Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Journal of
CONSUMER
PSYCHOLOGY
Journal of Consumer Psychology 21 (2011) 226 – 239
Can including pros and cons increase the helpfulness and persuasiveness of
online reviews? The interactive effects of ratings and arguments☆
Ann E. Schlosser
Marketing and Evert McCabe Faculty Fellow, Foster School of Business, University of Washington, Box 353200, Seattle, WA 98195-3200, USA
Received 12 November 2010; revised 2 March 2011; accepted 12 April 2011
Available online 17 May 2011
Abstract
One guideline given to online reviewers is to acknowledge a product's pros and cons. Yet, I argue that presenting two sides is not always more
helpful and can even be less persuasive than presenting one side. Specifically, the effects of two- versus one-sided arguments depend on the
perceived consistency between a reviewer's arguments and rating. Across a content analysis and three experiments that vary the information
provided in the online review and whether the ratings are positive or negative, the results support these predictions. Furthermore, beliefs that the
reviewer is able (vs. willing) to tell the truth mediated the effects.
© 2011 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Word-of-mouth communication; Online peer reviews; Two-sided arguments; Internet; Credibility; Persuasion
Communication between consumers—or word-of-mouth
(WOM) communication—is a powerful force in shaping consumers' product attitudes (e.g., Brown and Reingen, 1987; Herr,
Kardes, and Kim, 1991; Sultan, Parley, and Lehmann, 1990).
One popular vehicle for WOM communication is the Internet,
making the inclusion of online peer reviews—that is, reviews
written by consumers on the Internet—a necessary feature for
websites wishing to attract and retain consumers. For instance,
over half (58%) of consumers prefer sites with peer reviews
(Decker, 2007) and nearly all (98%) online shoppers reported
reading peer reviews before making a purchase (Freedman,
2008). However, simply offering online peer reviews is likely
insufficient to attract and retain consumers. Web site owners need
visitors to write reviews that consumers find helpful and
persuades them to buy. Consequently, it is important to
understand what makes some online peer reviews more helpful
and persuasive than others.
☆
The author thanks Wayne Hoyer, Tiffany White, Richard Yalch, and the
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Marketing Department for their
helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper, and Dante Batingan, Celeste
Chen and HeeSun Choi for their research assistance.
E-mail address: aschloss@uw.edu.
One guideline offered by experts and websites to presumably
make reviews more helpful and persuasive is for reviewers to
present both a product's pros and cons in their reviews (Burns,
2008; JupiterResearch, 2008). Even some websites have
separate fields that directly ask reviewers to identify pros and
cons (e.g., epinions.com). Such a guideline has intuitive appeal
for several reasons. First, in the advertising literature, providing
two sides rather than one side can make an ad more credible and
thus persuasive (Crowley and Hoyer, 1994). Second, even
without prompting, speakers often present multiple sides in an
attempt to appeal to everyone when an audience's views are
unknown (Tetlock, Skitka, and Boettger, 1989). Indeed, those
posting reviews online tend to mention a product's pros and
cons more than those reviewing a product privately do
(Schlosser, 2005). Yet, despite evidence that consumers read
the text of online reviews rather than rely solely upon such
summary statistics as the average star rating (Chevalier and
Mayzlin, 2006), most research on online peer reviews has
ignored the written content of reviews due to the cost and effort
incurred in measuring it (Godes and Mayzlin, 2004), instead
focusing on more easily quantifiable measures such as product
ratings (e.g., Forman, Ghose, and Wiesenfeld, 2008; Gershoff,
Mukherjee, and Mukhopadhyay, 2003; Godes and Mayzlin,
2004; Sen and Lerman, 2007). Even though this research has
1057-7408/$ - see front matter © 2011 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.04.002
yielded important insights, by ignoring the written content of
reviews, an important piece to understanding the persuasiveness
and helpfulness of online reviews—such as the effectiveness of
presenting two sides versus one side—may be missed.
I propose that reviews that include a product's pros and cons
will not always be more helpful, credible and persuasive—it
will depend on the reviewer's product rating. Consequently,
despite reviewers' attempts to publicly state the “right” arguments, under certain conditions, such attempts may backfire by
triggering concerns about the reviewers' qualifications, thereby
reducing how helpful and persuasive they are. In fact, I argue
that presenting two sides can cause a review with an extremely
favorable rating to produce product judgments that are as low if
not lower than a review with a moderately favorable rating.
Although online peer reviews involve consumer-to-consumer
communication, I use the term “consumer” to refer to the
person who reads a review to form a product judgment, and the
term “reviewer” to refer to the person who wrote a review after a
product experience. Furthermore, with the exception of study 3,
the studies focus on positive reviews because online peer reviews
tend to be positive (Chevalier and Mayzlin, 2006; Freedman,
2008). For instance, one study found that 80% of product ratings
are either 4 or 5 stars (Bazaarvoice, 2008).
I begin with an overview of the literature on message
sidedness, WOM communication and credibility, followed by
the theoretical development of the hypotheses. Four studies
follow that test the robustness of these predictions by varying
the method of data collection (i.e., content analysis vs. online
experiment), the information provided along with the online
peer reviews, the product evaluated, and whether ratings are
positive or negative. In addition, different types of credibility
are tested as mediators. Taken together, the results suggest that
depending on the reviewer's rating, presenting two- (vs. one-)
sided arguments can backfire by reducing credibility perceptions, helpfulness and persuasiveness. Furthermore, five-star
ratings do not always produce greater product attitudes and
purchase intentions than four-star ratings.
Literature review
In consumer research, the credibility and persuasiveness of
two- (vs. one-) sided arguments have been studied most
extensively in the context of advertising (for a review, see
Crowley and Hoyer, 1994). Mixed results have emerged
regarding the effects of two-sided advertisements on persuasion. Whereas some studies have shown positive effects (Etgar
and Goodwin, 1982; Kamins, Brand, Hoeke, and Moe, 1989),
others have obtained nonsignificant or mixed results (Golden
and Alpert, 1987; Kamins and Assael, 1987; Kamins and
Marks, 1988; Settle and Golden, 1974). Nonsignificant effects
are to be expected given the tradeoff inherent in providing
negative product information in an advertisement; although
providing some negative information increases advertiser
credibility, there is the cost of divulging negative product
information (Crowley and Hoyer, 1994). Such costs are offset
under certain conditions (for a meta-analysis, see Eisend, 2006).
For instance, two-sided advertisements yield positive effects
227
when the negative and positive attributes are negatively correlated
(Bohner, Einwiller, Erb, and Siebler, 2003; Pechmann, 1992),
when individuals are promotion- (rather than prevention-) focused (Florack, Ineichen, and Bieri, 2009), when consumer
suspicion of an ulterior motive is reduced (DeCarlo, 2005), and
when negative information was voluntarily disclosed and
consumers are under cognitive load (Eisend, 2010).
One of the more consistent findings is that including some
negative product information in an ad enhances advertiser
credibility (cf., Bohner et al., 2003; Kamins and Assael, 1987;
Settle and Golden, 1974; Swinyard, 1981). This is because acknowledging some negative aspects of a product acts against the
advertiser's self-interest to sell the product. Consequently,
consumers deem the advertiser to be more trustworthy than if
the ad contained only positive (i.e., one-sided) arguments. Yet,
with advertising, the source has a clear incentive to present only
one side. With WOM communication, however, the source's
motivations are less clear, and as a result, the findings from
advertising contexts may not generalize to WOM contexts.
Traditionally, WOM communication differed in multiple
ways from advertising; it was personally rather than financially
motivated, synchronous, ephemeral, oral and informal between
parties who “interact with each other in real time and space”
(Stern, 1994, p. 7). However, with computer-mediated communication, many of these differences are eliminated. Although
it is often still personally rather than financially motivated, it
can be asynchronous, stored, textual, and perhaps most
importantly, is not bounded by temporal or physical space. As
a result, it often occurs between people in one's “virtual life”
rather than “experiential reality life”—conditions that require
recipients to imagine communicators and their communication
goals (Stern, 1994).
Like advertising effectiveness, the persuasiveness of offline
WOM communication has been attributed to communicator
characteristics, such as communicator credibility (Bearden and
Etzel, 1982; Laczniak, DeCarlo, and Ramaswami, 2001;
Mizerski, 1982). Credibility is often known when communicating with friends or family, or inferred from such social context
cues as tone of voice or body language. Yet, unlike offline WOM
communication, anyone can easily broadcast their product
opinions to strangers via the Internet (Hoffman and Novak,
1996), regardless of their qualifications. As a result, individuals
read product experiences from those whose motivations and
abilities are unknown to them. Furthermore, because most online
contexts lack social context cues (Dubrovsky, Kiesler, and
Sethna, 1991), individuals must use other information—such as
the content of a review—to determine a reviewer's credibility.
The content of most online peer reviews consist of (1) an
overall product evaluation (i.e., the rating) and (2) a written
explanation for this evaluation (i.e., the arguments; Burns,
2008). Oftentimes, this is the only information consumers have
from which to determine whether to trust reviewers and thus
accept their arguments. I propose that individuals use reviewers'
arguments in conjunction with their ratings to judge their
credibility, which in turn affects how persuasive the reviews are.
According to attribution theory (e.g., Jones and Davis, 1965;
Kelley, 1973), communicator perceptions play a critical role in
15327663, 2011, 3, Downloaded from https://myscp.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.04.002 by <shibboleth>-member@uni-bremen.de, Wiley Online Library on [22/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
A.E. Schlosser / Journal of Consumer Psychology 21 (2011) 226–239
A.E. Schlosser / Journal of Consumer Psychology 21 (2011) 226–239
determining whether a message is persuasive. Specifically, a
message is persuasive to the extent that it is considered valid
rather than due to irrelevant causes (Kelley, 1973), such as
reporting or knowledge biases. Credibility is the extent to which
individuals perceive the communicator to be willing and able
to convey the truth (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993; Hovland, Janis
and Kelley, 1953; Wood and Eagly, 1981). For instance,
reviewers may be willing to tell the truth (i.e., their reporting is
unbiased), but lack credibility because they do not have the
skills to properly evaluate the product (i.e., their knowledge is
biased). When the communicator is deemed both willing and
able to tell the truth (i.e., is credible), the message is accepted.
When the communicator lacks credibility, however, individuals
discount the message as invalid and thus the message is
unpersuasive.
Past research has shown that acting in a manner that
disconfirms expectations can bolster credibility. For instance,
one reason why providing two- (vs. one-) sided arguments in an
ad bolsters credibility is that identifying both pros and cons is
inconsistent with advertisers' presumably extremely favorable
opinion of the product (Crowley and Hoyer, 1994). Consequently, advertisers using two-sided arguments are deemed
trustworthy. Likewise, relative to confirming expectations,
disconfirming expectations reduces attributions that the communicator's arguments are due to his/her background (e.g.,
political affiliation or pressures to sell a product) and increases
attributions that the communicator's arguments are based on
factual evidence (e.g., research; Wood and Eagly, 1981). Yet, in
these instances, the audience has information about the
communicator's background—information that calls into
question the communicator's trustworthiness. These findings
are unlikely to generalize to situations in which background
information about the communicator is absent (Wood and
Eagly, 1981)—a situation most often experienced when reading
online peer reviews. In fact, disconfirming expectations may
backfire.
I propose that unlike advertising, because peer reviewers do
not have a clear incentive to lie, they will generally be deemed
trustworthy. However, because peer reviewers are often
strangers, their ability to accurately evaluate the product is
largely unknown. To determine if a reviewer is able to convey
the truth, consumers will likely compare the rating and
arguments. In this case, disconfirming expectations should
reduce (not enhance) credibility. For instance, reviewers who
strongly endorse a product will likely be expected to present
only pros. If reviewers instead disconfirm expectations by
presenting two sides, their ability to accurately review the
product will likely be questioned more than if they confirmed
expectations by presenting one side. This prediction is based
upon evaluative–cognitive consistency theory. First proposed
by Rosenburg (1956), evaluative–cognitive consistency is “the
consistency between one's abstract evaluation of an attitude
object and the evaluative content of one's beliefs about the
object” (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993, p. 114) and exists when
“objects are liked to the extent that they are seen as possessing
desirable attributes” (Scott, 1969, p. 263). For instance, holding
only favorable beliefs about a product should make it appear
entirely good and thus lead to extremely favorable evaluations.
In contrast, holding both favorable and unfavorable beliefs
should make it appear neither entirely good nor bad and thus
should lead to moderate evaluations. Indeed, when individuals
derive their attitudes from their beliefs, considering both the
pros and cons produces moderate judgments, whereas considering only the pros (vs. cons) leads to extreme judgments
(Brauer, Chambres, Niedenthal, and Chatard-Pannetier, 2004;
Linville, 1982; Tetlock, 1983). Consequently, considering two
sides (vs. a single side) is evaluatively consistent with holding
moderate (vs. extreme) judgments.
Importantly, those with highly consistent explanations for
their attitudes are as aware of inconsistent information as those
with less consistent explanations for their attitudes (Chaiken
and Yates, 1985). Consequently, individuals can (and often do)
justify their attitudes to others by referring to inconsistent
information (Sengupta and Johar, 2002; Simonson and Nowlis,
2000; Tetlock, 1983). For instance, individuals often express
arguments that seem acceptable regardless of whether these
arguments are evaluatively consistent with their publicly stated
attitudes (Schlosser and Shavitt, 1999, 2002). Likewise, online
reviewers will sometimes modify their product ratings to
convey a desirable impression, such as to lower their ratings to
appear discerning independent of whether they modified their
arguments (Schlosser, 2005). Yet, such attempts to express
acceptable and persuasive arguments and attitudes while
ignoring the consistency between these expressed arguments
and attitudes may backfire by making reviewers appear less
capable, and in turn, less helpful and persuasive.
Although evaluative–cognitive consistency was initially
developed and later questioned for its ability to always explain
attitude formation (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993), I propose that
this theory does capture how individuals expect others to
explain their attitudes. Consequently, this theory may be more
relevant for understanding how consumers judge WOM
communication.
Hypotheses
Helpfulness
When judging whether a review is helpful, individuals likely
consider both (1) the diversity of information presented, and
(2) the evaluative consistency of the review. In general, because
two-sided reviews provide more diverse information than onesided reviews, they should be deemed more informative and
helpful. For instance, a review in which the reviewer likes
everything about a product will likely be deemed less helpful
than one in which the reviewer identifies what was liked and
disliked. Yet, the magnitude of this difference likely also
depends upon whether the reviewer's rating is evaluatively
consistent with a two-sided review. Inconsistencies between a
reviewer's rating and review will likely dampen the perceived
helpfulness of a two-sided review by raising concerns about the
reviewer's ability. For example, presenting multiple sides
when one's rating is extreme might convey that the reviewer
is less qualified to review the product. Hence, the perceived
15327663, 2011, 3, Downloaded from https://myscp.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.04.002 by <shibboleth>-member@uni-bremen.de, Wiley Online Library on [22/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
228
helpfulness should be higher for two- than one-sided reviews,
but only when the corresponding rating is moderate (vs.
extreme). In other words, an additive effects model is proposed
whereby helpfulness is enhanced by two-sided arguments
because more diverse information is presented (two-sided = 1;
one-sided = 0) as well as by the consistency between reviewers'
arguments and ratings (consistency = 1; inconsistency = 0). As a
result, two-sided reviews should be more helpful than one-sided
reviews only when the rating is moderate because this would be
two-sided (+ 1) and internally consistent (+ 1) rather than onesided (+ 0) and inconsistent (+ 0). In contrast, when the rating is
extreme, the difference between two- and one-sided reviews
should be reduced because the reviews would be either twosided (+ 1) but internally inconsistent (+ 0) or one-sided (+ 0) but
consistent (+ 1).
H1. Rating extremity and arguments should interact such that
individuals deem two-sided reviews to be more helpful than
one-sided reviews only when the reviewers' product ratings are
moderate.
Product judgments
Although two-sided arguments should enhance perceived
helpfulness, they are unlikely to have the same effect on
persuasion. Indeed, as mentioned earlier, two-sided ads are not
always more persuasive than one-sided ads—although identifying cons can enhance credibility, it can also reduce consumers'
expectations of product benefits (for discussion, see Bohner
et al., 2003; Crowley and Hoyer, 1994). Thus, I propose a
different additive effects model for persuasion than helpfulness,
in which persuasion is enhanced by one-sided arguments
because only information supporting a position is presented
(one-sided = 1; two-sided = 0) as well as the consistency between
arguments and evaluation (consistency = 1; inconsistency = 0).
Consequently, one-sided reviews should be more persuasive
than two-sided reviews when the rating is extreme because this
would be one-sided (+ 1) and internally consistent (+ 1) rather
than two-sided (+ 0) and inconsistent (+ 0). However, this
advantage of one- (vs. two-) sided reviews should be reduced
when the rating is moderate because the reviews would be either
one-sided (+ 1) but internally inconsistent (+ 0) or two-sided (+ 0)
but consistent (+ 1).
H2. Rating extremity and arguments should interact such that
reviews with one-sided arguments are more persuasive than
reviews with two-sided arguments only when the rating is
extreme.
Four studies were conducted to test these predictions. Study 1
is a content analysis of online movie reviews to test H1 in a
naturalistic setting while measuring the effects of other relevant
variables. The remaining studies are online experiments that
directly test the interactive effects of reviewers' ratings and
arguments on perceived helpfulness and product judgments
(H1–H2) when the rating is positive (studies 2–4) and negative
(study 3), and to identify the mechanism underlying these
interactive effects (study 4). Because consumers often consult
229
others' opinions for experiential products (West and Broniarczyk,
1998), the reviewed products were books (studies 2 and 4) and
movies (studies 1 and 3).
Study 1: content analysis
Method
The first study involved a content analysis of positive peer
reviews posted at Yahoo! Movies, where users post online
movie reviews as well as indicate whether they found a review
to be helpful. At this site, users can rate a movie A, B, C, D or F
(the basis for the rating variable) and write a review (the basis
for the arguments variable). A posted review is followed by the
question “Was this review helpful?” and two response options:
“Yes” and “No.” Yahoo! indicates how many people found each
review helpful as well as how many people “voted.” The
dependent variable (helpfulness) was calculated by dividing the
number of people who voted that they found the review helpful
by the total number who submitted votes for that review. If H1
is supported, then more visitors should deem two-sided reviews
to be helpful than one-sided reviews only when these reviews
have moderate (vs. extreme) ratings (i.e., a B rather than A).
The decision to focus on positive peer reviews was based on
prior research (e.g., Bazaarvoice, 2008; Chevalier and Mayzlin,
2006), and a content analysis of the target movies and two other
movies that revealed that relatively few reviews were negative (6–20% of reviews had a rating of D or F), of which few
(4–17%) had at least five individuals submit helpfulness votes.
