Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing

Antecedents of consumers’ reliance on online product reviews

Alhassan G. Mumuni, Karen M. Lancendorfer, Kelley A. O’Reilly, Amy MacMillan,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Alhassan G. Mumuni, Karen M. Lancendorfer, Kelley A. O’Reilly, Amy MacMillan, (2019)
"Antecedents of consumers’ reliance on online product reviews", Journal of Research in Interactive
Marketing, Vol. 13 Issue: 1, pp.26-46, https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-11-2017-0096
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-11-2017-0096
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 18:27 21 April 2019 (PT)

Downloaded on: 21 April 2019, At: 18:27 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 126 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 208 times since 2019*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2019),"Customer engagement in an e-commerce brand community: An empirical comparison
of alternate models", Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 13 Iss 1 pp. 2-25 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-01-2018-0003">https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-01-2018-0003</a>
(2018),"Why did I buy this?: The effect of WOM and online reviews on post purchase attribution
for product outcomes", Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 12 Iss 3 pp. 370-395 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-12-2017-0102">https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-12-2017-0102</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:604154 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


JRIM
13,1
26
Received 17 November 2017
Revised 7 June 2018
5 November 2018
Accepted 26 November 2018
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 18:27 21 April 2019 (PT)
Journal of Research in Interactive
Marketing
Vol. 13 No. 1, 2019
pp. 26-46
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-7122
DOI 10.1108/JRIM-11-2017-0096
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-7122.htm
Antecedents of consumers’
reliance on online product reviews
Alhassan G. Mumuni, Karen M. Lancendorfer and Kelley A. O’Reilly
Department of Marketing, Haworth College of Business,
Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA, and
Amy MacMillan
Department of Economics and Business,
Kalamazoo College, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
Abstract
Purpose – This paper examines the role that attitudes toward online product reviews (OPRs), perceived
credibility of OPRs and perceived benefit of OPRs play as antecedents of consumers’ reliance on OPRs in
purchase decisions. A conceptual model of relationships investigated posits that attitudes drive reliance and
are in turn driven by perceived benefit and credibility of OPRs. The study also examines gender differences in
the constructs and their inter-relationships.
Design/methodology/approach – Data from a structured self-administered survey of US consumers
are used to estimate parameters of a structural equation model (SEM) of the relationships. Gender differences
in the structural relationships are tested using multi-group SEM, while gender differences in reliance,
attitudes, benefit and credibility are tested using independent-samples t-tests.
Findings – Results show a strong positive effect of attitudes toward OPRs on reliance on OPRs. In turn,
perceived benefit and credibility of OPRs are strong positive drivers of attitudes toward OPRs, with benefit
having a greater impact. Structural relationships among the constructs are invariant across the two gender
groups. However, there is a statistically significant difference between males and females in reliance on OPRs,
with males exhibiting a tendency to rely more on OPRs than females.
Originality/value – The study introduces two new constructs to the literature – reliance on OPRs and
global attitudes toward OPRs – and provides initial conceptualizations and operationalizations. The specific
results underscore the relevance and importance of further research on these constructs and their
relationships with other OPR-relevant constructs. They also provide initial indications of gender differences
in consumers’ perceptions of OPRs and relationships among these and reliance on OPRs that are worthy of
additional research attention.
Keywords Online marketing, Online shopping, Word-of-mouth marketing,
Online consumer behavior, Consumer behaviour internet
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
From blogs and microblogs to forums, chat rooms, social networking sites and online review
sites, the internet has provided consumers the means to easily acquire product information
from other consumers, as well as share their own product experiences. This online
consumer-to-consumer communication is referred to as electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM),
and one popular type is online product reviews (OPRs) (Chatterjee, 2001). OPRs may appear
on company or brand websites, social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, or
dedicated product review platforms such as CNET.com, ConsumerReports.com,
ConsumerSearch.com and DPReview.com. Recent studies show that consumers are
increasingly turning to these OPRs as a source of information for product purchase
decisions that are made in both on- and offline environments. Estimates are that as much as
 70 per cent of customers consult OPRs before making a final purchase (PeopleClaim, 2013), Online product
and 63 per cent of consumers are more likely to purchase from a site if it has product ratings reviews
and reviews (MacDonald, 2018). This increasing reliance on OPRs cuts across demographic
groups, although the extent of reliance is higher for some demographic groups than others.
For instance, consumers under 50 years old are more likely to regularly use OPRs in their
shopping decisions, especially when buying something for the first time (Pew Research,
2016b). As high as 62 per cent of this demographic group have used their phones to look up
online reviews of something they were thinking of purchasing or to see if they could find a 27
better price online.
This increasing tendency for consumers to rely on OPRs in purchase decisions
underscores a need for research to understand its drivers. Yet a review of the literature
shows a dearth of studies that have examined reliance on OPRs as a construct. A notable
exception is Zhu and Zhang (2010) who included the construct in their conceptual model.
However, they only used it as a proxy for word of mouth and neither conceptualized nor
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 18:27 21 April 2019 (PT)

operationalized it. Other researchers have simply mentioned the construct to underscore the
growing importance of OPRs in consumer decision-making without either conceptualizing
or operationalizing it (Song and Paul, 2016). In the mass communications literature,
however, media reliance has been identified as an important construct worthy of study
because it contributes to understanding various aspects of media behavior (Johnson and
Kaye, 2014). The present study addresses this gap in the literature by specifically focusing
on the reliance-on-OPRs construct and examining its drivers.
Research so far suggests that consumers may be increasingly relying on OPRs in
purchase decisions because they find OPRs to be more convenient, valuable and credible
than traditional sources of product information, such as company or brand marketing
communications (BrightLocal, 2015; Gefen et al., 2003; Hsiao et al., 2010; Nielsen, 2015;
Pavlou and Fygenson, 2006; Teng et al., 2017; Xia and Bechwati, 2008). For instance, a
Nielsen (2015) study found that 66 per cent of global consumers said they trust OPRs, while
BrightLocal (2015) and PeopleClaim (2013) studies found even higher levels of
trustworthiness, with 80 per cent of consumers saying they trust OPRs as much as personal
recommendations (BrightLocal, 2015) and 82 per cent saying they consider user-generated
reviews to be either valuable or extremely valuable (PeopleClaim, 2013). At the same time,
other studies find substantially high levels of consumer skepticism about the credibility of
OPRs. For instance, one study found that 70 per cent of consumers have questioned the
trustworthiness of online reviews (BazaarVoice, 2014), and a Pew Research study found that
just around two-thirds of consumers are comfortable with, and believe that OPRs are
truthful and accurate (Pew Research, 2016b). Thus, one in three consumers at least do not
fully trust OPRs. The Pew Research results seem to imply that the level of consumers’
experience with OPRs may moderate these findings. Specifically, only 38 per cent of
consumers who say they only sometimes read online reviews say OPRs are generally
credible, while 61 per cent say it is often hard to tell if they are truthful and unbiased. These
figures are reversed for consumers who say they regularly use OPRs. Thus, it appears that
reliance on OPRs is associated with perceived credibility of OPRs. However, because few
studies have specifically examined the drivers of consumers’ reliance on OPRs, the exact
nature of the relationship between reliance and perceived credibility of OPRs is still not
clear.
Given this additional background, the present study specifically examines the role that
perceived credibility of OPRs plays in consumers’ reliance on OPRs in purchase decision-
making. A key premise is that, along with perceived benefits of OPRs, credibility drives
reliance on OPRs indirectly through consumers’ attitudes toward OPRs. Thus, attitudes are
 JRIM posited to be a mediator of the relationship between reliance on OPRs on one hand and
13,1 perceived credibility and benefit of OPRs on the other. The study also examines gender
differences in consumers’ reliance, perceptions and attitudes toward OPRs as well as gender
differences in the strength of the relationships among the constructs. In doing so, it
contributes to the eWOM literature in three ways. First, it is the first study to formally
examine reliance on OPR as a construct in OPR research, and provides an initial
28 conceptualization and operationalization of the construct. This is important in view of the
growing tendency for consumers to rely on OPRs (not just merely use them) in purchase
decisions. Second, this study is one of the first to address consumers’ global attitudes toward
OPRs as a distinct construct as opposed to attitudes toward specific products/brands or
specific OPR forms. Although previous studies have examined attitudes within the context
of OPRs (Chu and Kamal, 2008; Lee et al., 2008; Lee and Youn, 2009; Sen and Lerman, 2007;
Zainal et al., 2017), these have tended to focus on attitudes toward either specific products/
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 18:27 21 April 2019 (PT)

brands (Ayeh et al., 2013 on TripAdvisor) or specific OPR forms, such as blogs (Colton, 2018;
Consenza et al., 2015) rather than global attitudes toward OPRs. This distinction is
important because research in psychology suggests that global and specific attitudes
involve different underlying psychological processes and can have different consequences
on behavioral outcomes (Sibley et al., 2006; Sun and Wilson, 2008). Finally, this study is one
of a few studies in the OPR literature to consider gender differences not only in levels of the
key constructs but also in structural relationships among the constructs.

Online product reviews

OPRs are a form of eWOM, which is broadly considered as evaluations of products or
services shared online by consumers (Zhang et al., 2010). A more detailed definition is
offered by Hennig-Thurau et al. (2004, p. 39), who define eWOM as:
[. . .] any positive or negative statement made by potential, actual, or former customers about a
product or company which is made available to a multitude of people and institutions via the
Internet.
Research in eWOM communication spans many platforms, including blogs (Colton, 2018;
Consenza et al., 2015; Dhar and Chang, 2009; Hsu et al., 2013; Kozinets et al., 2010; Thorson
and Rodgers, 2006), social networking sites (Dwyer et al., 2007; Saleem and Ellahi, 2017;
Trusov et al., 2009), discussion forums (Andreassen and Streukens, 2009; Cheung et al., 2009)
and online consumer product reviews through both company e-commerce sites and
independent rating sites (Chevalier and Mayzlin, 2006; Clemons and Gao, 2008; Lee and
Youn, 2009; Lepkowska-White, 2013; Mudambi and Schuff, 2010; Sen and Lerman, 2007;
Tirunillai and Tellis, 2012).
Research suggests that OPRs influence consumers’ purchase-decision processes (Adjei
et al., 2010; Chevalier and Mayzlin, 2006; Zhu and Zhang, 2010; Zhang and Tran, 2011; Teng
et al., 2017; O’Reilly et al., 2018) because more than simply providing product information,
OPRs also serve as recommendations, providing insight beyond what is traditionally
available from company-controlled sources (Park et al., 2007; Zhu et al., 2018). The bulk of
research to date has adopted a communications perspective to understanding eWOM
(Cheung and Thadani, 2012; King et al., 2014), typically using a source credibility
framework. Accordingly, Cheung and Thadani (2012) classify individual-level (versus
market-level) eWOM studies into five focal areas:
(1) characteristics of the sender (source), such as expertise, trustworthiness and
attribution;
 (2) characteristics of the receiver (audience), such as involvement and product Online product
knowledge; reviews
(3) characteristics of the message (content), such as argument quality, valence
sidedness and volume;
(4) the communications context; and
(5) nature of the responses (main effect) to eWOM, such as perceived eWOM
credibility, eWOM attitudes and eWOM adoption. 29
The present study is positioned within the first and last categories, dealing with how
consumers’ perceptions of eWOM sender characteristics impact their responses to eWOM. A
parallel/alternative classification is provided by King et al. (2014), who classify eWOM
research into four broad categories, i.e. studies dealing with:
(1) antecedents of eWOM senders (why people talk online);
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 18:27 21 April 2019 (PT)

(2) consequences for eWOM senders (what happens to communicators);

(3) antecedents of the receiver (why people listen); and
(4) consequences to the receiver (the power of eWOM).

The present study is positioned within the last category, as it deals with how eWOM
impacts consumers’ perceptions, attitudes and decision-making.

Gender differences in online product reviews use

The traditional communications literature has long suggested that receiver characteristics
have the potential to affect the evaluation of communications (Cheung et al., 2009; Doh and
Hwang, 2009; McKnight and Kacmar, 2006; Zhu and Zhang, 2010). Some evidence is
beginning to show that also within the realm of OPRs, receiver characteristics such as
gender affect how receivers evaluate OPRs (Doh and Hwang, 2009; Garbarino and
Strahilevitz, 2004; Liu et al., 2017; Martin and Lueg, 2013; Sher and Lee, 2009). Evidence also
suggests that men and women are driven by different motives for using OPRs. For instance,
Liu et al. (2017), found that men are more likely than women to use OPRs for simple
hypothesis confirmation in a review setting. In a more specific context, Kim et al. (2011)
found that while women in general use hotel reviews for risk reduction motives, only men
with medium levels of expertise in online booking use them for that purpose. Both of these
studies suggest that women may be more likely to rely on OPRs regardless of their own
perceived levels of expertise, and therefore, may perceive the benefits of OPRs to be higher
than men, resulting in a higher degree of reliance on OPRs than men.
There is also the issue of whether OPRs impact male and female consumers the same
way. While this is a relatively nascent area of study, a number of studies suggest that this
may not be the case, i.e. that OPRs may impact males and females differently. For instance,
previous research suggests that women are more heavily influenced by eWOM during
online shopping than men (Garbarino and Strahilevitz, 2004). Women have also been found
to be more impacted by both positive and negative reviews than men, and to rely more
heavily on eWOM (Bae and Lee, 2011; Zhang et al., 2014). Furthermore, women tend to view
OPRs from a more relational perspective than men, helping to explain why women are more
prone to recommend only those brands they are loyal to (Rialti et al., 2017).
Finally, recent work has found that in situations of information overload or cognitive
dissonance, men are more likely to consider fewer clues within OPRs as a strategy for
dealing with too much information (Meyers-Levy and Maheswaran, 1991), while women
 JRIM may tend to seek out fewer, more positive OPRs (Gottschalk and Mafael, 2017; Park and Lee,
13,1 2008) or focus on less-biased forms of review such as numerical ratings (Liu et al., 2017).
These findings come within the backdrop of research highlighting gender differences in
consumers’ online shopping behavior in general (Awad and Ragowsky, 2008; Bae and Lee,
2011; Garbarino and Strahilevitz, 2004; Hasan, 2010; Janda, 2008; Kim et al., 2011) and online
risk, privacy and security concerns in particular (Bae and Lee, 2011; Garbarino and
30 Strahilevitz, 2004; Janda, 2008). In sum, there is a growing body of evidence suggesting
gender differences in OPR use, but the findings are not yet conclusive, underscoring a need
to examine the potential moderating role of gender on structural relationships as
investigated in this study.

Conceptual model and hypotheses

Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 18:27 21 April 2019 (PT)

The proposed conceptual model for the study is shown in Figure 1. Consumers’ reliance on
OPRs is posited to be driven by their attitudes toward OPRs, which in turn are posited to be
driven by perceived benefit and credibility of OPRs.

Reliance on online product reviews

In this study, reliance on OPRs is viewed as the extent to which consumers depend on OPRs
relative to other information sources in purchase decisions. It essence it addresses the extent
to which a consumer feels a need to consult OPRs before making purchase decisions and
would worry about decision quality if they do not use OPRs. It also includes a tendency for
the consumer to value and trust OPRs relative to other information sources, including
opinions of friends and relatives, one of the most trusted source of information. This
conceptualization draws on a notion in the mass communications literature that media
reliance is a more complex construct that goes beyond simply media use, the amount of time
spent with a medium, or how frequently it is accessed. Under this notion, media reliance also
includes consumers’ attitude toward the specific media (Johnson and Kaye, 2014), reflecting
a level of trust in that media.

