0
Credibility in E-WOM
How review perceptions impact their
persuasiveness
Natalie Van Hemelen (KULeuven), Tim Smits (KULeuve...
Theoretical background: Introduction
• e-WOM & online consumer reviews increasingly popular
• Online consumer reviews
o “O...
Succes and impact of online review sites
• People attach a lot of importance to the non-commercial
opinion of social other...
Predictors of a review’s effect
• Both valence and credibility are straightforward and proven
predictors of a review’s eff...
Hypotheses (1)
• Valence: Straightforward effect
H1: Positive reviews (vs negative ones) will increase the
attitude toward...
Hypotheses (2)
• But, valence is also likely to affect credibility...
• Rationale: Negative information  Attention  Sour...
Moderated mediation model
*Type 1 Model as outlined by Preacher, Rucker & Hayes (2007);
Model 74 in Hayes (2012)
Method (1)
• Procedure & participants
o Between subjects design with 2 conditions (positive vs negative
review)
o 89 Bache...
Method (2)
• Stimuli
Results
• Proposed model confirmed!
*Bootstrapping Macro SPSS (model 74), Hayes et al. (5000 samples)
Hypothesis 1
Valence review Attitude
restaurant
b = 1.511, p < .001
Hypotheses 2a & 2b
* p < .001
Hypothesis 3
Moderated mediation model
b = 1.511*
(b = -1.318*)
*p < .001
Take-home-message
Valence and credibility jointly predict a review’s effect on
product/service attitudes.
Future research
...
Thank you for your attention!
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Credibility in online word-of-mouth

274

Published on

Authors: Natalie Van Hemelen, Tim Smits, Peeter Verlegh.

Paper presented at ICORIA 2013 (Zagreb, Croatia)

Please contact @timsmitstim for further information about the study.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
274
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Credibility in online word-of-mouth"

  1. 1. Credibility in E-WOM How review perceptions impact their persuasiveness Natalie Van Hemelen (KULeuven), Tim Smits (KULeuven) & Peeter Verlegh (UVA) ICORIA 2013 (Zagreb, Croatia) Slideshare: timsmitstim
  2. 2. Theoretical background: Introduction • e-WOM & online consumer reviews increasingly popular • Online consumer reviews o “Online recommendations about products, services, organizations or brands, based on consumers’ personal experiences” o E.g., Yelp
  3. 3. Succes and impact of online review sites • People attach a lot of importance to the non-commercial opinion of social others (Fong & Burton, 2004) • Online reviews (often) perceived as impartial (Anderson 2012) People are less suspicious about their credibility o 72% trust online reviews as much as personal recommendations o 58% trust products that have positive online reviews Reviews have a strong persuasive impact on attitudes
  4. 4. Predictors of a review’s effect • Both valence and credibility are straightforward and proven predictors of a review’s effect • Floh and collegeaus (2009): many researchers only take perceived valence into account (see also Sussan et al., 2006; Willemsen et al., 2012), neglecting variation in its perceived credibility • Review’s valence and credibilty cannot be assumed to be independent from each other... Current study: Combined persuasive impact of perceived valence and credibility
  5. 5. Hypotheses (1) • Valence: Straightforward effect H1: Positive reviews (vs negative ones) will increase the attitude towards the product • Credibility: Moderated effect H2a: For positive reviews, higher credibility will increase the attitude towards the product H2b: For negative reviews, higher credibility will decrease the attitude towards the product
  6. 6. Hypotheses (2) • But, valence is also likely to affect credibility... • Rationale: Negative information  Attention  Source questioning • H3: Positive reviews (vs negative ones) wil increase the review’s perceived credibility
  7. 7. Moderated mediation model *Type 1 Model as outlined by Preacher, Rucker & Hayes (2007); Model 74 in Hayes (2012)
  8. 8. Method (1) • Procedure & participants o Between subjects design with 2 conditions (positive vs negative review) o 89 Bachelor students of a Flemish University College • 62 men (69,7%), 27 women (30,1%) • Between 18 and 24 years old (M = 19,22; SD = 1,81) • Visit a restaurant regularly (M = 4,71, SD = 1,189) o Online study • Read one of the 2 reviews: valence manipulation • Attitude restaurant: 10 semantic differential items qualitative – not qualitative, creative – uncreative, attractive – unattractive,… (α = .953, M = 4.135, SD = 1.116) • Credibility review: 4 semantic differential items honest – dishonest, credible – incredible,…(α = .687, M = 3.862, SD = 1.645)
  9. 9. Method (2) • Stimuli
  10. 10. Results • Proposed model confirmed! *Bootstrapping Macro SPSS (model 74), Hayes et al. (5000 samples)
  11. 11. Hypothesis 1 Valence review Attitude restaurant b = 1.511, p < .001
  12. 12. Hypotheses 2a & 2b * p < .001
  13. 13. Hypothesis 3
  14. 14. Moderated mediation model b = 1.511* (b = -1.318*) *p < .001
  15. 15. Take-home-message Valence and credibility jointly predict a review’s effect on product/service attitudes. Future research • In our study the findings only hold for one type of reviews o When reviews were phrased as rather high-level (“abstract”) appraisal, a similar but non-significant pattern emerged o In a follow-up study, we replicated the findings of this paper o In other follow-up studies we want to test whether the findings also hold for other types of reviews, products,... • Future research can further investigate why exactly negative reviews are perceived as less credible than positive ones
  16. 16. Thank you for your attention!
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×