Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management

ISSN: 1936-8623 (Print) 1936-8631 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whmm20

Examining the impacts of positive and negative

online consumer reviews on behavioral intentions:
Role of need for cognitive closure and satisfaction
guarantees

Shahin Sharifi

To cite this article: Shahin Sharifi (2018): Examining the impacts of positive and negative
online consumer reviews on behavioral intentions: Role of need for cognitive closure
and satisfaction guarantees, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, DOI:
10.1080/19368623.2019.1531804

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2019.1531804

Published online: 25 Oct 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 22

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=whmm20
JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2019.1531804

Examining the impacts of positive and negative online

consumer reviews on behavioral intentions: Role of need for
cognitive closure and satisfaction guarantees
Shahin Sharifi
Department of Marketing, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
These days, many consumers are likely to read online consumer Review sidedness; need for
reviews before making a purchase decision (e.g., hotel booking). cognitive closure; online
Online consumer reviews may be purely positive or negative, or a reviews; satisfaction
mix of both. We examine consumer reactions to positive versus guarantee; trust; purchase
intentions
negative versus mixed reviews (i.e., review sidedness). Furthermore,
we examine the effect of the need for cognitive closure and satisfac-
tion guarantee on reactions to review sidedness. The findings indi-
cate that the most favorable evaluations belong to positive reviews,
followed by mixed reviews, and then negative reviews. Furthermore,
the need for cognitive closure enhances the evaluations of positive
and negative reviews but lowers the evaluations of mixed reviews.
The need for cognitive closure buffers the evaluations of mixed
reviews only when a satisfaction guarantee is not offered; however,
a satisfaction guarantee enhances the evaluations of mixed reviews.

摘要
如今，许多消费者可能会在购买决定之前阅读在线消费者评论（例
如，酒店预订）。在线消费者评论可能纯粹是正面的或负面的，或
者两者兼而有之。我们检查消费者的反应积极的和负面的混合评论
（即，审查片面性）。此外，我们还考察了认知闭包和满意度保证
对复习侧向反应的影响。研究结果显示，最有利的评价是正面评
价，其次是混合评价，然后是负面评价。此外，认知封闭的需要提
高了对正反评论的评价，但降低了对混合评论的评价。只有当没有
提供满意度保证时，认知闭包才缓冲对混合评论的评价；然而，满
意度保证增强了混合评论的评价。

Introduction
People may refer to online reviews to obtain information on items or subjects of particular
interest, such as the quality of services provided by a business (Casalo, Flavian, Guinaliu,
& Ekinci, 2015; Zhu & Zhang, 2010). This is driven by observational learning, which is
learning about the quality of another’s experience (Chen, Wang, & Xie, 2011), and is
found to shape an observer’s own decision (Miklós-Thal & Zhang, 2013). For example,
before booking a room, an individual may spend some time reading hotel reviews to learn
about others’ experiences at a target hotel (Sparks & Browning, 2011). A review may
contain positive comments, suggesting that the focal customer has been quite satisfied

CONTACT Shahin Sharifi shahin.sharifi@mq.edu.au

Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/whmm.
© 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 S. SHARIFI

with the services at the hotel (Casalo et al. 2015; Ye, Law, & Gu, 2009). Conversely, a
review may include negative comments—or even harsh criticisms—implying that the
customer has encountered some problems (Papathanassis & Knolle, 2011; Sparks, So, &
Bradley, 2016). Alternatively, consumers may read a mixed (i.e., asymmetric) review—one
that offers both positive and negative pieces of information (Park & Nicolau, 2015), to
which they may have a reaction that is different from their response to one-sided reviews.
Existing research on online consumer reviews has focused mostly on evaluations of
positive versus negative reviews (Sparks & Browning, 2011; Tan, Lv, Liu, & Gursoy, 2018;
Xie, Zhang, & Zhang, 2014; Zhu & Zhang, 2010). These studies have focused on the
abovementioned dichotomy in consumer reviews, arguing that a mixed review is not
common (Sparks & Browning, 2011). On the other hand, research on asymmetrical
reviews mostly offers descriptive results (Fong, Lei, & Law, 2017; Park & Nicolau, 2015).
For example, (Park and Nicolau 2015) found that customers reading restaurant reviews on
Yelp.com enjoy more positive and negative reviews than mixed reviews. Examining hotel
reviews on TripAdvisor, (Fong et al. 2017) found that mixed reviews accompany negative
reviews more than positive reviews. As an exception, (Purnawirawan, De Pelsmacker, and
Dens 2012) examined the sequence of positive and negative information in reviews and
concluded that consumers perceive positive and negative reviews as more useful than
neutral (i.e., mixed) reviews. Existing literature does not offer deep insights into the effects
of review sidedness—that is, when and how the effect of review valence would be
enhanced rather than attenuated. The current study addresses this research gap.
In this research, we contribute to the literature by investigating conditions under which
evaluations of one-sided (positive or negative) and mixed reviews would be favorable
rather than unfavorable. It should be noted that as mixed reviews include positive and
negative pieces of information simultaneously, consumers may find them difficult to
process. Hence, consumers may have difficulties extrapolating information from a mixed
review, as it may suggest that the facility is both good and bad and lead to uncertainty,
thereby limiting consumers’ cognitive processing capacity (see Gursoy, 2018). Hence, we
argue that consumers’ aversion to uncertainty, or formally, their need for cognitive closure
(NFCC) (Kruglanski & Webster, 1996), plays a major role in reactions to review sidedness.
Specifically, we find that the NFCC enhances (versus lowers) evaluations of positive and
negative (versus mixed) reviews. Furthermore, communications from companies can
affect perceptions of consumer reviews (Sparks et al. 2016; Xie, So, & Wang, 2017).
Hence, we apply a strict measure and examine the abovementioned effects in the presence
of a satisfaction guarantee—that is, promises by a company to keep its customers satisfied
as a manifestation of quality services (Baker & Collier, 2005; Boshoff, 2002). We find that
NFCC enhances (versus buffers) evaluations of positive and negative reviews (versus
mixed) in the absence of a satisfaction guarantee; with a satisfaction guarantee, NFCC
also enhances evaluations of mixed reviews. The latter finding suggests that a satisfaction
guarantee diminishes the confusion that mixed reviews may produce. Regarding review
sidedness and satisfaction guarantee only, we find that without a satisfaction guarantee,
respondents trust positive reviews the most, followed by mixed reviews and then negative
reviews. With a satisfaction guarantee, consumers trust mixed reviews the most and have
similar evaluations of positive and negative reviews.
The current research contributes to the literature of online consumer reviews by
identifying conditions under which consumers would react differently to review types
 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 3

(i.e., positive versus negative versus mixed). We find that not all people react positively
(versus negatively) to one-sided (versus mixed) reviews. In particular, we bring together
the literature on consumer reviews and NFCC. Our findings indicate that NFCC leads to
favorable (versus unfavorable) evaluations of positive and negative (versus mixed) reviews.
In order to observe the effect of communications from consumers versus companies, we
test the interactive effect of review sidedness and NFCC in the absence versus presence of
firms’ satisfaction guarantees. The findings indicate that with a satisfaction guarantee, a
positive review has no effect, while negative and mixed reviews lead to favorable evalua-
tions. Hence, this research extends our knowledge about reactions to review sidedness by
examining the effect of consumers’ NFCC and companies’ promises of satisfaction.
Furthermore, the literature on NFCC indicates that NFCC is negatively related to persua-
sion, especially when there is noise (see Kruglanski, Webster, & Klem, 1993). We extend
this literature by identifying the conditions under which NFCC leads to favorable versus
unfavorable evaluation, even in the presence of noise (i.e., asymmetric or additional
information).
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In the following section, we review
the relevant literature and propose a number of hypotheses regarding the evaluations of
online consumer reviews and the interactive effects of review sidedness, NFCC, and
satisfaction guarantee. Then, we describe the methods and main findings of two empirical
studies that we use to test these hypotheses. We conclude with a general discussion of the
theoretical and managerial implications of this study, and acknowledge the limitations of
the research.

Literature review and hypotheses

Most research on online consumer reviews (e.g., Sparks & Browning, 2011; Tan et al. 2018;
Xie et al. 2014; Ye et al. 2009) has focused on people’s reactions to one-sided—positive
versus negative—messages. We should point out that this literature is primarily concerned
with the effect of review-sidedness on customers’ evaluations of (e.g., trust in) the target
business (Abubakar & Ilkan, 2016; Ladhari & Michaud, 2015; Viglia, Minazzi, & Buhalis,
2016). In that sense, (Ladhari and Michaud 2015) find that positive reviews enhance trust
and behavioral intentions. Similarly, (Viglia et al. 2016) conclude that purchase intention
is a function of the favorability of consumer ratings. The number of reviews is found to
have a positive effect on purchase intention (Torres, Singh, & Robertson-Ring, 2015).
An investigation of consumers’ behavioral intentions and attitudes toward a company
would indeed have merits, but an important precursor to those reactions would be the
degree to which consumers in essence find reviews trustworthy. In this regard, another
stream of literature has investigated assessments of reviews (e.g., Fox, Deitz, Royne, & Fox,
2018; Herrero, San Martín, & Hernández, 2015; Risselada, de Vries, & Verstappen, 2018;
Wu, Shen, Fan, & Mattila, 2017). In particular, the literature shows that consumers find
long, structured reviews more helpful than short, unstructured ones (Risselada et al. 2018).
The credibility of the source can make a review more influential (Herrero et al. 2015). The
type of language (figurative versus literal) and the reviewers’ expertise determine the
credibility of the review (Wu et al. 2017). Studying consumer reviews following service
failure, (Fox et al. 2018) find that the clarity of textual clues has a negative effect on
perceived anger. Hence, it can be concluded that the content of reviews could determine
4 S. SHARIFI

their impact. However, this literature offers no findings on the impact of mixed reviews as
opposed to positive and negative reviews.
Research on review asymmetry considers a comprehensive range of review types but
mostly offers findings from the content analysis of existing reviews on review websites;
that is, asymmetric reviews accompany negative reviews more than positive reviews (Fong
et al. 2017), and people enjoy reading positive and negative reviews more than asymmetric
reviews (Park & Nicolau, 2015). However, using a causal design, (Purnawirawan et al.
2012) conclude that customers find positive and negative reviews more useful than mixed
reviews. We argue that without a deeper examination of positive versus negative versus
mixed reviews, our knowledge of reactions to reviews could be relatively limited. For
example, there would be conditions under which established associations would be
orthogonal; people may trust a mixed review but simply express low behavioral intentions,
as they may be affected by the negativity in the mixed review and, therefore, be afraid of
experiencing a negative encounter.
Research on review sidedness may share findings with research on message framing or
message sidedness in advertising—which is ostensibly similar but relatively richer streams
of research than literature on consumer reviews. Nonetheless, these streams of research
have investigated reactions to dichotomous contrasts: positive versus negative messages in
message framing (Maheswaran & Chaiken, 1991), or positive versus mixed messages in
advertising communications (Golden & Alpert, 1987).
Research on message framing has focused on one-sided messages—those framed either
positively or negatively (e.g., Kulkarni & Yuan, 2015; Olsen, Slotegraaf, & Chandukala,
2014). In particular, the literature has demonstrated that negatively framed messages are
more persuasive than positively framed messages (Kulkarni & Yuan, 2015; Olsen et al.,
2014; Smith & Petty, 1996). This might suggest that the same would hold for evaluations
of consumer reviews. Nonetheless, in this literature, the intention of the messages is to
promote certain products or behavior—for example, strengthening concerns regarding
environmental sustainability (Olsen et al. 2014) or avoiding unpleasant odor as opposed to
acquiring pleasant freshness (Kulkarni & Yuan, 2015).
Research on one- versus two-sided messages focuses mostly on communications in
advertising (e.g., Bohner, Einwiller, Erb, & Siebler, 2003; Uribe, Buzeta, & Velásquez,
2016) and the persuasiveness of the salesforce (e.g., Hunt & Smith, 1987; Pizzutti et al.
2016). Two-sided messages are found to be more credible and effective than one-sided
messages (Bohner et al. 2003; Uribe et al. 2016). A key mechanism that explains indivi-
duals’ reactions to message sidedness is credibility, as the inclusion of negative informa-
tion by the source can imply that advertisers or communicators are telling the truth,
thereby enhancing the credibility of their message (Bohner et al. 2003; Crowley & Hoyer,
1994). In this sense, two-sided messages may inoculate customers against further negative
content that they may receive (Golden & Alpert, 1987). Two-sided messages may function
as a double-edged sword, however. While they can enhance credibility, they can also
reduce customers’ purchase intentions (refer to Pizzutti et al. 2016). An important point in
this literature, however, is that message sidedness is treated as a tool in practitioners’
hands to advertise a product (Bohner et al. 2003) or enhance reactions to a brand (Etgar &
Goodwin, 1982). In other words, similar to our conclusion on findings from research on
message-framing, people may view them as deliberate attempts utilized by practitioners to
 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 5

encourage certain behavior, which could reduce the credibility of the message content, as
opposed to consumer reviews, which are assumed to be real experiences by real customers.
To understand how people would evaluate sidedness of consumer reviews, we rely on
peripheral and central routes to persuasion (Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983). As
suggested by peripheral route to persuasion (Petty et al. 1983), people may infer that certain
others (e.g., experts) have the final say on an issue. Similarly and in line with observational
learning principles (Cai, Chen, & Fang, 2009), knowing that one has gone through an
experience and narrates that experience can add to the persuasiveness of the message. The
central route to persuasion is concerned with the content and individuals’ cognitive processes
underlying a message—that is, high motivation and ability (Petty & Cacioppo, 2012, 1986).
Hence, understanding how people would react to review sidedness depends on their level of
trust in each type of review. That said, we argue that the lower is an individual’s uncertainty
about a type of review that he or she reads, the higher is his or her confidence in that type of
review. Accordingly, to predict how people would react to review sidedness, we first need to
determine their level of confidence in different types of reviews.
To understand consumers’ evaluations of review sidedness, we refer to consumers’
initial and natural intentions to write purely positive or negative reviews. The literature
indicates that when consumers are delighted with service, they are likely to write positive
reviews on the websites of companies or on online review websites (Vermeulen & Seegers,
2009; Zhu & Zhang, 2010). Hence, people may consider positive reviews by existing
customers a natural gesture by them to acknowledge the services that pleased them.
Accordingly, people may highly trust positive reviews. On the other hand, research has
demonstrated that by writing negative reviews, people may simply take out their anger on
a target business that has disappointed them (Fernandes & Fernandes, 2018; Grégoire,
Laufer, & Tripp, 2010). Hence, a natural intention underlying negative reviews may be to
retaliate and to express dissatisfaction with the service received (Dinçer & Alrawadieh,
2017; Fernandes & Fernandes, 2018). Accordingly, we expect people to trust negative
reviews less than positive reviews. Formally, we propose the following hypothesis.

H1a. People trust positive reviews more than negative reviews.

The special case of mixed consumer reviews

Following the findings in the literature on information overload and uncertainty (Jacoby,
1977; Jacoby, Speller, & Kohn, 1974), we argue that asymmetrical pieces of information—
or what we refer to as “and” strings—lead to more uncertainty than symmetrical pieces of
information do—that is, “either/or” strings in our case. For example, consider a man who
faces two charges in a court of law; on the one hand, imagine he is pronounced innocent/
guilty on both charges; on the other hand, imagine he is pronounced innocent on one
charge and guilty on another. In the latter case, it would be difficult to consider him
innocent or guilty, as this is an “and” judgment call, while in the former case, it can be
stated that the man is innocent/guilty. Therefore, when a review is positive and negative
(i.e., “and” strings), the level of uncertainty would be much higher than when it is either
positive or negative (i.e., “either/or” strings).
6 S. SHARIFI

We argue that mixed reviews cause uncertainty for people through the route explained
above. When an individual reads “the bed was new and comfortable” or “the bed was old
and uncomfortable,” it would lead to less uncertainty and an easier judgment than when
the individual reads “the bed was old but comfortable,” as in the former case the pieces of
information are symmetrical, and they are either purely positive or purely negative. In the
latter case, however, the pieces of information are asymmetrical, and they are both positive
and negative. In line with information load and decision uncertainty (Jacoby, 1977; Jacoby
et al. 1974), we argue that in general, people may have difficulty assessing the quality of
mixed reviews and therefore, react less favorably to them than they would to positive or
negative reviews. Therefore, a mixed review would be perceived as unclear (Fox et al.
2018) and less straightforward (Wu et al. 2017). As these are factors influential in
determining the credibility of a reviewer (Herrero et al. 2015), prospective customers
may evaluate mixed reviews unfavorably.
We earlier argued that the issue with negative reviews is that people would usually
consider them as retaliation and therefore, would trust them less than positive reviews.
However, when a customer accompanies his/her negative comments with some positive
comments about the quality of services offered by a firm, people would be more likely to
trust the review, as it would no longer be viewed as pure retaliation or retribution by the
customer. Accordingly, we expect people to trust negative reviews less than mixed reviews.
However, following the abovementioned discussion on the uncertainty that accompanies
mixed reviews, we expect people to trust mixed reviews less than positive reviews.
Specifically, we propose the following hypotheses.

H1b. People trust mixed reviews more than negative reviews.

H1c. People express the highest level of trust in positive reviews.

The literature concludes that a positive (versus negative) review increases (versus
reduces) behavioral intentions driven by perceived trust in a target business (Casalo
et al. 2015; Sparks & Browning, 2011; Torres et al. 2015; Xie et al. 2017, 2014; Zhu &
Zhang, 2010). (Purnawirawan et al. 2012) extend these findings by concluding that an
asymmetric review leads to less favorable intentions than a positive review. In their
research, perceived usefulness mediates the effect of review sidedness on intentions. As
earlier discussed, we argue that customers’ trust in reviews is a precursor to the usefulness
of the reviews and trust in a target business. Hence, we contend that behavioral intentions
would be better explained through trust in reviews.
As H1 proposes, we expect people to trust positive reviews the most, followed by mixed
reviews, and then negative reviews. Nonetheless, their behavioral intentions would not necessa-
rily be a function of their trust in the reviews they read, as negative components of a mixed
review can simply signal that there is a partial risk in trying what has already been tested.
Research has indicated that the negativity effect (Ahluwalia, 2002; Klein & Ahluwalia, 2005) can
lead to less favorable evaluations (Miyazaki, Grewal, & Goodstein, 2005). On a related note, we
argue that the level of negativity of reviews determines consumers’ behavioral intentions; there is
a negative relationship between the negativity load of a review and consumers’ behavioral
intentions, such that the more negative (versus positive) is the perception of the review, the
 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 7

less (versus more) likely customers will want to try the experience. However, it is critical first to
determine how customers would perceive the negativity versus positivity of review types.

Effect of the need for cognitive closure

As stated in the discussion preceding H1, uncertainty may result from a mixed review,
because it is asymmetrical. Consequently, we reasoned that positive or negative reviews
would be less cognitively demanding than mixed reviews. That said, one crucial issue is
how people tolerate uncertainty, which may affect the quality of their judgment. This is
quite important, given that people generally prefer simplicity and try to avoid confusion
when reading online reviews (Sparks & Browning, 2011). However, not all individuals may
feel averse to uncertainty. In particular, we argue that individuals’ NFCC may determine
how they tolerate the asymmetry inherent in mixed reviews. NFCC is aversion to
ambiguity and uncertainty (Kruglanski & Webster, 1996). A high level of NFCC may
prompt a reader to reach a judgment as quickly as possible (Kardes, Cronley, Kellaris, &
Posavac, 2004). (Kardes et al. 2004) find that individuals with high NFCC require less
evidence and neglect belief-inconsistent information. Therefore, NFCC may lead to quick
(Fu et al. 2007) and firm (Kruglanski et al. 1993) conclusions about an issue (Gilbert,
Pelham, & Krull, 1988). This finding suggests that NFCC can influence consumer pre-
ferences and decision-making. For example, NFCC can increase consumers’ willingness to
pay for products (Kardes, Fennis, Hirt, Tormala, & Bullington, 2007), reduce the amount
of information necessary to make a choice (Choi, Koo, Choi, & Auh, 2008), and decrease
consumers’ willingness to update their investment portfolios (Disatnik & Steinhart, 2015).
Findings from this literature indicate that NFCC determines consumers’ level and depth of
information processing. Hence, we contend that NFCC can shape consumers’ reactions to
review sidedness, as mixed (versus one-sided) reviews would naturally require consumers
to cognitively engage in information processing—a crucial factor in evaluations of online
consumer reviews (Gursoy, 2018).
Following these conclusions, we argue that high NFCC may lead to less elaboration and
thereby to quick and more favorable conclusions for one-sided reviews, as those high in
NFCC may have a lower tendency to consider reviewers’ true intentions when writing
purely positive or negative reviews. However, when people read a mixed review, those
high in NFCC who are less tolerant of ambiguities caused by the asymmetry of a mixed
review may simply consider the review ambiguous and, therefore, untrustworthy. On the
other hand, those low in NFCC who have little aversion to ambiguity would react less
negatively to mixed reviews and may consider that perhaps, in reality, the narrated
incident had both positive and negative aspects. Accordingly, they would trust mixed
reviews more than would those high in NFCC. Formally, we propose the following
hypotheses.

