Advertisement

Electronic Commerce Research

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 257–284 | Cite as

What makes a helpful online review? A meta-analysis of review characteristics

  • Yani Wang
  • Jun WangEmail author
  • Tang Yao
Article

Abstract

In this study, we aim to clarify the determinants of online review helpfulness concerning review depth, extremity and timeliness. Based on a meta-analysis, we examine the effects of important characteristics of reviews employing 53 empirical studies yielding 191 effect sizes. Findings reveal that review depth has a greater impact on helpfulness than review extremity and timeliness with the exception of its sub-metric of review volume, which exerts the negative influence on review helpfulness. Specifically, readability is the most important factor in evaluating review helpfulness. Furthermore, we discuss important moderators of the relationships and find interesting insights regarding website and culture background. In accordance with the results, we propose several implications for researchers and E-business firms. Our study provides a much needed quantitative synthesis of this burgeoning stream of research.

Keywords

Customer reviews Online review helpfulness Review depth Review extremity Timeliness Meta-analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work described in this paper is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 71531001 and 71572006).

References

  1. 1.
    Dellarocas, C. (2003). The digitization of word of mouth: Promise and challenges of online feedback mechanisms. Management Science, 49(10), 1407–1424.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Malik, M., & Hussain, A. (2018). An analysis of review content and reviewer variables that contribute to review helpfulness. Information Processing and Management, 54(1), 88–104.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mudambi, S. M., & Schuff, D. (2010). What makes a helpful online review? A study of customer reviews on amazon.com. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 185–200.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ghose, A., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2011). Estimating the helpfulness and economic impact of product reviews: Mining text and reviewer characteristics. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 23(10), 1498–1512.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yin, G., Wei, L., Xu, W., & Chen, M. (2014). Exploring heuristic cues for consumer perceptions of online reviews helpfulness: The case of yelp.com. In Pacific Asia conference on information systems. Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Farley, J. U., Lehmann, D. R., & Sawyer, A. (1995). Empirical marketing generalizations using meta-analysis. Marketing Science, 14(3), G36–G46.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Floyd, K., Freling, R., Alhoqail, S., Cho, H. Y., & Freling, T. (2014). How online product reviews affect retail sales: A meta-analysis. Journal of Retailing, 90(2), 217–232.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    You, Y., Vadakkepatt, G., & Joshi, A. M. (2015). A meta-analysis of electronic word-of-mouth elasticity. Journal of Marketing, 79(2), 19–39.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rosario, A. B., Sotgiu, F., Valck, K. D., & Bijmolt, T. H. A. (2016). The effect of electronic word of mouth on sales: A meta-analytic review of platform, product, and metric factors. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(3), 297–318.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Purnawirawan, N., Eisend, M., Pelsmacker, P. D., & Dens, N. (2015). A meta-analytic investigation of the role of valence in online reviews. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 31, 17–27.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pan, Y., & Zhang, J. Q. (2011). Born unequal: A study of the helpfulness of user-generated product reviews. Journal of Retailing, 87(4), 598–612.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ghose, A., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Estimating the helpfulness and economic impact of product reviews: mining text and reviewer characteristics. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 23(10), 1498–1512.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ogut, H., & Tas, B. (2012). The influence of internet customer reviews on the online sales and prices in hotel industry. The Service Industry Journal, 32(2), 197–214.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chu, W., & Roh, M. (2014). Exploring the role of preference heterogeneity and causal attribution in online ratings dynamics. Asia Marketing Journal, 15(4), 61–101.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Duan, W., Gu, B., & Whinston, A. (2008). Do online reviews matter?—An empirical investigation of panel data. Decision Support Systems, 45(4), 1007–1016.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hu, N., Liu, L., & Zhang, J. (2008). Do online reviews affect product sales? The role of reviewer characteristics and temporal effects. Information Technology Management, 9(3), 201–214.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cui, G., Lui, H. K., & Guo, X. (2012). The effect of online consumer reviews on new product sales[M]. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 17(1), 39–57.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cao, Q., Duan, W., & Gan, Q. (2011). Exploring determinants of voting for the “helpfulness” of online user reviews: A text mining approach. Decision Support Systems, 50(2), 511–521.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Korfiatis, N., García, B. E., & Sánchez, A. S. (2012). Evaluating content quality and helpfulness of online product reviews: The interplay of review helpfulness versus review content. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 11(3), 205–217.