Two undergraduate students who were unaware of the
experimental hypotheses began by considering alphabetically
movies from 2004 that were reviewed at Yahoo! Movies. From
these, the first two that had diverse ratings and a high degree of
user activity were chosen. In addition, to asses the generalizability of the effects, the movies were from different genres (the
genre variable): science fiction (“Alien vs. Predator”) and drama
(“Friday Night Lights”). The same two students then independently selected peer reviews for either “Friday Night Lights”
(n = 70) and “Alien vs. Predator” (n = 77) that met the following
criteria: the review (1) was posted within a week after the movie
was released, (2) had either an extremely or moderately
favorable rating (A or B; the rating variable), and (3) had at
least five individuals who submitted helpfulness “votes” (the
average number of voters across reviews was 47.5). From these
147 reviews, 114 were analyzed. Reviews were omitted due to
the author admitting to not seeing the film (n = 2) and being too
short (i.e., had fewer than 2 sentences; n = 13). A similar number
of reviews were deleted across conditions (all χ2s b 1). In
addition, because two-sided messages are less effective when
over half of the content is negative (Crowley and Hoyer, 1994;
Eisend, 2006), 18 reviews were omitted that were largely (over
50%) negative. This variable was used to screen reviews rather
than as a covariate in the reported analyses because it is highly
correlated with the arguments variable (r = .74, or 55% related).
However, the results do not meaningfully differ between
deleting these reviews from the analyses and controlling for
this variable in ANCOVAs.
15327663, 2011, 3, Downloaded from https://myscp.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.04.002 by <shibboleth>-member@uni-bremen.de, Wiley Online Library on [22/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
A.E. Schlosser / Journal of Consumer Psychology 21 (2011) 226–239
A.E. Schlosser / Journal of Consumer Psychology 21 (2011) 226–239
Results
The proportion of helpfulness votes was analyzed with a 2
(rating) × 2 (arguments) × 2 (genre) ANCOVA while controlling
for variables likely to affect how believable the reviewer is (e.g.,
anonymity), the effectiveness of two-sided messages (e.g., title
valence), and additional movie information provided by the
reviewer (e.g., whether the reviewer rated all attributes given by
Yahoo!). These covariates had less than 33% common variation
with the independent variables. Moreover, none of the
covariates were significant (all Fs(1, 106) b 1). As expected,
the two-sided reviews received a higher proportion of
helpfulness votes than the one-sided reviews did (F(1, 94) =
4.08, p b .05), which as predicted in H1, was qualified by a
rating × arguments interaction (F(1, 94) = 5.93, p b .05; see
Fig. 1A). Planned contrasts revealed that more helpfulness
votes were given to two- than one-sided reviews when the rating
was moderately favorable (Ms = .73 vs. .49, F(1, 94) = 8.69,
p b .01; all reported means from ANCOVAs are covariateadjusted means), but not when it was extremely favorable
(Ms = .59 vs. .59, F(1, 94) b 1). Furthermore, two-sided reviews
were deemed helpful by more voters when the rating was
Proportion of Helpfulness Votes
A
0.8
0.75
Extreme (A)
Moderate (B)
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
One-sided
Two-sided
Written Arguments
B
Proportion of Helpfulness Votes
The two students then served as judges who independently
coded the arguments of each review as one- or two-sided
(the arguments variable) using scoring procedures developed to
assess whether written documents reflect more than a single side
(Baker-Brown et al., 1992). According to these procedures, a
review is one-sided if only the pros are mentioned (e.g., “AVP
is a great, fun summer flick, a long awaited reward for the fans
of the Sci-Fi Horror genre”), whereas a review is two-sided if
both pros and cons are mentioned (e.g., “The action sequences
are outstanding, although the way they were shot can make your
eyes spin a bit”). The judges had 90% agreement and resolved
all disagreements through discussion.
In addition, to control for other variables likely to affect
consumers' perceptions of a reviewer's credibility and thus
helpfulness, the judges also recorded (1) whether the reviewer
was anonymous in terms of location or gender (yes/no for each),
and (2) whether there were any grammatical or spelling errors
(yes/no). Furthermore, to control for message structure variables shown in prior research to reduce the effectiveness of twosided messages (Crowley and Hoyer, 1994), and as a result,
may cause two-sided messages to be ineffective even with
moderate ratings, the judges also coded (1) whether the title was
positive, negative or neutral, (2) whether the first sentence was
positive, negative or neutral, (3) whether they refuted a negative
claim, and (4) whether the reviewer criticized the plot (an
important attribute of a film). Finally, because in addition to
providing a written review and overall movie rating, reviewers
can rate each of four attributes (story, acting, direction, visuals)
with a letter grade from A to F, the judges coded whether the
reviewer rated all attributes (yes/no), and whether they rated all
of these attributes the same (yes/no). The judges had 78–88%
agreement in coding these categories and resolved all
disagreements through discussion.
0.80
0.75
Extreme (A)
Moderate (B)
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
Same
Varied
Rated Attributes
Fig. 1. Study 1: effects of ratings and arguments on the percent of helpful votes.
moderately than extremely favorable (Ms = .73 vs. .59, F(1, 94) =
4.06, p b .05).
Because reviewers' ratings of the four attributes (story, acting,
directing, visuals) could also constitute their arguments for their
overall rating, thereby affecting the number of helpfulness votes a
review receives independent of what is written, the proportion of
helpfulness votes was analyzed using the rated attributes as the
independent variable instead of the written arguments. Specifically, a 2 (rating) × 2 (rated attributes: same or varied) × 2 (genre)
ANCOVA was conducted with the same covariates used previously except that the rated attributes variable was replaced by
the arguments variable. As before, none of the covariates were
significant (all Fs(1, 94) b 1.39, NS). The only significant effect
was a rating × rated attribute interaction (F(1, 94) = 5.57, p b .05;
see Fig. 1B). Planned contrasts revealed that a review with varied
(i.e., diverse) attribute ratings received more helpfulness votes
than a review with the same rating across all attributes did when
the overall product rating was moderately favorable (Ms = .76 vs.
.52, F(1, 94) = 6.51, p = .01), but not when it was extremely
favorable (Ms = .57 vs. .60, F(1, 94) b 1). In fact, reviews with
varied attribute ratings received more helpfulness votes when the
overall rating was moderately than extremely favorable (Ms = .76
vs. .52, F(1, 94) = 5.04, p b .05). These findings support the
argument that when judging helpfulness, consumers consider
both (1) the diversity of information provided, and (2) the
consistency between the arguments provided and the overall
rating. In other words, consistency is a necessary but not sufficient
condition for perceived helpfulness. Although rating every
attribute as “good” (a “B”) is consistent with an overall rating
15327663, 2011, 3, Downloaded from https://myscp.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.04.002 by <shibboleth>-member@uni-bremen.de, Wiley Online Library on [22/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
230
of “B,” these findings reveal that when explaining a moderate
attitude, it is less helpful to say that every attribute was “good”
(i.e., mention only pros) than to rate some attributes as “outstanding” and others as “mediocre” (i.e., to include pros and
cons).
Conclusions
Many websites encourage reviewers to discuss a product's
pros and cons within their reviews. This is likely because
presenting more than one side would seem to be more informative
and helpful than presenting only one side. Yet, the results of study
1 indicate that this is not always the case. A content analysis of
peer reviews posted at a popular website supports H1: reviews
with two- (vs. one-) sided arguments received a significantly
higher proportion of helpful votes only when the reviewer's rating
was moderately favorable. When the reviewer's rating was
extremely favorable, the advantage of presenting two- (vs. one-)
sides disappeared.
Whereas the results of study 1 shed light on how the text and
rating of a review interact to affect helpfulness perceptions (H1)
and qualify the assumption that presenting two sides will be
more helpful than presenting one, it remains unclear whether
these variables interact to influence product judgments (H2). I
propose that encouraging reviewers to present multiple sides
(vs. a single side) will backfire if the reviewer has an extremely
favorable rating. Specifically, because two-sided arguments are
less consistent with an extremely favorable rating than onesided arguments, product judgments should be lower when
reviews are two- (vs. one-) sided and the rating is extremely
favorable. In fact, two-sided reviews with extremely favorable
ratings (e.g., 5 stars) should cause lower product judgments than
two-sided reviews with less favorable but more consistent
ratings (e.g., 4 stars). This is one objective of study 2. The others
are to test H1 and H2 in a controlled environment (an online
experiment) with a different product (books).
Study 2: online experimental analysis of positive peer reviews
Method
Design and sample
The sample consisted of 201 undergraduates who participated in exchange for partial completion of a course requirement. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four
conditions in a 2 (rating: extreme vs. moderate) × 2 (arguments:
one-sided vs. two-sided) experimental design. For the rating
manipulation, the reviewer's rating was either 5 stars (extreme)
or 4 stars (moderate). For the arguments manipulation, the
written content of the review was entirely positive (one-sided)
or positive with one negative claim (two-sided).
Materials and procedure
At the start of the study, participants were instructed to
imagine that they are looking for a book on business practices,
are considering the book by Jim Collins entitled “Good to
Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap…and Other's
231
Don't” and go to www.epinions.com. Participants then viewed
a screen capture from epinions.com, which provided an image
of the book, key background information (e.g., the author, book
category) as well as “More Information” describing the content
of the book. Below this was a peer review, which was a
modification of an actual peer review for this book at epinions.
com. Across conditions, the reviews began with the same title
(“A great book for MBAs”), author (“by danielm”) and date.