H2a. NFCC increases perceived trust in positive and negative reviews.

H2b. NFCC decreases perceived trust in mixed reviews.

8 S. SHARIFI

Effect of a satisfaction guarantee given by service providers

Companies must be concerned about the effect on online consumer reviews on their
brand image (O’Connor, 2010). For this reason, hotel managers, for example, have
become more responsive to online customer complaints (Ilker, Mustafa, & Olgun,
2017), especially in a timely manner (Dinçer & Alrawadieh, 2017). The literature indicates
that management responses to consumer reviews matter to prospective customers (Li, Cui,
& Peng, 2017; Sparks et al. 2016; Xie et al. 2017). In particular, the presence, frequency,
and speed of management responses on review websites can nullify the negative effect of
asymmetry that a prospective customer may engage in upon reading a handful of positive
and negative reviews (Li et al. 2017). Similarly, (Xie et al. 2017) find that timely and
lengthy responses from management can help promote future transactions. (Sparks et al.
2016) indicate that the mere presence of a response from the company (irrespective of its
source) promotes the trustworthiness of the business. However, as there are many review
websites, and owing to their confluence with prospective consumers’ growing desire to
search for information (Fang, Ye, Kucukusta, & Law, 2016), companies may be unable to
keep pace with their consumers’ reviews. This would jeopardize sales, as business’ pro-
spective customers may lose trust in them. We propose that a better alternative is for
companies to offer a satisfaction guarantee.
A satisfaction guarantee is viewed as a tangible manifestation of the reliability of service
(Boshoff, 2002), which assures a customer that even if things go wrong, they will be
compensated (Jin & He, 2013; Meyer, Gremler, & Hogreve, 2014). Importantly, a satisfac-
tion guarantee can enhance customers’ expectations of service quality (Jin & He, 2013),
thereby reducing their perceived risk (Wu, Liao, Hung, & Ho, 2012). Accordingly, such a
guarantee can be a manifestation of quality improvement over time (Chen, John, Hays,
Hill, & Geurs, 2009). To that end, nowadays, businesses highlight the quality of their
services through “100% satisfaction guarantee” on their websites to attract new customers
and strengthen their retention strategies. For example, Hampton Inn has a track record of
100% satisfaction guarantee for more than 25 years (Barnes, 2017; Hogreve & Gremler,
2009; Sowder, 1996). After a decade, they lost more than $6 million by providing free
rooms but in return earned more than $41 million through customer re-patronage
(O’Brien, 1999). Similarly, when failing to deliver within 30 minutes, Domino’s automa-
tically give a pizza voucher. Hence, by significantly promoting customer satisfaction,
service guarantees can enhance a firm’s market value (Meyer et al. 2014). Accordingly,
satisfaction guarantee has received much attention from hospitality marketing researchers
(Jin & He, 2013; McQuilken, McDonald, & Vocino, 2013; McQuilken & Robertson, 2011;
Meyer et al. 2014; Suwelack, Hogreve, & Hoyer, 2011; Wu et al. 2012; for a review see
Hogreve & Gremler, 2009). However, to the best of our knowledge, the literature has not
examined the effect of satisfaction guarantees on evaluations of consumer reviews.
We argue that a prospective customer may want to explore reactions to a firms’
satisfaction guarantee or simply come across reviews of a company offering a satisfaction
guarantee. Hence, we contend that it is imperative to investigate reactions to review
sidedness (i.e., positive versus negative versus mixed reviews) in the presence versus
absence of a satisfaction guarantee. We earlier discussed that, as consumers usually
write negative reviews in order to retaliate, people are likely to have low trust in purely
negative reviews. Nonetheless, in the presence of a satisfaction guarantee, a negative
 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 9

review may lead a reader to believe that something must have been seriously wrong with
the services provided to the target consumer, concluding that the unfortunate customer is
narrating the experience to warn others. Hence, we expect a satisfaction guarantee to
enhance perceived trust in negative reviews, as opposed to when no such guarantees are
offered. A satisfaction guarantee may suggest that in the aftermath of unfavorable inci-
dents, affected customers would be compensated (McQuilken et al. 2013; Wu et al. 2012);
however, owing to the negativity effect (Ahluwalia, 2002) and its negative impact on
consumers’ behavioral intentions (Miyazaki et al. 2005), we still expect guarantees to have
no effect on behavioral intentions for negative reviews.
Regarding positive reviews, we argued that people may usually think that a target
consumer would write a purely positive review when they are delighted with services
offered to them. However, a satisfaction guarantee would signal high quality (Wu et al.
2012) and process improvements (Meyer et al. 2014); therefore, when people read a
positive review for a firm that guarantees its services, they may believe that such a positive
review should be a “must” or the norm for a firm that offers big promises. Nonetheless,
when there is no satisfaction guarantee, and people read a purely positive review, they may
think that without any prior promises or claims of excellence, the target business is doing
a good job and therefore, has impressed a customer, who in turn is leaving positive
comments. Accordingly, we expect a satisfaction guarantee to weaken the effect that
positive reviews have on trust. With regard to behavioral intentions, as there are no
negative points raised about the service of a business in either case, we do not predict
any difference in behavioral intentions due to the presence versus absence of a satisfaction
guarantee.
Regarding mixed reviews, as discussed, the asymmetry of a mixed review would lead to
uncertainty in a prospective customer, making it difficult to determine whether the
experience was positive or negative. However, when a firm offers a satisfaction guarantee,
people may consider that the focal business has been striving to impress the target
customer and the customer’s negative comments may be a matter of his/her personal
tastes and not the true nature of service quality offered by the business. Hence, with regard
to mixed reviews, people may place more weight on positive information than on negative
information, as a result of the satisfaction guarantee being offered. Accordingly, we reason
that for mixed reviews, a satisfaction guarantee would enhance perceptions of trust, which
would in turn enhance behavioral intentions. Formally, we propose the following
hypotheses.

H3a. For negative reviews, a satisfaction guarantee enhances perceived trust.

H3b. For positive reviews, a satisfaction guarantee lowers perceived trust.

H3c. For mixed reviews, a satisfaction guarantee enhances perceived trust.

H4. A satisfaction guarantee has a stronger, more positive effect on behavioral inten-
tions for a mixed review than for a positive or negative review.

H2a predicts that NFCC would enhance perceived trust in positive and negative reviews,
but H2B predicts that NFCC would reduce perceived trust in mixed reviews. We also state
10 S. SHARIFI

that a satisfaction guarantee would affect reactions to positive, negative, and mixed
reviews. In particular, we predict that a satisfaction guarantee enhances perceived trust
in negative (H3a) and mixed reviews (H3C), but reduces trust in positive reviews (H3b).
The following question then arises. Would a satisfaction guarantee strengthen or weaken
the effect of NFCC on evaluations of one-sided versus mixed reviews?
As stated previously, NFCC is an aversion to uncertainty that would lower the evalua-
tions of mixed reviews (H2b). A mixed review naturally includes positive and negative
components, which may require an individual to consider different explanations regarding
an experience described in a mixed review. For example, when an individual reads “the
bed was new but uncomfortable,” they may consider any of the following several explana-
tions: a) “maybe the mattress is orthopedic, which means it is hard but good in a sense, as
it shows the hotel is taking good care of its customers,” b) “maybe the mattress was soft
and the customer preferred a firmer one,” c) “the issue might have been with the sheets or
even the pillow, not the mattress,” d) “maybe the customer is just picky, as the bed was
new, which is good,” and e) “maybe the customer had previously gone to luxury hotels
and was not used to the bed in the target hotel, so the customer should have gone to a
hotel that catered for their tastes.” However, people high in NFCC would not consider all
possible explanations when making judgments, but tend to process selective ones (Kardes
et al. 2004) to ease their mind quickly. This suggests that in the example above, a customer
may have to fault either the target customer or the hotel, which requires further informa-
tion processing and is contrary to information processing of an individual high in NFCC;
alternatively, as they may find it difficult to process the information, they may evaluate the
review poorly. Nonetheless, we argue that the presence of a satisfaction guarantee could
signal quality services and thereby rule out part of the potential explanations (i.e., faulting
the hotel); instead, it could suggest that the negative issues were relatively minor, primarily
driven by customer preference. In summary, a satisfaction guarantee could reduce the
confusion and uncertainty inherent in mixed reviews. Accordingly, customers would have
to process less information, which is in line with the cognitive processing preferences of
individuals high in NFCC (see Disatnik & Steinhart, 2015; Kardes et al. 2007). Hence, they
would react more favorably to mixed reviews when a company offers a satisfaction
guarantee. With a satisfaction guarantee, we predict that NFCC would enhance perceived
trust in all three types of reviews. Formally, we propose the following hypotheses.

H5a. Without a satisfaction guarantee, NFCC increases perceived trust in negative and
positive reviews but decreases perceived trust in mixed reviews.

H5b. With a satisfaction guarantee, NFCC increases perceived trust in all three types of
reviews.