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Baek, H., Ahn, J., & Choi, Y. (2012). Helpfulness of online consumer reviews: Readers’ objectives and review cues. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 17(2), 99–126.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee, S., & Choeh, J. Y. (2014). Predicting the helpfulness of online reviews using multilayer perceptron neural networks. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(6), 3041–3046.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Huang, A. H., Chen, K., Yen, D. C., & Tran, T. P. (2015). A study of factors that contribute to online review helpfulness. Computers in Human Behavior, 48(C), 17–27.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fu, D., Hong, Y., Wang, K., & Fan, W. (2017). Effects of membership tier on user content generation behaviors: Evidence from online reviews. Electronic Commerce Research, 7, 1–27.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Singh, J., Irani, S., & Rana, N. (2016). Predicting the “helpfulness” of online consumer reviews. Journal of Business Research, 70, 346–355.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Otterbacher, J. (2009). ‘Helpfulness’ in online communities: a measure of message quality. In Sigchi conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 955–964).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Baek, H., Lee, S., Oh, S., & Ahn, J. (2015). Normative social influence and online review helpfulness: Polynomial modeling and response surface analysis. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 16(4), 290–306.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liu, Z., & Park, S. (2015). What makes a useful online review? Implication for travel product websites. Tourism Management, 47(47), 140–151.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ngoye, T. L., & Sinha, A. P. (2014). The influence of reviewer engagement characteristics on online review helpfulness: A text regression model. Decision Support Systems, 61(4), 47–58.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Xiang, Z., Du, Q., Ma, Y., & Fan, W. (2017). A comparative analysis of major online review platforms: Implications for social media analytics in hospitality and tourism. Tourism Management, 58, 51–65.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wu, J. (2017). Review popularity and review helpfulness: A model for user review effectiveness. Decision Support Systems, 97, 92–103.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Guo, B., & Zhou, S. (2017). What makes population perception of review helpfulness: An information processing perspective. Electronic Commerce Research, 17(4), 1–24.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chen, Z., & Lurie, N. (2013). Temporal contiguity and negativity bias in the impact of online word of mouth. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(4), 463–476.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kohli, R., Devaraj, S., & Mahmood, M. A. (2004). Understanding determinants of online consumer satisfaction: A decision process perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 21(1), 115–135.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Qazi, A., Syed, K., Raj, R. G., & Cambria, E. (2016). A concept-level approach to the analysis of online review helpfulness. Computers in Human Behavior, 58(C), 75–81.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Racherla, P., & Friske, W. (2012). Perceived usefulness of online consumer reviews: An exploratory investigation across three services categories. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 11(6), 548–559.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schindler, R. M., & Bickart, B. (2012). Perceived helpfulness of online consumer reviews: The role of message content and style. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 11(3), 234–342.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kuan, K., & Hui, K. (2015). What makes a review voted? An empirical investigation of review voting in online review systems. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 16(1), 48–71.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Anderson, W. E., & Salisbury, C. L. (2003). The formation of market-level expectations and its covariates. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(1), 115–124.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Khare, A., Lauren, I. L., & Anthony, K. A. (2011). The assimilative and contrastive effects of word-of-mouth volume: An experimental examination of online consumer ratings. Journal of Retailing, 87(1), 111–126.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Salganik, M. J., Peter, S. D., & Duncan, J. W. (2006). Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science, 311(5762), 854–856.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Forman, C., Ghose, A., & Wiesenfeld, B. (2008). Examining the relationship between reviews and sales: The role of reviewer identity disclosure in electronic markets. Information Systems Research, 19(3), 291–313.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zhou, S., & Guo, B. (2015). The interactive effect of review rating and text sentiment on review helpfulness. In E-Commerce and web technologies (pp. 100–111).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zhu, L., Yin, G., & He, W. (2014). Is this opinion leader’s review useful? Peripheral cues for online review helpfulness. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 15(4), 267–280.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Li, J., & Zhan, L. (2011). Online persuasion: How the written word drives WOM—Evidence from consumer-generated product reviews. Journal of Advertising Research, 51(1), 239–257.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Chua, A. Y. K., & Banerjee, S. (2016). Helpfulness of user-generated reviews as a function of review sentiment, product type and information quality. Computers in Human Behavior, 54(C), 547–554.