Alongside this information was the peer's rating of 4 or 5 stars
(the rating manipulation). Below this was a list of pros and cons
followed by a written review, which varied across arguments
conditions. In the one-sided condition, the pros were concise,
data-driven and well-crafted, and the cons were “none.” The
same pros were identified in the two-sided condition, but the
con was “need more company examples, even from the loser
side.” Those in the one-sided condition then read “If you aim to
become a real leader in a big institution, then this is the book
you should spend time on. It is about leadership and how to
build a great organization and last long. At 300 pages, Good-toGreat is a comprehensive, well-researched project that is well
written and entertaining. There are many examples to illustrate
the author's key points too.” The arguments were the same for
those in the two-sided condition except the last sentence was
replaced with “There should be more examples to illustrate the
author's key points, however.” This manipulation is consistent
with scoring procedures for recognizing one or more sides
(Baker-Brown et al., 1992). Furthermore, several characteristics
of the two-sided review were held constant to maximize its
effectiveness. Specifically, two-sided messages are most
effective when fewer than 50% of the attributes are attacked,
and when the attacked attributes are no more important than the
positive attributes (Crowley and Hoyer, 1994). The latter
condition and the perceived internal consistency were pretested
(as discussed later).
After reading the review, participants completed a survey,
which began by assessing individuals' attitudes toward the
product on three semantic differential scales ranging from −3 to
+3 and anchored with bad/good, uninteresting/interesting and
dislike/like (α = .87), and their purchase intentions on three
semantic differential scales ranging from −3 to +3 and anchored
with unlikely/likely, impossible/possible, and improbable/probable (α = .89). To control for individual differences in attitudes
toward business books in general, this variable was assessed next
using the same three semantic differential scales used to measure
product attitudes (α = .93). Afterwards, for perceived helpfulness,
amidst seven other distractor variables, participants reported how
helpful and informative they found the review to be on a 1-to-5
scale where higher numbers reflect greater helpfulness (r = .63,
p b .001). To also control for variation in participants' knowledge
and interest in business books in general, toward the very end of
the study, participants reported how knowledgeable they are
about and how interesting they find business books to be on a 1to-5 scale. Finally, to examine how online peer reviews affect
attitude formation (not change), participants were asked at the end
of the study whether they had heard of the target book prior to the
study. Because 23 participants had heard of it and 5 were unsure if
they had, their data were deleted, leaving a sample of 173. There
15327663, 2011, 3, Downloaded from https://myscp.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.04.002 by <shibboleth>-member@uni-bremen.de, Wiley Online Library on [22/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
A.E. Schlosser / Journal of Consumer Psychology 21 (2011) 226–239
A.E. Schlosser / Journal of Consumer Psychology 21 (2011) 226–239
were no significant differences across conditions in whether they
had heard of the book (χ2s b 2.62, NS), and the results do not
meaningfully change when including these participants; the
rating × arguments interaction was significant for helpfulness,
product attitudes and intentions (Fs N 4.32, ps b .05).
than two-sided review (Ms = 3.89 vs. 3.02, F(1, 102) = 14.98,
p b .001), whereas the moderately favorable rating was perceived
to be more consistent with the two- than one-sided review
(Ms = 3.91 vs. 3.25, F(1, 102) = 8.96, p b .005).
Results
Pretests
Two pretests were conducted. The first was designed to test
whether the attacked attribute (number of examples) is no more
important than the positive attributes. Fifty participants reported
how important the criteria (comprehensive, well-written, wellresearched, entertaining and number of examples) are to evaluating business books on a scale from 1 to 5 where higher
numbers reflect greater importance. As predicted, the number of
examples was rated as less important than how well-written and
well-researched the book is (Ms = 4.14 vs. 4.48 and 4.48, respectively, ts(49) N 2.27, ps b .05), and as important as how
comprehensive and entertaining the book is (Ms = 4.14 vs. 4.00
and 4.16, respectively, ts(49) b 1).
The internal consistency of the reviews was pretested with 108
undergraduates who were randomly assigned to one of the
reviews. After reading the review, to assess internal consistency,
participants indicated on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5
(very much) the extent to which (1) the written content of the
review supported the reviewer's rating, (2) what the reviewer said
was consistent with the rating, and (3) they expected the
reviewer's rating given what the reviewer said about the book
(α = .75). Participants also reported how typical they found the
online review to be and how often they read online reviews
(neither of which were significantly affected by rating and/or
arguments, Fs(1, 104) b 1). These were covariates in the 2
(rating) × 2 (arguments) ANCOVA. How often they read online
reviews was a significant covariate (F(1, 102) = 5.51, p b .05).
More importantly, the rating × arguments interaction was significant (F(1, 102) = 22.58, p b .001). As expected, the extremely
favorable rating was perceived to be more consistent with the one-
Perceived helpfulness, product attitudes and intentions were
analyzed with a 2 (rating)× 2 (arguments) ANCOVA while
controlling for attitudes toward, knowledge of and interest in
business books. Not surprisingly, attitudes toward and interest in
business books in general were significant covariates (Fs(1, 163)N
4.30, ps b .05). Supporting H1 and replicating the results of study
1, a rating× arguments interaction was significant (F(1, 163)=
4.66, p b .05). Planned contrasts revealed that reviews were
deemed significantly more helpful when they had two- than onesided arguments and the rating was moderately favorable
(Ms = 3.40 vs. 2.66, F(1, 163) = 14.68, p b .001), rather than extremely favorable (Ms = 3.10 vs. 2.94, F(1, 163)b 1, see Table 1).
Consistent with H2, the rating × argument interaction was also
significant for both product attitudes and intentions (Fs(1, 169) N
8.02, ps b .01, see Table 1). Again, not surprisingly, attitudes
toward business books in general was a significant covariate for
both product attitudes and intentions (both Fs(1, 169) N 26.29,
ps b .001), and knowledge of and interest in business books were
significant covariates for intentions (Fs(1, 169) N 4.07, ps b .05).
More importantly, the benefit of mentioning two sides backfired
with extreme ratings. Specifically, when the rating was extreme,
two-sided arguments caused lower product attitudes than onesided arguments (Ms = 1.04 vs. 1.48, F(1, 169) = 4.62, p b .05),
although this difference was nonsignificant for intentions (Ms =
.46 vs. .80, Fs(1, 169) = 1.71, NS). It was only when the
reviewer's rating was moderate that two-sided arguments
were more persuasive than one-sided arguments (Ms = 1.44 vs.
.87, F(1, 169) = 6.87, p b .01 for attitudes; Ms = 1.06 vs. .33,
Fs(1, 169) = 7.36, p b .01 for intentions). According to the
Table 1
Studies 2–4: pairwise comparisons of means across rating extremity and arguments.
Two-sided arguments
One-sided arguments
F-value
Study
Rating
Dependent variable
Extreme rating
Moderate rating
Extreme rating
Moderate rating
Extremity × arguments
2
Positive
3
Positive or negative
4
Positive
Helpfulness
Product attitudes a
Intentions a
Helpfulness
Product attitudes b
Intentions b
Helpfulness
Product attitudes a
Intentions a
Ability
Truthfulness
3.10a
1.04a
.46ac
2.62a
4.64a
3.83a
3.41a
.91a
− .44a
3.14a
3.72a
3.40b
1.44b
1.06b
3.18b
4.80a
4.55bc
3.69b
1.60b
.15bc
3.46b
3.66a
2.94ab
1.48b
.80bc
2.84ab
5.30b
4.79b
3.43a
1.54b
.61b
3.45b
3.26b
2.66a
.87a
.33a
2.60a
4.72a
4.20ac
2.77c
1.32ab
− .30ac
2.91a
3.17b
4.66*
11.56**
8.03**
8.69**
4.61**
8.80**
11.03**
5.32*
7.57**
11.70**
.01
Note. Different subscripts reflect significantly different directional tests at p ≤ .05. All reported means from ANCOVAs are covariate-adjusted means.
*p b .05 **p ≤ .01.
a
Product attitudes and intentions are reported on a scale from − 3 to +3 where higher numbers reflect more favorable product attitudes and higher intentions.
b
Product attitudes and intentions are reported on a 1-to-7 scale where higher numbers reflect greater persuasion toward the reviewer's positive or negative
position.
15327663, 2011, 3, Downloaded from https://myscp.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.04.002 by <shibboleth>-member@uni-bremen.de, Wiley Online Library on [22/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
232
additive effects model for persuasion, when the ratings are
moderate, one- and two-sided reviews should have similar
persuasive effects. However, these findings suggest that the
consistency between the content of the review and rating may
have had greater influence on participants' product judgments than the valence of the content itself did.
In further support that the internal consistency of a review
matters, extremely (vs. moderately) favorable ratings did not
always produce higher product judgments. When the arguments
given were two-sided, product judgments were lower with
reviews that had extremely than moderately favorable ratings
(Ms = 1.44 vs. 1.04, F(1, 169) = 3.91, p = .05 for attitudes; Ms =
1.06 vs. .46, F(1, 169) = 5.42, p b .05 for intentions). Taken
together, these findings suggest that in addition to affecting
perceived helpfulness, the rating of a review interacts with the
arguments provided to influence its persuasiveness. Consequently, neither two-sided arguments nor extremely favorable
ratings always led to higher product judgments.
Conclusions
The results of an online experiment replicate and extend
those from a content analysis. Overall, two- (vs. one-) sided
messages and extreme (vs. moderate) ratings did not always
lead to greater helpfulness and persuasiveness. Specifically,
replicating the results of study 1, two-sided reviews were
deemed more helpful than one-sided reviews only when the
rating was moderately rather than extremely favorable.