Following H1, we state that the negativity load of a review would determine prospective
customers’ behavioral intentions, so that the more negatively (versus positively) a review is
perceived, the less (versus more) likely customers are to try the experience. It may be
intuitive to predict such reactions to review sidedness. However, it is not clear how trust
would mediate the effect of review sidedness on behavioral intentions as moderated by
NFCC. H3 predicts that consumers’ trust in review sidedness would be a function of their
NFCC and satisfaction guarantee, so that those high in NFCC would express higher levels
 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 11

of trust in one-sided reviews and, conversely, less trust in mixed reviews, owing to the
uncertainty associated with mixed reviews as well as their aversion to uncertainty. H3 also
predicts that the buffering effect of mixed reviews on trust would hold only if there were
no satisfaction guarantee. Hence, in this research, we predict that the indirect effects of
positive versus negative versus mixed reviews on behavioral intentions through trust
would be conditional to consumers’ NFCC and satisfaction guarantee. Formally, we
propose the following hypothesis.

H6. The effect of review sidedness on behavioral intention is mediated by trust but
conditional on NFCC and satisfaction guarantee

It should be noted that as testing the above hypothesis requires conditional moderated
mediation analyses, further explanation of our prediction is necessary. We predict that
NFCC increases trust in negative and positive reviews but decreases it for mixed reviews
(H2). Accordingly, we expect only conditional indirect effects for high NFCC conditions.
In addition, we predict that with a satisfaction guarantee, people would trust mixed
reviews more than if there were no guarantee (H3c). Considering positive reviews as the
baseline of comparison (as people would have the most favorable reactions of all to
positive reviews), we expect no conditional indirect effects for the contrast between
positive and negative reviews, since NFCC increases perceived trust in both (as these
reviews are both one-sided). For the contrast between positive and mixed reviews, how-
ever, we expect NFCC to increase purchase intentions through trust with a satisfaction
guarantee; nonetheless, we expect NFCC to decrease purchase intentions through trust
without a satisfaction guarantee.

Methodology
Overview of the studies
We tested our hypotheses in two experimental studies. Study 1 investigated the effect of review
sidedness on perceived trust (H1), as well as the interactive effect between review sidedness
and NFCC (H2). In Study 2, in addition to examining the effect of review sidedness on
perceived trust (H1), we investigated the effect of satisfaction guarantee (H3-4) on reactions to
review sidedness and, furthermore, the interactive effect of review sidedness, NFCC, and
satisfaction guarantee on consumer reactions (H5). Study 2 also offers evidence for media-
tion (H6).

Study 1
Study 1 was designed to test H1 and H2. In summary, these hypotheses predicted that
people would react most favorably to positive reviews, followed by mixed reviews and then
negative reviews. In addition, it was predicted that people’s reactions to review sidedness is
a function of their NFCC—that is, NFCC would increase perceived trust for one-sided
(positive and negative) reviews but decrease perceived trust for mixed reviews.
12 S. SHARIFI

Method
For this study, we adopted complaints and compliments from real online reviews and
prepared three reviews—one positive, one negative, and one mixed. In the reviews, we
used a fictitious hotel name and controlled for potential factors other than the reviews. For
example, the number of reviews and overall ratings were kept constant between subjects to
control for the effects of such factors (Sparks & Browning, 2011; Xie et al. 2014; Zhu &
Zhang, 2010). Appendix A presents the stimuli used in the study.
Prior to running the study, we pre-tested the stimuli to ensure that the negative,
positive, and mixed reviews would actually mean what they were intended to.
Participants were 90 US residents (64 % men; Mage = 28.42; SDage = 9.19) recruited
through the online platform, Prolific, which has better quality data than other popular
platforms (see Peer, Brandimarte, Samat, & Acquisti, 2017). Respondents were randomly
assigned to one type of review. After reading the reviews, they were asked to evaluate the
extent to which the reviews were positive or negative, using a single bi-polar item on a
seven-point scale (1: very negative; 4: neutral; 7: very positive). A one-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) indicated that respondents evaluated the reviews differently (F(2, 87)
= 192.90, p < .001). Planned contrast revealed that participants rated negative reviews as
highly negative, positive reviews as highly positive, and mixed reviews as neutral (Mpositive
= 6.16 versus Mnegative = 1.46 versus Mmixed = 3.56, all contrasts were significant at p < .05).
Accordingly, the manipulation worked as intended.
In Study 1, participants were 143 US residents (63 % men; Mage = 33.63; SDage = 11.25)
recruited through the online research platform, Prolific. The participants completed this
study for a payment. In both Study 1 and Study 2, we took strict measures to prevent
respondents from taking the survey more than once. Specifically, respondents who had
taken the survey once were screened out through their IP addresses (by Qualtrics, the
survey management platform) as well as their respondent IDs (by Prolific, the data
collection platform).
The majority of participants in Study 1 had college degrees (2.1% had some high
school; 9.1% completed high school; 24.5% were studying at college; 37.1% had finished
college; and 27.3% had postgraduate degrees or above). Respondents were randomly
assigned to the experimental conditions. Upon reading the reviews, they expressed their
purchase intentions through three items on a seven-point Likert scale (α = .96). The items
included “I am likely to go to this hotel,” “I will think about going to this hotel,” and
“I may actually try this hotel.” Then, on a seven-point Likert scale, they responded to three
items measuring trust in reviews. These included (α = .95) “I think this review was
trustworthy,” “I think this review was reliable,” and “I think this review was credible.”
Then, they responded to items that measured NFCC (Freeman et al. 2006) on a seven-
point scale. Example items were “I don’t like situations that are uncertain,” “I dislike
questions which could be answered in many different ways,” “I find that a well-ordered life
with regular hours suits my temperament,” and “I feel uncomfortable when I don’t
understand the reason why an event occurred in my life.” We averaged these items to
create an index for NFCC (α = .90). For more details on reliability indexes (i.e., con-
firmatory factor analysis), please see Appendix B. The frequency of reading online reviews
was measured as a covariate through a single item “I read online reviews frequently.”
Responding to a single item, “The hotel review was quite realistic,” participants expressed
 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 13

the extent to which they believed that the hotel review was realistic. Finally, they
completed the manipulation check of the study, as used in the pre-test.

Results and discussion

The manipulation check for review sidedness indicated that respondents rated the positive
reviews as highly positive, negative reviews as highly negative, and mixed reviews as
neutral (F(2, 141) = 314.07, p < .001; Mpositive = 6.10 versus Mnegative = 1.52 versus
Mmixed = 3.63, all contrasts were significant at p < .001). Hence, the manipulation worked
as intended. A one-way ANOVA on the realism of the reviews indicated that respondents
found the reviews highly and equally realistic (F(2, 141) = 1.79, p > .10; Mpositive = 5.71
versus Mnegative = 5.16 versus Mmixed = 5.37).
To examine the effect of review sidedness on purchase intentions and trust, a multi-
variate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was used controlling for frequency of reading
online reviews. In the model, the effect of review sidedness was significant (Wilk’s Λ = .52,
F(4, 278) = 26.91, p < .001). The frequency of reading online reviews was marginally
significant as a covariate (Wilk’s Λ = .93, F(2, 139) = 5.09, p < .10).
The results indicated that the effect of review sidedness on trust was significant
(F(2, 140) = 12.04, p < .001). Contrast tests indicated that respondents trusted positive reviews
the most, followed by mixed reviews, and then negative reviews (Mpositive = 5.70 versus
Mnegative = 4.44 versus Mmixed = 5.27, all contrasts were significant at p < .05). Frequency of
reading online reviews had an effect (F(2, 140) = 6.93, p < .01). The effect of review sidedness on
purchase intentions was significant (F(2, 140) = 62.11, p < .001). Contrast tests indicated that
respondents expressed the highest purchase intentions after reading positive reviews, followed
by mixed reviews, and then negative reviews (Mpositive = 5.57 versus Mnegative = 2.39 versus
Mmixed = 3.58, all contrasts were significant at p < .001). The frequency of reading online reviews
was significant as a covariate (F(2, 140) = 5.74, p < .05).
We hypothesized that for one-sided positive or negative reviews, NFCC would increase
consumer trust; however, for mixed reviews, NFCC would decrease consumer trust. To
test these hypotheses, we regressed trust on review sidedness (negative versus positive
versus mixed), NFCC, and their interaction. We observed a significant effect of review
sidedness × NFCC (F(2, 137) = 4.97, p < .01).
To probe the interaction, we used spotlight analysis (Krishna, 2016) and investigated the
effects at 1 standard deviation above (M = 5.65) and below (M = 3.60) the mean of NFCC,
using model 1 in PROCESS by (Hayes 2013). This model allows for an interaction between a
continuous variable (i.e., NFCC in this case) and a categorical variable (i.e., review sidedness).
The results indicated that in the positive condition, participants high in NFCC reported higher
trust than those low in NFCC (Mhigh NFCC = 6.03 versus Mlow NFCC = 5.15; β = .43, t(137) = 2.38,
p < .05). In the negative condition too, respondents high in NFCC reported higher trust than
those low in NFCC (Mhigh NFCC = 4.80 versus Mlow NFCC = 4.14; β = .32, t(137) = 1.94, p < .05—
one-tailed). In the mixed condition however, the effect of NFCC was significant but negative.
In other words, participants high in NFCC reported lower trust than those low in NFCC
(Mhigh NFCC = 4.85 versus Mlow NFCC = 5.57; β = -.35, t(137) = -.1.79, p < .05—one-tailed).
Figure 1 illustrates the results.
The results of this study indicate that of the three types of reviews, individuals
perceived the positive review as the most credible; they expressed higher trust in the
mixed review than in the negative review. Therefore, H1 was supported. In addition, the
14 S. SHARIFI

Figure 1. Trust as a function of review sidedness and NFCC—Study 1.

results indicate that in terms of purchase intentions, respondents reacted most favorably
to the positive review, followed by the mixed review, and then the negative review. The
results of spotlight analysis indicated that for the one-sided positive and negative reviews,
NFCC increased perceived trust; while for the mixed review, NFCC decreased perceived
trust. This finding supports H2 and suggests that for the mixed review, those high in
NFCC had greater difficulty dealing with the uncertainty that accompanies a mixed review
than did respondents low in NFCC and thereby reacted unfavorably.

Study 2
The results of Study 1 indicate that in terms of perceived trust and purchase intentions,
individuals reacted more positively to positive reviews compared to either mixed or
negative reviews; the results indicate that individuals reacted more favorably to mixed
reviews than to negative reviews. Study 1 also indicates that reactions to review sidedness
varied as a function of participants’ NFCC. In this study, we examine the effects observed
in Study 1 in the presence versus absence of firms’ satisfaction guarantee and offer
evidence for conditional moderated mediation.

Method
Participants were 160 US residents (56 % women; Mage = 38.22; SDage = 13.10), recruited
through online research platform Prolific. The majority of participants had college degrees
(1.3% had some high school; 11.9% completed high school; 30% were studying at college;
36.9% had finished college; and 20% had postgraduate degrees or above). We used the
stimuli used in Study 1. However, we added “100% satisfaction guarantee” to a second
series of the stimuli to manipulate satisfaction guarantee. Refer to Appendix C for the
stimuli. Upon reading the reviews, participants responded to the dependent measures of
 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 15

this study. The measures were the same as those used in Study 1. In particular, partici-
pants responded to items measuring purchase intentions (α = .94), trust (α = .90), NFCC
(α = .89), the frequency of reading online consumer reviews, and the realism of the
reviews, and finally completed the manipulation check of the study. For more details on
reliability indexes (i.e., confirmatory factor analysis), see Appendix B.

Results and discussion

The manipulation check for review sidedness indicated that respondents rated the positive
reviews as highly positive, negative reviews as highly negative, and mixed reviews as
neutral (F(2, 154) = 339.19, p < .001; Mpositive = 6.24 versus Mnegative = 1.56 versus
Mmixed = 3.71, all contrasts were significant at p < .001). Hence, the manipulation worked
as intended. An ANOVA on realism of the reviews indicated that respondents found the
reviews highly and equally realistic (F(2, 157) = .21, p > .80; Mpositive = 5.33 versus Mnegative
= 5.35 versus Mmixed = 5.47).
To examine the effect of review sidedness and satisfaction guarantee on trust and
purchase intentions, a MANCOVA was used controlling for the frequency of reading
online reviews. In the model, the main effect of review sidedness was significant (Wilk’s Λ
= .54, F(4, 304) = 26.99, p < .001). The main effect of satisfaction guarantee was not
significant (Wilk’s Λ = 1.00, F(2, 152) = .01, p > .90). There was an interaction between
review sidedness and satisfaction guarantee (Wilk’s Λ = .91, F(4, 304) = 3.51, p < .01). The
frequency of reading online reviews had a marginally significant effect (Wilk’s Λ = .96,
F(2, 152) = 2.43, p < .10).
The main effect of review sidedness on trust was significant (F(2, 153) = 7.76, p < .001),
indicating that respondents expressed similar levels of trust in positive and mixed reviews,
but they reported much lower trust in negative reviews (Mpositive = 5.40 versus Mnegative =
4.73 versus Mmixed = 5.41, the contrast between positive and mixed reviews was not
significant t(157) = -.06, p > .90; all other contrasts were significant at p < .05). The
main effect of satisfaction guarantees was not significant (F(1, 153) = .004, p > .90).
However, the interaction between review sidedness and satisfaction guarantees was sig-
nificant (F(2, 153) = 6.89, p < .001). Follow-up contrast tests indicated that without a
satisfaction guarantee (F(2, 77) = 8.44, p < .001), respondents reported the highest level of
trust for the positive review, followed by the mixed review, and then the negative review
(Mpositive = 5.79 versus Mnegative = 4.58 versus Mmixed = 5.12, all contrasts significant at p <
.05); however, with a satisfaction guarantee (F(2, 77) = 4.94, p < .01), participants reported
the highest level of trust for the mixed review, followed by the positive review, and then
the negative review (Mpositive = 5.01 versus Mnegative = 4.89 versus Mmixed = 5.69, the
contrast between positive and negative conditions was not significant t(77) = -.42, p > .60,
other contrasts were significant at p < .05). Figure 2 presents the results. The frequency of
reading online reviews was marginally significant (F(1, 153) = 3.03, p < .10).
The results revealed a significant main effect of review sidedness on purchase
intentions (F(2, 153) = 56.95, p < .001), indicating that respondents reacted most
favorably to positive reviews, followed by mixed reviews, and then negative reviews
(Mpositive = 5.38 versus Mnegative = 2.73 versus Mmixed = 3.88, all contrasts were
significant at p < .05). The main effect of satisfaction guarantees was not significant
(F(1, 153) = .02, p > .80). There was no interaction between review sidedness and
16 S. SHARIFI

6 5.79 5.69

5.12 5.01
4.89
5
4.58

3
Without guarantee With guarantee

Negative Positive Mixed

Figure 2. Trust as a function of review sidedness and satisfaction guarantee—Study 2.

satisfaction guarantees (F(2, 153) = .61, p > .50). The frequency of reading online
reviews had no effect as a covariate (F(1, 153) = 2.32, p > .10).
To test H5, we regressed trust on review sidedness (negative versus positive versus
mixed), NFCC, satisfaction guarantee, and their interaction. We observed a significant
effect of review sidedness × NFCC × satisfaction guarantee (F(2, 147) = 3.32, p < .05).
To probe the interaction, we used spotlight analysis (Krishna, 2016) and investigated
the effects at 1 standard deviation above (M = 5.60) and below (M = 3.71) the mean of
NFCC, using model 3 in PROCESS by (Hayes 2013). This model allows for an interaction
between a continuous variable (i.e., NFCC in this case) and two categorical variables (i.e.,
review sidedness and satisfaction guarantee). The results indicated that without a satisfac-
tion guarantee, there was an interaction between NFCC and review sidedness
(F(2, 147) = 3.08, p < .05). Contrast tests revealed that NFCC increased trust in the
positive review, so that respondents high in NFCC reported higher trust than did those
low in NFCC (Mhigh NFCC = 6.28 versus Mlow NFCC = 4.98; β = .55, t(147) = 3.03, p < .01).
Likewise, for the negative review, participants high in NFCC reported higher trust than
did those low in NFCC (Mhigh NFCC = 4.96 versus Mlow NFCC = 4.37; β = .31, t(147) = 1.83,
p < .05—one-tailed). For the mixed review, respondents high in NFCC reported lower
trust than did those low in NFCC; the difference, however, was not significant (Mhigh NFCC
= 4.99 versus Mlow NFCC = 5.30; β = -.16, t(147) = -.70, p > .40). On the other hand, with a
satisfaction guarantee, there was no interaction between NFCC and review sidedness (F(2,
147) = 1.66, p > .10). Although the interaction was not significant, the effects were mostly
as predicted: additive for negative and mixed reviews, but no effect for the positive review
(Negative: Mhigh NFCC = 5.48 versus Mlow NFCC = 4.29; β = .62, t(147) = 2.81, p < .01;
Positive: Mhigh NFCC = 5.05 versus Mlow NFCC = 4.94; β = .05, t(147) = .25, p > .70; Mixed:
Mhigh NFCC = 5.89 versus Mlow NFCC = 5.29; β = .31, t(147) = 1.79, p < .05 one-tailed).
Figure 3 presents the results.
To test for mediation at the levels of the moderators, we used moderated-mediation
analysis in PROCESS (Hayes, 2013), model 13. It should be noted that in this study, we
examined the effect of a satisfaction guarantee along with NFCC and review sidedness;
 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 17

Figure 3. Trust as a function of NFCC, review sidedness, and satisfaction guarantee—Study 2.

hence, the analysis was, in fact, moderated moderated-mediation. In the model, the
independent variable (X) was review sidedness, the moderating variables were satisfaction
guarantee (W) and NFCC (Z), the mediating variable (M) was trust, and the dependent
variable (Y) was purchase intentions. However, it should be noted that moderated-
mediation models in PROCESS (Hayes, 2013) do not allow for multi-categorical mod-
erators. Hence, we created three dichotomies manually, and at each run, we included one
contrast as the independent variable (X) in the model (see Hayes & Preacher, 2014).

Negative versus positive reviews

In moderated-mediation analysis, one requirement is to confirm that the slope of condi-
tional indirect effects is significant (Hayes, 2013). In our case, we needed to ensure that the
slope of the conditional moderated-mediation was significant, as there were two modera-
tors explaining variations in our results. The results indicated that the omnibus condi-
tional moderated-mediation index was not significant for the contrast between negative
and positive reviews, as the confidence intervals included the value of zero (β = .01, SE =
.06, 95% CIs: -.11 to .15).

Negative versus mixed reviews

The results indicated that the omnibus conditional moderated-mediation index was not
also significant for the contrast between negative and mixed reviews, as the confidence
intervals included the value of zero (β = .003, SE = .03, 95% CIs: -.05 to .08).
18 S. SHARIFI

Positive versus mixed reviews

The results indicated that the omnibus conditional moderated-mediation index was
significant for the contrast between positive and mixed reviews, as the confidence intervals
did not include the value of zero (β = -.26, SE = .10, 95% CIs: -.50 to -.08). Accordingly,
the requirement for moderated moderated-mediation was met for this contrast. The
results further revealed that the moderated mediation index for low NFCC (M = 3.70)
was not significant, as the confidence intervals included the value of zero (β = -.06, SE =
.12, 95% CIs: -.31 to .17). However, for high NFCC (M = 5.67), the index of moderated
mediation was significant (β = -.59, SE = .18, 95% CIs: -.99 to -.26). The results indicated
that when a satisfaction guarantee was offered, the effect of review sidedness was sig-
nificant and positive (β = .24, SE = .12, 95% CIs: .03 to .50). This indicates that for the
respondents high in NFCC, as a result of the satisfaction guarantee and through perceived
trust, purchase intention after reading the mixed review was .24 units higher than the
positive review. As the independent variable in the model (i.e., review sidedness) is
dichotomous, the indirect coefficients are mean differences between groups (see Hayes,
2017). On the other hand, when a satisfaction guarantee was not offered, the effect of
review sidedness was significant but negative (β = -.34, SE = .11, 95% CIs: -.59 to -.13).
This indicates that for those respondents high in NFCC, without a satisfaction guarantee
and through perceived trust, purchase intention was .34 units lower for the mixed review
than for the positive review.
In this study, we found that respondents reported equal levels of trust for mixed and
positive reviews, and the lowest level of trust for negative reviews. Hence, H1 was not
unequivocally confirmed. However, this could be attributed to the design of this study,
which allowed for the moderating effect of satisfaction guarantees. That said, when we
examined the interaction between review sidedness and satisfaction guarantee, we found
that without a satisfaction guarantee, respondents had the highest level of trust in the
positive review, followed by the mixed review, and then the negative review (confirming
H1); with a satisfaction guarantee however, we found that participants reported the
highest level of trust in the mixed review, and that ratings were statistically indifferent
between negative and positive reviews. This finding confirms H3 and provides an expla-
nation for the initial rejection of H1.
We also found that the interaction between review sidedness and satisfaction guaran-
tees was not significant, surprisingly suggesting that even guarantees by firms would not
enhance purchase intentions after reading a mixed review. Accordingly, H4 was not
supported.
Furthermore, we examined the interaction between NFCC and review sidedness (as in
Study 1) with and without a satisfaction guarantee from service provider. We found that
without a satisfaction guarantee, NFCC increased trust in one-sided positive and negative
reviews; this effect was reversed for the mixed review, but was not significant. On the other
hand, we found that with a satisfaction guarantee, there was no interaction between NFCC
and review sidedness; hence, for all types of reviews, NFCC increased perceived trust—
which was statistically significant for negative and mixed reviews. This partially con-
firms H5.
Regarding mediation, we found that for high NFCC conditions only, when a satisfac-
tion guarantee was offered, respondents had higher purchase intentions after reading the
mixed review than the positive review through perceptions of trust; however, when a
 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 19

satisfaction guarantee was not offered, participants reported lower purchase intentions
after reading the mixed review than the positive review through perceived trust. Hence,
H6 was supported.

