An Investigation on Impact of Online Review Keywords on Consumers’ Product Consideration of Clothing
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Online Reviews
2.2. Product Consideration
2.3. Cue Diagnosticity Framework
3. Research Hypotheses
4. Research Methodology
4.1. Research Site and Data
4.2. Study 1
- Regression analysis
- Results and discussion
4.3. Study 2
- Data collection and analysis
- Findings and discussion
4.4. Study 3
- Review keywords analysis
- Social keywords: “boyfriends”, “colleagues”, “friends like”, “sweethearts”, etc.;
- Consumer buyback keywords: “bought before”, “come back”, “the second time”, etc.
- Review keyword test
- Results and discussion
5. Theoretical Contributions and Practical Implications
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
References
- Lu, B.; Chen, Z. Live Streaming Commerce and Consumers’ Purchase Intention: An Uncertainty Reduction Perspective. Inf. Manag. 2021, 58, 103509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dimoka, A.; Hong, Y.; Pavlou, P.A. On product uncertainty in online markets: Theory and evidence. MIS Q. 2012, 36, 395–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hong, Y.; Pavlou, P.A. Product fit uncertainty in online markets: Nature, effects, and antecedents. Inf. Syst. Res. 2014, 25, 328–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vermeulen, I.E.; Seegers, D. Tried and tested: The impact of online hotel reviews on consumer consideration. Tour. Manag. 2009, 30, 123–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jang, S.; Prasad, A.; Ratchford, B.T. How consumers use product reviews in the purchase decision process. Mark. Lett. 2012, 23, 825–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Wu, C.; Mai, F. The effect of online reviews on product sales: A joint sentiment-topic analysis. Inf. Manag. 2019, 56, 172–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jabr, W.; Rahman, M.S. Online Reviews and Information Overload: The Role of Selective, Parsimonious, and Concordant Top Reviews. MIS Q. 2022, 46, 1517–1550. [Google Scholar]
- Ma, B.; Wei, Q.; Chen, G.; Zhang, J.; Guo, X. Content and Structure Coverage: Extracting a Diverse Information Subset. Inf. J. Comput. 2017, 29, 660–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Malik, M.S.I.; Hussain, A. An analysis of review content and reviewer variables that contribute to review helpfulness. Process Manag. 2018, 54, 88–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siering, M.; Muntermann, J.; Rajagopalan, B. Explaining and predicting online review helpfulness: The role of content and reviewer-related signals. Decis. Support. Syst. 2018, 108, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Purohit, D.; Srivastava, J. Effect of manufacturer reputation, retailer reputation, and product warranty on consumer judgments of product quality: A cue diagnosticity framework. J. Consum. Psychol. 2001, 10, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, S.; Li, F.; Xie, S. Do online reviews have different effects on consumers’ sampling behaviour across product types? Evi-dence from the software industry. J. Inf. Sci. 2022, 48, 406–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, D.; Bond, S.D.; Zhang, H. Anger in Consumer Reviews: Unhelpful but Persuasive? MIS Q. 2021, 45, 1059–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sahoo, N.; Dellarocas, C.; Srinivasan, S. The Impact of Online Product Reviews on Product Returns. Inf. Syst. Res. 2018, 29, 723–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suleman, K.; Vechtomova, O. Discovering aspects of online consumer reviews. J. Inf. Sci. 2016, 42, 492–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Eslami, S.P.; Ghasemaghaei, M.; Hassanein, K. Which online reviews do consumers find most helpful? A multi-method in-vestigation. Decis. Support. Syst. 2018, 113, 32–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mudambi, S.M.; Schuff, D. What Makes a Helpful Online Review? A Study of Customer Reviews on Amazon.com. MIS Q. 2010, 34, 185–200. [Google Scholar]
- Jensen, M.L.; Averbeck, J.M.; Zhang, Z.; Wright, K.B. Credibility of Anonymous Online Product Reviews: A Language Expectancy Per-spective. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2013, 30, 293–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qian, Y.; Du, Y.; Deng, X.; Ma, B.; Ye, Q.; Yuan, H. Detecting new Chinese words from massive domain texts with word embedding. J. Inf. Sci. 2019, 45, 196–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guan, Y.; Wei, Q.; Chen, G. Deep learning based personalized recommendation with multi-view information integration. Decis. Support. Syst. 2019, 118, 58–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, Y.; Zhou, L. RubE: Rule-based methods for extracting product features from online consumer reviews. Inf. Man.-Age 2017, 54, 166–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z.; Zeng, J. Extracting Keywords from User Comments:Case Study of Meituan. Data Anal. Knowl. Discov. 2019, 3, 36–44. [Google Scholar]