Moreover, providing further support for an additive effects
model that includes internal consistency, two- (vs. one-) sided
reviews were not always more persuasive; when the reviewer's
rating was extreme, one-sided arguments were as persuasive as
or more persuasive than two-sided arguments. Furthermore, an
extremely favorable rating did not guarantee higher product
judgments. When the accompanying arguments were twosided, a moderately favorable rating produced higher product
judgments. Thus, although reviewers may cover multiple sides
in an effort to appear helpful, balanced and fair, or to follow a
website's advice to include both sides, and in turn, be more
persuasive than if they presented a single side, such a strategy
can backfire when the reviewer's rating is extremely favorable.
Although prior research (e.g., Bazaarvoice, 2008; Chevalier
and Mayzlin, 2006) and the results from study 1 indicate that
positive reviews are more prevalent than negative reviews,
study 3 was designed to test the generalizability of H1 and H2 to
negative reviews. It is possible that because it is less socially
appropriate to be disparaging than positive (Mizerski, 1982)
and/or because negative information is more diagnostic than
positive information (Herr et al., 1991), reviewers who provide
negative ratings may be deemed especially credible and thus
more helpful and persuasive regardless of their written
arguments. If either of these accounts are supported, then
perceived helpfulness and persuasiveness should be unaffected
by whether one or more sides are given in a review and whether
this is consistent with the reviewer's rating. That is, the valence
of the review would moderate the rating × arguments effects on
helpfulness and persuasion. However, if the results generalize
233
to negative reviews, then H1and H2 should be supported
regardless of whether the review is positive or negative.
Study 3: online experimental analysis of positive vs. negative
peer reviews
Method
Design and sample
Two-hundred and thirty-one undergraduates participated in
exchange for partial completion of a course requirement. They
were randomly assigned to one of eight reviews, which varied
across three manipulated variables: rating extremity (moderate vs.
extreme), rating valence (positive vs. negative), and arguments
(one- vs. two-sided).
Materials and procedure
The experimental method was the same as study 2 with the
following exceptions. First, participants were instructed to
imagine that they planned to see a movie and in deciding what
to see, visited a website where consumers post their reviews. At
the site, they come across a review of Xiao Xiao, an animated
martial arts film. To ensure that everyone understood the rating
system, participants were told in the negative (positive)
condition that the reviewer's rating was on a scale from 1 to 5
stars, where fewer (more) stars reflect less (more) favorable
evaluations. The moderate (vs. extreme) rating was 2 (vs. 1) in
the negative condition and 4 (vs. 5) in the positive condition.
The arguments for the ratings were adaptations of an actual
review posted at Yahoo! Movies. For the one-sided/negative
review, only negative information was presented: “This flash
video was a poor medium for showing all those moves that Jet
Li displays in his movies. There's the usual mix of attacks
where the hero is invincible, even as he gets double-teamed.
The action sequence is completely impossible and unentertaining.” For the one-sided/positive review, only positive information was presented: “This flash video was a great medium for
showing all those fun moves that Jet Li displays in his movies.
A great mix of attacks, even some real tension as our hero gets
double-teamed. The action sequence is completely believable
and entertaining.” For the two-sided/positive and two-sided/
negative conditions, the last sentence was replaced with:
“Although the action sequence is sort of impossible, this can
be accepted for entertainment purposes.” As before, this
manipulation is consistent with scoring procedures for message
sidedness (Baker-Brown et al., 1992).
After reading the review, participants completed a survey,
which began by assessing product attitudes, intentions to watch
the film and perceived helpfulness using the scales from study
2. Because positive and negative reviews are being compared,
the product attitude and intention scores were converted from
− 3-to-+3 scores to 1-to-7 persuasiveness scores such that higher
scores reflect greater persuasion. Specifically, a persuasiveness
score of 7 corresponds to the highest score in the direction
consistent with the reviewer's position (i.e., +3 and − 3 for
positive and negative reviews, respectively), and a score of 1
15327663, 2011, 3, Downloaded from https://myscp.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.04.002 by <shibboleth>-member@uni-bremen.de, Wiley Online Library on [22/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
A.E. Schlosser / Journal of Consumer Psychology 21 (2011) 226–239
A.E. Schlosser / Journal of Consumer Psychology 21 (2011) 226–239
reflects the score furthest from the reviewer's position (i.e., − 3
and +3 for positive and negative reviews, respectively).
Pretest
Using the same procedure and questions used in the pretest for
study 2, 145 undergraduates were randomly assigned to one of the
reviews. A 2 (rating) × 2 (arguments) ANCOVA using how
typical they found the review and how often they read reviews
yielded a significant rating × arguments interaction (F(1, 139) =
27.03, p b .001; neither covariate was significant, F(1, 139) b 1).
As expected, an extreme rating was perceived to be more
consistent with one- than two-sided arguments (Ms = 4.14 vs.
3.26, F(1, 139) = 20.84, p b .001), whereas a moderate rating was
perceived to be more consistent with two- than one-sided
arguments (Ms = 3.76 vs. 3.12, F(1, 139) = 8.63, p b .005).
Results
Perceived helpfulness, product attitudes and intentions were
analyzed with a 2 (extremity) × 2 (valence) × 2 (arguments)
ANOVA. Consistent with H1, an extremity × arguments interaction was significant (F(1, 223) = 8.69, p b .005, see Table 1).
Replicating the results of the first two studies that examined
positive reviews, reviews with two-sided arguments were deemed
significantly more helpful than those with one-sided arguments
when the rating was moderate (Ms = 3.18 vs. 2.60, F(1, 223) =
6.48, p = .01), but not when the rating was extreme (Ms = 2.62 vs.
2.84, F(1, 223) = 1.16, NS). Moreover, valence did not significantly moderate this interaction (F(1, 223) = 1.48, NS). Thus,
regardless of whether the review had a positive or negative rating,
two-sided reviews were deemed more helpful than one-sided
reviews only when the reviewer's corresponding rating was
moderate.
Supporting H2 and replicating the results of study 2, an
extremity × arguments interaction was significant for both attitudes and intentions (Fs(1, 223) ≥ 4.61, ps ≤ .05, see Table 1).
Moreover, supporting the generalizability of H2 to positive and
negative reviews, this interaction was not moderated by valence
for either dependent variable (Fs(1, 223) ≤ 1.69, NS). In other
words, regardless of whether the rating was positive or negative,
the persuasive effects of providing one or two sides depended
on the extremity of the reviewer's corresponding rating.
Specifically, reviewers with an extreme rating were less
persuasive when they provided two- than one-sided arguments
(Ms = 4.64 vs. 5.30, F(1, 223) = 6.98, p b .01 for attitudes;
Ms = 3.83 vs. 4.79 , F(1, 223) = 8.84, p b .005 for intentions).
Furthermore, consistent with the proposed additive effects
model, when the reviewer's rating was moderate, there was little
difference between providing two- and one-sided arguments
(Ms = 4.80 vs. 4.72, F(1, 223) b 1 for attitudes; Ms = 4.55 vs. 4.20,
F(1, 223) = 1.53, NS for intentions). In fact, mentioning two sides
reduced the persuasiveness of an extreme rating; a moderate
rating led to higher intentions than an extreme rating when the
arguments were two-sided (Ms = 4.55 vs. 3.83, F(1, 223) = 5.67,
p b .05 for intentions) and produced similar product attitudes
(Ms = 4.80 vs. 4.64, F(1, 223) b 1).
Conclusions
Study 3 provides evidence that the interactive effects
observed in studies 1 and 2 emerge regardless of whether
reviews have positive or negative ratings. As predicted, for both
positive and negative reviews, perceived helpfulness was higher
for two- than one-sided reviews only when the rating was
moderate. Furthermore, the results indicate that two-sided
arguments are not necessarily more persuasive than one-sided
arguments in the context of peer reviews. Specifically, when the
reviewers' ratings were extreme, participants were persuaded
more by one- than two- sided arguments. These findings
suggest that including pros and cons in a review will not always
be more helpful or persuasive than presenting only one side (all
pros or cons). Likewise, extreme (vs. moderate) ratings will not
always lead to more extreme judgments.
Study 4 was designed to test credibility as the underlying
mechanism of H1 and H2. Theory and research suggest that
credibility mediates the relationship between communication
and persuasion (Eagly, Chaiken, and Wood, 1981; Hilton,
1995; Laczniak et al., 2001), although whether credibility
mediates the relationship between two-sided ads and persuasion
has been inconclusive (Crowley and Hoyer, 1994). One reason
for this may be that credibility is often measured as a single,
unidimensional construct, whereas credibility has been argued
to be a multidimensional construct reflecting beliefs about the
communicators' ability and their willingness to tell the truth
(Eagly and Chaiken, 1993; Hovland et al., 1953). By measuring
only one dimension, the effect of the other—and its implications for source credibility and message acceptance—is
overlooked. For instance, although consumers might trust that a
source is willing to tell the truth, they may discount a message
because they question the source's abilities. I propose that it is
beliefs about a reviewer's ability rather than truthfulness that
mediate the predicted effects. Specifically, unlike advertisers
who include some negative information in their ads to convey
truthfulness (Crowley and Hoyer, 1994), such an effect is
unlikely to generalize to peer reviewers who have less incentive
to lie. Instead, consumers likely infer that reviewers are willing
to tell the truth (although they may differ in the extent to which
they believe this) and instead question the reviewer's expertise.
