Abstract
Most B2C websites provide consumers with two types of electronic Word-of-Mouth (eWOM) information, namely aggregated rating and individual review. The present research investigates the effects of a conflicting aggregated rating on the perceived credibility and diagnosticity of individual reviews. The results of our laboratory experiment demonstrate that the presence of a conflicting aggregated rating will decrease review credibility and diagnosticity via its negative effect on consumers' product-related attributions of the review. In addition, these effects are more salient for positive reviews than for negative ones. These findings contribute to a better understanding of the interactions between different types of eWOM information and provide practitioners with actionable suggestions on how to improve the design of their eWOM systems. © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 631-643 |
| Journal | Decision Support Systems |
| Volume | 54 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Dec 2012 |
Research Keywords
- Aggregated rating
- Attribution
- Electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM)
- Individual review
- Perceived credibility
- Perceived diagnosticity
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Effects of conflicting aggregated rating on eWOM review credibility and diagnosticity: The moderating role of review valence'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver