The Wrap Effect In Online Review Sets Revisited: How Perceived Usefulness Mediates The Effect On Intention Formation

1.IntroductionOnline reviews are information posted by existing consumers about their consumed products or services on e-commerce or third party websites (e.g., Amazon.com, Yelp, TripAdvisor) [Zhu et al. 2014]. Studies indicate that 78% of consumers consider online reviews before making a purchase, while 44% post reviews themselves [eMarketer 2013]. Compared to advertising, reviews are more likely seen by prospective customers as trustworthy and credible [Chih et al. 2013], as they do not trigger persuasion knowledge (i.e., the attitude bias that results from the awareness of a persuasion attempt) [Friestad & Wright 1994; Purnawirawan et al. 2012]. Electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) is any positive or negative statement made by potential, actual, or former customers about a product or company, which is made available to a multitude of people and institutions via the Internet [Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004]. eWOM can be spread, for example, through brand communities (e.g., Apple, Lego), professional (LinkedIn) and non-professional networking sites (Facebook), consumers' review websites (e.g., TripAdvisor, Cnet) and (micro) blog sites (Twitter). Although the importance of eWOM in consumer behavior has been studied extensively [Cheung & Thadani 2012; Doh & Hwang 2009; Park & Lee 2009], there is little understanding of how the mix of positive and negative reviews in an online review set affects attitude formation and behavioral intentions.In the academic literature on electronic word of mouth, there are only a few studies that have investigated the impact of a set of reviews instead of a single review. Additionally, the few studies on the impact of the balance (the degree of positivity or negativity) of a set of reviews have often assumed that people form impressions and attitudes on the basis of an accurate assessment of a positively, a neutrally and a negatively balanced set, but have ignored the effect of review sequence [Doh & Hwang 2009; Lee et al. 2008]. The current study builds on the research of Purnawirawan et al. [2012] who introduced the concept of the "wrap effect" (or the primacy-recency reinforcement effect) in online review sets. Wrapping occurs when the first and the last review in a set are of the same valence. Specifically, they showed that, for a neutrally balanced review set (containing an equal number of positive and negative reviews), when the first and last review in the set are both positive (positive wrap), readers' recall and impression about the reviews is positively biased, compared to when they were exposed to a non-wrapped review set. Conversely, when the first and last review are both negative (negative wrap), impressions are biased negatively. In a second study [Purnawirawan et al. 2012b], they also found that both positive and negative wrapping can increase the perceived usefulness of a review set. Purnawirawan et al. [2012, 2012b] thus demonstrated that a mix of positive and negative online reviews triggers cognitive biases, depending upon the order in which these reviews are read. More specifically, "wrapping" is important: wrapped review sets have a different effect on readers' responses than nonwrapped review sets.The focus of the Purnawirawan et al. [2012] study was to use the wrap effect to predict review impression and the attitude towards a service (a hotel). The first contribution of the present study is that it extends the findings of Purnawirawan et al. [2012] to behavioral intentions, i.e. the intention to perform a certain behavior, more specifically purchase intention and intention to recommend the reviewed service, and provides insight into the mediating role of perceived usefulness in this process. Second, in both studies by Purnawirawan et al. [2012, b], the number of reviews read was kept constant for reasons of internal validity. In the present study, we enhance the external validity of the research by leaving respondents free to read as many reviews as they want. …

[1]  Robert M. Schindler,et al.  Internet forums as influential sources of consumer information , 2001 .

[2]  Dimple R. Thadani,et al.  The impact of electronic word-of-mouth communication: A literature analysis and integrative model , 2012, Decis. Support Syst..

[3]  Peter Wright,et al.  Persuasion Knowledge , 2022 .

[4]  Sheila Hsuan-Yu Hsu,et al.  Good Soldiers on the Web: Understanding the Drivers of Participation in Online Communities of Consumption , 2011, Int. J. Electron. Commer..

[5]  A. Hayes Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach , 2013 .

[6]  T. E. Barry The Development of the Hierarchy of Effects: An Historical Perspective , 2012 .

[7]  Jack M. Feldman,et al.  Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. , 1988 .