One way to ascertain reviewers' ability to convey the truth is
to compare their arguments with their ratings. By definition,
experts know more about their area of expertise than nonexperts, and consequently, are more aware of the pros and cons
than nonexperts (Brauer et al., 2004; Linville, 1982), although
sometimes they provide only a single side rather than multiple
sides when giving advice (Brauer et al., 2004). I propose that
consumers will infer from two- (vs. one-) sided reviews that
reviewers are knowledgeable, but only if the reviewers'
corresponding ratings are consistent with these arguments
(i.e., moderate rather than extreme). When the corresponding
rating is extreme, providing one side should convey that
reviewers are knowledgeable more than presenting two sides. If
consumers believe that the reviewer is able to tell the truth, then
they should accept (rather than discard) the message. Thus,
beliefs about an online peer reviewer's ability to tell the truth
15327663, 2011, 3, Downloaded from https://myscp.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.04.002 by <shibboleth>-member@uni-bremen.de, Wiley Online Library on [22/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
234
should influence whether they perceive the review to be helpful
and are persuaded by it.
H3. Beliefs about reviewers' abilities will be higher with a twothan one-sided review when the reviewers' corresponding rating
is moderate. In contrast, beliefs about reviewers' abilities will be
higher with a one- than two-sided review when the reviewers'
corresponding rating is extreme.
H4. Beliefs about reviewers' abilities will mediate the
interactive effect between ratings and arguments on helpfulness
and product judgments.
In addition to examining credibility, the robustness of the
rating × arguments effects was explored further by comparing
the internal consistency of a review with a different type of
consistency: consistency with others. For example, even if a
review is evaluatively consistent, the review may be inconsistent with others by having a rating that differs from the average
product rating. To assess the effects of such a scenario, across
conditions in study 4, the reviewer's and average rating were
inconsistent; when the reviewer gave the product 4 (vs. 5) stars,
the average rating was 5 (vs. 4) stars. If participants are persuaded more by the average star rating than the content of a
single review, then their product attitudes and intentions should
be higher when the average rating is 5 than 4 stars (even though
the reviewer's rating is 4 than 5 stars). Alternatively, participants might compare the arguments provided in a review
with the average rating, thereby finding consistency (inconsistency) with others in an internally inconsistent (consistent)
review. For instance, although a two-sided review is relatively
inconsistent with a reviewer's 5-star rating, it is consistent with
an average 4-star rating. As a result, participants may assume
that the reviewer covered both the pros and cons to appeal to an
audience with less favorable attitudes, and thus beliefs about
their abilities are not adversely affected. Likewise, although a
one-sided review is relatively consistent with a reviewer's 5-star
rating, it is inconsistent with an average 4-star rating. By
ignoring the audience's less favorable position, reviewers may
seem unaware of other positions, and thus beliefs about their
abilities are adversely affected. However, if participants are
persuaded more by the text of a peer review than summary
statistics (Chevalier and Mayzlin, 2006)—and in particular, are
persuaded more by the internal consistency of a review than its
consistency with others—then their product attitudes and
intentions should be higher only when the reviewer's arguments
and ratings are consistent, regardless of the average star rating.
Study 4: perceived ability (vs. willingness) to tell the truth
as mediators
Method
One hundred nineteen undergraduates participated in
exchange for partial completion of a course requirement.
They were randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2
(rating: moderate vs. extreme) × 2 (arguments: one- vs. twosided) design. The procedure and materials were the same as
235
those used in study 2 with some exceptions. First, in addition to
the book description and one peer review, participants received
the average rating of the book from nine reviewers. This rating
contradicted the one reviewer's rating such that when the
reviewer gave the book 4 (vs. 5) stars, the average rating was 5
(vs. 4) stars. Conditions in which the reviewer's rating was
consistent with the average star rating were not run because
these conditions would not tease apart the effects of internal
consistency from the effects of consistency with others.
Second, to measure reviewer credibility, participants were
given six statements—three each for the reviewer's ability and
truthfulness—and rated their agreement on a 1-to-5 scale where
higher numbers reflect greater credibility. An exploratory factor
analysis yielded a two- (rather than single-) factor solution with
eigenvalues greater than one. A sample item from the ability
factor is that the reviewer “is an expert of movies,” and for the
truthfulness factor, “is telling the truth” (αs N .6). To reduce
demand effects on mediation tests, the variables were measured
in reverse order to their predicted effects (Pechmann, 1992); the
dependent variables (helpfulness, product attitudes and intentions) were measured before the possible mediators (ability
and truthfulness). Third, participants recorded how many
people they thought reviewed the film in order to control for
this.
Results
Helpfulness
All variables were analyzed with a 2 (rating) × 2 (arguments)
ANCOVA while controlling for variation in the number of
people participants thought reviewed the film as well as the
alternate mechanism (truthfulness). Although truthfulness was a
significant covariate (F(1, 114) = 39.75, p b .001), the hypothesized rating × arguments interaction emerged. Specifically,
above and beyond the effects of truthfulness, an argument's
main effect (F(1, 114) = 11.47, p = .001) was qualified by a
rating × arguments interaction (F(1, 114) = 12.61, p = .001).
Consistent with H1, the two-sided review was only perceived
to be significantly more helpful than the one-sided review when
it was more consistent with the reviewer's rating—that is, four
stars (Ms = 3.69 vs. 2.77, F(1, 114) = 25.14, p b .001) rather than
five stars (Ms = 3.41 vs. 3.43, F(1, 114) b 1, see Table 1). Indeed,
a two-sided review was deemed more helpful when the
corresponding rating was four than five stars (Ms = 3.69 vs.
3.41, F(1, 114) = 13.72, p b .001).
Product judgments
For product attitudes and intentions, consistent with H2, the
rating × arguments interactions were significant (Fs(1, 114) =
5.29, p b .05 for attitudes; F(1, 112) = 7.59, p b .01 for intentions),
despite the truthfulness covariate being significant for attitudes
(F(1, 114) = 21.64, p b .001) and intentions (F(1, 112) = 26.03,
p b .001). Specifically, consistent with H2, two-sided arguments were less persuasive than one-sided arguments when
the rating was extreme (Ms = .91 vs. 1.54, F(1, 114) = 5.32, p b .05
for attitudes; Ms = −.44 vs. .61, F(1, 114) = 6.93, p b .01 for intentions), whereas there were no differences in persuasion
15327663, 2011, 3, Downloaded from https://myscp.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.04.002 by <shibboleth>-member@uni-bremen.de, Wiley Online Library on [22/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
A.E. Schlosser / Journal of Consumer Psychology 21 (2011) 226–239
A.E. Schlosser / Journal of Consumer Psychology 21 (2011) 226–239
between the two- and one-sided reviews when the rating was
moderate (Ms = 1.60 vs. 1.32, F(1, 114) b 1 for attitudes; Ms = .15
vs. −.30, F(1, 112) = 1.41, NS for intentions). Providing additional support for a model including internal consistency, when
the arguments were two-sided, a four-star rating led to higher
attitudes and intentions than a five-star rating (Ms = 1.60 vs.
.91, F(1, 114) = 6.67, p = .01 for attitudes; Ms = .15 vs. − .44,
F(1, 112) = 3.08, p b .05 one-tailed for intentions).
Credibility
Consistent with H3, the rating × arguments interaction was
significant for beliefs about the reviewer's ability (F(1, 115) =
11.70, p b .001), but not for truthfulness (F(1, 115) b 1, see
Table 1). Although participants found reviewers of two- (vs.
one-) sided reviews to be more able when their rating was
moderate (Ms = 3.46 vs. 2.91, F(1, 113) = 9.92, p b .005), they
found reviewers to be less able when their rating was extreme
(Ms = 3.14 vs. 3.45, F(1, 113) = 2.60, p = .05 one-tailed). Furthermore, participants found reviewers of two-sided reviews to
be more able when the rating was four than five stars (Ms = 3.46
vs. 3.14, F(1, 113) = 3.25, p b .05 one-tailed), and they found
reviewers of a one-sided review to be more able when the rating
was five than four stars (Ms = 3.45 vs. 2.91, F(1, 113) = 9.33,
p b .005).
Because bootstrapping techniques are recommended over
Baron and Kenny (1986) and Sobel techniques for assessing
mediation (Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes, 2007), H4 was assessed
with 1,000 bootstrap resamples and a bias-corrected and
-accelerated 95% confidence interval (CI). Confidence intervals
that do not contain zero are significant at p b .05 (Preacher et al.,
2007). As predicted, ability significantly mediated the rating × arguments effects on helpfulness (95% CI: .18 to .74), product
attitudes (95% CI: .03 to .66), and purchase intentions (95% CI:
.10 to 1.12), whereas truthfulness did not for helpfulness (95% CI:
−.11 to .14), product attitudes (95% CI: −.10 to .11), or purchase
intentions (95% CI: −.34 to .30). Sobel tests for mediation were
consistent with H4 and these conclusions (all three Sobel test
statisticsN 2.04, ps b .05 for ability; all three Sobel test statistics ≤ .60, NS, for truthfulness).
General discussion
Online peer reviews are important from both the customer
and merchant perspective. Industry statistics reveal that the
majority of consumers research products and services online
(Bazaarvoice, 2008; Freedman, 2008) and prefer sites with peer
reviews (Bazaarvoice, 2008; Decker, 2007; Freedman, 2008).
Moreover, online peer reviews can influence such important
marketing outcomes as customer satisfaction (Freedman, 2008)
and sales (Chevalier and Mayzlin, 2006; Forman et al., 2008;
Godes and Mayzlin, 2004, 2009). Consequently, understanding
how consumers use online peer reviews—in particular, which
reviews are deemed the most helpful, produce higher product
judgments and why—is a timely and important topic.
This research yields at least four important contributions:
(1) it contributes to the message sidedness literature by showing
in a WOM context when and why one-sided arguments are
deemed as helpful as and more persuasive than two-sided
arguments; (2) it contributes to the online peer review literature
by demonstrating the importance of considering both the
qualitative and quantitative aspects of online peer reviews when
explaining helpfulness and persuasiveness; (3) it contributes to
the online peer review and message sidedness literatures by
identifying the underlying mechanism through which two- (vs.
one-) sided reviews are helpful and persuasive; and (4) it
contributes to the attitudinal and social influence literatures by
demonstrating that individuals are influenced by the evaluative
consistency of WOM communication.
