“Why Would I Read a Mobile Review?” Device Compatibility Perceptions and Effects on Perceived Helpfulness

The proliferation of mobile devices means that mobile-generated customer reviews are on the rise, though research into their peculiarities and appraisals is rare. With field data and a scenario experiment, the current research demonstrates how recipients perceive mobile-generated customer reviews fundamentally differently from nonmobile-generated reviews. First, behavioral field data provide evidence that consumers discount the helpfulness of mobile reviews due to their text-specific content and style particularities. Second, the scenario experiment shows that identifying a review as written on a mobile device lowers recipients’ perceptions of its value, but only if they use a nonmobile device to read the review. Recipients rely on device information as a source cue to assess compatibility. If they perceive themselves as compatible with the device, recipients perceive the review as more helpful because they attribute the review's content to the quality of the reviewed object; if they regard it as incompatible, recipients assume the review reflects the personal dispositions of the reviewer and discount its helpfulness. Managers of online opinion platforms thus must acknowledge the peculiarities of mobile-generated reviews and the impact of tagging content as mobile or not.

[1]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Virtual Product Experience: Effects of Visual and Functional Control of Products on Perceived Diagnosticity and Flow in Electronic Shopping , 2004, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[2]  Shintaro Okazaki Determinant factors of mobile‐based word‐of‐mouth campaign referral among Japanese adolescents , 2008 .

[3]  J. Bowers,et al.  THREE LANGUAGE VARIABLES IN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH: INTENSITY, IMMEDIACY, AND DIVERSITY , 1979 .

[4]  R. Brislin Back-Translation for Cross-Cultural Research , 1970 .

[5]  J. Pennebaker,et al.  Psychological aspects of natural language. use: our words, our selves. , 2003, Annual review of psychology.

[6]  Nicholas H. Lurie,et al.  Temporal Contiguity and Negativity Bias in the Impact of Online Word of Mouth , 2013 .

[7]  Yue Pan,et al.  Born Unequal: A Study of the Helpfulness of User-Generated Product Reviews , 2011 .

[8]  Zheng Fang,et al.  Mobile Ad Effectiveness: Hyper-Contextual Targeting with Crowdedness , 2016 .

[9]  A. Mehrabian The Effect of Context on Judgments of Speaker Attitude1 , 1968 .

[10]  A. Mehrabian Attitudes inferred from non-immediacy of verbal communications , 1967 .

[11]  E. E. Jones,et al.  From Acts To Dispositions The Attribution Process In Person Perception1 , 1965 .

[12]  Yi-Hsiu Cheng,et al.  Social influence's impact on reader perceptions of online reviews , 2015 .

[13]  Dan Cosley,et al.  Managing Impressions and Relationships on Facebook , 2013 .

[14]  A. Rangaswamy,et al.  The Impact of New Media on Customer Relationships , 2010 .

[15]  David Schuff,et al.  What Makes a Helpful Review? A Study of Customer Reviews on Amazon.com , 2010 .

[16]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design , 1986 .

[17]  Tanya Menon,et al.  THE MESSENGER BIAS: A RELATIONAL MODEL OF KNOWLEDGE VALUATION , 2003 .

[18]  H. Kelley The processes of causal attribution. , 1973 .

[19]  X. Zhang,et al.  Impact of Online Consumer Reviews on Sales: The Moderating Role of Product and Consumer Characteristics , 2010 .

[20]  K. Ruyter,et al.  An assessment of value creation in mobile service delivery and the moderating role of time consciousness , 2007 .

[21]  Jonah Berger,et al.  Broadcasting and Narrowcasting: How Audience Size Affects What People Share , 2013 .

[22]  Martin Wetzels,et al.  More than Words: The Influence of Affective Content and Linguistic Style Matches in Online Reviews on Conversion Rates , 2013 .

[23]  R. Daft,et al.  A Tentative Exploration into the Amount and Equivocality of Information Processing in Organizational Work Units. , 1981 .

[24]  Pradeep Racherla,et al.  Factors affecting consumers' trust in online product reviews , 2012 .

[25]  J. Pennebaker,et al.  Linguistic styles: language use as an individual difference. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[26]  Shintaro Okazaki,et al.  Perceived Ubiquity in Mobile Services , 2013 .

[27]  R. Schindler,et al.  Perceived helpfulness of online consumer reviews: The role of message content and style: Perceived helpfulness of online consumer reviews , 2012 .

[28]  John C. Turner,et al.  Self and Collective: Cognition and Social Context , 1994 .

[29]  Alladi Venkatesh,et al.  Mobile Marketing in the Retailing Environment: Current Insights and Future Research Avenues , 2010 .

[30]  Jonah A. Berger,et al.  Communication Channels and Word of Mouth: How the Medium Shapes the Message , 2013 .

[31]  R. Schindler,et al.  Perceived Helpfulness of Online Consumer Reviews: The Role of Message Content and Style , 2010 .

[32]  Key Pousttchi,et al.  Mobile word-of-mouth – A grounded theory of mobile viral marketing , 2009, J. Inf. Technol..

[33]  Michael Scholz,et al.  The Recipe for the Perfect Review? , 2013, Business & Information Systems Engineering.

[34]  Anindya Ghose,et al.  Examining the Relationship Between Reviews and Sales: The Role of Reviewer Identity Disclosure in Electronic Markets , 2008, Inf. Syst. Res..

[35]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Are Good Texts Always Better? Interactions of Text Coherence, Background Knowledge, and Levels of Understanding in Learning From Text , 1996 .

[36]  J. Rochet,et al.  Two-sided markets: a progress report , 2006 .

[37]  Elena Karahanna,et al.  Reconceptualizing Compatability Beliefs in Technology Acceptance Research , 2006, MIS Q..

[38]  H. Tajfel,et al.  Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behaviour , 1973 .

[39]  J. Pennebaker,et al.  The Psychological Meaning of Words: LIWC and Computerized Text Analysis Methods , 2010 .

[40]  Philip Fei Wu In Search of Negativity Bias: An Empirical Study of Perceived Helpfulness of Online Reviews , 2013 .

[41]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[42]  Pratibha A. Dabholkar,et al.  Incorporating Choice into an Attitudinal Framework: Analyzing Models of Mental Comparison Processes , 1994 .

[43]  Yu Qian,et al.  Exploring the local effects of helpful reviews on online product sales , 2016, 2016 13th International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management (ICSSSM).

[44]  John C. Turner,et al.  Perceiving people as group members: The role of fit in the salience of social categorizations , 1991 .

[45]  James Hartley,et al.  Abstracts, introductions and discussions: How far do they differ in style? , 2003, Scientometrics.

[46]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. , 1994, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[47]  Dhruv Grewal,et al.  Mobile Advertising: A Framework and Research Agenda , 2016 .

[48]  C. Fornell,et al.  Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. , 1981 .

[49]  Rebecca Walker Reczek,et al.  Seeing Ourselves in Others: Reviewer Ambiguity, Egocentric Anchoring, and Persuasion , 2011 .

[50]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[51]  Lin Guo,et al.  Digging for gold with a simple tool: Validating text mining in studying electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) communication , 2015 .

[52]  J. Pennebaker,et al.  Language style matching in writing: synchrony in essays, correspondence, and poetry. , 2010, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[53]  Sarah Moore,et al.  Attitude Predictability and Helpfulness in Online Reviews: The Role of Explained Actions and Reactions , 2015 .

[54]  S. Sen,et al.  Why are you telling me this? An examination into negative consumer reviews on the Web , 2007 .

[55]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Causal inferences about communicators and their effect on opinion change , 1978 .

[56]  Kristopher J Preacher,et al.  Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models , 2008, Behavior research methods.

[57]  J. Pennebaker,et al.  Linguistic Style Matching in Social Interaction , 2002 .

[58]  David A. Sbarra,et al.  Experiential connectedness in children's attachment interviews: An examination of natural word use , 2011 .

[59]  Zheng Fang,et al.  Mobile Targeting , 2013, Manag. Sci..

[60]  P. K. Kannan,et al.  From Multi-Channel Retailing to Omni-Channel Retailing: Introduction to the Special Issue on Multi-Channel Retailing , 2015 .

[61]  Naomi S. Baron,et al.  Text Messaging and IM , 2007 .

[62]  J. Pennebaker,et al.  Computergestützte quantitative textanalyse: Äquivalenz und robustheit der deutschen Version des Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count. , 2008 .

[63]  S. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Exploring the implications of m-commerce for markets and marketing , 2002 .

[64]  L. Ross,et al.  The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes , 1977 .

[65]  Jonah A. Berger Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: A review and directions for future research , 2014 .

[66]  Daniel M. Oppenheimer,et al.  Instructional Manipulation Checks: Detecting Satisficing to Increase Statistical Power , 2009 .