[8]  Jang-Sun Hwang,et al.  How Consumers Evaluate eWOM (Electronic Word-of-Mouth) Messages , 2009, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[9]  John Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning , 1988, Cogn. Sci..

[10]  A. Furnham,et al.  A literature review of the anchoring effect , 2011 .

[11]  S. Hunt,et al.  The Identity Salience Model of Relationship Marketing Success: The Case of Nonprofit Marketing , 2003 .

[12]  Cong Li Primacy effect or recency effect? A long-term memory test of Super Bowl commercials , 2009 .

[13]  Patrick De Pelsmacker,et al.  Balance and Sequence in Online Reviews: The Wrap Effect , 2012, Int. J. Electron. Commer..

[14]  Yun Wan,et al.  THE RELIABILITY OF ONLINE REVIEW HELPFULNESS , 2014 .

[15]  P. Herr,et al.  Effects of Word-of-Mouth and Product-Attribute Information on Persuasion: An Accessibility-Diagnosticity Perspective , 1991 .

[16]  F. Craik,et al.  Levels of Pro-cessing: A Framework for Memory Research , 1975 .

[17]  Chris Pullig,et al.  Conflicts in the Work–Family Interface: Links to Job Stress, Customer Service Employee Performance, and Customer Purchase Intent , 2005 .

[18]  Rohini Ahluwalia,et al.  The Effects of Extensions on the Family Brand Name: An Accessibility‐Diagnosticity Perspective , 2000 .

[19]  Edward B. Royzman,et al.  Negativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion , 2001 .

[20]  Alex S. L. Tsang,et al.  Is a “star” worth a thousand words?: The interplay between product‐review texts and rating valences , 2009 .

[21]  Charles F. Hofacker,et al.  Primacy and Recency Effects on Clicking Behavior , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[22]  Wei He,et al.  Is This Opinion Leader's Review Useful? Peripheral Cues for Online Review Helpfulness , 2014 .

[23]  JoongHo Ahn,et al.  Normative Social Influence and Online Review Helpfulness: Polynomial Modeling and Response Surface Analysis , 2015 .

[24]  Michael Trusov,et al.  ESTIMATING THE DYNAMIC EFFECTS OF ONLINE WORD-OF-MOUTH ON MEMBER GROWTH OF A SOCIAL NETWORK SITE , 2007 .

[25]  G. Northcraft,et al.  Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions , 1987 .

[26]  Mira Lee,et al.  Electronic word of mouth (eWOM) , 2009 .

[27]  R. L. Cohen,et al.  On the generality of some memory laws , 1981 .

[28]  T. E. Barry,et al.  A Review and Critique of the Hierarchy of Effects in Advertising , 1990 .

[29]  Anand Kumar,et al.  Web Commercials and Advertising Hierarchy-of-Effects , 2000, Journal of Advertising Research.

[30]  T. E. Barry In Defence of the Hierarchy of Effects , 2002, Journal of Advertising Research.

[31]  Nathalia Purnawirawan,et al.  Balance and Sequence in Online Reviews: How Perceived Usefulness Affects Attitudes and Intentions , 2012 .

[32]  Wen-Hai Chih,et al.  Investigating Electronic Word-of-Mouth Effects on Online Discussion Forums: The Role of Perceived Positive Electronic Word-of-Mouth Review Credibility , 2013, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[33]  Dwayne D. Gremler,et al.  Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the Internet? , 2004 .

[34]  Venkatesh Shankar,et al.  Measuring and Managing Interactive Environments , 2009 .

[35]  Cheol Park,et al.  Antecedents of Online Reviews’ Usage and Purchase Influence: An Empirical Comparison of U.S. and Korean Consumers , 2009 .

[36]  Jung Lee,et al.  What Makes People Read an Online Review? The Relative Effects of Posting Time and Helpfulness on Review Readership , 2013, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[37]  Ingoo Han,et al.  The effect of negative online consumer reviews on product attitude: An information processing view , 2008, Electron. Commer. Res. Appl..

[38]  SchuffDavid,et al.  What makes a helpful online review? a study of customer reviews on amazon.com , 2010 .

[39]  Patrick De Pelsmacker,et al.  A Meta-analytic Investigation of the Role of Valence in Online Reviews , 2015 .