First, this research sheds light on the effective use of twosided messages in WOM communication. In the advertising
literature, presenting multiple sides can be more persuasive than
an entirely favorable (i.e., one-sided) ad because mentioning
some negative information is contrary to an advertiser's sales
motive (Crowley and Hoyer, 1994). Consequently, two-sided
ad claims are attributed to the advertiser's truthfulness rather
than expertise. Yet, the current research suggests that different
effects emerge in WOM communication contexts, where the
speaker has less (if any) incentive to lie. Specifically, instead of
affecting perceptions of an online peer reviewers' truthfulness, I
argue and find that depending on the reviewers' ratings, two(vs. one-) sided arguments affect perceptions of their ability to
tell the truth. As a result, two-sided reviews are not always more
helpful and persuasive than one-sided reviews. In fact, when the
reviewer's rating was extreme, two-sided reviews were no more
helpful and were less persuasive than one-sided reviews.
The implications of two (vs. one-) sided arguments for
helpfulness and persuasiveness of online reviews has likely been
ignored due to the time and cost incurred in analyzing written
content (Godes and Mayzlin, 2004). Thus, the second contribution is demonstrating the importance of considering both the
qualitative (i.e., written) and the quantitative content of a review
(i.e., ratings) to better understand what makes reviews helpful and
persuasive. Specifically, the results of four studies—varying in
methodology, products evaluated, and whether the reviewers'
ratings were positive or negative—collectively support the
predictions that whether consumers found a review helpful and
were influenced by it depended upon both the extremity of the
reviewers' ratings and whether their corresponding arguments
contained one or two sides. Consequently, although reviewers are
often encouraged to mention a product's pros and cons in their
reviews (Burns, 2008; JupiterResearch, 2008) or may present
multiple sides to appeal to an audience with unknown (Tetlock
et al., 1989) or diverse views (Schlosser, 2005), such reviews
were not always deemed the most helpful (studies 1–4) or
persuasive (studies 2–4). Such reviews were only more helpful
and persuasive when the reviewers' ratings were more evaluatively consistent with a two-sided review (i.e., moderate rather
than extreme; see Table 1).
Furthermore, extreme ratings did not always produce more
extreme product judgments than moderate ratings. When a
review contained a product's pros and cons, consumers' product
judgments were higher when the reviewer's corresponding
rating was moderately than extremely favorable (studies 2–4). It
was only when the review contained only one side (the pros)
15327663, 2011, 3, Downloaded from https://myscp.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.04.002 by <shibboleth>-member@uni-bremen.de, Wiley Online Library on [22/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
236
that consumers product judgments were higher when the
reviewer's rating was extremely than moderately favorable.
Moreover, these results generalized across positive and negative
reviews; consumers were persuaded more by a review with an
extreme than moderate rating only when the corresponding
arguments were one- (vs. two-) sided (study 3). Thus, encouraging reviewers to cover multiple sides in their reviews
weakened the effects of an extreme rating.
Third, study 4 sheds light on the mediating role of credibility
on the perceived helpfulness and persuasiveness of online peer
reviews. Because most research examining the helpfulness and
persuasiveness of online peer reviews have involved content
analyses (e.g., Chevalier and Mayzlin, 2006; Forman et al., 2008;
Godes and Mayzlin, 2004), the underlying mechanisms have been
ignored. In the advertising literature, because of advertisers'
financial incentives to lie, the effectiveness of two-sided ads has
been largely attributed to increasing beliefs in the advertiser's
willingness (rather than ability) to tell the truth. Yet, I propose and
find that participants believed more in reviewers' ability to tell the
truth when their arguments were more evaluatively consistent
with their posted ratings. However, when the reviewers'
arguments were less evaluatively consistent with their ratings,
participants questioned the reviewers' ability to tell the truth. This
interactive effect was only significant for participants' beliefs in
the reviewers' ability (vs. willingness) to tell the truth. In fact, the
rating × arguments interaction was significantly mediated by
ability but not truthfulness. Thus, whether reviewers gave two(vs. one-) sided arguments interacted with rating to affect
participants' beliefs about their ability (vs. willingness) to tell
the truth, which in turn affected perceived helpfulness and
persuasiveness.
Finally, this research contributes to the attitudinal and social
influence literatures. Specifically, evaluative–cognitive consistency was initially developed to explain how individuals arrive
at their own attitudes (Rosenburg, 1956). However, later
research suggests many other routes to attitude formation
(Eagly and Chaiken, 1993) and that people may be less
consistent than previously thought (Cialdini, Trost, and
Newsom, 1995). I argue that even if individuals are not always
consistent, they likely expect others to be consistent. Indeed, the
current research suggests that evaluative–cognitive consistency
theory is useful in explaining how people expect others to
explain their attitudes. The more consistent speakers' arguments
are with their attitudes, the more capable they seem, and the
more helpful and persuasive they are likely to be.
Managerial implications
Taken together, the results suggest that although marketers
may wish to attract reviewers who give their products extremely
favorable ratings in order to increase purchases, such evangelists do not always produce the highest product attitudes and
intentions. Reviewers who mentioned a product's pros and cons
were less persuasive when their corresponding ratings were
extremely than moderately favorable. In fact, what would seem
to be the least favorable online peer review (i.e., a moderately
favorable rating with both positive and negative claims)
237
produced product judgments that were as favorable as what
would seem to be the most favorable review (i.e., an extremely
favorable rating with only positive claims). How four-star/twosided reviews can produce product judgments as high as fivestar/one-sided reviews (and higher than five-star/two-sided
reviews) can be explained in terms of the internal consistency of
a review and the implications of this for consumers' beliefs
about the reviewers' ability.
Industry experts recommend educating reviewers on how to
write helpful and persuasive online reviews. One recommendation is to present both the pros and cons of a product (Burns, 2008;
JupiterResearch, 2008). Indeed, some websites such as epinions.
com have fields in the online peer review forms for identifying the
pros and cons. Consequently, even a well-intentioned reviewer
with an extremely favorable rating may follow instructions to
mention both sides in their review and thus be less credible and
persuasive because of it. The present results add a qualification to
the recommendation to mention multiple sides; reviewers should
mention cons only if these cons influenced their product
evaluation. If not, and they endorse the product with the highest
rating possible, then a more persuasive and credible tactic is to
mention only the pros. Thus, to avoid encouraging reviewers to
generate cons that they might not otherwise consider or mention, a
better strategy may be to instruct reviewers to be consistent: to
explain what they liked if they give a product the highest rating
possible, and to include what they disliked only if they have a
moderately favorable rating.
Limitations and future research directions
Because the objective of this research was to identify
whether and how two- (vs. one-) sided arguments in a review
affects how helpful and persuasive a review is, participants in
studies 2–4 received a single peer review. Although these
studies are not as externally valid as study 1, this tradeoff was
made to increase the internal validity of the findings. An
interesting extension of this research would be to examine
whether the observed effects might vary depending on
characteristics of having other reviews available (e.g., its
order of appearance among all reviews), and how the reviewer
has judged other products. For instance, applying Kelley's
(1967) covariation theory, evaluatively consistent reviews
should be more persuasive when there is high than low
distinctiveness (e.g., the reviewer gives only one product an
extremely favorable rating rather than all products extremely
favorable ratings). Still, the results of studies 1 and 4 attest to the
robustness of the findings. For instance, the results of study 1
were consistent with H1 and replicated in studies 2–4 even
though multiple factors (e.g., where the review appeared
relative to other reviews, how many other reviews were
available, how the reviewer rated other products, etc.) were
allowed to vary. Furthermore, the results of study 4 replicated
the results of studies 1–3 even though there were summary
statistics that contradicted the reviewer's rating. Although it
may seem surprising that information about a reviewer (i.e.,
whether reviewers disclosed their location or gender) was
unrelated to perceived helpfulness in study 1, such effects may
15327663, 2011, 3, Downloaded from https://myscp.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.04.002 by <shibboleth>-member@uni-bremen.de, Wiley Online Library on [22/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
A.E. Schlosser / Journal of Consumer Psychology 21 (2011) 226–239
A.E. Schlosser / Journal of Consumer Psychology 21 (2011) 226–239
depend on the community creating a culture of self-identification (Forman et al., 2008), which may not be present at Yahoo!
Movies. Indeed, viewing reviewers' profiles required clicking
on a link to access these pages, which consumers may have had
little motivation to do. Finally, although this research focused
on online peer reviews, the results likely generalize to offline
WOM contexts in which consumers are unaware of the
speakers' background, such as when discussing a product
with another customer in a store.
Whereas the results of study 4 indicate that the mediator of
the predicted effects is perceptions of reviewer's abilities rather
than truthfulness, a worthwhile extension would be to examine
whether the mediator might vary depending on cues undermining beliefs that the reviewer is willing to be truthful, such as
the presence of incentives or posting on an e-commerce or
manufacturer's website. Under such circumstances, consumers
may judge reviewers more on the basis of truthfulness than
ability, thereby moderating the interactive effects of ratings and
message sidedness on credibility, helpfulness and persuasion.