Conclusions and implications

Theoretical implications
Consumer trust in online material is of critical significance nowadays (Gursoy, 2018;
Herrero et al. 2015; Wu et al. 2017), as it could further promote trust in the businesses
involved (Ladhari & Michaud, 2015; Sparks et al. 2016). Our research examined consumer
reactions to reviews as well as a business. In doing so, this research compared the
evaluations of positive versus negative versus mixed reviews. As consumers’ evaluations
of online reviews are shaped by their cognitive processing capacity and effort (Gursoy,
2018), the current research examined the effect of NFCC which, as an influential factor in
judgment, has received much attention in marketing literature since the turn of the
century (e.g., Disatnik & Steinhart, 2015; Houghton & Grewal, 2000; Jung & Kellaris,
2004; Kardes et al. 2004, 2007; Lalwani, 2009; Mannetti, Pierro, & Kruglanski, 2007). The
current research brings together the literature on consumer reviews and NFCC.
Furthermore, this research analyzed the impact of satisfaction guarantees by firms on
customers’ evaluations of reviews as a function of their NFCC.
Regarding types of reviews, existing research (e.g., Sparks & Browning, 2011; Ye et al.
2009) has examined the effect of negative versus positive reviews on consumer trust in a
target business. Literature on asymmetric reviews has found that consumers enjoy reading
extreme reviews more than asymmetric reviews (Purnawirawan et al. 2012). With an
emphasis on trust in reviews, per se, we found that of all the three types of reviews,
participants trusted positive reviews the most, followed by mixed reviews and then
negative reviews. We also found that NFCC enhanced trust, but only for positive and
negative reviews; for a mixed review, NFCC reduced trust, and we reasoned that it would
be due to the relatively high uncertainty that mixed reviews carry and its confluence with
people’s aversion to uncertainty among those high in NFCC.
We also examined the effect of review sidedness on purchase intentions and found that
participants reported the highest purchase intention after reading a positive review,
followed by a mixed review, and then a negative review. Furthermore, we investigated
the effect of a satisfaction guarantee on trust and behavioral intentions and found that the
aforementioned results would not hold in the presence of a satisfaction guarantee. In
particular, the results indicated that a satisfaction guarantee increased perceived trust in a
mixed review and reduced it in the case of a positive review, leading to similar levels of
trust in positive and negative reviews. Surprisingly, a satisfaction guarantee did not have
any effect on behavioral intentions. This counterintuitive and critical finding suggests that
people trust consumer reviews far more than communication from firms; in a way, a
satisfaction guarantee helps consumers to evaluate the trustworthiness of a review without
affecting their behavioral intentions. Accordingly, although a satisfaction guarantee can
signal high quality (Wu et al. 2012) and process improvements (Meyer et al. 2014), when
there is a discrepancy between communications from real customers and those from firms,
quality promises would not thrive, while early research has shown that a satisfaction
20 S. SHARIFI

guarantee can decrease consumers’ perceived risk (Boshoff, 2002). This is a crucial finding
and suggests that, apart from procedural measures to take care of consumers’ unfavorable
service encounters (Cai & Qu, 2018; Sharifi, Palmeira, Ma, & Spassova, 2017), prevention
is better than cure.
However, our results indicate that with a satisfaction guarantee, the negative effect of
NFCC on trust in a mixed review was reversed. This, again, indicates that a satisfaction
guarantee mainly has an effect on trustworthiness of reviews and suggests that it would
decrease consumers’ uncertainty driven by mixed reviews and lead to more positive
evaluations by them. In particular, we found that with a satisfaction guarantee, respon-
dents high in NFCC expressed more favorable evaluations of a mixed review than for a
positive review, while this effect was reversed without a satisfaction guarantee. This is an
important finding given that the literature finds a negative relationship between NFCC
and persuasion, especially when there is noise (Kruglanski et al. 1993). Our results,
however, suggest that a satisfaction guarantee—potentially noise, as consumers have
more information to process—would nullify the noise (i.e., asymmetry) inherent in
mixed messages.
Research on communication and message-framing has investigated only the reactions
to dichotomous contrasts of positive versus two-sided advertising (Bohner et al. 2003;
Uribe et al. 2016), or persuasiveness of positively versus negatively framed messages
(Kulkarni & Yuan, 2015; Olsen et al. 2014). In particular, findings from communication
sidedness indicate that consumers trust mixed messages more so than one-sided positive
messages (Golden & Alpert, 1987; Uribe et al. 2016). However, we found that owing to the
uncertainty inherent in mixed reviews, people trusted positive reviews more than mixed
reviews. On the other hand, findings from the message-framing literature suggest that
negatively framed messages are more persuasive than positively framed messages
(Kulkarni & Yuan, 2015; Olsen et al. 2014). Nonetheless, we reasoned and found that
for consumer reviews, the opposite was true, as negative reviews would be perceived as
retaliation by customers, while positive reviews would be perceived as a relatively true
reflection of consumer satisfaction. Accordingly, findings from our research suggest that
the findings in the abovementioned literature should be revisited, specifically those related
to trustworthiness of message sidedness. In particular, we argued and found that in terms
of reactions to review sidedness, aversion to uncertainty played a major role in consumers’
evaluations of reviews. Hence, the abovementioned literature should also examine the key
role of NFCC in consumers’ evaluations of advertising communication and the persua-
siveness of messages.

Managerial implications
The implications of our research are relatively straightforward. Our findings suggest that
people have the lowest level of trust in negative reviews and therefore, these have the least
influence on purchase intentions. The former may seem good—that is, people do not trust
negative reviews that much; however, given that negative reviews lead to the lowest
behavioral intentions, this may simply jeopardize the success of a business, especially in
an increasingly competitive business environment. This is even more critical, given that
we found that a satisfaction guarantee had no effect on behavioral intentions. Collectively,
our results suggest that the delivery of quality and error-free services must be the
 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 21

overriding priority of a business. Hence, instead of expending resources on satisfaction

guarantees and similar measures, firms could focus primarily on devising and implement-
ing measures by which they can deliver quality experiences to customers, thereby pre-
venting potential damage through customers’ feedback. This is quite critical nowadays, as
we are living in an era dominated by social media, and there could be repercussions
following reviews, whether good or bad.
Nonetheless, regarding the interaction between review sidedness and satisfaction guar-
antee, we found that with a satisfaction guarantee, respondents trusted a mixed review the
most. This suggests that mixed reviews, which could be confusing without promises by a
firm, may be highly reliable. We reasoned that a satisfaction guarantee could lead to a
greater positivity load for mixed reviews, as customers would have to consider a critical
piece of information (i.e., guarantees) and then evaluate a mixed review through that lens.
As NFCC increases the processing of selective information, customers high in NFCC may
draw an association between quality guarantees and positive comments and disregard the
negative components, thereby enhancing their evaluations of a mixed review.
On the other hand, without a satisfaction guarantee, customers trusted a mixed review
less than a positive review. This suggests that managers may have to respond to mixed
reviews more when a satisfaction guarantee is not offered. Moderated-mediation results
support this argument, as we specifically found that among those high in NFCC, relative
to a positive review, for a mixed review, customers had higher (versus lower) purchase
intentions with (versus without) a satisfaction guarantee. Hence, with a satisfaction
guarantee, managers may primarily focus on responses to negative reviews, as their quality
claims may shield customers from the negativity of mixed reviews at least for one group of
customers. This is a critical finding, especially as research has concluded that NFCC is
positively related to bias (Brandt & Reyna, 2010; Shah, Kruglanski, & Thompson, 1998).
Lastly, research has found a positive correlation between NFCC and political conser-
vatism (De Zavala, Cislak, & Wesolowska, 2010). Companies that rely on consumer
feedback on their own websites may be able to track these consumers and manage their
responses appropriately. For instance, companies may have to respond promptly to mixed
reviews if their prospective customers are mostly from conservative states. For example, in
2016, Wyoming, North Dakota, and Mississippi were the top three right-wing states in the
United States (Gallup, 2017). Therefore, to catch up with the pace of consumer feedback,
managers may consider conservatism versus liberalism as a segmentation criterion.

Limitations and suggestions for future research

There are some limitations to acknowledge. First, our research employed hypothetical
scenarios of consumer reviews and examined customer reactions to them. This allowed a
greater control of the experimental conditions but, to some extent, this was at the expense
of the external validity of our findings. Future research could study participants’ responses
to actual review websites, which could help enhance the external validity of results, but
nonetheless in a way that real names and consumers’ associations and attachments to
them would not confound the results. None of the reviews used for this research included
recommendations by reviewers. Therefore, our findings are limited to review contents
only, not recommendations. Nonetheless, this could be an interesting area to investigate.
Future research could also investigate the impact of other personal characteristics that
22 S. SHARIFI

would affect consumer reactions to review sidedness. For example, research could inves-
tigate how relating to one’s experience or the ability to take reviewers’ perspectives (i.e.,
perspective-taking) would affect reactions to review sidedness.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

ORCID
Shahin Sharifi http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9589-2184

References
Abubakar, A. M., & Ilkan, M. (2016). Impact of online WOM on destination trust and intention to
travel: A medical tourism perspective. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 5(3),
192–201. doi:10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.12.005
Ahluwalia, R. (2002). How prevalent is the negativity effect in consumer environments? Journal of
Consumer Research, 29(2), 270–279. doi:10.1086/341576
Anderson, J. C. (1987). An approach for confirmatory measurement and structural equation
modeling of organizational properties. Management Science, 33(4), 525–541. doi:10.1287/
mnsc.33.4.525
Bagozzi, R. P., & Baumgartner, H. (1994). The evaluation of structural equation models and
hypotheses testing. In R. P. Bagozzi (Ed.), Principles of marketing research (pp. 386–422).
Cambridge, UK: Blackwell.
Baker, T., & Collier, D. A. (2005). The economic payout model for service guarantees. Decision
Sciences, 36(2), 197–220. doi:10.1111/deci.2005.36.issue-2
Barnes, M. (2017). Hampton by Hilton’s new 100% hampton guarantee. Retrieved from https://
www.hospitalitynet.org/news/4080485.html
Bohner, G., Einwiller, S., Erb, H. P., & Siebler, F. (2003). When small means comfortable: Relations
between product attributes in two-sided advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(4), 454–
463. doi:10.1207/S15327663JCP1304_12
Boshoff, C. (2002). Service advertising: An exploratory study of risk perceptions. Journal of Service
Research, 4(4), 290–298. doi:10.1177/1094670502004004006
Brandt, M. J., & Reyna, C. (2010). The role of prejudice and the need for closure in religious
fundamentalism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(5), 715–725. doi:10.1177/
0146167210366306
Cai, H., Chen, Y., & Fang, H. (2009). Observational learning: Evidence from a randomized natural
field experiment. The American Economic Review, 99(3), 864–882. doi:10.1257/aer.99.3.864
Cai, R., & Qu, H. (2018). Customers’ perceived justice, emotions, direct and indirect reactions to
service recovery: Moderating effects of recovery efforts. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management, 27(3), 323–345. doi:10.1080/19368623.2018.1385434
Casalo, L. V., Flavian, C., Guinaliu, M., & Ekinci, Y. (2015). Do online hotel rating schemes
influence booking behaviors? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 49, 28–36.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.05.005
Chen, X., John, G., Hays, J. M., Hill, A. V., & Geurs, S. E. (2009). Learning from a service guarantee
quasi experiment. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(5), 584–596. doi:10.1509/jmkr.46.5.584
Chen, Y., Wang, Q., & Xie, J. (2011). Online social interactions: A natural experiment on word of
mouth versus observational learning. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(2), 238–254. doi:10.1509/
jmkr.48.2.238
 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 23

Choi, J. A., Koo, M., Choi, I., & Auh, S. (2008). Need for cognitive closure and information search
strategy. Psychology & Marketing, 25(11), 1027–1042. doi:10.1002/mar.v25:11
Crowley, A. E., & Hoyer, W. D. (1994). An integrative framework for understanding two-sided
persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 561–574. doi:10.1086/jcr.1994.20.issue-4
De Zavala, A. G., Cislak, A., & Wesolowska, E. (2010). Political conservatism, need for cognitive
closure, and intergroup hostility. Political Psychology, 31(4), 521–541. doi:10.1111/pops.2010.31.
issue-4
Dinçer, M. Z., & Alrawadieh, Z. (2017). Negative word of mouse in the hotel industry: A content
analysis of online reviews on luxury hotels in Jordan. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management, 26(8), 785–804. doi:10.1080/19368623.2017.1320258
Disatnik, D., & Steinhart, Y. (2015). Need for cognitive closure, risk aversion, uncertainty changes,
and their effects on investment decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(3), 349–359.
doi:10.1509/jmr.13.0529
Etgar, M., & Goodwin, S. A. (1982). One-sided versus two-sided comparative message appeals for
new brand introductions. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(4), 460–465. doi:10.1086/jcr.1982.8.
issue-4
Fang, B., Ye, Q., Kucukusta, D., & Law, R. (2016). Analysis of the perceived value of online tourism
reviews: Influence of readability and reviewer characteristics. Tourism Management, 52, 498–506.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2015.07.018
Fernandes, T., & Fernandes, F. (2018). Sharing dissatisfaction online: Analyzing the nature and
predictors of hotel guests negative reviews. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 27
(2), 127–150. doi:10.1080/19368623.2017.1337540
Fong, L. H. N., Lei, S. S. I., & Law, R. (2017). Asymmetry of hotel ratings on TripAdvisor: Evidence
from single-versus dual-valence reviews. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 26(1),
67–82. doi:10.1080/19368623.2016.1178619
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 39–50. doi:10.2307/3151312
Fox, A. K., Deitz, G. D., Royne, M. B., & Fox, J. D. (2018). The face of contagion: Consumer
response to service failure depiction in online reviews. European Journal of Marketing, 52(1/2),
39–65. doi:10.1108/EJM-12-2016-0887
Freeman, D., Garety, P., Kuipers, E., Colbert, S., Jolley, S., Fowler, D., . . . Bebbington, P. (2006).
Delusions and decision-making style: Use of the need for closure scale. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 44(8), 1147–1158. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2005.09.002
Fu, J., H.-Y., Morris, M. W., Lee, S.-L., Chao, M., Chiu, C.-Y., & Hong, Y.-Y. (2007). Epistemic
motives and cultural conformity: Need for closure, culture, and context as determinants of
conflict judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2), 191–207. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.92.2.191
Gallup. (2017). Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/poll/203204/wyoming-north-dakota-missis
sippi-conservative.aspx
Gilbert, D. T., Pelham, B. W., & Krull, D. S. (1988). On cognitive busyness: When person perceivers
meet persons perceived. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 733. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.54.5.733
Golden, L. L., & Alpert, M. I. (1987). Comparative analysis of the relative effectiveness of one-and
two-sided communication for contrasting products. Journal of Advertising, 16(1), 18–68.
doi:10.1080/00913367.1987.10673056
Grégoire, Y., Laufer, D., & Tripp, T. M. (2010). A comprehensive model of customer direct and
indirect revenge: Understanding the effects of perceived greed and customer power. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 38(6), 738–758. doi:10.1007/s11747-009-0186-5
Gursoy, D. (2018). A critical review of determinants of information search behavior and utilization
of online reviews in decision making process (invited paper for ‘luminaries’ special issue of
international journal of hospitality management). International Journal of Hospitality
Management. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.06.003
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A
regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
24 S. SHARIFI

Hayes, A. F. (2017). Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: Quantification,

inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 4–40. doi:10.1080/
03637751.2017.1352100
Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical
independent variable. The British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67(3),
451–470. doi:10.1111/bmsp.12028
Herrero, Á., San Martín, H., & Hernández, J. M. (2015). How online search behavior is influenced by
user-generated content on review websites and hotel interactive websites. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(7), 1573–1597. doi:10.1108/IJCHM-05-2014-0255
Hogreve, J., & Gremler, D. D. (2009). Twenty years of service guarantee research: A Synthesis.
Journal of Service Research, 11(4), 322–343. doi:10.1177/1094670508329225
Homburg, C., Müller, M., & Klarmann, M. (2011). When should the customer really be king? On
the optimum level of salesperson customer orientation in sales encounters. Journal of Marketing,
75(2), 55–74. doi:10.1509/jmkg.75.2.55
Houghton, D. C., & Grewal, R. (2000). Please, let’s get an answer—Any answer: Need for consumer
cognitive closure. Psychology & Marketing, 17(11), 911–934. doi:10.1002/1520-6793(200011)
17:11<911::AID-MAR1>3.0.CO;2-4
Hunt, J. M., & Smith, M. F. (1987). The persuasive impact of two-sided selling appeals for an unknown
brand name. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 15(1), 11–18. doi:10.1007/BF02721949
Ilker, S., Mustafa, G., & Olgun, K. (2017). E-complaint tracking and online problem-solving strategies in
hospitality management: Plumbing the depths of reviews and responses on TripAdvisor. Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 8(3), 372–394. doi:doi:10.1108/JHTT-02-2017-0009
Jacoby, J. (1977). Information load and decision quality: Some contested issues. Journal of
Marketing Research, 569–573. doi:10.2307/3151201
Jacoby, J., Speller, D. E., & Kohn, C. A. (1974). Brand choice behavior as a function of information
load. Journal of Marketing Research, 63–69. doi:10.2307/3150994
Jin, L., & He, Y. (2013). Designing service guarantees with construal fit: Effects of temporal distance
on consumer responses to service guarantees. Journal of Service Research, 16(2), 202–215.
doi:10.1177/1094670512468330
Jung, J. M., & Kellaris, J. J. (2004). Cross-national differences in proneness to scarcity effects: The
moderating roles of familiarity, uncertainty avoidance, and need for cognitive closure. Psychology
& Marketing, 21(9), 739–753. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6793
Kardes, F. R., Cronley, M. L., Kellaris, J. J., & Posavac, S. S. (2004). The role of selective information
processing in price-quality inference. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 368–374. doi:10.1086/422115
Kardes, F. R., Fennis, B. M., Hirt, E. R., Tormala, Z. L., & Bullington, B. (2007). The role of the need
for cognitive closure in the effectiveness of the disrupt-then-reframe influence technique. Journal
of Consumer Research, 34(3), 377–385. doi:10.1086/518541
Klein, J. G., & Ahluwalia, R. (2005). Negativity in the evaluation of political candidates. Journal of
Marketing, 69(1), 131–142. doi:10.1509/jmkg.69.1.131.55509
Krishna, A. (2016). A clearer spotlight on spotlight: Understanding, conducting and reporting.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(3), 315–324. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2016.04.001
Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind:” Seizing” and”
freezing.”. Psychological Review, 103(2), 263–283.
Kruglanski, A. W., Webster, D. M., & Klem, A. (1993). Motivated resistance and openness to
persuasion in the presence or absence of prior information. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 65(5), 861–876.
Kulkarni, A. A., & Yuan, H. (2015). Effect of ad-irrelevant distance cues on persuasiveness of
message framing. Journal of Advertising, 44(3), 254–263. doi:10.1080/00913367.2014.975877
Ladhari, R., & Michaud, M. (2015). eWOM effects on hotel booking intentions, attitudes, trust, and website
perceptions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 46, 36–45. doi:10.1016/j.
ijhm.2015.01.010
Lalwani, A. K. (2009). The distinct influence of cognitive busyness and need for closure on cultural
differences in socially desirable responding. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(2), 305–316.
doi:10.1086/597214
 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 25