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kim, S. M., Pantel, P., Chklovski, T., & Pennacchiotti, M. (2006). Automatically assessing review helpfulness. In Conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (pp. 423–430). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wu, P. F., Hans, V. D. H., & Korfiatis, N. (2011). The influences of negativity and review quality on the helpfulness of online reviews. In International conference on information systems. Shanghai, China.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Yin, D., Bond, S. D., & Zhang, H. (2014). Anxious or angry? Effects of discrete emotions on the perceived helpfulness of online reviews. MIS Quarterly, 38(2), 539–560.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Chua, A. Y. K., & Banerjee, S. (2015). Understanding review helpfulness as a function of reviewer reputation, review rating, and review depth. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(2), 354–362.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sangwon, P., & Nicolau, J. L. (2015). Asymmetric effects of online consumer reviews. Annals of Tourism Research, 50, 67–83.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wan, Y. (2015). The Matthew effect in social commerce: The case of online review helpfulness. Electronic Markets, 25(4), 313–324.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Salehan, M., & Dan, J. K. (2016). Predicting the performance of online consumer reviews. Decision Support Systems, 81(C), 30–40.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Koh, N. S., Hu, N., & Clemons, E. K. (2010). Do online reviews reflect a product’s true perceived quality? An investigation of online movie reviews across cultures. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9(5), 374–385.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Mcginnies, E., & Ward, D. C. (1980). Better liked than right: Trustworthiness and expertise as factors in credibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6(3), 467–472.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Grewal, D., Gotlieb, J., & Marmorstein, H. (1994). The moderating effects of message framing and source credibility on the price-perceived risk relationship. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 145–153.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Schweidel, D., & Moe, W. (2014). Listening in on social media: A joint model of sentiment and venue format choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(4), 387–402.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89(1), 47–62.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Assmus, G., Farley, J. U., & Lehmann, D. R. (1984). How advertising affects sales: Meta-analysis of econometric results. Journal of Marketing Research, 21(1), 65–74.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lee, J. (2013). What makes people read an online review? The relative effects of posting time and helpfulness on review readership. Cyberpsychology Behavior & Social Networking, 16(7), 529.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Völckner, F., & Hofmann, J. (2007). The price-perceived quality relationship: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its determinants. Marketing Letters, 18(3), 181–196.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231–244). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Peterson, R. A., & Brown, S. P. (2005). On the use of beta coefficients in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 175–181.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2006). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Evaluation & Program Planning, 29(3), 236–237.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Rosenthal, R. (1979). The ‘file drawer problem’ and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Tellis, G. J. (1988). The price elasticity of selective demand: A meta-analysis of econometric models of sales. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(4), 331–341.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Singer, J. D., & Willet, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Bijmolt, T. H. A., & Pieters, R. G. M. (2001). Meta-analysis in marketing when studies contain multiple measurements. Marketing Letters, 12(2), 157–169.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). All Publications.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Huang, H. (2005). A cross-cultural test of the spiral of silence. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(3), 324–345.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Park, D. H., & Kim, S. (2009). The effects of consumer knowledge on message processing of electronic word-of-mouth via online consumer reviews. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 7(4), 399–410.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Vessey, I., & Galletta, D. (1991). Cognitive fit: An empirical study of information acquisition. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 63–84.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Jackson, T. W., & Farzaneh, P. (2012). Theory-based model of factors affecting information overload. International Journal of Information Management, 32(6), 523–532.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Schultz, C., Schreyoegg, J., & Von, R. C. (2013). The moderating role of internal and external resources on the performance effect of multitasking: Evidence from the R&D performance of surgeons. Research Policy, 42(8), 1356–1365.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Jiang, Z., & Benbasat, I. (2007). Investigating the influence of the functional mechanisms of online product presentations. Information Systems Research, 18(4), 221–244.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 84(363), 19–74.