Another limitation and thus opportunity for extension is that
the products evaluated here (books and movies) were both
experience goods. Prior research has found differences in the
perceived helpfulness of reviews across product categories
(e.g., Sen and Lerman, 2007). For instance, it may be possible
that by focusing on experience goods, taste differences could
introduce idiosyncratic noise. Yet, such noise would provide a
conservative test of the hypotheses. It is possible, however, that
because consumers often consult others' opinions more for
experiential than search goods (West and Broniarczyk, 1998),
they may be less inclined to consult or fully process online peer
reviews of search products. Another characteristic of the
products used in these studies is that they involve relatively
little social and financial risk. On the one hand, because
consumers will likely process reviews more carefully when risk
is high, the studies presented here would be a conservative test
of the predicted effects. On the other hand, when risk—
especially social risk—is high, consumers may attend more to
the summary statistics than be influenced by any one review.
These would be valuable extensions of this research.
References
Baker-Brown, G., Ballard, E. J., Bluck, S., de Vries, B., Suedfeld, P., &
Tetlock, P. E. (1992). The conceptual/integrative complexity scoring
manual. In C. P. Smith, & J. W. Atkinson (Eds.), Motivation and
personality: handbook of thematic content analysis (pp. 401–418). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51
(6), 117382.
Bazaarvoice (2008). Industry Statistics. http://www.bazaarvoice.com/industryStats.
html#ConsumerRating
Bearden, W., & Etzel, M. J. (1982, September). Reference group influence on
product and brand purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9,
183–194.
Bohner, G., Einwiller, S., Erb, H., & Siebler, F. (2003). When small means
comfortable: Relations between product attributes in two-sided advertising.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(4), 454–463.
Brauer, M., Chambres, P., Niedenthal, P. M., & Chatard-Pannetier, A. (2004,
January). The relationship between expertise and evaluative extremity: The
moderating role of experts' task characteristics. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 86, 5–18.
Brown, J., & Reingen, P. H. (1987, December). Social ties and word-of-mouth
referral behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 350–362.
Burns, M. (2008). The design guide for online customer reviews. http://www.
forrester.com/Research/PDF/0,5110,44373,00.pdf
Chaiken, S., & Yates, S. (1985, December). Affective-cognitive consistency and
thought-induced attitude polarization. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 49, 1470–1481.
Chevalier, J. A., & Mayzlin, D. (2006, August). The effect of word of mouth on
sales: Online book reviews. Journal of Marketing Research, 345–354.
Cialdini, R. B., Trost, M. R., & Newsom, J. T. (1995, August). Preference for
consistency: The development of a valid measure and the discovery of
surprising behavioral implications. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 69, 318–328.
Crowley, A. W., & Hoyer, W. D. (1994, March). An integrative framework for
understanding two-sided persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 20,
561–574.
DeCarlo, T. E. (2005). The effects of sales message and suspicion of ulterior
motives on salesperson evaluation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(3),
238–249.
Decker, S. (2007). 84% Trust user reviews over a critic. Online at. http://www.
bazaarblog.com/2007/07/03/84-trust-user-reviews-over-a-criticmarketingsherpa/
Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S., & Sethna, B. N. (1991). The equalization
phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision
making groups. Human–Computer Interaction, 6, 119–146.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth,
TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Eagly, A. H., Chaiken, S., & Wood, W. (1981). An attribution analysis of
persuasion. In John H. Harvey, William Ickes, & Robert F. Kidd (Eds.), New
directions in attribution research, vol. 3 (pp. 37–62). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Eisend, M. (2006). Two-sided advertising: A meta-analysis. International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(2), 187–198.
Eisend, M. (2010). Explaining the joint effect of source credibility and
negativity of information in two-sided messages. Psychology & Marketing,
27(11), 1032–1049.
Etgar, M., & Goodwin, S. A. (1982). One-sided versus two-sided comparative
message appeals for new brand introductions. Journal of Consumer
Research, 8(4), 460–465.
Florack, A., Ineichen, S., & Bieri, R. (2009). The impact of regulatory focus on
the effects of two-sided advertising. Social Cognition, 27(1), 37–56.
Forman, C., Ghose, A., & Wiesenfeld, B. (2008, September). Examining the
relationship between reviews and sales: The role of reviewer identity disclosure
in electronic markets. Information Systems Research, 19, 291–313.
Freedman, L. (2008). Merchant and customer perspectives on customer reviews
and user-generated content. Online at. www.powerreviews.com/socialshopping/solutions/whitepaper/2008_WhitePaper_0204_4.pdf
Gershoff, A., Mukherjee, A., & Mukhopadhyay, A. (2003). Consumer
acceptance of online agent advice: Extremity and positivity effects. Journal
of Consumer Psychology, 13, 161–170.
Godes, D., & Mayzlin, D. (2004, July-August). Using online conversation to
study word-of-mouth communication. Marketing Science, 23, 545–560.
Godes, D., & Mayzlin, D. (2009, July–August). Firm-created word-of-mouth
communication: Evidence from a field test. Marketing Science, 28, 721–739.
Golden, L., & Alpert, M. I. (1987). Comparative analysis of the relative
effectiveness of one- and two-sided communication for contrasting products.
Journal of Advertising, 16(1), 18–25.
Herr, P. M., Kardes, F. R., & Kim, J. (1991, March). Effects of word-of-mouth
and product-attribute information on persuasion: An accessibility–diagnosticity perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 454–462.
Hilton, D. J. (1995, September). The social context of reasoning: Conversational
inferences and rational judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 248–271.
Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (1996, July). Marketing in hypermedia
computer-mediated environments: Conceptual foundations. Journal of
Marketing, 60, 50–68.
15327663, 2011, 3, Downloaded from https://myscp.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.04.002 by <shibboleth>-member@uni-bremen.de, Wiley Online Library on [22/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
238
Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelly, H. H. (1953). Communication and
persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Jones, E., & Davis, K. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process
in person perception. In Leonard Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology, vol. 2 (pp. 219–266). New York: Academic Press.
JupiterResearch (2008). Online consumer opinions/use of user generated
content in the UK. http://www.bazaarvoice.com/whitePapers.html
Kamins, M. A., & Assael, H. (1987, February). Two-sided versus one-sided
appeals: A cognitive perspective on argumentation, source derogation, and
the effect of disconfirming trial on belief change. Journal of Marketing
Research, 24, 29–39.
Kamins, M. A., Brand, M. J., Hoeke, S. A., & Moe, J. C. (1989). Two-sided
versus one-sided celebrity endorsements: The impact on advertising
effectiveness and credibility. Journal of Advertising, 18(2), 4–10.
Kamins, M. A., & Marks, L. J. (1988). An examination into the effectiveness of
two-sided comparative price appeals. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 16(2), 64–71.
Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine
(Ed.), Nebraska symposium of motivation, vol. 15 (pp. 192238). Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.
Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. The American
Psychologist, 28, 107–128.
Laczniak, R. N., DeCarlo, T. E., & Ramaswami, S. N. (2001). Consumers'
responses to negative word-of-mouth communication: An attribution theory
perspective. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11(1), 57–73.
Linville, P. W. (1982, February). The complexity-extremity effect and age-based
stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 193–211.
Mizerski, R. (1982, December). An attribution explanation of the disproportionate
influence of unfavorable information. Journal of Consumer Research, 9,
301–310.
Pechmann, C. (1992, November). Predicting when two-sided ads will be more
effective than one-sided ads: The role of correlational and correspondent
inferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 441–453.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated
mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227.
Rosenburg, M. J. (1956). Cognitive structure and attitudinal affect. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53, 367–372.
239
Schlosser, A. E. (2005, September). Posting versus lurking: Communicating in a
multiple audience context. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 260–265.
Schlosser, A. E., & Shavitt, S. (1999). Effects of an approaching group
discussion on product responses. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8(4),
377–406.
Schlosser, A. E., & Shavitt, S. (2002, June). Anticipated discussion and product
judgments: Rehearsing what to say can affect your judgments. Journal of
Consumer Research, 29, 101–115.
Scott, W. A. (1969, August). Structure of natural cognitions. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 261–278.
Sen, S., & Lerman, D. (2007). Why are you telling me this? An examination into
negative consumer reviews on the Web. Journal of Interactive Marketing,
21(4), 76–94.
Sengupta, J., & Johar, G. V. (2002). Effects of inconsistent attribute information
on the predictive value of product attitudes: Toward a resolution of opposing
perspectives. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), 39–56.
Settle, R. B., & Golden, L. L. (1974). Attribution theory and advertiser
credibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 11(4), 181–185.
Simonson, I., & Nowlis, S. M. (2000, June). The role of explanations and need
for uniqueness in consumer decision making: Unconventional choices based
on reasons. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 49–68.
Stern, B. (1994). A revised communication model for advertising: Multiple
dimensions of the source, the message and the recipient. Journal of
Advertising, 23(2), 6–15.
Sultan, F., Parley, J. U., & Lehmann, D. R. (1990, February). A meta-analysis of
applications of diffusion models. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 70–77.
Swinyard, W. R. (1981). The interaction between comparative advertising and
copy claim variation. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(2), 175–186.
Tetlock, P. E. (1983, July). Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 74–83.
Tetlock, P. E., Skitka, L., & Boettger, R. (1989, October). Social and cognitive
strategies for coping with accountability: Conformity, complexity, and
bolstering. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 632–640.
West, P. M., & Broniarczyk, S. M. (1998, June). Integrating multiple opinions:
The role of aspiration level on consumer response to critic consensus.
Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 38–51.
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. (1981). Stages in the analysis of persuasive messages:
The role of causal attributions and message comprehension. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 40(2), 246–259.
15327663, 2011, 3, Downloaded from https://myscp.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.04.002 by <shibboleth>-member@uni-bremen.de, Wiley Online Library on [22/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
A.E. Schlosser / Journal of Consumer Psychology 21 (2011) 226–239