Li, C., Cui, G., & Peng, L. (2017). The signaling effect of management response in engaging
customers: A study of the hotel industry. Tourism Management, 62, 42–53. doi:10.1016/j.
tourman.2017.03.009
Maheswaran, D., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings:
Effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 61(1), 13–25. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.1.13
Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., & Kruglanski, A. (2007). Who regrets more after choosing a non-status-quo
option? Post decisional regret under need for cognitive closure. Journal of Economic Psychology,
28(2), 186–196. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2005.12.004
McQuilken, L., McDonald, H., & Vocino, A. (2013). Is guarantee compensation enough? The
important role of fix and employee effort in restoring justice. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 33, 41–50. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.01.005
McQuilken, L., & Robertson, N. (2011). The influence of guarantees, active requests to voice and
failure severity on customer complaint behavior. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 30(4), 953–962. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.02.003
Meyer, J., Gremler, D. D., & Hogreve, J. (2014). Do service guarantees guarantee greater market
value? Journal of Service Research, 17(2), 150–163. doi:10.1177/1094670513505359
Miklós-Thal, J., & Zhang, J. (2013). (De) marketing to manage consumer quality inferences. Journal
of Marketing Research, 50(1), 55–69. doi:10.1509/jmr.11.0432
Miyazaki, A. D., Grewal, D., & Goodstein, R. C. (2005). The effect of multiple extrinsic cues on
quality perceptions: A matter of consistency. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 146–153.
doi:10.1086/429606
O’Brien, M. (1999). $6 million in free rooms provided by Hampton Inn’s 100% satisfaction
guarantee in past decade. Retrieved from https://www.hotel-online.com/News/
PressReleases1999_4th/Oct99_HamptonGuarantee.html
O’Connor, P. (2010). Managing a hotel’s image on TripAdvisor. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management, 19(7), 754–772. doi:10.1080/19368623.2010.508007
Olsen, M. C., Slotegraaf, R. J., & Chandukala, S. R. (2014). Green claims and message frames: How green
new products change brand attitude. Journal of Marketing, 78(5), 119–137. doi:10.1509/jm.13.0387
Papathanassis, A., & Knolle, F. (2011). Exploring the adoption and processing of online holiday
reviews: A grounded theory approach. Tourism Management, 32(2), 215–224. doi:10.1016/j.
tourman.2009.12.005
Park, S., & Nicolau, J. L. (2015). Asymmetric effects of online consumer reviews. Annals of Tourism
Research, 50, 67–83. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2014.10.007
Peer, E., Brandimarte, L., Samat, S., & Acquisti, A. (2017). Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms
for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 153–163.
doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2017.01.006
Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. (2012). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to
attitude change. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In
Communication and persuasion (pp. 1–24). New York, NY: Springer.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising
effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 135–146.
doi:10.1086/208954
Pizzutti, C., Pizzutti, C., Basso, K., Basso, K., Albornoz, M., & Albornoz, M. (2016). The effect of the
discounted attribute importance in two-sided messages. European Journal of Marketing, 50(9/10),
1703–1725. doi:10.1108/EJM-05-2015-0304
Purnawirawan, N., De Pelsmacker, P., & Dens, N. (2012). Balance and sequence in online reviews:
How perceived usefulness affects attitudes and intentions. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(4),
244–255. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2012.04.002
Risselada, H., de Vries, L., & Verstappen, M. (2018). The impact of social influence on the perceived
helpfulness of online consumer reviews. European Journal of Marketing, 52(3/4), 619–636.
doi:10.1108/EJM-09-2016-0522
26 S. SHARIFI

Shah, J. Y., Kruglanski, A. W., & Thompson, E. P. (1998). Membership has its (epistemic) rewards:
Need for closure effects on in-group bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(2),
383–393. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.2.383
Sharifi, S. S., Palmeira, M., Ma, J., & Spassova, G. (2017). The impact of service failure and recovery
on target and observing customers: A comparative study. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management, 26(8), 889–910. doi:10.1080/19368623.2017.1337538
Smith, S. M., & Petty, R. E. (1996). Message framing and persuasion: A message processing analysis.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(3), 257–268. doi:10.1177/0146167296223004
Sowder, J. (1996). The 100% satisfaction guarantee: Ensuring quality at Hampton Inn. National
Productivity Review, 15(2), 53–66. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6734
Sparks, B. A., & Browning, V. (2011). The impact of online reviews on hotel booking intentions and
perception of trust. Tourism Management, 32(6), 1310–1323. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2010.12.011
Sparks, B. A., So, K. K. F., & Bradley, G. L. (2016). Responding to negative online reviews: The
effects of hotel responses on customer inferences of trust and concern. Tourism Management, 53,
74–85. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2015.09.011
Suwelack, T., Hogreve, J., & Hoyer, W. D. (2011). Understanding money-back guarantees:
Cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Retailing, 87(4), 462–478. doi:10.1016/
j.jretai.2011.09.002
Tan, H., Lv, X., Liu, X., & Gursoy, D. (2018). Evaluation nudge: Effect of evaluation mode of online
customer reviews on consumers’ preferences. Tourism Management, 65, 29–40. doi:10.1016/j.
tourman.2017.09.011
Torres, E. N., Singh, D., & Robertson-Ring, A. (2015). Consumer reviews and the creation of
booking transaction value: Lessons from the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 50, 77–83. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.07.012
Uribe, R., Buzeta, C., & Velásquez, M. (2016). Sidedness, commercial intent and expertise in blog
advertising. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4403–4410. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.102
Vermeulen, I. E., & Seegers, D. (2009). Tried and tested: The impact of online hotel reviews on
consumer consideration. Tourism Management, 30(1), 123–127. doi:10.1016/j.
tourman.2008.04.008
Viglia, G., Minazzi, R., & Buhalis, D. (2016). The influence of e-word-of-mouth on hotel occupancy
rate. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(9), 2035–2051.
doi:10.1108/IJCHM-05-2015-0238
Wu, C. H.-J., Liao, H.-C., Hung, K.-P., & Ho, Y.-H. (2012). Service guarantees in the hotel industry:
Their effects on consumer risk and service quality perceptions. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 31(3), 757–763. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.09.012
Wu, L., Shen, H., Fan, A., & Mattila, A. S. (2017). The impact of language style on consumers′
reactions to online reviews. Tourism Management, 59, 590–596. doi:10.1016/j.
tourman.2016.09.006
Xie, K. L., So, K. K. F., & Wang, W. (2017). Joint effects of management responses and online
reviews on hotel financial performance: A data-analytics approach. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 62, 101–110. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.12.004
Xie, K. L., Zhang, Z., & Zhang, Z. (2014). The business value of online consumer reviews and
management response to hotel performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
43, 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.07.007
Ye, Q., Law, R., & Gu, B. (2009). The impact of online user reviews on hotel room sales.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(1), 180–182. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2008.06.011
Zhu, F., & Zhang, X. (2010). Impact of online consumer reviews on sales: The moderating role of
product and consumer characteristics. Journal of Marketing, 74(2), 133–148. doi:10.1509/
jmkg.74.2.133
 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 27

Appendices

Appendix A: The stimuli used in Study 1

28 S. SHARIFI

Appendix B: reliability and validity of the measures

All constructs exhibited composite reliabilities above the recommended threshold of .70. All item loadings
were positive and statistically significant, indicating unidimensionality (Anderson, 1987). Furthermore,
most of the item reliabilities were above the recommended threshold of .40 (Bagozzi & Baumgartner, 1994).
There were a few exceptions, which we retained in the model and the analyses for the sake of conceptual
comprehensiveness (see Homburg, Müller, & Klarmann, 2011). The square roots of AVEs were greater
than the correlation coefficients, which confirms discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Table 1
summarizes the results of confirmatory factor analysis across the studies.

Table 1. The results of confirmatory factor analysis across all the studies.
Study 1 Study 2
NFCC (Study 1: α = .96, CR = .90, AVE = .40; Study 2: α = .96, CR = .89, AVE = .37)
I don’t like situations that are uncertain. .75 .76
I dislike questions which could be answered in many different ways. .73 .66
I find that a well-ordered life with regular hours suits my temperament. .61 .71
I feel uncomfortable when I don’t understand the reason why an event occurred in my life. .71 .57
I feel irritated when one person disagrees with what everyone else in a group believes. .58 .50
I don’t like to go into a situation without knowing what I can expect from it. .75 .68
When I have made a decision, I feel relieved. .61 .40
When I am confronted with a problem, I’m dying to reach a solution very quickly. .61 .51
I would quickly become impatient and irritated if I would not find a solution to a problem .53 .46
immediately.
I don’t like to be with people who are capable of unexpected actions. .63 .61
I dislike it when a person’s statement could mean many different things. .72 .63
I find that establishing a consistent routine enables me to enjoy life more. .50 .63
I enjoy having a clear and structured mode of life. .54 .70
I do not usually consult many different opinions before forming my own view. .30 .36
I dislike unpredictable situations. .76 .78
Purchase intentions (Study 1: α = .96, CR = .96, AVE = .89; Study 2: α = .94, CR = .90, AVE = .75)
I am likely to go this hotel. .93 .87
I will think about going to this hotel. .95 .86
I may actually try this hotel. .95 .87
Trust (Study 1: α = .95, CR = .95, AVE = .86; Study 2: α = .90, CR = .95, AVE = .86)
I think the review was trustworthy. .90 .93
I think the review was reliable. .94 .91
I think the review was credible. .95 .94
Study 1: CMIN/DF = 1.22, CFI = .98, TLI = .98, NFI = .91, RMSEA = .04
Study 2: CMIN/DF = 1.31, CFI = .98, TLI = .97, NFI = .91, RMSEA = .04
Study 1: r NFCC & trust = .19, p < .05, r NFCC & PI = .12, p > .10, r PI & trust = .44, p < .001
Study 2: r NFCC & trust = .34, p < .001, r NFCC & PI = .10, p > .10, r PI & trust = .23, p < .01
 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 29

Appendix C: The stimuli used in Study 2

30 S. SHARIFI