Gender

H5

Perceived benefit of
online product reviews H2
H1
+
Attitude toward Reliance on online
online product product reviews
+
+ reviews
Perceived credibility of
Figure 1. online product reviews H3
Conceptual model
and hypothesized
relationships
 Attitude toward online product reviews Online product
Attitude is an enduring psychological construct that has been used in numerous consumer reviews
behavior models, theories, and empirical studies (Kraus, 1995). It has variously been defined
as an individual’s disposition to respond favorably or unfavorably to an object, person,
institution or event (Ajzen, 1989), as a tendency to evaluate an entity with some degree of
favor or disfavor, ordinarily expressed in cognitive, affective and behavioral responses
(Eagly and Chaiken, 1993), and as a relatively global and enduring evaluation of an object
(offering, person, etc.), issue, activity or event (Hoyer et al., 2013). Common among these 31
definitions is the notion of a generalized feeling toward the attitude object. Therefore, in the
context of the present study, attitude toward OPRs speaks to consumers’ general feelings
about OPRs, i.e. their tendency to view OPRs in either a positive or negative light.
Numerous theoretical and empirical studies show that attitude is an important predictor
of behavior, albeit through behavioral intention (Ajzen, 1989; Eagly and Chaiken, 1993). The
theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) postulates that, along with perceived behavioral
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 18:27 21 April 2019 (PT)

control, attitude toward a behavior is the key determinant of intentions to perform the
behavior, which in turn impacts the actual behavior. Over the years, attitudes have been
shown to impact usage behaviors across several information technology-related contexts
(Bhattacherjee and Premkumar, 2004) such as computer use (Mitra, 1998), email use (Gefen
and Straub, 1997) and adoption of online shopping (Limayem et al., 2000; Liao and Cheung,
2001; Childers et al., 2001; George, 2002; Griffith et al., 2001; Monsuwe et al., 2004; Shim et al.,
2001). In the realm of OPRs, Consenza et al. (2015) found that attitude toward wine blogs
(conceptualized as trust in the blogs) significantly impacts consumers’ likelihood to follow
recommendations from the blogs, spread word-of-mouth about blog contents and continue
participating in the blogs. Ayeh et al. (2013) found that consumers’ attitudes toward user-
generated content in TripAdvisor strongly influenced their intentions and subsequent use of
such content for travel planning. Similarly, Zainal et al. (2017) noted that within the tourism
industry, attitudes toward eWOM influenced travelers’ intention to follow advice espoused
in that eWOM. Finally, Elwalda et al. (2016) found that attitudes toward OPRs
(conceptualized as perceived enjoyment resulting from OPR use), significantly affected
intention to shop online. Based on the strength of this theoretical and empirical evidence, we
expect that the more favorable a consumer’s attitude toward OPRs the more likely he/she is
to use and rely on them in product purchase decisions. Therefore we hypothesize that:

H1. Consumers’ reliance on OPRs for purchase decision-making is positively influenced

by their attitudes toward OPRs.

Credibility of online product reviews

Credibility is a key construct in the communications literature that has been extensively
applied to study eWOM (Cheung et al., 2009; Cheung and Thadani, 2012; Dholakia and
Sternthal, 1977; Erdem and Swait, 2004; Grewal et al., 1994; Harmon and Coney, 1982). A
common theme in the many attempts in the literature to define the construct is the notion
that credibility refers to the believability of a communications source. Griffin (1967) defines
credibility as a combination of the extent to which a communicator is perceived to be a
source of valid assertions and the level of a perceiver’s confidence in the communicator’s
intent to communicate the assertions he considers most valid. Credibility has also been
defined as judgments made by a perceiver concerning the believability of a communicator
(Hovland et al., 1953; O’Keefe, 1990). In an application to a personal selling context,
credibility has been defined as the trust, confidence and faith that consumers have in a
salesman, or simply the extent to which the salesman can be believed (Simpson and Kahler,
 JRIM 1981). Thus, in the context of OPRs, credibility is viewed as the extent to which consumers
13,1 believe that OPRs convey truthful and accurate product information.
Several studies have demonstrated a link between credibility judgments and attitudes in
a variety of contexts. Specifically, credibility of celebrity endorsers has been found to
significantly impact attitudes toward the endorsed ad (Lafferty and Goldsmith, 1999;
Goldsmith et al., 2000; Lafferty et al., 2002), corporate credibility has been shown to impact
32 attitudes toward brands (Lafferty and Goldsmith, 1999; Goldsmith et al., 2000; Lafferty et al.,
2002), and credibility of non-profit websites has been found to significantly impact attitude
toward the sites (Long and Chiagouris, 2006). In the realm of eWOM, Colton (2018) found
that along with blogging involvement and attitude toward the corporation, blog credibility
is an important determinant of attitude toward the blog. Ayeh et al. (2013) found that
consumers’ perceptions of the credibility of user-generated content on TripAdvisor
significantly influenced their attitudes toward the content. Erkan and Evans (2016) noted
that characteristics of eWOM on social media, particularly credibility and usefulness, were
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 18:27 21 April 2019 (PT)

positively related to attitude toward eWOM and subsequent purchase intention. Using in-
depth interviews with users of TripAdvisor.com, Filieri (2016), determined that consumers’
assessment of a review as credible or trustworthy ultimately influenced the review’s ability
to persuade the consumer. Based on the strong theoretical and empirical link between
credibility and attitudes in similar contexts we offer the following hypothesis:

H2. Consumers’ attitudes toward OPRs are positively influenced by perceived

credibility of OPRs.

Benefit of online product reviews

Benefit of OPRs reflects the degree to which consumers find OPRs to be helpful (beneficial)
in facilitating their purchase decisions. Conceptually, it is similar to OPR usefulness, which
has been derived from the technology acceptance model (TAM) (Davis, 1989) and defined as
the extent to which consumers believe that online reviews would facilitate their purchase
decision-making processes (Park and Lee, 2009). TAM itself posits that attitude toward a
technology and its subsequent acceptance by consumers is determined primarily by its
perceived usefulness and ease of use. Numerous studies in the information systems and
marketing literatures have confirmed the positive effect of perceived usefulness on users’
attitudes toward new technology systems and their eventual adoption of these systems
(Bigné-Alcaniz et al., 2008; Deng et al., 2010; Lee and Chang, 2011; Lin and Lu, 2000; Tero
et al., 2004). In the specific realm of OPRs, Elwalda et al. (2016), Park and Lee (2009) and Liu
et al. (2017) find that perceived usefulness plays an important role in strengthening the
purchase influence of online reviews. While OPRs may no longer qualify as a new
technology because they have been around for some time, there is still reason to expect that
beyond the initial adoption, consumers’ perceptions of the continued benefits of OPRs will
have a strong positive impact on their attitudes toward OPRs. Accordingly, we hypothesize
that:

H3. Consumers’ attitudes toward OPRs are positively influenced by perceived benefit of
OPRs.

Gender differences in reliance, attitudes, credibility and benefit

The previously reviewed literature on gender differences in consumers’ online behavior
provides sufficient grounds to expect that reliance, attitudes, benefit and credibility of online
reviews will be different for male and female consumers. However, given the nascent nature
 of the research, there is no solid theoretical basis for predicting the specific direction of these Online product
differences. Nevertheless, because of the empirical evidence so far suggesting that women reviews
rely more heavily on eWOM than men (Bae and Lee, 2011; Liu et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2014),
are more likely to use online reviews for risk reduction motives (Kim et al., 2011), and tend to
be more heavily influenced by eWOM during online shopping (Garbarino and Strahilevitz,
2004), we suspect that women may be more likely to find OPRs to be credible, perceive the
benefits of OPRs to be higher and tend to rely more on OPRs than men. Therefore, we
advance the following hypotheses: 33
H4a. Reliance on OPRs is stronger for females than males.

H4b. Attitudes toward OPRs are more positive for females than males.

H4c. Perceived benefit of OPRs is higher for females than males.

Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 18:27 21 April 2019 (PT)

H4d. Perceived credibility of OPRs is higher for females than males.

Moderating role of gender on structural relationships

While the above hypotheses address gender differences in levels of reliance, attitudes,
benefit and credibility of online reviews, some findings in the literature point to possible
gender differences in relationships among the constructs. For instance, research has shown
that while eWOM credibility affects acceptance and use of eWOM for both male and female
consumers, it has a greater impact on females (Fan and Miao, 2012). Additionally, online
credibility concerns have been found to affect purchase likelihood more for women than men
(Janda, 2008; Liu et al., 2017). The literature also suggests that trust is a greater determining
factor in online shopping intentions for females than males (Awad and Ragowsky, 2008).
Based on these findings, we propose that gender moderates the structural relationships
among reliance, attitudes, benefit and credibility of OPRs, and advance the following
specific hypotheses:

H5a. The relationship between reliance and attitudes toward OPRs is stronger for
females than males.

H5b. The relationship between attitudes and perceived benefit of OPRs is stronger for
females than males.

H5c. The relationship between attitudes and perceived credibility of OPRs is stronger
for females than males.

Methods
Data to test the hypotheses were collected through a structured self-administered online
survey using respondents drawn from Survey Monkey’s panel of US consumers. Responses
were collected only from panel members who had read or used an OPR within the past 12
months. A sample of 240 responses was purchased, evenly split between male and female
respondents. The sample size was established based on sample size guidelines in the SEM
literature. Hair et al. (2010, p. 661) recommend that SEM sample sizes be between 100 and
400 respondents for the types of relatively simple model that we test in this study, and the
maximum likelihood estimation that we planned to use. This helps avoid unstable solutions
at low sample sizes and increased sensitivity at large samples sizes (>400), which often
 JRIM results in almost any difference being detected as significant and goodness-of-fit measures
13,1 suggesting poor fit.

Measures and measure validation

Measures for all study constructs are shown in Table I. Reliance on OPRs was measured
using three Likert-type statements to which respondents expressed agreement/
34 disagreement on a seven-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). Because this
construct has not previously been formally conceptualized in the eWOM literature, the items
were developed for this study. They were formulated to reflect different dimensions of
reliance as captured in dictionary definitions – the notion of dependence on something or
someone (Cambridge) and the confident or trustful nature of that dependence (Dictionary.
com), as well the notion of exclusive or greater use of one medium relative to others in the
mass media literature on media reliance.
Attitude toward OPRs was measured using five Likert-type statements to which
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 18:27 21 April 2019 (PT)

respondents expressed agreement/disagreement on a seven-point scale (1 = strongly

disagree; 7 = strongly agree). Two of the items (items 1 and 2) were adopted from Zou et al.
(2011) and the remaining were developed for this study to reflect the construct’s
conceptualization as the degree of positive or negative affect that a consumer has toward
OPRs in general, not just reviews for specific brands or from specific eWOM sources.
Perceived benefit of OPRs was measured using five Likert-type statements and a seven-
point agree/disagree scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). The items were
adapted from Hennig-Thurau and Walsh (2003), with adaptations made to items to reflect
our conceptualization of the construct as consumers’ perceptions of the benefits or value
they derive from consulting OPRs prior to product purchase.
Perceived credibility of OPRs was measured using nine semantic differential items and a
seven-point scale adopted from Ghazisaeedi et al. (2012). Although the authors proposed the
scale as a measure of the trustworthiness of blogs, the scale items were themselves adopted
from the communications literature on source credibility, specifically Ohanian (1990) and
Tripp et al. (1994). That literature suggests that along with expertise, trustworthiness is the
most dominant dimension of credibility, leading us to adopt it as a proxy for credibility.
Besides, it appears to be the most relevant credibility dimension when applied to the study
context.
Following Anderson and Gerbing (1988), prior to conducting the structural analyses to
test the hypothesized relationships, the construct measures were validated through
confirmatory factor analysis using LISREL 8.80 for Windows (Joreskog and Sorbom, 2004).
The measurement model was fit to a covariance matrix of the measurement items and
maximum likelihood estimation was used to derive the model parameters. To improve
model fit, a number of indicator error covariances (all of which were within-construct
measures) were allowed to correlate based on the modification indices. Table I shows
standardized factor loadings, t-values and item reliabilities of measurement items on their
respective constructs. The Table also shows composite reliability (CR) and average variance
extracted (AVE) for each construct.
The individual item reliabilities are above the recommended minimum of 0.7 for all but
two items, indicating that for the vast majority of items, more than 50 per cent of the
variances are shared with their respective constructs. Furthermore, composite reliabilities
for all constructs are around 0.9, substantially above the recommended 0.7 minimum
(Hulland, 1999), providing evidence in support of acceptable measure reliability. On
measurement validity, the standardized factor loadings are all above the recommended level
of 0.5 (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988) and AVE is above 0.5 for all constructs, indicating
 Item
Online product
Constructs and measurement items Loading a
t-value b
reliability CR c
AVE c reviews
Reliance on online product reviews 0.86 0.68
If I do not read online reviews before buying a product, I
worry about my decisiond 0.63 – 0.63
Online product reviews are more valuable to me than the
opinion of my friends 0.91 10.80 0.97 35
I trust online product reviews more than the opinion of
those around me 0.90 10.84 0.96
Attitude toward online product reviews 0.94 0.76
Online product reviews are helpful for my decision-makingd 0.84 – 0.91
Online product reviews make me confident in purchasing a
product 0.84 23.27 0.91
I find online product reviews to be informative 0.87 17.36 0.94
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 18:27 21 April 2019 (PT)

Online product reviews are a great way to discover good

things about products and services 0.92 17.46 0.98
Online product reviews are a great way to discover bad
things about products and services 0.88 17.84 0.95
Benefit of online product reviews 0.90 0.63
To discover new information about products I am about to
purchased 0.78 – 0.85
To confirm positive things I have heard about products I
am about to purchase 0.79 12.75 0.86
To confirm negative things I have heard about products I
am about to purchase 0.82 13.45 0.89
To avoid a bad purchase 0.75 12.08 0.81
To confirm that I am making a good purchase choice 0.84 12.87 0.92
Credibility of online product reviews 0.95 0.68
Not sincere . . .. Sincered 0.82 – 0.89
Not reliable . . . Reliable 0.87 16.67 0.94
Dishonest . . . Honest 0.86 15.93 0.93
Not dependable . . . Dependable 0.92 17.98 0.97
Not trustworthy . . . Trustworthy 0.89 17.26 0.90
Not credible . . . Credible 0.83 15.67 0.91
Biased . . . Not Biased 0.54 9.55 0.50
Not believable . . . Believable 0.82 15.49 0.89
Not reputable . . . Reputable 0.82 15.28 0.87
Notes: aFactor loadings are from the P completely standardized solution; ball t-values are significant at p <
2 P P
0.01; ccomposite reliability
P (CR)
P = ( l
P yi ) /(( l yi) 2
þ var( « i)) where var(« i) = 1 – l yi2; average variance
extracted (AVE) = l yi2/( l yi2 þ var(« i)) where var(« i) = 1 – l yi2 [Fornell and Larcker (1981)]. CRs Table I.
and AVEs are computed using parameters of the completely standardized solution; dT-values are not
computed for these variables because their values were fixed to “1”; Model Fit Statistics: Chi-square (169 df) = Results of
300.4; RMSEA = 0.057; GFI = 0.90; AGFI = 0.85; NFI = 0.98; NNFI = 0.99; CFI = 0.99; IFI = 0.99; RFI = 0.98; confirmatory factor
RMR = 0.12 analysis (n = 241)

acceptable convergent validity of the measures (Barclay and Smith, 1997). Discriminant
validity of the study constructs was assessed using Fornell–Larcker procedures, i.e. for any
pair of constructs compare their AVEs with the square of the correlation between them.
Discriminant validity is indicated if the AVEs are higher than the squared correlation.
Results of these comparisons are shown in Table II, which also shows the raw inter-
 JRIM construct correlations. They provide resounding evidence in support of discriminant
13,1 validity as AVEs for all construct pairs are higher than the respective square correlations.
The overall model fit statistics show acceptable fit of the measurement model to the data
[ x 2(169 df) = 300.4 (p < 0.001); Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.99; Root Mean Square Error
of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.057; Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) = 0.90; Adjusted
Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) = 0.85]. RMSEA is just slightly higher than the recommended
36 minimum value of 0.05, GFI is just at 0.9 (above 0.9 is preferable) and AGFI falls slightly
below 0.9.

Analysis and results

Descriptive statistics
Table III shows means and standard deviations for the study constructs. Means for all four
constructs are above the scale mid-point of 4. In relative terms, perceived benefit has the
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 18:27 21 April 2019 (PT)

highest mean, followed by attitude, credibility and reliance in that order. One-sample t-tests
were conducted to test if, based on the sample means, one can confidently conclude that
scores for perceived benefit, credibility, attitude and reliance are above the scale mid-point in
the larger population. The results show that this is indeed the case as all the t-values are
statistically significant at the 5 per cent level. Thus, we conclude that in general the study
population finds online reviews to be both valuable and credible, they have positive attitudes
toward online reviews, and generally rely on these reviews in product purchase decisions.

Hypotheses tests
The hypothesized relationships (H1 to H3) were tested through structural equation
modeling (SEM) by adding structural parameters to the measurement model in Table I. For
this test, the structural model was run on the entire sample, without regard to gender
differences. Model parameters for the test are shown in Figure 2.

Construct pair r r2 AVE1 AVE2 DV?

Attitude - Reliance 0.377 0.142 0.76 0.68 Yes

Benefit - Reliance 0.327 0.107 0.63 0.68 Yes
Credibility - Reliance 0.178 0.032 0.68 0.68 Yes
Benefit - Attitude 0.762 0.581 0.63 0.76 Yes
Benefit - Credibility 0.568 0.323 0.63 0.68 Yes
Table II.
Credibility -Attitude 0.232 0.054 0.68 0.76 Yes
Results of tests for
discriminant validity Notes: r2 = Square of correlation between constructs in the pair; AVEi = Average variance extracted for
of study constructs construct i in the construct pair; DV? = Discriminant validity established?

Descriptive
statistics One sample t-test Independent samples t-test
Constructs Mean SD t (df) p Male Female t (df) p

Reliance 4.32 1.59 2.69 (179) 0.008 4.57 4.04 2.248 (176) 0.026
Attitude 5.49 1.20 16.67 (179) 0.000 5.37 5.60 1.233 (176) 0.219
Table III. Benefit 5.69 1.13 20.20 (181) 0.000 5.60 5.78 1.054 (176) 0.293
Descriptive statistics Credibility 4.93 1.19 11.89 (231) 0.000 4.90 4.95 0.323 (230) 0.747
 The coefficient for the attitude-reliance relationship is positive and statistically significant Online product
( b = 0.45; t = 6.47; p < 0.01). In general, consumers’ attitudes toward OPRs positively reviews
influence their reliance on OPRs in product purchase decisions, providing support for H1.
The coefficients for perceived benefit ( b = 0.64; t = 8.27; p < 0.01) and perceived credibility
( b = 0.34; t = 6.00; p < 0.01) are both positive and statistically significant, providing support
for hypotheses H2 and H3 respectively. Thus, both are significant drivers of consumers’
attitudes toward OPRs. In relative terms, however, perceived benefit has a greater impact
than perceived credibility. 37

Gender differences
Two sets of hypotheses address gender differences. H4a-H4d address differences in mean
levels of the study constructs, and H5a-H5c address gender differences in structural
relationships among the constructs. H4a-H4d were tested using independent samples t-test
to examine if differences in population means between the male and female sub-samples are
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 18:27 21 April 2019 (PT)

statistically significant. The results (in the last major column of Table III) show a
statistically significant difference only for reliance on OPRs. However, the difference is in
the opposite direction than hypothesized. Specifically, contrary to H4a, males are
significantly more likely to rely on OPRs than females. Thus, H4a is not supported by the
data although gender differences in reliance is found. For the remaining three constructs
(attitude toward OPRs, perceived benefit and perceived credibility of OPRs), the results
show that differences in population means between males and females are not statistically
significant. Thus, H4b, H4c and H4d are not supported by the data.
H5a-H5c were tested using multi-group structural equation modeling (SEM). For this
analysis, a multi-group SEM was run to examine if and which structural model parameters
are significantly different between the male and female sub-samples. To do this, the SEM
model was run with all structural parameters freely estimated in both sub-samples (freely
estimated model). Results of these analyses are in Table IV.
Table IV shows that the structural parameters are very similar for the male and female
sub-samples, and the two are collectively similar to the coefficients for the entire sample.
The overall model statistics, particularly the relatively high RMSEA value of 0.12, suggest
that this specification with freely estimated sub-group parameters does not fit the data very
well. To further confirm the invariance in structural parameters between the two groups
another model was estimated with all the structural parameters constrained to be equal for

β = 0.64
Benefit
(t = 8.27)

β = 0.45
(t = 6.47)
Attitude Reliance

Credibility β = 0.34
(t = 6.00)

Notes: Betas are from the completely standardized solution; all t-values are Figure 2.
significant at p < 0.01; Model Fit Statistics: Chi-Square (171 df) = 339.0; Structural model
RMSEA = 0.064; GFI = 0.89; AGFI = 0.83; NFI = 0.98; NNFI = 0.99; parameters for entire
sample (n = 241)
CFI = 0.99; IFI = 0.99; RFI = 0.97; RMR = 0.16
 JRIM both groups (fully constrained model). The overall model fit statistics show that this model
13,1 fit the data much better ( x 2 = 660.09; df = 406; RMSEA = 0.074) than the freely estimated
model. A x 2 difference test shows that the difference in fit between the two models is
statistically significant (D x 2 = 278.17; Ddf = 3; p < 0.001).
Finally, given the larger numeric difference in parameters of the Attitude-Reliance path
between the two groups in the freely estimated model (0.48 and 0.40 for males and females,
38 respectively), we conducted a formal test for statistical significance of this difference. This
was accomplished by estimating another model that used the fully constrained model as
baseline but with the Attitude-Reliance path freely estimated for males and females and
comparing this model with the fully constrained model. The fit statistics for this model
( x 2 = 660.71; df = 405; RMSEA = 0.074) were virtually identical to those for the fully
constrained model, and a x 2 difference test showed that the difference in fit between the two
models is not statistically significant (D x 2 = 0.62; Ddf = 1; p > 0.1). In conclusion, the
empirical evidence does not support a moderating role of gender in any of the hypothesized
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 18:27 21 April 2019 (PT)

structural relationships. Thus, H5a, H5b and H5c are not supported.

Discussion and implications

This study examined the role of perceived credibility and benefit of online product reviews
(OPRs) on consumers’ attitudes toward OPRs, and how such attitudes impact the extent to
which consumers rely on OPRs in purchase decisions. Results show that perceived
credibility and perceived benefit are strong positive drivers of attitudes, with perceived
benefit having a relatively greater impact. In turn, attitudes strongly predict tendency to
rely on OPRs. Additional analyses show a significant difference between men and women in
reliance on OPRs, but in a different direction than expected. Structural relationships among
the constructs are invariant across the two gender groups, showing that the impact of
credibility and benefit on attitudes toward OPRs is the same for men and women, as is the
impact of attitude on tendency to rely on OPRs. It is also noteworthy that overall,
respondents found OPRs to be beneficial and credible as evidenced by the high mean scores.
Respondents likewise had positive attitudes toward OPRs, and generally relied on OPRs in
product purchase decisions. The results have theoretical and managerial implications.
From a theoretical point of view, this research adds to the OPR literature in two
important respects. First, it introduces two constructs that have the potential to add to our
understanding of how consumers relate to OPRs – reliance on and global attitudes toward
OPRs. The construct of reliance on OPRs adequately captures a growing phenomenon that
has been observed in many recent surveys of consumers, i.e. consumers reporting an
increasing tendency to consult OPRs for many purchase decisions and their willingness to
trust these reviews more than other sources of product information. Global attitudes toward
OPRs is a relevant construct in light of the increasing ubiquity of OPRs in the modern

Males (n = 117) Females (n = 115)