- Hong, H.; Xu, D.; Wang, G.A.; Fan, W. Understanding the determinants of online review helpfulness: A meta-analytic investigation. Decis. Support. Syst. 2017, 102, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Safi, R.; Yu, Y. Online product review as an indicator of users’ degree of innovativeness and product adoption time: A lon-gitudinal analysis of text reviews. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2017, 26, 414–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ngo-Ye, T.L.; Sinha, A.P. The influence of reviewer engagement characteristics on online review helpfulness: A text regres-sion model. Decis. Support Syst. 2014, 61, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Filieri, R.; McLeay, F.; Tsui, B.; Lin, Z. Consumer perceptions of information helpfulness and determinants of purchase intention in online consumer reviews of services. Inf. Manag. 2018, 55, 956–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ananthakrishnan, U.M.; Li, B.; Smith, M.D. A Tangled Web: Should Online Review Portals Display Fraudulent Reviews? Inf. Syst. Res. 2020, 31, 950–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberts, J.H.; Lattin, J.M. Development and testing of a model of consideration set composition. J. Mark. Res. 1991, 28, 429–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gavilan, D.; Avello, M.; Martinez-Navarro, G. The influence of online ratings and reviews on hotel booking consideration. Tour. Manag. 2018, 66, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gu, B.; Konana, P.; Chen, H.W.M. Identifying consumer consideration set at the purchase time from aggregate purchase data in online retailing. Decis. Support Syst. 2012, 53, 625–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.; Wei, Q.; Chen, G. From clicking to consideration: A business intelligence approach to estimating consumers’ con-sideration probabilities. Decis. Support Syst. 2013, 56, 397–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ho-Dac, N.N.; Carson, S.J.; Moore, W.L. The Effects of Positive and Negative Online Customer Reviews: Do Brand Strength and Category Maturity Matter? J. Mark. 2013, 77, 37–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kardes, F.R.; Kalyanaram, G.; Chandrashekaran, M.; Dornoff, R.J. Brand Retrieval, Consideration Set Composition, Consumer Choice, and the Pioneering Advantage. J. Consum. Res. 1993, 20, 62–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Priester, J.R.; Nayakankuppam, D.; Fleming, M.A.; Godek, J. The A(2)SC(2) model: The influence of attitudes and attitude strength on consideration and choice. J. Consum. Res. 2004, 30, 574–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bronnenberg, B.J.; Vanhonacker, W.R. Limited Choice Sets, Local Price Response, and Implied Measures of Price Competi-tion. J. Mark. Res. 1996, 33, 163–173. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, X.; Yang, Y. Determinants of consumers’ choices in hotel online searches: A comparison of consideration and booking stages. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 86, 102370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slovic, P.; Lichtenstein, S. Comparison of Bayesian and regression approaches to the study of information processing in judgment. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 1971, 6, 649–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skowronski, J.J.; Carlston, D.E. Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. Psychol. Bull. 1989, 105, 131–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoch, S.J.; Deighton, J. Managing What Consumers Learn from Experience. J. Mark. 1989, 53, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Filieri, R. What makes online reviews helpful? A diagnosticity-adoption framework to explain informational and normative influences in e-WOM. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 1261–1270. [Google Scholar]
- Qiu, L.; Pang, J.; Lim, K.H. Effects of conflicting aggregated rating on e-WOM review credibility and diagnosticity: The moderating role of review valence. Decis. Support Syst. 2012, 54, 631–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, Z.; Benbasat, I. Virtual product experience: Effects of visual and functional control of products on perceived diag-nosticity and flow in electronic shopping. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2004, 21, 111–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yi, C.; Jiang, Z.; Benbasat, I. Designing for Diagnosticity and Serendipity: An Investigation of Social Product-Search Mecha-nisms. Inf. Syst. Res. 2017, 28, 413–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Castaño, R.; Sujan, M.; Kacker, M.; Sujan, H. Managing consumer uncertainty in the adoption of new products: Temporal distance and mental simulation. J. Mark. Res. 2008, 45, 320–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Archak, N.; Ghose, A.; Ipeirotis, P.G. Deriving the Pricing Power of Product Features by Mining Consumer Reviews. Manag. Sci 2011, 57, 1485–1509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghose, A. Internet exchanges for used goods: An empirical analysis of trade patterns and adverse selection. MIS Q. 2009, 33, 263–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Animesh, A.; Ramachandran, V.; Viswanathan, S. Research note—Quality uncertainty and the performance of online sponsored search markets: An empirical investigation. Inf. Syst. Res. 2010, 21, 190–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shocker, A.D.; Srinivasan, V. Multiattribute approaches for product concept evaluation and generation: A critical review. J. Mark. Res. 1979, 16, 159–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fishbein, M. An investigation of the relationships between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward that object. Hum. Relat. 1963, 16, 233–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matt, C.; Hess, T. Product fit uncertainty and its effects on vendor choice: An experimental study. Electron. Mark. 2016, 26, 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Senecal, S.; Nantel, J. The influence of online product recommendations on consumers’ online choices. J. Retail. 2004, 80, 159–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, G.C.; Benbasat, I. Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation. Inf. Syst. Res. 1991, 2, 192–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cohen, J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1960, 20, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, X.; Wang, L.; Zhang, M.; Chen, G. First Things First? Order Effects in Online Product Recommender Systems. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. forthcoming. [CrossRef]
- Harris, T.; Hardin, J.W. Exact Wilcoxon signed-rank and Wilcoxon Mann–Whitney ranksum tests. Stata J. 2013, 13, 337–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Netzer, O.; Lemaire, A.; Herzenstein, M. When Words Sweat: Identifying Signals for Loan Default in the Text of Loan Ap-plications. J. Mark. Res. 2019, 56, 960–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | Description |
---|---|
The consideration of product n, reflected by the number of consumers who have added the product to their favorite lists | |
For product n, the percentage ratio of fit-related keywords frequency to the total number of reviews | |
For product n, the percentage ratio of quality-related keywords frequency to the total number of reviews | |
For product n, the percentage ratio of the number of positive reviews to the total number of reviews | |
The number of review images of product n | |
The sales of product n | |
The price of product n |
Variable | N | Min. | Max. | Mean | St. Deviation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Consideration | 1265 | 230 | 480,000 | 32,529.49 | 41,686.80 |
Fit-related | 1265 | 0.00 | 1.33 | 0.98 | 0.01 |
Quality-related | 1265 | 0.15 | 1.39 | 0.81 | 0.15 |
Positive | 1265 | 0.82 | 1.00 | 0.98 | 0.015 |
Images | 1265 | 6 | 10,170 | 275.88 | 466.732 |
sales | 1265 | 575 | 40,000 | 1742.46 | 1959.61 |
Price | 1265 | 9.90 | 799.00 | 89.18 | 80.38 |
Log(Consideration) | Fit-related | Quality-Related | Positive | Images | Log(sales) | Price | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Log(Consideration) | 1 | ||||||
Fit-related | 0.414 ** | 1 | |||||
Quality-related | 0.500 ** | 0.774 ** | 1 | ||||
Positive | 0.371 ** | 0.096 ** | 0.298 ** | 1 | |||
Images | 0.326 ** | 0.544 ** | 0.589 ** | 0.091 ** | 1 | ||
Log(sales) | 0.317 ** | 0.383 ** | 0.436 ** | 0.045 | 0.417 ** | 1 | |
Price | 0.264 ** | −0.060 * | −0.008 | 0.189 ** | −0.101 ** | 0.059 * | 1 |
Variable | Coefficients | Collinearity Statistics | t-Statistic | Sig. | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | Beta | Tolerance | VIF | |||