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Huang, H. A., & Yen, C. D. (2013). Predicting the helpfulness of online reviews—A replication. International Journal of Human-computer Interaction, 29(2), 129–138.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Zhang, Z. (2008). Weighing stars: Aggregating online product reviews for intelligent E-commerce applications. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 23(5), 42–49.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Willemsen, L. M., Neijens, P. C., Bronner, F., & Ridder, J. (2011). “Highly Recommended!” The content characteristics and perceived usefulness of online consumer reviews. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(1), 19–38.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Siering, M., Muntermann, J., & Rajagopalan, B. (2018). Explaining and predicting online review helpfulness: The role of content and reviewer-related signals. Decision Support Systems, 108, 1–12.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Zhang, J. Q., Craciun, G., & Shin, D. (2010). When does electronic word-of-mouth matter? A study of consumer product reviews. Journal of Business Research, 63(12), 1336–1341.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Einar, B., Havro, L. J., & Moen, O. (2015). An empirical investigation of self-selection bias and factors influencing review helpfulness. International Journal of Business & Management, 10(7), 16–30.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Siering, M., & Muntermann, J. (2013). What drives the helpfulness of online product reviews? From stars to facts and emotions. In 11th international conference on Wirtschaft sinformatik.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Wang, C. C., Li, M. Z., & Yang, Y. H. (2015). Perceived usefulness of word-of-mouth: An analysis of sentimentality in product reviews (pp. 448–459). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Wu, P. F. (2013). In search of negativity bias: An empirical study of perceived helpfulness of online reviews. Psychology & Marketing, 30(11), 971–984.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Chen, X., Sheng, J., Wang, X., & Deng, J. S. (2016). Exploring determinants of attraction and helpfulness of online product review: A consumer behavior perspective. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, 1, 1–19.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Lee, S., & Choeh, J. Y. (2017). Exploring the determinants of and predicting the helpfulness of online user reviews. Management Decision, 40(3), 316–332.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Karimi, S., & Wang, F. (2017). Online review helpfulness: Impact of reviewer profile image. Decision Support Systems, 96, 39–48.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Yu, X., Liu, Y., Huang, X., & An, A. (2010). Mining online reviews for predicting sales performance: A case study in the movie domain. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 24(4), 720–734.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Hong, H., & Xu, D. (2015). Research of online review helpfulness based on negative binary regress model the mediator role of reader participation. In International conference on service systems and service management (pp. 1–5). IEEE.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Filieri, R. (2015). What makes online reviews helpful? A diagnosticity-adoption framework to explain informational and normative influences in e-WOM. Journal of Business Research, 68(6), 1261–1270.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Ullah, R., Zeb, A., & Kim, W. (2015). The impact of emotions on the helpfulness of movie reviews. Journal of Applied Research & Technology, 13(3), 359–363.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Cheng, Y. H., & Ho, H. Y. (2015). Social influence’s impact on reader perceptions of online reviews. Journal of Business Research, 68(4), 883–887.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Hu, Y. H., & Chen, K. (2016). Predicting hotel review helpfulness: The impact of review visibility, and interaction between hotel stars and review ratings. International Journal of Information Management, 36(6), 929–944.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    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.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Kwok, L., & Xie, K. L. (2016). Factors contributing to the helpfulness of online hotel reviews: does manager response play a role? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(10), 2156–2177.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Yin, G., Zhang, Q., & Li, Y. (2014). Effects of emotional valence and arousal on consumer perceptions of online review helpfulness. In Twentieth Americas conference on information systems, Savannah.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Li, H., Zhang, Z., Janakiraman, R. & Fang, M. (2016) How review sentiment and readability affect online peer evaluation votes?—An examination combining reviewer’s social identity and social network. In Tourism travel and research association: Advancing tourism research globally (p. 29).Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Ghose, A., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2007). Designing novel review ranking systems: Predicting the usefulness and impact of reviews. In International conference on electronic commerce (pp. 303–310).Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Zhang, Y. (2014). Automatically predicting the helpfulness of online reviews. In The fifteenth IEEE international conference on information reuse and integration (pp. 662–668). IEEE.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Economics and ManagementBeihang UniversityBeijingPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Complex System Analysis, Management and DecisionBeihang University, Ministry of EducationBeijingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations