1 / 18

Credibility in E-WOM

Credibility in E-WOM. How review perceptions impact their persuasiveness. Natalie Van Hemelen ( KULeuven ), Peeter W. J. Verlegh (UVA) & Tim Smits ( KULeuven ) . Theoretical background: Introduction.

tymon
Download Presentation

Credibility in E-WOM

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Credibility in E-WOM How review perceptions impact theirpersuasiveness Natalie Van Hemelen (KULeuven), Peeter W. J. Verlegh (UVA) & Tim Smits (KULeuven)

  2. Theoretical background: Introduction • With the advent of social media, E-WOM and online consumer reviews becameincreasinglypopular • Online consumer reviews • “Online recommendationsaboutproducts, services, organizations or brands, based on consumers’ personal experiences” • E.g., Yelp

  3. Succes and impact of online review sites • People attach a lot of importancetothe non-commercial opinion of socialothers (Fong & Burton, 2004) • Online reviews (often) perceived as impartial People are lesssuspiciousabouttheircredibility • 72% trust online reviews as much as personal recommendations • 58% trust productsthat have positive online reviews Reviews have a strong persuasive impact on persons’ attitudes But impact depends on a lot of factors: valence, credebilityrecommendation source, etc.

  4. Valenceandperceivedcredibility • Debate: Positive OR negative reviews most impactful? • Psychology & Consumer research: Negative information stronger impact becauseit is perceived as more diagnostic >< But many studies found the opposite: Positive E-WOM more impactfulthannegative... • Floh and collegeaus (2009): manyresearchersonly take perceivedvalenceinto account (seealsoSussanet al., 2006; Willemsen et al., 2012)

  5. Valenceandperceivedcredibility • Review’svalenceandcredibiltycannotbeassumedtobe independent fromeachother... Currentstudy: Combinedpersuasive impact of perceivedvalenceandcredibility

  6. Hypotheses (1) • Given the previous, we predictthatvalenceandcredibilitywillboth have aneffect on the receiver’s product attitude • Valence: Straightforward effect H1: Positive reviews (vsnegativeones) willincrease the attitude towards the product • Credibility: Moderated effect H2a: For positive reviews, highercredibilitywillincrease the attitude towards the product H2b: For negative reviews, highercredibilitywilldecrease the attitude towards the product

  7. Hypotheses (2) • But, valence is alsolikelyto affect credibility... • Rationale: Negative information  Attention  Source questioning • H3: Positive reviews (vsnegativeones) wil increase the review’sperceivedcredibility

  8. Moderatedmediationmodel *Type 1 Model as outlinedbyPreacher, Rucker & Hayes (2007)

  9. Method (1) • Procedure & participants • Between subjects design with 2 conditions (positivevsnegative review) • 89 Bachelor students of a Flemish University College • 62 men (69,7%), 27 women (30,3%) • Between18 and 24 yearsold (M = 19,22; SD = 1,81) • Visitregularly a restaurant (M = 4,71, SD = 1,189) • Online study • Read one of the 2 reviews • Different questionstoassesstheir attitudes • Instructiontowrite a review themselvesabout the restaurant • Afterwards 3 raterscoded the reviews

  10. Method (2) • Stimuli

  11. Method (3) • Measures • Attitude restaurant • 10 (7-point) bipolar rating scales: qualitative – not qualitative, creative – uncreative, attractive – unattractive,… • Total attitude score: mean of the scores on the 10 rating scales (Cronbach’s α = .953, M = 41.287, SD = 10.959) • Credibility review • 4 (7-point) bipolar rating scales: honest – dishonest, credible – incredible,… • Total credibility score: mean of the scores on the 4 rating scales • (Cronbach’s α = .687, M = 3.862, SD = 1.645)

  12. Results • Proposed model confirmed! *Bootstrapping Macro SPSS (model 74), Hayes et al. (5000 samples)

  13. Hypothesis 1 Valence review Attitude restaurant • b = 1.511, p < .001

  14. Hypotheses 2a & 2b b = .141, p = .129 b = .495* * p < .001

  15. Hypothesis 3 b = .347, p < .001

  16. Moderatedmediation model • b = 1.511* • (b = -1.318*) b = .141, p = .129 b = .495* b = .347* *p < .001

  17. Future research • In ourstudy the findingsonlyholdforone type of reviews • In a follow-up study, we want to test whether the findingsalsoholdforothertypes of reviews, products,... • Future research canfurtherinvestigatewhynegative reviews are exactlyperceived as lesscrediblethanpositiveones

  18. Thankyouforyourattention!

More Related