Constant | −10.992 | −6.330 | 0.000 ** | |||
Fit-related | 0.844 | 0.150 | 0.372 | 2.687 | 4.135 | 0.000 ** |
Quality-related | 1.548 | 0.220 | 0.304 | 3.291 | 5.501 | 0.000 * |
Positive | 16.887 | 0.233 | 0.829 | 1.206 | 9.598 | 0.000 ** |
Images | 0.000 | 0.059 | 0.599 | 1.670 | 2.062 | 0.039 ** |
Log(sales) | 0.280 | 0.143 | 0.765 | 1.308 | 5.674 | 0.000 ** |
Price | 0.003 | 0.245 | 0.949 | 1.054 | 10.813 | 0.000 ** |
R-squared | 0.388 | |||||
Adjusted R-squared | 0.385 | |||||
F-value | 132.674 ** | |||||
Durbin–Watson stat | 1.989 |
Groups | Product and Review Information | Review Keywords |
---|---|---|
G1 | None | |
G2 | Product introduction and 10 reviews information | 4 fit-related review keywords |
G3 | 4 quality-related review keywords | |
G4 | 2 quality-related review keywords and 2 fit-related review keywords |
Groups | Number of Responses | Frequency (%) |
---|---|---|
G1 | 67 | 28.39 |
G2 | 54 | 22.88 |
G3 | 53 | 22.46 |
G4 | 62 | 26.27 |
Variable | Options | Number | Frequency (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 129 | 0.55 |
Female | 107 | 0.45 | |
Education | High school or below | 2 | 0.85 |
College | 9 | 3.81 | |
Bachelor | 148 | 62.71 | |
Master’s or above | 77 | 32.63 | |
Have you seen this product before? | Yes No | 11 225 | 4.66 95.34 |
Is the price of this product right for you? | Suitable Inappropriate | 219 17 | 92.80 7.20 |
Frequency of online shopping in last three months. | Never 1~5 6~10 More than 10 | 3 116 82 35 | 1.27 49.15 34.75 14.83 |
Do you have the habit of browsing review keywords? | Never Sometimes Often | 10 136 90 | 4.24 57.63 38.14 |
Variable | Group | Sample | Mean | Standard Deviation | Mann-Whitney Test | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Z-Value | p-Value | |||||
Product consideration | G1 | 67 | 3.046 | 1.278 | ||
G2 | 54 | 3.686 | 1.273 | |||
G3 | 53 | 4.381 | 1.396 | |||
G4 | 62 | 4.944 | 1.379 | |||
G2 − G1 | −2.483 | 0.013 | ||||
G3 − G1 | −4.359 | 0.000 | ||||
G4 − G1 | −6.332 | 0.000 | ||||
G3 − G2 | −2.109 | 0.035 | ||||
G4 − G2 | −4.331 | 0.000 | ||||
G4 − G3 | −2.050 | 0.040 |
ID | Product Consideration | Number of Reviews |
---|---|---|
P1 | 16,877 (high) | 2501 |
P2 | 16,197 (high) | 2477 |
P3 | 17,673 (high) | 2463 |
P4 | 1512 (low) | 2495 |
P5 | 1431 (low) | 2467 |
P6 | 1570 (low) | 2552 |
Groups | Sample | Frequency (%) | Review Keywords |
---|---|---|---|
G4 | 62 | Good fabric (quality-related), thick (quality-related), comfortable (fit-related), look slimmer (fit-related) | |
G5 | 67 | 27.57 | Replace the keyword “good fabric” with “friends and family like” in G4 |
G6 | 59 | 24.28 | Replace the keyword “comfortable” with “friends and family like” in G4 |
G7 | 55 | 22.63 | Replace the keyword “good fabric” with “buy again” in G4 |
G8 | 62 | 25.51 | Replace the keyword “comfortable” with “buy again” in G4 |
Variable | Group | Sample | Mean | Standard Deviation | Mann-Whitney Test | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Z-Value | p-Value | |||||
Product consideration | G4 | 62 | 4.944 | 1.379 | ||
G5 | 67 | 5.667 | 0.970 | |||
G6 | 59 | 5.508 | 1.105 | |||
G7 | 55 | 5.482 | 1.144 | |||
G8 | 62 | 5.539 | 1.029 | |||
G5 − G4 | −2.878 | 0.004 ** | ||||
G6 − G4 | −2.296 | 0.022 * | ||||
G7 − G4 | −2.054 | 0.040 * | ||||
G7 − G5 | −0.834 | 0.404 | ||||
G8 − G4 | −2.417 | 0.016 * | ||||
G8 − G6 | −0.065 | 0.949 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lu, B.; Ma, B.; Cheng, D.; Yang, J. An Investigation on Impact of Online Review Keywords on Consumers’ Product Consideration of Clothing. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2023, 18, 187-205. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer18010011
Lu B, Ma B, Cheng D, Yang J. An Investigation on Impact of Online Review Keywords on Consumers’ Product Consideration of Clothing. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research. 2023; 18(1):187-205. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer18010011
Chicago/Turabian StyleLu, Benjiang, Baojun Ma, Dong Cheng, and Jianyu Yang. 2023. "An Investigation on Impact of Online Review Keywords on Consumers’ Product Consideration of Clothing" Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 18, no. 1: 187-205. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer18010011
APA StyleLu, B., Ma, B., Cheng, D., & Yang, J. (2023). An Investigation on Impact of Online Review Keywords on Consumers’ Product Consideration of Clothing. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 18(1), 187-205. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer18010011