two-sidedness caused a positive expectancy violation resulting in greater credibility attribution. High affect intensity caused a negative expectancy violation resulting in lower credibility attribution. Finally, high reviewer credibility significantly improved perceptions of product quality. Our results demonstrate the importance of expectancies and violations when attributing credibility to anonymous individuals. Even small expectancy violations can meaningfully influence reviewer credibility and perceptions of products.
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
(2025) · doi:10.53555/acr.v2i2 · Cited by 13,264
Understanding Information Systems Continuance: An Expectation-Confirmation Model1
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3250921 · Cited by 8,767
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
Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/208954 · Cited by 4,610
Promotion and Prevention: Regulatory Focus as A Motivational Principle
Higgins, E. T. (1998) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60381-0 · Cited by 3,511
The Digitization of Word of Mouth: Promise and Challenges of Online Feedback Mechanisms
Dellarocas, C. (2003) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.49.10.1407.17308 · Cited by 3,433
What Makes a Helpful Online Review? A Study of Customer Reviews on Amazon.Com1
Mudambi, S. M., & Schuff, D. (2010) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/20721420 · Cited by 2,490
Social Ties and Word-of-Mouth Referral Behavior
Brown, J. J., & Reingen, P. H. (1987) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209118 · Cited by 2,378
Ba, S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2002) · Cited by 2,256
(2017) · Managerial Leadership for Librarians · doi:10.5040/9798400682018.ch-003 · Cited by 2,240
Cited by
Big Data Research in Information Systems: Toward an Inclusive Research Agenda
University of Virginia, Abbasi, A., Sarker, S., University of Virginia, Aalto University, Chiang, R., & University of Cincinnati (2016) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00423 · Cited by 688
Bots with Feelings: Should AI Agents Express Positive Emotion in Customer Service?
Han, E., Yin, D., & Zhang, H. (2023) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2022.1179 · Cited by 307
Jiang, G., Liu, F., Liu, W., Liu, S., Chen, Y., & Xu, D. (2021) · Data Science and Management · doi:10.1016/j.dsm.2021.02.004 · Cited by 227
Thumbs Up, Sales Up? The Contingent Effect of Facebook Likes on Sales Performance in Social Commerce
Lee, K., Lee, B., & Oh, W. (2015) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2015.1138372 · Cited by 181
Flanagin, A. J., Winter, S., & Metzger, M. J. (2020) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2018.1547411 · Cited by 116
Metadata
- Authors
- Jensen, M. L., Averbeck, J. M., Zhang, Z., & Wright, K. B.
- Venue
- Journal of Management Information Systems
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2013-07
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 293-324
- ISSN
- 0742-1222 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-928X
- OpenAlex
- W2089640063
- Cited by
- 287
- References
- 57
- FWCI
- 45.34
- 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: Credibility of Anonymous Online Product Reviews: A Language Expectancy Perspective. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2753/mis0742-1222300109
- The paper
- Jensen, M. L., Averbeck, J. M., Zhang, Z., & Wright, K. B. (2013). Credibility of Anonymous Online Product Reviews: A Language Expectancy Perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems. https://doi.org/10.2753/mis0742-1222300109
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.