Path b t b t

Attitude ! Reliance 0.48 5.02 0.40 4.33

Benefit ! Attitude 0.63 6.32 0.63 6.60
Table IV. Credibility ! Attitude 0.37 4.76 0.37 4.85
Structural model Notes: Based on parameters of the completely standardized solution; all t-values are significant at p < 0.01;
results for males and Model Fit Statistics Chi-Square (403 df) = 938.3; RMSEA = 0.11; GFI = 0.82; NFI = 0.94; NNFI = 0.96; CFI =
females 0.96; IFI = 0.96; RFI = 0.93
 commercial landscape, the growing realization by consumers that not all OPRs are objective, Online product
and the resulting divergence in consumers’ beliefs and feelings about the credibility of OPRs reviews
in general. This study calls attention to these two new constructs and provides initial
conceptualizations and operationalizations.
Second, this study contributes to the limited literature on the possibility of gender
differences in how consumers relate to and/or are impacted by OPRs. While gender
differences have been found in online behavior (Awad and Ragowsky, 2008; Bae and Lee,
2011; Fan and Miao, 2012; Garbariono and Strahilevitz, 2004; Janda, 2008; Zhang et al., 2014), 39
little research has focused on the role of gender in consumers’ perceptions and use of OPRs.
Although the present study did not find significant gender differences in the structural
relationships between attitudes toward OPRs and reliance on OPRs or between attitudes
and its hypothesized antecedents (perceived benefit and perceived credibility of OPRs), it
nevertheless provides some theoretical and empirical grounds for expecting the existence of
these differences. It is also interesting to note the difference between males and females in
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 18:27 21 April 2019 (PT)

their reliance on OPRs, particularly the surprising finding that males tend to rely more on
OPRs than females. While Bailey (2005) noted that during the advent of OPRs, men were
more likely to have consulted OPRs before making a product purchase, and some literature
has reported that men are more motivated to read OPRs, particularly to reduce functional
elements of risk (Kim et al., 2011), some other studies cited earlier in this paper (Awad and
Ragowsky, 2008; Janda, 2008; Fan and Miao, 2012; O’Reilly et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2017;
O’Reilly et al., 2018) suggest the possibility that females will be more likely to rely on OPRs.
Further research is needed, possibly in different contexts, to resolve this particular battle of
the sexes by confirming or disconfirming the stability of the present study’s finding.
From a managerial point of view, this study’s findings are comforting to influencer
marketers to the extent that they demonstrate the power that review systems, a commonly
used influencer marketing tool, exert on consumer decision-making. But the findings also
suggest that marketers need to recognize the importance of review credibility in driving this
reliance. Thus, online review systems need to employ tactics that help generate review
credibility, e.g. by finding ways to communicate both the expertise (knowledge) and
trustworthiness (unbiased motives) of reviewers, two dimensions that have been shown to
drive credibility perceptions (Cheung et al., 2009) and ultimately inform consumer’s
decisions to use OPRs (Sussman and Siegal, 2003; Curran and Lennon, 2011; Liu and Zhang,
2010; O’Reilly et al., 2018).
Finally, the present study’s finding that perceived OPR benefit significantly impacts
attitudes toward OPRs and eventually reliance on OPRs is consistent with previous studies
that show a positive effect of perceived usefulness of OPR systems (Elwalda et al., 2016), and
suggest that managerial action to bolster perceived benefit of an online review system could
reap great rewards. Specifically, online review systems could strive to encourage
contributors to showcase product information that highlight both pros and cons of a
product. By doing so, they will feature more balanced reviews that are likely to help
consumers better mitigate decision risk. Additionally, highlighting balanced reviews may
expand a consumer’s evoked set of products being considered by illustrating products that
have received high ratings from other consumers (Sen and Lerman, 2007).

Limitations and suggestions for future research

This study has limitations that future studies could address. First, it focused only on gender
as a potential moderator of the construct levels and structural relationships. However, given
the widely held notion that younger generations (so-called digital natives) relate to
technology in fundamentally different ways than the older generation and the calls for
 JRIM further research on these intergenerational differences (Stapleton et al., 2007; Lai and Hong,
13,1 2015; Metallo and Agrifoglio, 2015; Lissitsa and Kol, 2016), it might be worthwhile for future
research to look into the moderating role of age or generational group on perceptions and
relationships investigated in this study. Second, although our measure of reliance on OPRs
had excellent psychometric properties, because it was not designed as a scale development
study it did not address other important questions surrounding the construct and its
40 measurement. Future research is needed to further refine and develop it. Relevant research
to pursue could include formally distinguishing between mere usage and reliance on OPRs,
as has been the case in the media use literature (Johnson and Kaye, 2014). It would also be
worthwhile examining whether conceptually, reliance itself is a continuum or merely a
dichotomy.

References
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 18:27 21 April 2019 (PT)

Adjei, M.T., Noble, S.M. and Noble, C.H. (2010), “The influence of C2C communications in online brand
communities on customer purchase behavior”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 634-653.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a recommended
two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Andreassen, T.W. and Streukens, S. (2009), “Service innovation and electronic word-of-mouth: is it
worth listening to?”, Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 249-265.
Ajzen, I. (1989), “Attitude structure and behavior”, in Pratkanis, A.R., Breckler, S.J. and Greenwald,
A.G. (Eds), Attitude Structure and Function, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ,
pp. 241-274.
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Awad, N.F. and Ragowsky, A. (2008), “Establishing trust in electronic commerce through online word
of mouth: an examination across genders”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 24
No. 4, pp. 101-121.
Ayeh, J.K., Au, N. and Law, R. (2013), “Do we believe in TripAdvisor? Examining credibility
perceptions and online travelers’ attitude toward using user-generated content”, Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 437-452.
Bae, S. and Lee, T. (2011), “Gender differences in consumers’ perception of online consumer reviews”,
Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 201-214.
Bailey, A.A. (2005), “Consumer awareness and use of product review websites”, Journal of Interactive
Advertising, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 68-81.
Barclay, D.W. and Smith, J.B. (1997), “The effects of organizational differences and trust on the
effectiveness of selling partner relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 3-21.
Bazaarvoice (2014), “Social trends report”, available at: www.media2.bazaarvoice.com/documents/
Bazaarvoice_WP_SocialTrendsReport-2014.pdf
Bhattacherjee, A. and Premkumar, G. (2004), “Understanding changes in belief and attitude toward
information technology usage: a theoretical model and longitudinal test”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28
No. 2, pp. 229-254.
Bigné-Alcaniz, E., Ruiz-Mafé, C., Aldás-Manzano, J. and Sanz-Blas, S. (2008), “Influence of online
shopping information dependency and innovativeness on internet shopping adoption”, Online
Information Review, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 648-667.
BrightLocal (2015), “Local consumer review survey”, available at: www.brightlocal.com/learn/local-
consumer-review-survey/#recommendations
 Chatterjee, P. (2001), “Online reviews: do consumers use them?”, Advances in Consumer Research, Online product
Vol. 28, pp. 129-133.
reviews
Cheung, C.M.K. and Thadani, D.R. (2012), “The impact of electronic word-of-mouth communication: a
literature analysis and integrative model”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 461-470.
Cheung, C.M.K., Lee, M.K.O. and Thadani, D.R. (2009), “The impact of positive electronic word-of-
mouth on consumer online purchasing decisions”, in Lytras, M.D., Damiani, E., Carroll, J.M.,
Tennyson, R.D., Avison, D., Naeve, A., Dales, A., Lefrere, P., Tan, F., Sipior, J. and Vossen, G.
(Eds), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5736, Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg, 41
pp. 501-510.
Cheung, M., Luo, C., Sia, C. and Chen, H. (2009), “Credibility of electronic word-of-mouth: informational
and normative determinants of on-line consumer recommendations”, International Journal of
Electronic Commerce, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 9-38.
Chevalier, J.A. and Mayzlin, D. (2006), “The effect of word of mouth on sales: online book reviews”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 345-354.
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 18:27 21 April 2019 (PT)

