How Does the Review Tag Function Benefit Highly-Rated Popular Products in Online Markets?

  • Zhuolan Bao
  • Wenwen Li
  • Pengzhen Yin
  • Michael ChauEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 328)


Since online reviews have become an increasingly important information source for consumers to evaluate products during online shopping, many platforms started to adopt review mechanisms to maximize the value of such massive reviews. In recent years, the review tag function has been adopted in practices and leading the research of sentiment and opinion extraction techniques. However, the examination of its impact has been largely overlooked. In this paper, we specifically look into the effect of the tag function on the evaluation of highly-rated popular products and helpfulness perception of their reviews by proposing a framework through the lens of attribution theory. Experimental methods were utilized to test our hypotheses. Our findings demonstrate the importance of tag function application as it further increases consumers’ product evaluation for popular products. We also found that different tag function appearances influence consumers’ cognitive biases in review helpfulness perception.


Online reviews Review tag Product evaluation Perceived bias 



This research is supported in part by the General Research Fund from the Hong Kong Research Grants Council (#17514516B), the Seed Funding for Basic Research from the University of Hong Kong (#104003314), and the grants from National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project No. 71701061).


  1. 1.
    Mudambi, S.M., Schuff, D.: What makes a helpful online review? A study of customer reviews on MIS Q. 34(1), 185–200 (2010). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dimoka, A., Hong, Y., Pavlou, P.A.: On product uncertainty in online markets: theory and evidence. MIS Q. 36(2), 395–426 (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dellarocas, C.: The digitization of word of mouth: promise and challenges of online feedback mechanisms. Manag. Sci. 49(10), 1407–1424 (2003). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lu, X., et al.: Promotional marketing or word-of-mouth? Evidence from online restaurant reviews. Inf. Syst. Res. 24(3), 596–612 (2013). Scholar
  5. 5.
    Forman, C., Ghose, A., Wiesenfeld, B.: Examining the relationship between reviews and sales: the role of reviewer identity disclosure in electronic markets. Inf. Syst. Res. 19(3), 291–313 (2008). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yin, D., Mitra, S., Zhang, H.: Research note—when do consumers value positive vs. negative reviews? An empirical investigation of confirmation bias in online word of mouth. Inf. Syst. Res. 27(1), 131–144 (2016). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sun, M.: How does the variance of product ratings matter? Manag. Sci. 58(4), 696–707 (2012). Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ba, S., Pavlou, P.A.: Evidence of the effect of trust building technology in electronic markets: price premiums and buyer behavior. MIS Q. 26(3), 243–268 (2002). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yan, X., Wang, J., Chau, M.: Customer revisit intention to restaurants: evidence from online reviews. Inf. Syst. Front. 17(3), 645–657 (2015). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Archak, N., Ghose, A., Ipeirotis, P.G.: Deriving the pricing power of product features by mining consumer reviews. Manag. Sci. 57(8), 1485–1509 (2011). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen, P.-Y., Hong, Y., Liu, Y.: The value of multi-dimensional rating systems: evidence from a natural experiment and randomized experiments. Manag. Sci. (2017). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pan, Y., Zhang, J.Q.: Born unequal: a study of the helpfulness of user-generated product reviews. J. Retail. 87(4), 598–612 (2011). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hu, M., Liu, B.: Mining and summarizing customer reviews. In: Proceedings of the Tenth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hu, N., Pavlou, P.A., Zhang, J.: On self-selection biases in online product reviews. MIS Q. 41(2) (2017).
  15. 15.
    Heider, F.: The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. Psychology Press, London (1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Försterling, F.: Attributional conceptions in clinical psychology. Am. Psychol. 41(3), 275 (1986). Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kelley, H.H., Michela, J.L.: Attribution theory and research. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 31(1), 457–501 (1980). Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kelley, H.H.: Attribution in social interaction. In: Jones, E.E., et al. (eds.) Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale (1987)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kelley, H.H.: Attribution theory in social psychology. In: Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. University of Nebraska Press (1967)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kelley, H.H.: The processes of causal attribution. Am. Psychol. 28(2), 107 (1973). Scholar
  21. 21.
    McGill, A.L.: Context effects in judgments of causation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 57(2), 189 (1989). Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kassin, S.M.: Consensus information, prediction, and causal attribution: a review of the literature and issues. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37(11), 1966 (1979). Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wells, G.L., Harvey, J.H.: Do people use consensus information in making causal attributions? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 35(5), 279 (1977). Scholar
  24. 24.
    He, S.X., Bond, S.D.: Why is the crowd divided? Attribution for dispersion in online word of mouth. J. Consum. Res. 41(6), 1509–1527 (2015). Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chen, Z., Lurie, N.H.: Temporal contiguity and negativity bias in the impact of online word of mouth. J. Mark. Res. 50(4), 463–476 (2013). Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., Bracken, C.C.: Content analysis in mass communication: assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Hum. Commun. Res. 28(4), 587–604 (2002). Scholar
  27. 27.
    Krippendorff, K.: Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cohen, J.: Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol. Bull. 70(4), 213 (1968). Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sen, S., Lerman, D.: Why are you telling me this? An examination into negative consumer reviews on the web. J. Interact. Mark. 21(4), 76–94 (2007). Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yin, D., Bond, S., Zhang, H.: Anxious or angry? Effects of discrete emotions on the perceived helpfulness of online reviews. MIS Q. 38(2), 539–560 (2014). Scholar
  31. 31.
    DeVellis, R.F.: Scale Development: Theory and Applications, vol. 26. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2016)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nunnally, J.C.: Psychometric Theory, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (1967)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hair, J.F., et al.: Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, vol. 7. Pearson, Upper Saddle River (2010)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F.: Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18(1), 39–50 (1981). Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tsaparas, P., Ntoulas, A., Terzi, E.: Selecting a comprehensive set of reviews. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chevalier, J.A., Mayzlin, D.: The effect of word of mouth on sales: online book reviews. J. Mark. Res. 43(3), 345–354 (2006). Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bao, Z., Chau, M.: A schema-oriented product clustering method using online product reviews. In: International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2016) (2016)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Huang, P., Lurie, N.H., Mitra, S.: Searching for experience on the web: an empirical examination of consumer behavior for search and experience goods. J. Mark. 73(2), 55–69 (2009). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of Hong KongPokfulamHong Kong
  2. 2.Hefei University of TechnologyHefeiChina

Personalised recommendations