Childers, T.L., Carr, C.L., Peck, J. and Carson, S. (2001), “Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online
retail shopping behavior”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 4, pp. 511-535.
Chu, S.-C. and Kamal, S. (2008), “The effect of perceived blogger credibility and argument quality on
message elaboration and Brand attitudes: an exploratory study”, Journal of Interactive
Advertising, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 26-37.
Clemons, E.K. and Gao, G.G. (2008), “Consumer informedness and diverse consumer purchasing
behaviors: traditional mass-market, trading down, and trading out into the long tail”, Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 3-17.
Colton, D.A. (2018), “Antecedents of consumer attitudes’ toward corporate blogs”, Journal of Research
in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 94-104.
Consenza, T.R., Solomon, M.R. and Kwon, W. (2015), “Credibility in the blogosphere: a study of
measurement and influence of wine blogs as an information source”, Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, Vol. 14, pp. 71-91.
Curran, J. and Lennon, R. (2011), “Participating in the conversation: exploring usage of social media
networking sites”, Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Vol. 15 No. S1, pp. 21-38.
Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319-340.
Deng, Z., Lu, Y., Wang, B., Zhang, J. and Wei, K.K. (2010), “An empirical analysis of factors influencing
users’ adoption and use of mobile services in China”, International Journal of Mobile
Communications, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 561-585.
Dhar, V. and Chang, E.A. (2009), “Does chatter matter? The impact of user-generated content on music
sales”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 300-307.
Dholakia, R.R. and Sternthal, B. (1977), “Highly credible sources: persuasive facilitators or persuasive
liabilities?”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 223-232.
Doh, S.J. and Hwang, J.S. (2009), “Rapid communication. How consumers evaluate eWOM (electronic
word-of-mouth) messages”, CyberPsychology and Behavior, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 193-197.
Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S. and Passerini, K. (2007), “Trust and privacy concern within social networking sites:
a comparison of Facebook and MySpace”, AMCIS 2007 proceedings, p. 339.
Eagly, A.H. and Chaiken, S. (1993), The Psychology of Attitudes, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College
Publishers.
Elwalda, A., Lü, K. and Ali, M. (2016), “Perceived derived attributes of online customer reviews”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 56, pp. 306-319.
Erdem, T. and Swait, J. (2004), “Brand credibility, brand consideration, and choice”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 191-198.
 JRIM Erkan, I. and Evans, C. (2016), “The influence of eWOM in social media on consumers’ purchase
intentions: an extended approach to information adoption”, Computers in Human Behavior,
13,1 Vol. 61, pp. 47-55.
Fan, Y.-W. and Miao, Y.-F. (2012), “Effect of electronic word-of-mouth on consumer purchase intention:
the perspective of gender differences”, International Journal of Electronic Business Management,
Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 175-181.
42 Filieri, R. (2016), “What makes an online consumer review trustworthy?”, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 58, pp. 46-64.
Garbarino, E. and Strahilevitz, M. (2004), “Gender differences in the perceived risk of buying online and
the effects of receiving a site recommendation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 7,
pp. 768-775.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E. and Straub, D.W. (2003), “Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated
model”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 51-90.
Gefen, D. and Straub, D.W. (1997), “Gender differences in the perception and use of e-mail: an extension
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 18:27 21 April 2019 (PT)

to the technology acceptance model”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 389-400.
George, J. (2002), “Influences on the intent to make internet purchases”, Internet Research: Electronic
Networking Applications and Policy, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 165-180.
Ghazisaeedi, M., Steyn, P.G. and van Heerden, G. (2012), “Trustworthiness of product review blogs: a source
trustworthiness scale validation”, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 6 No. 25, pp. 7498-7508.
Goldsmith, R.E., Lafferty, B.A. and Newell, S.J. (2000), “The impact of corporate credibility and
celebrity credibility on consumer reaction to advertisements and brands”, Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 43-54.
Gottschalk, S.A. and Mafael, A. (2017), “Cutting through the online review jungle – investigating
selective eWOM processing”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 37, pp. 89-104.
Grewal, D., Gotlieb, J. and Marmorstein, H. (1994), “The moderating effects of message framing and
source credibility on the price-perceived risk relationship”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 145-153.
Griffith, D.A., Kampf, R.F. and Palmer, J.W. (2001), “The role of interface in electronic commerce:
consumer involvement with print versus on-line catalogs”, International Journal of Electronic
Commerce, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 135-153.
Griffin, K. (1967), “The contribution of studies of source credibility to a theory of interpersonal trust in
the communication process”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 104-120.
Fornell, C.D. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 39-50.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global
Perspective, Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Harmon, R.R. and Coney, K.A. (1982), “The persuasive effects of source credibility in buy and lease
situations”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 255-260.
Hasan, B. (2010), “Exploring gender differences in online shopping attitude”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 597-601.
Hennig-Thurau, T. and Walsh, G. (2003), “Electronic word-of-mouth: motives for and consequences of
reading customer articulations on the internet”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce,
Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 51-74.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Walsh, G. and Gremler, D.D. (2004), “Electronic word-of-mouth via
consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the
internet?”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 38-52.
Hovland, C.I., Janis, I.L. and Kelley, H.H. (1953), Communication and Persuasion; Psychological Studies
of Opinion Change, Yale University Press, New Haven.
 Hoyer, W.D., MacInnis, D.J. and Peters, R. (2013), Consumer Behaviour, 6th ed., Cengage Learning, Andover. Online product
Hsiao, K.L., Chuan-Chuan Lin, J., Wang, X.Y., Lu, H.P. and Yu, H. (2010), “Antecedents and reviews
consequences of trust in online product recommendations: an empirical study”, In Social
Shopping Online Information Review, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 935-953.
Hsu, C.-L., Lin, J.C.-C. and Chiang, H.-S. (2013), “The effects of blogger recommendations on customers’
online shopping intentions”, Internet Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 69-88.
Hulland, J. (1999), “Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four 43
recent studies”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 195-204.
Janda, S. (2008), “Does gender moderate the effect of online concerns on purchase likelihood?”, Journal
of Internet Commerce, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 339-358.
Johnson, T.J. and Kaye, B.K. (2014), “Site effects: how reliance on social media influences confidence in
the government and news media”, Social Science Computer Review, pp. 1-18.
Joreskog, K.G. and Sorbom, D. (2004), LISREL 8.80 for Windows, Scientific Software International,
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 18:27 21 April 2019 (PT)

Lincolnwood, IL.
Kim, E.E.K., Mattila, A.S. and Baloglu, S. (2011), “Effects of gender and expertise on consumers’
motivation to read online hotel reviews”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 399-406.
King, R.A., Racherla, P. and Bush, V.D. (2014), “What we know and don’t know about online word-of-mouth:
a review and synthesis of the literature”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 167-183.
Kozinets, R.V., De Valck, K., Wojnicki, A.C. and Wilner, S.J. (2010), “Networked narratives:
understanding word-of-mouth marketing in online communities”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74
No. 2, pp. 71-89.
Kraus, S.J. (1995), “Attitudes and the prediction of behavior: a meta-analysis of the empirical literature”,
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 58-75.
Lafferty, B.A. and Goldsmith, R.E. (1999), “Corporate credibility’s role in consumers’ attitudes and
purchase intentions when a high versus a low credibility endorser is used in the ad”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 109-116.
Lafferty, B.A., Goldsmith, R.E. and Newell, S.J. (2002), “The dual credibility model: the influence of
corporate and endorser credibility on attitudes and purchase intentions”, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 1-12.
Lai, K.-W. and Hong, K.-S. (2015), “Technology use and learning characteristics of students in higher
education: do generational differences exist?”, British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 46
No. 4, pp. 725-738.
Lee, H.H. and Chang, E. (2011), “Consumer attitudes toward online mass customization: an application
of extended technology acceptance model”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 171-200.
Lee, J., Park, D.H. and Han, I. (2008), “The effect of negative online consumer reviews on product
attitude: an information processing view”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications,
Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 341-352.
Lee, M. and Youn, S. (2009), “Electronic word of mouth (eWOM): how eWOM platforms influence
consumer product judgement”, International Journal of Advertising: The Quarterly Review of
Marketing Communications, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 473-499.
Lepkowska-White, E. (2013), “Are they listening? Designing online recommendations for today’s
consumers”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 182-200.
Liao, Z. and Cheung, M.T. (2001), “Internet-based e-shopping and consumer attitudes: an empirical
examination”, Information and Management, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 299-306.
Limayem, M., Khalifa, M. and Frini, A. (2000), “What makes consumers buy from internet? A
longitudinal study of online shopping”, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics -
Part A: Systems and Humans, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 421-432.
 JRIM Lin, J.C.-C. and Lu, H.P. (2000), “Toward an understanding of the behavioural intention to use a web
site”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 197-208.
13,1
Lissitsa, S. and Kol, O. (2016), “Generation X vs Generation Y – A decade of online shopping”, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 31, pp. 304-312.
Liu, F., Xiao, B., Lim, E.T.K. and Tan, C.-W. (2017), “Investigating the impact of gender differences on
alleviating distrust via electronic word-of-mouth”, Industrial Management and Data Systems,
44 Vol. 117 No. 3, pp. 620-642.
Liu, R. and Zhang, W. (2010), “Informational influence of online customer feedback: an empirical
study”, Journal of Database Marketing and Customer Strategy Management, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 120-131.
Long, M.M. and Chiagouris, L. (2006), “The role of credibility in shaping attitudes toward nonprofit
websites”, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 239-249.
McKnight, H. and Kacmar, C. (2006), “Factors of information credibility for an internet advice site”,
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 18:27 21 April 2019 (PT)

Proceedings of the 39th HI International Conference on System Sciences.

MacDonald, M. (2018), “Why online store owners should embrace online reviews”, available at: www.
shopify.com/blog/15359677-why-online-store-owners-should-embrace-online-reviews
Martin, W. and Lueg, J. (2013), “Modeling word-of-mouth usage”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66
No. 7, pp. 801-808.
Metallo, C. and Agrifoglio, R. (2015), “The effects of generational differences on use continuance of
twitter: an investigation of digital natives and digital immigrants”, Behaviour and Information
Technology, Vol. 34 No. 9, pp. 869-881.
Meyers-Levy, J. and Maheswaran, D. (1991), “Exploring differences in males’ and females’ processing
strategies”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 63-70.
Mitra, A. (1998), “Categories of computer use and their relationships with attitudes toward computers”,
Journal of Research on Computing in Education, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 281-295.
Monsuwe, T.P., Dellaert, B.G.C. and de Ruyter, K. (2004), “What drives consumers to shop online? A
literature review”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 15 No. 1,
pp. 102-121.
Mudambi, S.M. and Schuff, D. (2010), “What makes a helpful review? A study of customer reviews on
amazon.com”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 185-200.
Nielsen (2015), “Global trust in advertising”, available at: www.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsenglobal/
apac/docs/reports/2015/nielsen-global-trust-in-advertising-report-september-2015.pdf
Ohanian, R. (1990), “Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived
expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 39-52.
O’Keefe, D.J. (1990), Persuasion: Theory and Research, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
O’Reilly, K., MacMillan, A., Mumuni, A.G. and Lancendorfer, K.M. (2016), “Extending our
understanding of eWOM impact: the role of source credibility and message relevance”, Journal
of Internet Commerce, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 77-96.
O’Reilly, K., MacMillan, A., Mumuni, A.G. and Lancendorfer, K.M. (2018), “Factors affecting
consumers’ online product review use”, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal,
Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 375-400.
Park, C. and Lee, T.M. (2009), “Antecedents of online reviews’ usage and purchase influence: an
empirical comparison of US and korean consumers”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 23
No. 4, pp. 332-340.
Park, D.H. and Lee, J. (2008), “eWOM overload and its effect on consumer behavioral intention
depending on consumer involvement”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 7
No. 4, pp. 386-398.
 Park, D.H., Lee, J. and Han, J. (2007), “The effect of online consumer reviews on consumer purchasing Online product
intention: the moderating role of involvement”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce,
Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 125-148.
reviews
Pavlou, P.A. and Fygenson, M. (2006), “Understanding and predicting electronic commerce adoption:
an extension of the theory of planned behavior”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 115-143.
PeopleClaim (2013), “Review of reviews”, available at: www.peopleclaim.com/blog/index.php/the-
review-of-ratings/
Pew Research (2016b), “Online reviews”, available at: www.pewinternet.org/2016/12/19/online-reviews/
45
(accessed 7 October 2017).
Rialti, R., Zollo, L., Pellegrini, M.M. and Ciappei, C. (2017), “Exploring the antecedents of brand loyalty
and electronic word of mouth in social-media-based brand communities: do gender differences
matter?”, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 147-160.
Saleem, A. and Ellahi, A. (2017), “Influence of electronic word of mouth on purchase intention of fashion
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 18:27 21 April 2019 (PT)

products on social networking websites”, Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 597-622.
Sen, S. and Lerman, D. (2007), “Why are you telling me this? An examination into negative consumer
reviews on the web”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 76-94.
Sher, P.J. and Lee, S.H. (2009), “Consumer skepticism and online reviews: an elaboration likelihood model
perspective”, Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 137-144.
Shim, S., Eastlick, M.A., Lotz, S.L. and Warrington, P. (2001), “An online prepurchase intentions model:
the role of intention to search”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 397-416.
Sibley, C.G., Liu, J.H. and Kirkwood, S. (2006), “Toward a social representations theory of attitude
change: the effect of message framing on general and specific attitudes toward equality and
entitlement”, New Zealand Journal of Psychology, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 3-13.
Simpson, E.K. and Kahler, R.C. (1981), “A scale for source credibility, validated in the selling context”,
Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 17-25.
Song, F.W. and Paul, N. (2016), “Online product research as a labor of love: motherhood and the social
construction of the baby registry”, Information, Communication and Society, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 892-906.
Stapleton, J.L., Wen, H.J., Starrett, D. and Kilburn, M. (2007), “Generational differences in using online
learning systems”, Human Systems Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 99-109.
Sun, J. and Wilson, V.L. (2008), “Assessing general and specific attitudes in human learning behavior:
an activity perspective and a multilevel modeling approach”, Educational and Psychological
Measurement, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 245-261.
Sussman, S.W. and Siegal, W.S. (2003), “Informational influence in organizations: an integrated
approach to knowledge adoption”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 47-65.
Teng, S., Khong, K.W., Chong, A.Y.-L. and Lin, B. (2017), “Examining the impacts of electronic word-of-
mouth message on consumers’ attitude”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 57
No. 3, pp. 238-251.
Tero, P.K.P., Heikki, K. and Seppo, P. (2004), “Consumer acceptance of online banking: an extension of
the technology acceptance model”, Internet Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 224-235.
Thorson, K.S. and Rodgers, S. (2006), “Relationships between blogs as eWOM and interactivity,
perceived interactivity, and parasocial interaction”, Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol. 6
No. 2, pp. 5-44.
Tirunillai, S. and Tellis, G.J. (2012), “Does chatter really matter? Dynamics of user-generated content
and stock performance”, Marketing Science, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 198-215.
Tripp, C., Jensen, T. and Carlson, L. (1994), “The effects of multiple product endorsements by celebrities
on consumers’ attitudes and intentions”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 4,
pp. 535-547.
 JRIM Trusov, M., Bucklin, R.E. and Pauwels, K. (2009), “Effects of word-of-mouth versus traditional
marketing: findings from an internet social networking site”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 5,
13,1 pp. 90-102.
Xia, L. and Bechwati, N.N. (2008), “Word of mouth: the role of cognitive personalization in online
consumer reviews”, Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 108-128.
Zainal, N.T.A., Harun, A. and Lily, J. (2017), “Examining the mediating effect of attitude towards
electronic words-of mouth (eWOM) on the relation between the trust in eWOM source and
46 intention to follow eWOM among malaysian travellers”, Asia Pacific Management Review,
Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 35-44.
Zhang, K.Z.K., Cheung, C.M.K. and Lee, M.K.O. (2014), “Examining the moderating effect of
inconsistent reviews and its gender differences on consumers’ online shopping decision”,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 89-98.
Zhang, R. and Tran, T. (2011), “An information gain-based approach for recommending useful product
reviews”, Knowledge and Information Systems, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 419-434.
Downloaded by Universitas Sebelas Maret At 18:27 21 April 2019 (PT)

Zhang, Z.Q., Ye, Q., Law, R. and Li, Y.J. (2010), “The impact of e-word-of-mouth on the online popularity
of restaurant: a comparison of consumer reviews and editor reviews”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 694-700.
Zhu, F. and Zhang, X. (2010), “Impact of online consumer reviews on sales: the moderating role of
product and consumer characteristics”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 133-148.
Zhu, J., Tse, D.K.C. and Fei, Q. (2018), “Effects of online consumer reviews on firm-based and expert-
based communications”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 45-78.
Zou, P., Yu, B. and Hao, Y. (2011), “Does the valence of online consumer reviews matter for consumer
decision making? The moderating role of consumer expertise”, Journal of Computers, Vol. 6
No. 3, pp. 484-488.
Gupta, P. and Harris, J. (2010), “How e-WOM recommendations influence product consideration and
quality of choice: a motivation to process information perspective”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 63 Nos 9/10, pp. 1041-1049.
Mafael, A., Gottschalk, S.A. and Kreis, H. (2016), “Examining biased assimilation of Brand-related
online reviews”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 36, pp. 91-106.
Pew Research (2016a), “Online shopping and purchasing preferences”, available at: www.pewinternet.
org/2016/12/19/online-shopping-and-purchasing-preferences/ (accessed 7 October 2017).

Corresponding author
Alhassan G. Mumuni can be contacted at: alhassan.mumuni@wmich.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com